Brit Hume's Clarion Call
by Motte Brown on 01/05/2010 at 3:56 PM
It wasn't beautifully done. As a matter of fact, it seemed a little out of place on such a big stage as Fox News Sunday. But pundit Brit Hume's on-air diagnoses of Tiger Woods' problem was right on -- Tiger needs the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, not Buddha.
The question to the panel was whether or not Tiger Woods would recover as a golfer once his sex scandal subsides. And while the others predicted he'd win the masters, Brit took it a little further and seemed to express genuine concern for Tiger's family as he turned the conversation from golf to faith.
Of course Hume is getting pummeled by the media for his proselytizing, most notably from the more liberal networks and newspapers. Mollie Ziegler of GetReligion.com does a great job of commenting on the absurdity of them with her post "Hume Can't Say That!" Here's a sample:
Meanwhile, the Washington Post’s Tom Shales — we’ve looked at his defense of David Letterman’s sleeping with employees and he’s also recently defended Roman Polanski raping a 13-year-old — has finally found someone to criticize. He says Hume must apologize and that he’s the laughingstock of the industry. I’ll defend the right of anyone to criticize Brit Hume and what he said, but this Shales piece is remarkably petty. He says Hume is full of "something" and comes forth with a new commandment from on high: Thou shalt never share religious beliefs of any substance. Well, actually, I can’t recall him criticizing any MSNBC pundits for condemning, say, traditional Christians, so I guess this commandment just applies to certain pundits.
Hume has been in the business long enough to know the kind of response a statement like that would generate from his colleagues in the media. But what a great opportunity to see the divisiveness of our Redeemer in this modern era. Hume's comment forces you to come down on one side or the other.
l think it was brave. And who knows, maybe Tiger was listening.
1. Jawan said the following at 5:10 PM on Jan 5:
1
Brit defended his position again on O'Riley....never backed down.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/04/quote-of-the-day-578/
2. Larissa said the following at 5:24 PM on Jan 5:
2
Wow, good on him for saying that! I agree, it was brave of him...very brave. I only pray that Tiger follows this wonderful advice!
3. BDB said the following at 5:51 PM on Jan 5:
3
Yeah, I had to listen to that segment twice to realize what he really said. Gotta love public figures who already have enough money to retire so they start speaking the truth.
4. Chris said the following at 6:04 PM on Jan 5:
4
What side am I on if I say I'm tired of the whole media circus about Woods and I don't care who tells him what to believe?
5. Jaye said the following at 6:43 PM on Jan 5:
5
@Chris #4 - After watching the MSNBC vid posted by Motte as well as the hotair.com vid posted by Jawan #1, the impression that I get isn't necessarily that Brit Hume was telling Tiger what he should believe, but that he was making a suggestion as to the only redemptive way out of this mess for Tiger... which I should hope that I, as someone who has experienced that same kind of redemption, would only be so bold as to express if I were in the same situation. Maybe the platform in which it was presented would seem a little awkward to viewers who aren't believers, but I have to say that Brit Hume's boldness makes me think about my own witness when I'm in situations which present themselves as possible opportunities to share the gospel. He saw an opening and he dove right through it. There is no shame in that. I'd rather suffer public persecution from the world in such a situation than have to look the Lord in the eye one day and know that I could have taken a stand but didn't. I wonder now how many of those kinds of opportunities have already passed me by.
6. Allison said the following at 7:17 PM on Jan 5:
6
His comments were idiotic at best. Sometimes I wonder if I worship the same God as the people on Fox News.
7. Priscilla said the following at 7:44 PM on Jan 5:
7
I hope he doesn't every back down or apologize. That would be so refreshing.
8. Mike from WI said the following at 7:50 PM on Jan 5:
8
Wow, really good. Great moment of perspective: Your soul or another green jacket?
Way to go Brit Hume for calling out the straight story.
9. Tami said the following at 8:34 PM on Jan 5:
9
Motte, thanks for posting this. I had no idea this had happened.
I am reading a really interesting book called Knowing Christ Today by Dallas Willard. It is really a great discussion of how we can know that our faith is reasonable, and that the Christian religion contains true knowledge -- really, the only knowledge that enables us to lead a truly good life.
Though this might seem like a "random" comment under this post, it's not. :) Brit Hume's comment hints at how worldview really *does* matter. Only Christ can save and redeem, and only the knowledge that Christ reveals (including that of our need for redemption, and His revelation of what true goodness is) can enable us to live in a successful manner. We desperately need to know what Christ has to say -- and yet, our modern society is set up to reject this truth (as is revealed in the media's reaction to Hume's words). Kudos to Brit Hume to speaking his mind.
10. Chris said the following at 8:52 PM on Jan 5:
10
Jaye writes (#5):
@Chris #4 - After watching the MSNBC vid posted by Motte as well as the hotair.com vid posted by Jawan #1, the impression that I get isn't necessarily that Brit Hume was telling Tiger what he should believe
Perhaps I didn't choose my words carefully enough. Here's what I should have written:
What side am I on if I say I'm tired of the whole media circus about Woods and I don't care about any opinions, suggestions, comments, or thoughts about Tiger's actions, thoughts, or beliefs?
11. Tami said the following at 9:59 PM on Jan 5:
11
Allison (6), I am wondering, sincerely, what you find "idiotic" about what Brit Hume had to say.
12. Andrea-Elena said the following at 10:52 PM on Jan 5:
12
Allison,
How were Hume's comments idiotic? He's right!! Buddha cannot save Woods from hell. Buddha cannot empower a man to humble himself, to admit his sin, to receive forgiveness, to ask forgiveness from his wife, and to live a redeemed and righteous life of Holy-Spirit-enlivened faith. But Jesus Christ CAN!!!
In my view, the only way Hume could have improved on his comments would have been to say to turn to Jesus Christ, rather than to Christianity... to be more precise in wording. But that's kinda splitting hairs.
Hume got pretty close to sharing the essence of the truths found in John 14:6 and Acts 4:12... closer than some well-known folks in the media whom I've seen and heard in the last several years. Good for him!!!
13. Tim said the following at 12:06 AM on Jan 6:
13
Allison (#6):
"His comments were idiotic at best."
In what way were Mr. Humes comments "idiotic"?
I think we are in pretty sorry shape if declaring the gospel (people can find redemption, renewal, and transformation through Christ) is seen as "idiotic" by believers.
14. Jane said the following at 9:35 AM on Jan 6:
14
uh, it's "idiotic" because one's religious beliefs shouldn't be up for public discussion unless the person themselves brought it up. if someone advised mark sanford or newt gingrich or any well known figure who is known to be christian to turn to allah in his time of trial, i'm sure you'd find that to be problematic.
15. Tami said the following at 9:58 AM on Jan 6:
15
Jane (14) -- I know this is a commonly held belief, but on what basis do you find the statement "...one's religious beliefs shouldn't be up for public discussion unless the person themselves brought it up" to be absolutely true? Tiger Woods is a public figure; he has obviously made his Buddhist faith public knowledge, or else Hume wouldn't have known about it.
If Brit Hume told a Christian to turn to Buddah, or if someone advised Mark Sanford to turn to Allah, I wouldn't think it was "idiotic" to bring up faith in a public forum. Misguided? Yes, because they wouldn't be leading them to the truth. But "idiotic"? No.
Personally, what I find misguided is the modern American tendency to reject any discussion of the impact of one's beliefs on one's behavior, as if one has nothing to do with the other, and as if the content of our beliefs have no bearing on the outcome of our lives.
Additionally, "idiotic" is an intentionally inflammatory word, but doesn't identify what, exactly, is objectionable. Hence, it would be interesting to know what, exactly, Allison finds idiotic about the content of what Hume said, as (to my ears) it was fairly orthodox in nature.
16. Benjamin said the following at 10:09 AM on Jan 6:
16
Chris, I am with you on this. I think it is a product of the proliferation of 24-hour news channels and their need to have something to fill time. An athlete cheated on his wife, and we are in week 47 of hearing about it.
If the news only consisted of things that actually matter, things that are of any sort of importance, we never would have heard of the Carrie Prejeans or Levi Johnstons of the world. But news channels need viewers, and celebrity -- even manufactured celebrity -- draws more eyes than substantive news.
17. Jane said the following at 12:29 PM on Jan 6:
17
tami,
i think this helps a little in explaining my objections to this particular incident : http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-5-2010/the-temple-of-hume
moreover, i think that religious belief is extremely personal. if a serial killer is apparently methodist, i don't think of him as a methodist serial killer unless he killed in the name of being methodist. tiger woods mentioned being somewhat buddhist in an interview several years ago, and hasn't discussed it since. thus, i don't think it should have any bearing on whatever he does (and frankly, the entire scandal is a little bit much for me).
18. Andrea-Elena said the following at 1:58 PM on Jan 6:
18
Well, the difference is that a Christian, by definition, has access to the power to choose not to sin and the ability to do what God wants. All others are still enslaved to sin. When in the public arena of debate the topic is of something that is sin, yes, whether he/she is saved IS relevant... highly relevant.
So... yes, a person's beliefs DO matter and affect how he/she lives life.
A Methodist is a Christian, by the way. A Buddhist, obviously, is not. Claiming Christ as Savior and Lord is not merely akin to changing one's uniform (ala, changing allegiances from one army to another) but is about an entire TRANSFORMATION of essence.
19. Candice Watters said the following at 3:25 PM on Jan 6:
19
Wow. Awesome, Brit. Awesome.
The irony here is how seemingly everyone in the media gets away with professing their faith everyday with nary a word, as long as it isn't faith in Christ.
Faith in materialism, in secular humanism, in self, in evolution, in a whole host of other concoctions is fine. But Brit gets called out. It's chilling. Though not surprising.
Jesus told us this would happen (Luke 6:22, 21:17, etc.)
20. Gabe said the following at 1:01 AM on Jan 7:
20
I totally agree, Candice. Secularists tell us that religion is a "personal matter" which should never be brought up in public. Never mind that the secularism they so openly espouse is itself a religious system and is not neutral in the least. Their brand of "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" remind me of what Henry Ford said about the then-newly-released Model T cars: "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."
21. Tami said the following at 9:32 AM on Jan 7:
21
Jane (17), thank you for providing additional insight into your position.
FWIW I'm also tired of the Tiger Woods stuff.
22. Mike Toreno said the following at 12:38 PM on Jan 7:
22
Candice, that's so true. It's just like Aasif Mandvi says in the clip Jane links to above. As he says, any public utterances of his extolling the superiority of Islam pass without notice, or elicit praise. When Brit Hume does the same thing with respect to Christianity, he receives angry emails on the Internet. It just goes to show you what a persecuted minority Christians are.
23. D said the following at 1:17 PM on Jan 7:
23
Jane (#17) -
Thanks for your response. I guess I struggle with linking to a video making fun of Brit because of his choice of words instead of actually making an argument. I know it was meant in humor, but the Muslim gent actually made a good point. Muslims are pretty much given free reign when they claim that Allah is the only way. Radical Muslims get all Mulsims in trouble when they bring violence into the picture.
Also, if I was going through an immense personal struggle and a Muslim I knew suggested I convert to beliefe in Allah I wouldn't be offended. Not one bit. The person who suggested this to me was simply being CONSISTENT in their beliefs. Brit offered the best thing he knew to offer - the forgiveness and healing presented by faith in Jesus Christ. He'll be called arrogant and a proselytizer, but at least he's being consistent. Whether what Brit believes is true is another subject all together (and we'll save that discussion for another blog), but at least Brit was being consistent with his beliefs. If he truly believes Jesus is the only way to salvation, then it totally makes sense that he would say this.
Additionally, what you believe has EVERYTHING to do with what you do. The true test of what you believe is what you do (see John 3:36 for example). And agreed, faith in God is an extremely personal thing. But just because it is personal doesn't mean that people shouldn't be challenged and corrected when they are wrong. It just needs to be handled very carefully and prayerfully. It is very sad that in America we believe love is 'letting people believe whatever they want to believe'.
To end my comment, I do want to agree with you. I think the whole thing is overblown, and it is unfortunate that celebrities continue to gain more media attention than news that actually impacts our lives.
God bless.
D
24. Mo said the following at 3:49 PM on Jan 7:
24
I had no idea he was even a believer! I thought it was fantastic. It's good to see someone not afraid of standing up for their faith, regardless of what others will say. Good for him.
25. Brad said the following at 8:48 PM on Jan 7:
25
I dont fault Hume. His was more or less a cursory, Cliff's Notes overview of two major faith systems. He was accurate.
It wasnt as though he was giving his own personal testimony. I wish he had done so. But of course had he done so, Shales and others would've demanded that Hume be fired.
26. Angeline said the following at 9:10 PM on Jan 7:
26
Brit is right on and I salute his honesty. The Gospel of Christ is usually a big surprise and it took the liberals into a new field of negativism. Read John 3:16 and 17 - that is in the BIBLE and it explains the reason Christ came. Truly - Good news.
27. ccinnova said the following at 9:08 AM on Jan 8:
27
Tom Shales' comments illustrate the warped worldview that has prevailed at The Washington Post for many years.
In the early days of the Clinton administration, the Post published a front-page article on the president's proposal to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. The article described conservative evangelicals who opposed lifting the ban as "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command."
In the years since, the Post has supported abortion rights and pulling the plug on Terry Schiavo while opposing the execution of convicted murderers.
28. Jo said the following at 9:15 AM on Jan 8:
28
I read this article on the reaction to Hume's comments and thought it was very well put:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010703244.html
I particularly liked this sentence:
"It is not a scandal to believers that others hold differing beliefs. It is only a scandal to those offended by all belief."
29. JB said the following at 10:45 AM on Jan 8:
29
While I believe that Hume ought to be free to speak publicly about his beliefs, as should anyone else, I don't imagine for a second that this incident has anything at all to do with Christianity being persecuted in the US (a country which is 78% Christian.) I imagine that if a nationally known anchor had argued that Mark Sanford's marriage could only be saved through the total submission of Islam there would be even more people here and elsewhere expressing their distaste for public proselytizing.
30. BMM said the following at 10:27 AM on Jan 9:
30
Read Acts 4. Peter and John declared that they would proclaim the Gospel no matter what the authorities said. Jesus commands us in Matthew 28:18-20 to go and make disciples. Out faith is not something we are permitted to keep in a closet if we are to obey Scripture. Of course the claim that Jesus is the only way is offensive, and we shouldn't be surprised when it does offend.
31. Karen said the following at 9:41 AM on Jan 11:
31
WOW, I'm impressed! Good for him to say what he did. He was right on. We need more people of integrity who will speak out for the truth.