ANOTHER UPDATE: Ann Coulter.
TUESDAY: Charlie Martin at PJM weighs in in a Buddhist kinda way. Being salt and light in a fallen world is a recipe for persecution. Secularism's drones hit Hume.
I'D LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS on all the brouhaha Brit Hume's brief remarks about Tiger Wood's fall---and how a relationship with Jesus Christ could offer him total, ultimate redemption---caused on the Internet, and beyond.
I've seen this described as Hume telling Tiger Woods he must leave Buddhism and convert to Christianity and repent, as well as Hume's casting judgmental stones at Woods. (The Anchoress has a wonderful and kind wrap-up on the controversy at First Things) But neither of these fits the description of what I see when I review this video:
It was a Sunday talk show which elicited each participant's personal opinion. Hume gave his---which didn't just include a prognostication on Wood's golfing career, as Bill Kristol did (seeming very smug as he summarily predicted a Wood's win at the Masters this spring). Hume's take included a much deeper assessment and came across to me as authentic, humble and genuinely caring. I happen to understand and believe every word Hume said and agree that a real and personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and not some religious moral do-gooder stunt conversion for publicity reasons, can bring---over time, painful honesty and self-assessment---true repentance and slow but sure change in any person's life. I have never, ever known the silly atheistic moniker of "getting a a free pass out of jail" card to be a reality.
Change like Hume is talking about ideally can be very inspiring to the rest of the world. But such testimony must be God's will and we have no idea what that is here and neither does Hume. Still I give Hume the highest marks for his courageous salt and light statement on the condition and cure of Tiger Wood's shattered life and soul. I also get the impression that Hume knows of what he speaks. If he's a true follower of JesusChrist, then it follows that Hume knows he is a sinner (not was a sinner, is a sinner) saved by Grace. True believers understand they are not saved by their own efforts but rather, only by the sacrificial blood of Christ on the Cross. So they and we truly cannot cast stones. I am endeared to Hume for his kind public expression towards Woods.
By the way, Larry Kudlow wrote a very public piece to Tiger Woods several weeks ago giving him some advice. Kudlow spoke from his own tough experience with cocaine addiction and hitting a very hard bottom a number of years ago. In this piece, Kudlow told Woods he needed to 'come clean' with his wife or else he, Woods, would fall deeper than he could ever dreamed possible.
I've learned in living, recovery and brief years of blogging that there's simply no way we can ever control how other people will hear what we're saying or how they take our message---no matter how well-meaning it may be intended. We can only put it out there and the chips will fall where they may, whether we like it or not. Hume will be criticized by some and praised by others. Whether he could have been more effective in communicating this to Woods privately is a moot point and a waste of time to cogitate about. It happened as it did. One thing's for sure: It will be used by God for His purposes and His glory whether we ever understand or like it, or not.
Meanwhile, I appreciate the free exchange of ideas that Hume expressed and laud his courage. No doubt he will take some hits and some heat for it and be greatly misunderstood. But such is life in a fallen world where Satan twists things and casts his deceiving spells on all who are easily swayed. Those who have ears will indeed hear and understand.
This from the above commentary I linked to and it is so salient to Bret Hume's words on Fox:
Salt also, as it is used elsewhere in the New Testament, is a word picture for speech rather than for works.
3 meanwhile praying also for us, that God would open to us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in chains, 4 that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak. 5 Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one (Colossians 4:3-6).
In Colossians 4:6, Paul calls for gracious speech, seasoned with salt. The context is speech that makes manifest the mystery of Christ’s gospel. It was his speech that got Paul chained and put in prison. You would think that Paul would be asking prayer for deliverance from prison, but for him it was far more important that he make manifest the gospel and that the Colossians also have a vocal and effectual apologetic. It is salty speech that results in persecution for Christ’s sake even today.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Yes, Brit Hume suggested Christianity as a path for Tiger Woods. Tiger's Buddhist religion that seeks Nirvana, freedom and redemption from from craving, anger obsessions, fixations, and other afflictive states, and seeks peace with the world, and compassion for all... is apparently an inferior religion to Brit Hume.
Brit Hume does not recommend Christianity for Tiger Woods because God is the light of the world, the example to follow, no... he recommends Christianity as the chosen 'get out of jail free' card for those that have cheated on their wives like John Ensign, David Vitter, Mark Sanford, and other self described evangelicals.
Hume plays a really a cheap shot on God.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here again, Ellen. You have a right to your own interpretation, however, anyone who has gone through a repentence process does not experience it being a "free get out of jail" card. In fact it takes huge courage to go through. It is very humbling, life changing. But the Graciousness of God surrounds us here.
Explain to us the 'repentance process' that you'd recommend for Tiger and tell us how it is superior to that of his faith?
Thanks
Oh, I don't know anything about Buddhism and repentence. I had thought there was no concept of sin there, but could be wrong.
The first step of the repentence process is to know you're a sinner....and we're all, ALL, sinners in God's eyes, Ellen.
Really realizing this takes powerful and often extremely painful self-honesty. It's probably the toughest part. And sometimes beginning to come to honest terms with ourselves takes a lot of time and some deep digging. The process can't be short-circuited.
BTW, our primary sin, including Tiger's, is not serial unfaithfulness. It's putting any and everything before a relationship with God. His myriad girl friends are merely a symptom of Wood's and our deeper sin of not loving the Lord first with all our hearts and seeking Him first in all things.
That's the first step. The next step is for us to understand the magnitude of how our sin separates from God and coming to be sorry for our sin for the right reasons, and not just because we were caught. Often getting caught is after all a huge blessing in retrospect. Or not, depending on this process and our willingness to repent.
That's all for tonight cause you can't take anymore that I have to say just yet and I'm going to bed soon.
Everything in moderation.
Why the excitement over extremely moderate proselytizing which occurred perfectly in context?
What opinion was Hume supposed to share re Tiger Woods? Do we care, for instance, about Hume's amateur speculation re Tiger's ability to reclaim his advertising power? I don't, and I appreciate Hume sparing me his opinion. Bravo, Brit.
What else is there to say about Tiger Woods? Not much. Tiger's golf game is interesting, yet we don't care about any Fox panelist's opinion of Tiger's golf game. The sex gossip and the marriage gossip are car-wreck interesting, yet ungraceful. And there's nothing else which is currently interesting about Tiger Woods, except: there is the universally shared experience of dealing with the aftermath of our actions. THAT is interesting, and Hume perceptively identified that one interesting thing. This was professional news judgment at work.
Once Hume identified that one interesting thing, Hume's job was to give his opinion - HIS opinion, not a Buddhist' opinion - and Hume did give his opinion. Hume's comments were perceptive and professional. The comments constituted proselytizing, yet the comments were both in context and undertaken in moderation. Where is the problem? I see no problem on Brit Hume's part. It's appropriate for Christians to conversationally share their beliefs, provided Christians do so both in context and in moderation. It's appropriate for Christians to do this on a television opinion panel.
Hume could have merely said: The interesting question is how Tiger will deal with the aftermath of his actions. However, it was equally appropriate, on the television opinion panel, for Hume to briefly mention his personal beliefs about the healing power of Christianity.
Why do many non-Christians snipe so viciously at Christianity? Several possibilities:
First, since I am Christian, I honestly think the devil is deceiving non-Christians.
Second, the dominant religion of the U.S. will naturally get some sniping.
Third, some non Christians might be frustrated at their and at history's inability to disprove Christianity in a way which motivates large numbers of Christians - or at least a number of their Christian friends - to abandon the religion.
Fourth, and I think this is an important factor: some non Christian snipers are secretly insecure about their beliefs, and are secretly worried about spending eternity in agonizing Hell. Tied into this: some non Christians feel unvirtuous, blame Christians for making them feel unvirtuous, and react vehemently. A similar dynamic: the way many women looked at Sarah Palin having Trig, felt unvirtuous, blamed Sarah Palin, and reacted vehemently.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
Wow, Greg, thank you for your mighty comments on this matter. Your perspective is helpful and encouraging. I agree with everything.....and hope you completed what you intended to say.
Ten questions:
1) Where does the sense of personality come from?
2) What are the definitions of "noble" and "truth" in the Four Noble Truths, or "right" in the Eight-Fold Path of Right Views etc.?
3) What happened to the people who lived before Siddharta?
4) What does it mean that Nirvana is "beyond good and evil"?
5) How does Thich Nhat Hanh ("Living Buddha, Living Christ") homogenize the two belief systems?
6) What about the many variations of Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana, Tantrism, Tibetan, Zen)?
7) Are we basically good?
8) What is the motivation for doing good and opposing injustice?
9) Is the desire for happiness a cause for suffering? (The Dalai Lama said "Every human being has the potential to create happiness.")
10) How did Siddharta's life affect his son, who from the day of his birth grew up without a father present?
Those question beg for answers....and yet, do they ever come outside The Way?
Thank you, fraydna.
We have the freedom to choose what we do and don't believe. I can create my own god in my own image if I wish.
But as a believer in Christ, I am compelled by love to share the Good News, knowing that it is only the Holy Spirit and not my own persuasiveness that speaks to the heart of another.
Thank you for another thought-provoking post.
And thank you for being my sister in Christ and helping me out here...and also to Greg.
What Hume has to do is come out of Christianity. It is an empty religion that offers false hope. Christians have been blind to the truth of the world, deceived into a literal reading of a clearly allegorical morality fable.
Christianity's Christ is empty.
Well, Mr.Johns, I suppose God will have the last say on that.
That being, I suppose, the point. The incessant jaw flapping that would have ensued from a certain circle of bigot Christians if a news personality, on a Sunday morning television program had said:
"I understand that Carrie Prejean is a Christian. I do not believe that that religion offers the same spiritual peace and eternal salvation in the arms of the eternal as Hinduism. So my message to Carrie is that she come to Brahma."
would have been endless and self righteously justified as just responding to the anti-Christian media.
Pot meet kettle.
history's inability to disprove Christianity
A ridiculous statement. Faith requires no 'proof'
BTW, your description of the repentance process is nothing compared to the discipline and self-sacrifice a Buddhist practices on the path to enlightenment. Christians have no clue on what it means to leave their comfort zone and the sacrifices necessary in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment that devout Buddhists practice. Say a few Hail Marys, Lords Prayers, go to confession.... if you're an evangelical, forget about all that, you don't even have to do that stuff, unless you're Catholic.
You and Brit Hume might benefit from the self understanding of the Eight-Fold path. Ask yourself this: how many Buddhist spiritual leaders do you see cheating on their wives and molesting kids? You might ask Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, or the Los Angeles Archdiocese that has paid out $660 million to victims of clergy sexual abuse.
Think about that the next time you propose Christianity as a spiritual remedy for the short comings of a Buddhist. Tiger Woods is not an exceptional Buddhist.
David John: If someone had recommended Hinduism to Carrie, so what? I doubt that a pantheistic religion from India would be her cup of tea, but who knows. It would have certainly been within someone's 1st amendment right to say what they think.
Ellen, faith requires no proof? I beg to differ with you again, my dear.
Faith is not some pie-in-the-sky exercise in wishful thinking. Faith is believing what God says. Faith is believing in what he says in his Word as well as what he says to us in our prayer time with him. Every prophecy in the Old Testament of Christ was fulfilled exactly. And every End Times prophecy and the Second Coming will also be fulfilled, though no one knows when this will come.
But faithfulness is believing what God says and being obedient to His Word and commandments.
Noah is a good example: he had never known of a world flood and certainly knew nothing of arks. Yet God told him to build one, giving Noah the exact dimensions. Noah built this ark obediently over years and years time....in faith because he believed what God said.
The Bible is filled with people with faith who believed what God said. And sadly it is filled with people who did not have faith and did not believe what God said.
God more than proved Himself to those who saw and heard. So yes, God is the proof of faith or else it would be called wishful thinking.
Ellen, you are correct, I do not know the path of enlightment which is not a goal of a relationship with Christ. But godly wisdom certainly is.
In many ways, Buddhism is another self-salvation project. By that I mean a religion where a person purported can be saved by their own efforts. In Christianity, we are saved by a Savior who died for our sins who took the rap and God's wrath for each of us. By accepting the free gift of Christ crucified on the Cross and having faith in what Christ says it means: believing in Him and what He did for us is the only way to eternal salvation and life.
Being a believer and follower of Christ does not mean we never leave our comfort zones and experience deprivation or even death: The Apostle Paul for one wandered all over the Middle East and Roman Empire and often lived a life in prison, in chains, in poverty, starvation and deprivation. He was executed in Rome. Most of Christ's original disciples, including Paul were crucified or beheaded.
That you don't know that many, many Christians thorugh the centuries didn't leave their comfort zones, suffer greatly and die for their faith in Christ is just plain...well for lack of a better word...unenlightened!
"Faithfulness is believing what God says and being obedient to His Word"
Faith is earned by a consistent and clear message. Would you have faith in someone who consistently contradicted him/herself?
What does 'his word' exactly say?
Here are some examples. Maybe you can find CLEAR unequivocal meaning here?
------
Moses feared Pharaoh - Ex 2:14,15,23; 4:19
Moses did not fear Pharaoh - Heb 11:27
------
John the Baptist was Elias - Matt 11:14
John the Baptist was not Elias - John 1:21
Ellen, where ever in heaven's name did you cut and paste this silliness from? I've obviously edited your lengthy comments because I think addressing one or two items is sufficient.
The most important this to know is that these conclusions you write are taken totallly out of context. But briefly I'll give you a simple commentary you're not going want to understand:
1. "Moses feared Pharoah" (Exodus 2:14-15, 23 and 4:19)
Actually, this does not say that Moses, a prince of Egypt raised by Pharoah's daughter, feared Pharoah. Taken in context, it says after Moses killed an Egyptian for insulting and hitting a Hebrew, and realized other people knew about it, he-- Moses--was afraid for his life and ran.
"Moses did not fear Pharoah."
(Hebrews 11:27) This passage is a recounting of some of God's great men of faith and describes Moses as follows: "By faith, he--Moses-- forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the King" for he endured, as seeing Him who is invisible."
The Exodus when Moses led the Jews out of Egypt and through the parted Red Sea was one of God's greatest miracles. Moses' obedience to God was greater than his fear of Pharoah's retirbution as he led over one million Hebrews out of Egypt and into the desert for 40 years.
That's all for tonight, cause I'm going to bed. You chew on this if you dare and I'll finish tomorrow.
I gave you 2 dozen examples, you edited them down to two. You should have let my complete comment stand on its merits. I could have provided you a list of literally hundreds of Biblical contradictions, instead I only gave you a small fraction, most of which you deleted.
What is most interesting, are the blatant contradictions in the New Testament that describe the crucifixion and resurrection, the main tenet of Christianity.
Again, I submit to you the obvious. Faith requires no proof and in fact, requires a need to believe, a suspension of skepticism and critical thinking to believe a very convoluted and contradictory message that is anything but clear.
Ellen this list is bogus my dear. None of it has merit or can stand on its own as you've written it. The contradictions you've listed are just not there. You might go check it out for yourself to verify that.
It is obvious that you and whatever aestheist site you got this from have not bothered to look at the verses and read them. Probably you've never opened the Bible at all. This is silliness squared and you think it's real.
I just gave you one example above which I spent some time on....all the others are similarly lifted out of context and have no meaning as you have written them.
If you can't or don't want to be open to The Word of God, then so be it, but I don't have time nor the intention for a complete Bible expository for someone who is hellbent on disbelief.
Ellen, faith may be that for you.
However for me faith requires that I know and read what God says in his Word, work it into the fiber of my being, believe what He says and act accordingly, by His Grace.
My son, when very young, thought Buddha had to be cool. After all, he was obviously the father of the Michelin Man.
More questions:
If one believes the Bible to be false, why expend so much time and energy attacking it?
How does one define "anger obsessions, fixations, and other afflictive states, ...peace with the world, and compassion"?
How does one define what is true or what is good?
Is each eyewitness's story of an event different in some or many aspects?
Does the witness's background and experiences or the time lapse since the events influence his/her testimony?
What is "enlightenment"?
Does sacrifice make a person enlightened? If so, what kind of sacrifice? How is this achieved?
Are blanket statements about Christians, such as "Christians have no clue on what it means to leave their comfort zone and the sacrifices necessary in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment that devout Buddhists practice" useful in promoting or achieving spiritual enlightenment, peace, or compassion?
Ellen, you are most welcome to address some of fraydna's questions here.
Thanks for the well-needed humor.
If one believes the Bible to be false, why expend so much time and energy attacking it?
Because evangelical followers of the Bible are not simply happy to practice their religion in private, they are pushing religious ideas into government, education and law. Women's rights (including abortion rights), teaching of science including biological evolution, are under attack etc...
Quite simply, in this day and age, when we have space age weaponry under the control of people who live by edicts from the Dark Ages, we are in trouble, and I mean any fundamentalist religious leaders - Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or Christian. If I had to pick one of the above to be the LEAST likely to launch WMD, my bet is on the Buddhists.
How does one define what is true or what is good?
Truth is based on facts, evidence and credibility. Credibility doesn't mean popular. It's far easier to discern what is not good... for example a spiritual dictator that imposes mandatory worship for all on the penalty of eternal torture in hell. Does that fit your definition of 'good'?
Does sacrifice make a person enlightened? If so, what kind of sacrifice? How is this achieved?
I suggest looking at the lives of Mother Theresa, Ghandi, The Dali Lama, MLK, and Mandela. History is filled with examples, as is legend - i.e. Jesus is a widely believed legend.
Does the witness's background and experiences or the time lapse since the events influence his/her testimony?
As a juror, would you base a life and death decision on such a conflicting message or would you say it lacks credibility? Does the message have ulterior motives for controlling others, particularly during the time shortly after it was originated? Obvious questions that need to be considered when receiving testimony.
Like you, I am endeared to Brit Hume for saying what he did. It was a loving and kind statement, completely sincere. My respect for Mr. Hume has multiplied.
It seems you are over here pushing your 'religion' in my space as a guest of mine more than I'm pushing mine on you, Ellen.
No one is forcing you to be here, or to have listened or agree with Bret Hume. The left agenda has almost completely taken Christianity out of public schools and the public square.
I will continue to disagree with most of what you believe and say, Ellen.
Ah, science and scientists. Purveyors of the truth.
"Truth is based on facts, evidence and credibility."
Why would such a group, not those who live in the dark ages, but especially those scientists who changed our world be overwhelmingly religious?
Dichotomy, eh? That which not only makes life richer in its texture, but also richer in the soul, but has been the cause of such conflict. The age old question of good vs evil.
It was those that believed in God that took us out of the dark ages by imbuing government, education and law with tenets of religion. In the U.S.'s case, Christianity based on Judeo principles.
It is actually problematic that those that attempt to find dichotomies in any field are willing to attack a specific field because of those dichotomies. It shows a narrowness of mind that cannot exptrapolate information that does not fit their view of how things ought to be. That denotes a world view built on not enough information.
Recap: If it wasn't for the religious, we'd still be in the dark ages in terms of government, education and law instead of living in the most free and greatest country ever founded on the planet.
That is something to reflect upon. Attacking what one doesn't understand is a poor debating stance.
Yes, mRed, great points. Not to be too cute here, but as far as I know there was nary a Buddhist or Hindu at either the Signing of the Declaration or Signing of the Bill of Rights.
Buda = Michelin Man's father = LOL.
I like school mascots, and mourn missed mascot opportunities. Every time I drive by Buda, TX (south of Austin), I am saddened that the High School's Buda Eagles were not christened the Buda Bellies. Woulda been genius.
Consider the cheer possibilities. If Buda gets flagged for a penalty, the cheer:
We can't commit
no infractions
all we do
are perfect actions!
or
Feed us sauce
and Vermicelli
Buda High School
has ravenous bellies!
I'm thinking they missed the Magna Carta thing as well.
mRed...and the Reformation too...
Greg, beyond hilarious cubed!!
Thank you guys for bring levity on this freezing cold day....
Oh, l-e-v-i-t-y, not to be confused with, er, levitate.....
but especially those scientists who changed our world be overwhelmingly religious?
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ...so said Albert Einstein ... in public, similarly as was the 'public view' of many founding fathers and our politicians, scientists, etc...
But what did they really think privately? How many scientists were more brilliant than Einstein?
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
- Albert Einstein, letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind
When Pew polled scientists on their acceptance of evolution by natural selection, nearly all polled (97%) accepted it. But only 32% of the public did.
Why do you suppose this is true?
Scientists are much less likely than the general public to believe in God. Nearly half of U.S. scientists say they have no religious affiliation -- describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular -- compared with 17% of all Americans.
Why do you suppose this is true? Why do you find that religion least practiced by the most highly educated?
I'd like to thank Ellen for giving her answers to some of my questions. It helps me to see what her worldview is.
"...we have space age weaponry under the control of people who live by edicts from the Dark Ages..." Is there an example of a Christian who fits this description?
"...for example a spiritual dictator that imposes mandatory worship for all on the penalty of eternal torture in hell." I am so sorry that anyone might have this view of God - I'd be angry, too, if I believed that.
What I do believe is that each person makes a choice, so there's nothing mandatory there. And the worship is the outpouring of joy and gratitude for a transformed heart and mind. And the "torture in hell", which may or may not be as literal as in Dante's writings, is the consequence of the choice to be separated from God.
My experience is that there is no such thing as a private practice of faith in Christ. If it gets to the point that the public practice of the Christian faith is illegal, then I will have to be prepared to engage in civil disobedience and endure the consequences.
The God whom I know will not be pleased with anyone who goes by the name "Christian" who does evil works in His holy name.
I'm grateful that God is gracious, merciful, and forgiving to me when I fail, and that I will be judged in that grace and mercy on my own life and not that of other people.
Again, we are all free to believe or not.
"Why do you suppose this is true? Why do you find that religion least practiced by the most highly educated?"
Because many of the highly educated are blinded by their own sense of self importance which makes them ignorant.
Also, I didn't state in my comment that I was referring to all scientists, but to those scientists with incredible minds that they have used to improve and change the world.
Many scientists are merely bureaucrats in the machine who maintain to maintain, not great thinkers who have a sense of wonder and curiousity about the world around them and use that critical thinking to the benefit of man and, yes, to the glory of God.
I suppose you know how they think and what is in their heart of hearts. Probably just CYA, covering their bets, eh? Public and private and all that.
I wish I had the brain power to know these things, but then I'd be God.
Post a Comment