OK, so I’m not totally connected to the goings-on in the world, and am a bit extra-cranky this week. Needless to say, I’m several days behind on the news, but apparently semi-retired Fox political commentator Brit Hume has gotten himself into a pickle:
In actuality, I thought this was pretty sage advice. It’s not something I’m used to seeing on TV, which was why (at least to me) that it seemed a bit visually jarring. I also remembered that Hume had cited Christian study as a reason he was leaving the news business back in 2008:
I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done. I’m not claiming it’s impossible to do when you work in this business. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died (by suicide in 1998), I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what you say you believe, it’s a pretty big thing. If you do it part time, you’re not really living it.
With that in mind, his advice seems even more natural. I think it takes guts to talk about basic application of Christianity to your life in the public eye, and in the conversational manner used by Hume. What has surprised me has been the hair-trigger response by some folks on the right and left at Hume’s commentary. I’m not sure whether it was his honest assessment of forgiveness and Buddhism or his frank advice about Christianity that was most offensive to the masses. Maybe the venue wasn’t the correct one, if his only intended audience was Tiger, but I when I relisten to the clip, I think it was purposely meant for the wider audience.
On another front, a friend of mine in the community posted this link to his FB page, which surprised me a little bit (not that he posted it, but that Coulter wrote it). I’ve not read Coulter in a long time – not because I don’t agree with her politics (I generally do), but because I’m not really interested in hyperbolic political commentary from either end of the spectrum. Still, I was pleasantly surprised, but I wonder if she, too, won’t be criticized since she’s a political commentator speaking on the subject of religious belief.
The most common complaints I’ve heard have been “wrong venue” (for Hume) and “wrong person” (for Coulter). Unlike a number of examples I’ve seen of “monster shouting” on street corners, Hume’s comments are downright humble and mild. Unlike a number of simplistic, milquetoast explanations of Christianity I’ve seen/heard from famous folks (particularly those on the political front), Coulter’s is actually decent, if you can get past the political jibes.
Christianity is simultaneously the easiest religion in the world and the hardest religion in the world.
In the no-frills, economy-class version, you don’t need a church, a teacher, candles, incense, special food or clothing; you don’t need to pass a test or prove yourself in any way. All you’ll need is a Bible (in order to grasp the amazing deal you’re getting) and probably a water baptism, though even that’s disputed.
[...]Christianity is also the hardest religion in the world because, if you believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him. No more sexual promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies — no doing what all the other kids do.
[...]With Christianity, your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don’t deserve it. It’s the best deal in the universe.
It makes me wonder how often I’m in the “wrong venue” to say anything, or the “wrong person” to speak.
It makes me wonder how often I’m in the “wrong venue” to say anything, or the “wrong person” to speak.
And so I do not…
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
205 Comments(+Add)
I pray God will use Brit Hume. As for Coulter?
Come on. I would listen to Peter Rollins before I would listen to her – and I mean that sincerely. Only God knows who are His, but if Coulter’s brand of Christianity brings forth fruit such as hers, then Obama is very saved.
I dunno about this. Hume’s comments turned me off not because he said it or where he said it but because I don’t like Jesus being sold as some quick-fix gig.
I’m not saying this is what Hume had in mind. I am sure his intentions were pure. But it comes off sounding like “Hey, if you try Jesus you might just get your life back, your wife will love you, your kids will grow up to respect you and you’ll win more golf tournaments.”
What if he gave his life to Jesus and lost everything? That would seem to be empirical evidence against Hume’s assertion that faith in Jesus brings in better rewards than his present Buddhism.
Hume said Tiger could get redemption, which is sadly lacking in any other faith structure. Hooray for him!
I think Coulter is a Presbyterian, I do not know how committed she is, but she does certainly stand up for religious freedom. She is a pretty snarky one, I guess she would turn Rick F. off for sure. She also believes that the Jewish people will all be saved. Not a right idea.
Hume might recommend Jesus to Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and many others who do not have Tiger’s problems but stand in political self righteousness and treat sinners as enemies rather than lost.
Politics. Did I mention how I feel about it?
i had a problem with Hume primarily because it was just more of everyone acting like Tiger Woods issues are actually more important/significant.
he hits a ball for a living.
if he’s a lecher or a saint makes no difference to me when it comes to assessing what his “contribution” to society is…
what bothers me the most is how some people will say that critique of Hume is tantamount to persecution.
that’s silly to me.
@#4:
Hear, hear!
I thought, given time limitations, Hume expressed himself quite well. If some people hear his comments as going all Osteen on our butts (as Chad seems to imply might be possible) then, oh well.
I just hope Hume doesn’t become the next Carrie Prejean of the godblogosphere — either elevated to sainthood or urinated on for not giving an altar call at the end of the show, with no middle ground.
When asked the reason for leaving Fox Hume said:
“”Family is a big piece of it, and Christ is a big piece of it, and golf is a big piece of it.”
Sounds like revival.
As always, Jon Stewart puts in good perspective:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-5-2010/the-temple-of-hume
#9 Thats right. Stand with the ones who hate God against one who loves God. Thats what brothers in Christ do.
John Chisham, your opinion means nothing to me
Is that your Christ-Like attitude, Chad?
John Chisham, Really?
After saying how you tagged me because I didn’t do what you wanted? How can you worry about someone else being Christ like with a straight face? Is that your Christ like response, John Chisham?
Apparently, Joe, you don’t hold to your promise. I said I would quit tagging you, you said you would not use my name. You failed in your end of the contract, which renders it null and void. Therefore, whenever Rob Bell is mentioned, your name will follow until these childish shenanigans stop.
Is that your Christ like response, Joe?
A stupid game of tag. You both should grow up.
Apparently, Joe, you don’t hold to your promise. I said I would quit tagging you, you said you would not use my name.
You
are
a
liar.
Show me where I said this, John Chisham
Here is a Youtube clip of Hume further reflecting on his statements (in the op) and responding to criticism: Youtube
Very balanced, very kind. He’s not attacking, just telling of the saving and rescuing work of Christ. Excellent and I applaud him.
In listening to him it struck me how rarely Christ is ever brought into the mainstream outside of cutesy Osteen commentary and other blather. A breath of fresh air.
I doubt he was using this to speak directly to Tiger alone, but a greater audience.
Not at all. It wasn’t a sales pitch. He had a minute to make a statement. He made it well. Could it have been better? Maybe. But his follow up (in the Youtube link) is excellent.
He was. I believe his statements were meant generally for one and all.
Yes, that’s the right perspective, but it’s foolhardy – knowing the culture we live in – to believe that. He’s a modern-day idol, the most famous athlete in the world, touted and sold (by others and himself) as the pinnacle of what success is, what integrity is, what breaching impossibility is. He turned golf from a 3rd rate game into one paralleling MLB, NBA and the NFL. I agree, he just hits a ball. Sadly, our culture is desperate to find idols to hang their hopes, and these idol$ are eager to fill the gap.
Okay Rick, I wont tag Joe anymore, even if he continues to use my name.
It should not surprise me, with who his pastor is and all.
i watched the first minute or less of the stewart clip… decided not to indulge in that style of mockery.
***cough*** so says one who lies
may i suggest you stop making an ass of yourself.
Just changing one word of #17:
“Therefore, whenever Rob Bell is mentioned, your name will follow until these childish shenanigans stop.
Is that your Christ like response,” John?
What makes the difference who it is that says Tiger needs Jesus and where it is said? Is there seriously a ‘wrong’ forum where such a need can be addressed?
Rick, could you explain comment #4 because I’m not sure I understand it. Srsly.
Chad your last paragraph in #2 makes no sense. Actually, if he gave his life to Jesus and lost everything it would give Biblical evidence and empirical evidence that he was, in fact, quite saved.
Nathan, with all due respect, what makes the difference if all he does is ‘hit a ball’? Does that somehow make him less worthy of Christian concern? This has nothing to do with his contribution to society and everything to do with a lost person hearing good news. Unless I have misunderstood your point.
The way I see it, Hume will probably be forever haunted by this.
#8 BTW is pretty self-serving.
PB –
You’re a pastor, right? Isn’t this childish behavior of mocking others and belittling them almost inexcusable for a man of your position? Yes, I realize we’re all sinful, we’re all priests, blah blah blah, but the fact of the matter is that you’re in a position of Pastorship, a position that absolutely abhors behaviors such as the ones you oftentimes (not always) do on this website.
Why not act on this website like you would act in person (I hope?)?
Re:23
I think the point isn’t so much that Tiger is less deserving of concern, but instead whether he is more deserving of concern.
In other words, until Brit uses his platform to reach my neighbor Mitch, I’m going to be skeptical when he takes it upon himself to reach Tiger.
The place sports has in our society kind of makes me sad. A thousand years ago, the largest and most beautiful buildings in the West were cathedrals. Now they are stadiums.
That says something about what we value.
#23 – What I meant is this. Fox news carries the most virulent and caustic shows that are led by men like O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and others who consistantly make millions of dollars by attacking, demeaning, and generally excoriating liberals and the President in openly non-Christian ways. I have no problem with that since I consider them more political than I do brothers in Christ. (same for Oberman, Mathews, etc.)
So it seems to me you are being blind to the unchristian hatred in your own house when you suggest Tiger find Jesus. Tiger’s sin are many, however God hates pride most of all, and political pride manifested in hateful and haughty ways by men who claim to follow Jesus would be a good place for Hume to begin his evangelism.
As usual, politics poisons any sincere attempt to be a witness for Jesus. I read in the news an article that said that since Rep. Vitter and Gov. Sanford, both of whom committed adultery and both of whom are conservatives, would it be appropriate for a Buddhist monk to suggest they turn to Buddha since their Christianity didn’t seem to be working?
When you have spent most of your journalistic career defending conservative political positions, and when you were one of the heads of Fox news which carries all those attack dog shows, but all of a sudden you are recommending Jesus to Tiger without recognizing the un-Jesus ambiance of your own neighborhood, it comes across as hollow.
However, I hope the further away from politics Hume gets the more clearly he sees the rotten mess it is. But politics is a demonic strongman that does not let go easily.
That is what I meant.
Rick, well said.
M.G. The note about cathedrals is spot on.
So now it is only if you lose everything you are really and truly saved?
These sorts of things strike me as a bit of Rorschach test of sorts. I really am struggling to see how people are seeing it as offensive in any way.
I guess, yes, Humes is saying Christianity is something of a “fix”, but honestly, if the Church can’t offer people redemption and healing, what in the world can it offer them? I actually heard Hume’s statement more in the way that he was saying, yes, Tiger may become a successful golfer at again, but he will never truly know redemption without Christ. I fail to see how that’s wrong.
This whole thing with Woods was very weird for me. I was asked to play at a men’s retreat back in the Fall, and the speaker happened to mention in an offhand remark during his talk that he guaranteed that Tiger Woods was not a happy person and that despite all his success he was not satisfied. I didn’t think much of it all then, but then all this stuff came out soon after, and it’s stuff like that makes me wonder. I mean of all the people he could have chosen to mention, he chose Woods. I’m still amazed I guess that God seems to reveals thing to the most unlikely of sources sometimes.
Phil – How would you feel if a believer lived with 6 sexually active playboy bunnies and he pointed Tiger to Christ but never said anything to his house mates? That is how I see it.
I don’t really know what Hume has or hasn’t said to the people he works with. I also think that for the most part, “pointing people to Christ” is more a matter of living a consistent lifestyle in front of them rather than verbally assaulting them whenever you get a chance.
As far as Hume’s politics, I’d say that I’ve never seen him as the far right. I think a lot Republicans consider him to be far too moderate for their liking, and they would probably consider him a RINO.
Stop! I want to get off this merry go round.
Rush Limbaugh pops pills and pops off at the mouth yet Christians (in my community) make him out to be John the Baptist crying in the wilderness.
Barack Obama supports abortion and, as near as I can tell, is non-substantive, and is a really good speaker without saying anything at all and some Christians (in my community) make him out to be the risen Christ.
Bill O’Reilly is a catholic vitriolic windbag and some Christians (in my community) make him out to be their specific spokesperson.
Chuck Colson is a converted criminal who now spends a majority of his time peddling “Truth Wars” and some Christians (in my community) spend more time studying and spreading his message more than Jesus.
James Dobson with all of his good intentions with “Focus on the Family” has gone off the reservation with his political pronouncements and prophetic letters from the future and some Christians (in my community) still hail him as the the great “Child Rearer”.
Al Franken is a political comedian now turned politician, who’s lifestyle is questionable and motivation is suspect and some Christians (in my community) think it’s great that a gay man got elected “it shows progress”.
“My prayer is that they would be one as you and I are one.” My prayer also.
#31 – Pass the offering plate I want to give!
I think you guys are a little off base here. Brit Hume was acting out of concern for Tiger, more than for his golf career, but for his soul which was (or still is) obviously in trouble.
Take a picture- Phil is right- Rick also is right, kind of. Brit should be (and is) concerned about those on the Panel, the ones he works with, or he would not have spoken up on this forum. I suspect that like Phil says that his life does speak volumes. And I am sure that his words are used as well with O Reilly, Hannity, et.al. as well.
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a porno purveyor, as well as a member of Rick Warren’s Church. I hope that Brits words will reach him as well, because I question whether Rick is practicing church discipline. Where did the 2.4 million in cash come from? Hmmmm?
#31 the are all the same- They need Christ. Windbacs, Politicos, Presidents, Pimps, Prostitutes, porn freaks…Especially ministers….All need Christ.
PB,
An honest question. Why is it that if someone does or says something you agree with, you will go out of your way to view that person in a positive light, will interpret their words with as much charity as possible, and will generally act with the Christian kindness God calls us to as believers?
But, if you disagree with someone, then you question their every motive, you twist their words so as to present them in as negative a light as possible, and you make every tenuous or non-existent connection so as to make them seem as terrible as possible?
How do you justify this from a biblical perspective?
Isn’t this a worldly way of acting?
Doesn’t Christ call us to something higher, you know, praying for and loving our enemies?
@ Paul C,
it’s foolhardy to critique celebrity culture? it’s foolhardy to critique the silly assumptions of people because they “need/are looking for” heros?
just because the guy dresses “preppy” and plays a “gentlemen’s game” doesn’t mean i should believe that necessitates he’s the scion of good behavior.
believing this stuff about Tiger, whose only cache reallly comes from the fact that he plays a game and does it well, is as silly as me believing my car mechanic is a relationship expert with great marriage advice because he fixes cars well.
people’s moralistic disappointment in Tiger’s private life merely rises from assumptions they made. their disappointment is their own and of their own making.
Phil – My point was this: Hume was the Senior political analyst for Fox News and he supported Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, and others. The poison and self righteousness that spewed from their lips and their guests (Coulter, etc) was and is every bit as sinful as what Tiger did.
And those men claimed Christ. Bech (Mormmon) Hannity (Catholic) and O’Reilly (Catholic)
My point is that because of who Hume supported his platform is very shaky in my view. Politics is another master and completely misrepresents THE Master.
@ jerry,
it’s not about Christian concern for me…
it’s about how in the culture assume things about the morals of sports figures without some perspective on what it is they actually do.
it’s great that Tiger is a great golf player.
but we need to see his role in society with some perspective if we are to truly assess his “value”…
it’s not that his life is “less”, it’s that his life has been wrongly made into “more” by people.
his moral failures outside of his particular sports skill set are no more tragic and no more significant than the same moral failures the unknown owner of the local coffee shop next to my house is dealing with.
my critique has more to do with the wider assumptions of the culture, the cult of celebrity in general, and the trivialization of faith in sports by Christians of all people on so many occasions.
I’m not sure what you mean by “he supported…”. I don’t really watch much of anything that would really be called “news” on TV (except possible the Weather Channel), but from the little I have seen of Hume, he doesn’t really seem aligned with those folks too much.
I guess if you’re simply saying that a Christian cannot be the host of a political show in the vein of “Crossfire”, then I guess I simply don’t agree.
The people I work with aren’t Christians for the most part. One woman is a Unitarian Universalist. Does the fact that I work in the same office as her and work on projects with her implicate me? I guess I don’t understand the whole guilt by association aspect.
BTW – Did Hume publicly offer “Christianity” to Tiger before all these sordid facts came out? In many cases a politicians “Christianity” is nothing more than another politicians “Buddhism”. They are nothing more than Wikipedia fillers.
Like Phil, I am very surprised that Christians take exception with this and think it out of place or in bad taste.
Perspective: he simply and humbly spoke of what God can do.
What do we do:
“He should be speaking to every hypocritical politician and talking head FIRST!”
When is it a convenient time to speak of Christ? Never.
When is speaking openly of salvation ever acceptable to the masses? Never.
We are used to politicians picking choice verses when it suits a larger goal. We are used to Osteen speaking in Rollins-like riddles – saying a lot, but saying nothing.
The moment someone speaks plainly, even Christians get a little out of sorts.
“The people I work with aren’t Christians for the most part.”
Does she castigate other people? Does she spread lies about them suggesting they are Muslims? Does she say someone hates white people when his own mother was white? Does she make a ton of money pulling people down and looking for any chink in their amour?
And if she does, do you appear on her show and agree with her? If so, you are complicit and your witness for Christ is hollow. But I am sure YOU do not, but Hume did.
Whether Tiger even hears about Hume’s commentary (not sure if Woods watches FoxNews) is immaterial.
Tiger Woods has also been a myth. A parable. He is folklore.
Now, the idol that many have put their hope in and pay homage to has collapsed.
I believe Hume is not just speaking to Woods, but to the masses. His message will resonate with many people (and anger many more) who find their life beyond their control just as Woods does right now.
Mr. Hume is an Episcapalian. His “Christianity is better than Buddhism” message was placid at best. And as another journalist remarked, would a Buddhist be correct in saying Governor Sanford’s (etc.) Christianity wasn’t working for him so he might try Buddhism.
It’s all a tangle and a foggy mess.
Re:43
I think that point encapsulates what people find problematic with Brit’s message.
I’m a big believer in straight talk. You want to talk to the masses? Well, talk to the masses? You want to talk to Tiger, well, call him on the phone or send him a message through his publicist.
But, DO NOT tell Tiger something, but mean it as really some coded message to the masses, whereby you exploit a tragic situation in order to score some cheap points about Buddhism’s failure as a religion.
It seems a little dishonest to me.
Re: 44
I do wonder if Christians would think it fair if some prominent Buddhist denounced Christianity’s ability to keep a husband from straying, and publicly invited Sanford to renounce the longings of this world and embrace the way of Buddhism.
I think Christians might think such a message a bit too opportunistic, and not quite sensitive enough to a difficult and saddening situation.
Chad,
You see, this is exactly why conversation with you is next to impossible. You know that’s not what I mean. I would hope your constant study of Scripture in preparation for weekly sermons would remind you of verses where Jesus says that those who belong to him could/will/might lose everything. And some gave up everything to follow him. That’s all I was saying.
Maybe you were being sarcastic with your original comment and I missed it.
jerry
Rick,
So what you are saying is that because Hume isn’t making this suggestion at every person in every story in every situation–on television–that his appeal is hollow, shallow, and virtually void of meaning?
jerry
So you’re saying that Hume is somehow responsible for what Ann Coulter says? That just seems odd to me. The whole premise of these types of shows it that the commentators come on and speak their mind without a whole lot of resistance or persuasion from the moderator. They are like debates where the audience is supposed to decide for itself who is right and wrong.
I guess I simply saw the clip as Hume giving a specific answer for a specific question. They were talking about Woods, and Hume’s threw in his two cents. I guess I fail to see why he should be crucified for that.
Would people do the same if Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton had made such a remark? Certainly they have just as many, if not more, questionable ties than Hume. It just seems like Humes is damned if does and damned if he doesn’t in this case.
Nathan,
OK. I did misunderstand your original intent. It was late.
I actually agree with you in that sense.
jerry
#48 – Of course not. First of all his “message” was not the gospel, it was Christianity is better than Buddhism. No real gospel.
But my point is that he supported and appeared on shows that spew virulent hatred and poison and even bold faced lies, and I have seen him agree with those, his friends and subordinates, at Fox. We will see what he says and does in the future.
I hope he grows in the faith, but my experience is that Episcapalians are not very ebangelical and forthright in their personal witness. Mr. Hume has a large mission field at Fox and a vast one at MSNBC.
Phil,
Neither Jessie Jackson nor Al Sharpton would make such a remark. They long since removed themselves from anything meaningfully attached to the title ‘rev’. They where it so that criticism can be deflected because, after all, ‘they are man of God.’
But, if they did, yes. It would come…from the Right. Just the same as the criticism now, against Hume, will come primarily from the Left. (And there will be crossover, to be sure.)
jerry
jerry
Phil – By your own admission you first hand viewing knowledge of Fox is very limited. I have seen much and used to be an avid watcher. Take an hour and go through youtube and you will get some idea what was happening.
Of course Hume is not responsible for Sharpton or Coulter, but if you watch nthe clips you will see an obvious agreeable ambiance with Coulter and not so much with liberals (and the like in both categories)
I would actually welcome something like that above. Is someone thinks something is worth believing, they damn well better believe it’s worthwhile in real life situations.
I’m really not of the opinion that the less people should talk of religion in public, the better. I say just let it out. The more transparency the better. I’m not frightened by the claim of Buddhists or Muslims.
He had a few seconds to make a point. He then has the opportunity to clarify it, and doesn’t swerve, in the video I linked to in #17.
Nothing was done in bad taste from my perspective.
He was speaking to Tiger, but also speaking to everyone. Was Jesus opportunistic in Luke 13?
How opportunistic? How self-serving?
Using the plight of those poor Galileans to drive home a point! And those poor people on whom the tower fell… couldn’t he have come up with another object lesson?
Paul – If I was faithful to my wife and successful at business, then how would Hume’s message apply to me? That is not the gospel.
BTW – Pointing someone to “Christianity” is like selling a product. Christianity never saved anyone.
Rick,
So, I’m seriously trying to understand and not fight, so be patient…
You believe, then, that because he has participated on programs that have been malicious and angry about other people’s sins that he is not really even a Christian and therefore he should not even be saying this stuff?
I’m sorry I’m so dense, but this story seems to be a non-starter. Hume will suffer from his peers for making such a statement so I wonder why we care so much? I mean, if we hate politics (you), don’t watch the news (me), and necessarily dislike those who hold to views different than our own (Chad & PB), then who really give a flying…what Brit Hume said to Tiger Woods?
I seriously doubt Woods cares since he is in Siberia or something.
jerry
Phil,
I agree completely that religious claims should be tested and discussed in the marketplace of ideas.
What I disagree with is using a personal tragedy as the launching pads to those discussions.
It’s tone-deaf, at best. In other words, I’m not surprised that people freaked out, and it seems like there is another reason for people to think that Fox News is the home for all Christipublicans.
Re: 55
I generally don’t respond to sarcasm. Thanks though, Paul, and I hope you have a blessed day.
There are millions of people whose lives are falling apart and will be able to understand (not necessarily from link Chris L’s opp links to, but maybe from the one I reference in #17) that there is another way.
The more people I speak to and meet, the more I see that people’s inner lives are in turmoil. They are desperately lost, grasping at anything that offers a ray of hope.
Tiger provides an object lesson right now. He built his house on the sand. The storm came and washed his mansion away, and great was the fall of it. “Learn the lesson,” is the message.
Build your house on the rock.
Rick,
On the other hand, don’t bother. I’m bailing on this conversation.
PS–I don’t understand you at all Rick. Not that I need to. And I’m sure you don’t understand me either. But you certainly are complicated.
jerry
#60: sorry MG. Trying to work on that (sarcasm element).
But do you think Jesus was being a tad opportunistic?
Tiger Woods has been marketed from the age of 3. He is literally considered the savior of the P.G.A. He married a super model and has more money than I’ll ever see. I know Tiger Woods through his image. I don’t know Tiger Woods as a person. I hesitate to make pronouncements about his spiritual condition. Especially from the perch of the biggest idolatry we have in this country…Politics.
Well, it can be done in a manipulative way for sure, but I think that many times personal tragedy is the time when people are looking for answers, too. Just from watching that clip, I didn’t feel like Hume was doing something analogous to a huckster preacher taking advantage of a grieving family. He seemed to be genuine to me.
Again, Hume’s comment didn’t seem tone-deaf to me. It seemed to do given genuinely and respectfully. If others didn’t see it that way, than I guess that how the cookie crumbles. It’s impossible to control how you always come off to an audience.
I don’t understand why a guy can’t say that he thinks someone needs Jesus. I mean, I get it that some people react to it, and I admit that at first I do but I wonder if the problem isn’t with them and me.
Yes, I would support a Buddhist being able to say the same thing about his faith. If a person doesn’t think that a person in trouble needs her deity then when does she believe in it?
Hume should be able to say what he believes to be true and so should some other person who believes in something else. I fear we have a theophobic issue in society.
Forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea who this person. However, when I watched that specific clip I got the impression that he was very sincere in his belief that Tiger could benefit from knowing Jesus.
I am astounished that in the US a statement like this would cause such a media storm. Here in England, without wanting to generalise, politicians, journalists and media types would be extremely hesitant to mention Jesus in such a way.
Having said that, the awful Celebrity BigBrother show is on at the moment and an American actor called Stephen Baldwin is openly preaching Christ in the house and has somewhat of a captive audience.
It really is very strange to see someone so forthrightly articulate their faith..
I fail to see what the problem is
Peace…
I thought Hume was respectful and the buddhist thing didn’t bother me. I think the message was good. My rub is the venue in which he did it. It’s opportunistic, in that, he saw an opportunity and took it. I think it will ring hollow in many ears because of the venue. But I’ve been surprised at what the Holy Spirit has used to save some. *waves* at PB.
Jerry – Peace.
When I said strange, I meant in the context of television.
Does Jesus do the same in Luke 13 in the first part of the chapter?
I don’t think we are theophobic enough…
I don’t think we have a fear of God.
Look, I agree with Rick on his point. It is not about Tigers sins, it is that we all sin. We all have a sin problem. It is our nature to sin. We are dead n sins and trespasses, we are all under condemnation in the present. We all need a savior.
God demonstrates His love towards us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
I appreciate what Brit said, and I defend his right to say it, and I understand the focus was Tiger Woods at this time, but the truth is that we are all in need of redemption, not just Tiger. And redemption is only found in Christ, not in Buddism, Tauism, Methodism, Catholocism, Emergentism or any other ism out there.
To Mg’s Point #35: Yeah, Brit could have done better and could have gone broader. But, unlike ‘Pastor’ Rob Bell and ‘Pastor’ Doug Pagitt, (For example) at least he (as a newsman) mentioned Christ as the only opportunity for redemption, unlike the Seeds of Compassion event where these Pastors refused to bring Christ up for fear of offending someone. They refused to offer people Christ as the source for redemption. Do you think they could have done that? Don’t you think that was a more appropriate forum? Hmmm?
Nope, because it was Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt it was perfectly cool that they refused to mention the exclusivity of Jesus. But when a newsmen mentions redemption, I am supposed to be critical?
John Chisham,
I’m sorry, I didn’t see pastor rob bell, or pastor doug pagitt in this video.
Did you? Maybe my internet is too slow. I’ll have to check.
Also, I’m not really sure who’s telling you that you are supposed to be critical. I’m certainly not.
Yeah I agree with you. Brit Hume took an opportunity. That’s all. Nothing else. I’m not trying to say he shouldn’t.
Paul,
No worries. And no, I don’t think Jesus was opportunistic. This is one of those things where context matters…
PB,
No one is telling you to be critical. Rather, I was enquiring why you can’t be as charitable reader with your enemies as you are with your friends.
#72: Right. What is wrong with taking an opportunity, fresh in the minds of one and all, to point people – whoever they may be – to the one true source of light and hope?
God forbid he should speak out loud in a forum that people might actually see it.
We are so hypocritical:
“If he wanted to bring Tiger to Christ, he should have camped outside his house or tried to sneak in the back door.”
“He should have called him or sent him and email/text message.”
What weak arguments.
I see his comments more in line with Luke 13 than anything else. Opportunistic? Yes. But the word opportunistic stems from the word “opportunity”.
Is it opportunistic to preach Christ at a funeral when the thoughts of brevity of life and eternity are before all?
MG, if we analyze the account, I think we see that He was using a particular tragedy, fresh in the minds of his listeners, to drive home a point. It was a case-in-point example of using an event to your advantage.
Step 1: Jesus brings up the topic without anyone asking about it:
He then goes on to say that though a terrible thing happened, guess what, we’re all in the same boat. It is the object he is really after – repentance:
He then goes even further, repeating his call to drive it even deeper:
Same kind of situation. Fresh in everyone’s mind and very, very tragic. But then comes the message again:
I am curious as to how you don’t see this as taking real-life examples to drive home a key message – an over-arching message that appeals to all.
#74 I know someone personally that witnessed Christ to Tiger and Charles Barkley on a golf course. He has been shared with in private.
#73 I have no enemies; only enemies of the Gospel and they still need Christ. I do not hate Rob Bell or Doug Pagitt personally. I hate the heresies they speak and teach.
Jesus was not opportunistic in the sense that we are. Everything Jesus did was according to the Fathers’ plan and timetable.
so is it persecution to take issue with Brit Hume or does it depend on the reason you take issue with brit hume?
#76:
clarification:
enemies of the Gospel=people who don’t articulate the Gospel the way me and those like me articulate the Gospel.
Re:76
You didn’t respond to my point.
Ok, you don’t have enemies. Good on you.
I’ll repeat the question: Why do you read your friends charitably, but then read people with whom you disagree without an ounce of charity, kindness, or grace?
I’m thinking about comment 33, which I found particularly illuminating. You took it upon yourself to assume every nice thing in the world about Brit Hume, while simultaneously assuming the worst about Rick Warren.
That’s against the spirit of Christ.
re: preaching the Gospel at a funeral.
well…for me, it depends on who died…
Paul C – #75
Paul, I’m curious what your assesment of this funeral sermon would be ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRdiYanbVR0&feature=player_embedded
What I find flawed is this:
Liberal sinners usually will not listen to a witness from believers who have been aggressively conservative in their politics or moral stands.
Conservative sinners usually will not listen to a witness from a liberal believer who has been aggressively liberal in their politics or moral stands.
That is why I was able to listen to Billy Graham give the gospel without identifying him as a political operative. That is my point.
Rick Warren has an individual in his church, who owns Fox News, and is a purveyor of smut. My point was that it is good at least Brit Hume is giving good news where it is clear that a pastor is not.
1) FYI – the numbers are a tad bit off, as a new commenter had a couple in queue that needed to be approved (welcome DMac!)
2) I find it interesting that it didn’t take long for the comment thread to demonstrate my intent in choosing this particular article title. Why? Because it doesn’t take all that much of a witness for Christ to unite folks in either declaring that it was a) too much; b) too little; c) the wrong way; d) the wrong place or ; e) the wrong person to do so.
I don’t think Hume is being persecuted, if that’s what you’re saying.
I guess I just don’t like the thinking that we need to pick apart everything uttered from a Christian in the public sphere. I’ve never been in the position where I’ve had everything that I say dissected, and I suspect if I were, I’d appreciate a little bit of grace toward my comments.
To me, the desire to pick apart Hume’s remarks here isn’t any different than the desire to pick apart Rob Bell’s or Doug Pagitt’s comments at an interfaith conference.
I guess I just don’t like the idea that we all need to be everyone’s critic. Anyone can be a critic, and anyone can sit back and give an opinion on someone else’s work. That’s about the easiest thing in the world to do. What’s harder is to actually put yourself out there.
I have officially recinded all political affiliations due to Rick’s insights.
I do not think Brit Hume is being persecuted.
*sigh* let’s not go back down that false-accusation bunny trail again. The leaps of logic and ill-will required to construct it aren’t even in the same zipcode as the kingdom of God.
Glad I’m not the only one that gets baffled by that anomoly.
Is Murdoch a member of Saddleback? And is the rejection of all sin required before a sinner can attend? Which sins prohibit church participation?
I only see one in the NT – living with your father’s wife. That was the only sin in a treaure trove of sins being committed that Paul said to remove him from the fellowship. Even people shouting blasphemies were allowed to be corrected within the gatherings.
87:
But don’t you see how incredibly stupid that argument is?
You don’t judge Brit Hume based on results (is Tiger enrolling in seminary?) but you do judge Rick Warren on his supposed results.
Unless you know every conversation that has ever occurred between Rick Warren and Rupert Murdoch (were you there?), you are ASSUMING the worst.
It’s very worldly. You’re like the Glen Beck of preachers.
MG – You are correct. It’s not like Warren brings Murdoch along on crusades to give his testimony.
How in the world did Warren/Murdoch make it into this thread??
Pretty good Brett. Some very bold, confronting statement, but delivered in a kind spirit.
Excellent point Phil.
There are only a few more human beings left that I do not hate, but I have every expectation they will evenatually make it on my list.
that pretty much sums it up.
The silence in response to #22 and #24 is deafening.
Well, I guess that ship has sailed right here in this comment thread.
m.g.
pastorboy regularly refuses to read anyone he disagrees with charitably. he routinely employs guilt by association, non-sequitur logic, and judges people based on appearances. one he has determined an offense he’s a pit-bull with a bone, raising his issues at inappropriate times and serving (apparently) no purpose other than to be nasty and mean.
this has been pointed out to him routinely, in love, in frustration, in anger… i truly think he revels in it and believes the nastier he is… the more offensive he is… the more obnoxious he is… the better he is.
we are the enemy and the louder we object to his ethnocentric reduction of the gospel the more it proves to him that he is right.
I continue to be profoundly disappointed and even outraged that PB did not remove the poster that uses goth sinners in a mocking light. It is unconscionable.
i find it equally unconscionable that he decided they were unsaved based on appearance.
As it pertains to redemption we should be all things to all men without changing the gospel message. Thank goodness I am already circumcised.
One last thought, I can about guaran-damn-tee you that if Chris Matthews had suggested Tiger Woods seek out some spirituality of some sort from, say, the Islamic faith, we would not be having this conversation.
The reason we are having it is because a) it was on Fox; b) it was from a ‘conservative’; and c) he suggested Christianity.
If this had been on MSNBC and had been Keith Olberman this would be a moot conversation.
Re:106
I’m unsure whether there is a double-standard in the way that faiths are treated. Glenn Beck declared that a holy body of water in Hinduism sounded like a “disease” and I haven’t heard too much of an uproar.
What if Keith Olberman said “you know, the name Christ sounds a lot like foot condition. Like, man, that’s a bad case of Christ between your toes there.”
Think we would have heard about that one?
Maybe, but for me it would be different because I would file it under the blind leading the blind. Thye only reason it had legs for me is because I think Hume had a genuine encounter with Christ and I observed that his Fox platform was a liability.
In other words, I think all the religions get a bad rap.
To rip from a blog, it’s pretty obvious that the mainstream media doesn’t get religion.
mg.,
I disagree. Liberals are, for the most part, given deference on such things. The only ones who call them out are ‘conservatives.’ But when a ‘conservative’ makes such statements, he/she gets it from both sides–liberal and conservative.
The mainstream media gets religion. That’s not what they misunderstand. What they don’t understand, in my opinion, is when people actually live it out. It’s like they say, “Oh, religion is great, but we didn’t know people actually believed it.” So when it is genuine, and I have no reason to believe Hume is being disingenuous, that’s when it starts to infuriate people.
Does that make sense? I might have muddled my point a little.
jerry
MG (#107), if Oby made such a comment, we’d hear about it — on page Z32 in the newspaper, and as a 2-week special production of FotF.
But otherwise, things would be as silent as John Chisham being asked specific and pointed questions.
Re:110
Yeah, I think that liberals call out conservatives, and conservatives call out liberals. The interesting thing is when it’s outrageous enough that it really captures both sides attention…
which brings me to 111… I can think of many instances of religious intolerance that captured the public imagination… and they almost all relate to Christianity.
The Last Temptation of Christ
That blasphemous artist (Andres something or other?)
Russell Brand mocking purity rings…
I’m amazed that in a country filled with hundreds of millions of professing Christians, people really believe that religious minorities are better able to get their protests out there than the religious majority.
Really?
MG (#112),
98% of the stories about the protesters (who multiplied the box office for Last Temptation by twenty-fold) were on CBN. The other 2% were to fill 90 seconds of dead air on Eyewitness News.
I don’t know what artist you’re referencing — there are many of those weirdos out there — but the 98/2 ratio holds for the ones that I can recall.
I had to use google-fu to find out who Russell Brand is.
So I’m not really seeing how any of that “captured the public imagination”.
#31. Wait!?! Al Franklin is gay?
RE:113
That’s my point. There are lots and lots of Christians out there. And they make a fuss and they create stories. Google Russell Brand and purity rings. It made mainstream coverage. Google Andres Serrano, he makes mainstream media coverage.
Glenn Beck compares the Ganges to a disease, and there is a whimper, most of it from liberal bloggers.
I’m sorry, but I have as much sympathy for the “oh we can’t be Christian anymore because we’re persecuted” as I do for people who think it’s really tough to be a white male in our society. (I hope you don’t believe that too)
In the end, I think the uproar with Brit Hume is about the message, rather than the religion. We live in a society that is very uncomfortable (intolerant, really) of strong religious truth claims.
Michael Gerson has a good op-ed in the Post about it, and I largely agree with his analysis.
Kinda sorta related, but I always found it ironic during the Bush years when journalist, bloggers, or whoever would write articles complaining about how the government was violating their first amendment rights in some way. I mean, as far as I know, their articles never got pulled and none of them were visited by jack-booted thugs. If America were really becoming the totalitarian state they were portraying, the totalitarian leadership was doing a very bad job at doing it.
My opinion on these matters is usually the same:
Phil, you obviously aren’t paying attention. America, indeed the planet, is becoming a prison.
Even a moderate like Alex Jones thinks so. For example, watch as the proposed Body Scanners become Mind Reading Machines. It’s only a matter of time.
Or how just before Obama was sworn into office every right-wing radio talk show host was swearing on their lives that they would be out of business within a few months and everyone’s guns would be collected within the year.
Paul,
Having been through the “lite” version of Israeli security (I flew Turkish Air, not El Al), I certainly felt much safer traveling through Israel than I have on other international flights. At Ben Gurion, I got pulled aside for “special treatment” with some other folks on my trip – it turns out every one of us had “water shoes” (for our trip through Hezekiah’s Tunnel), and the security guys opened our luggage, in every case, to the exact place where the shoes were.
Family members and business colleagues who have flown El Al have told me stories about security screening that began the day before with personal interviews, and that’s cool with me.
I find the hand-wringing over “civil rights” and “privacy’ when it comes to airline travel to be more than a little bit ludicrous. Fine – you don’t want to go through a full-body scanner (with chemical “sniffer”) and other profiling, then don’t fly.
Chris, just kidding in 119.
But I’ve flown El Al once from Toronto to LA. What an experience.
The check-in area is separated from all others, and you are greeted with some sort of Special Forces unit. The security was bar none, the best ever. They were using machines I’ve never seen before or since and they use them multiple times.
Right before boarding the plane, I got a little nervous when portable screens were set up, some more guards put on latex gloves and asked us one by one to step behind the screen.
My business partner, envisioning the worst, said, “That’s it! I’m outta here. This is getting out of hand.”
Luckily, they just did an in-depth pat-down and investigated Blackberries, etc.
Quite an experience.
Well, yes, there is paranoia on both sides. I do think, though, that The Fairness Doctrine, which is what all the talk from radio was about is an inherently unconstitutional thing.
A radio station owner should be able to broadcast pretty much whatever he wants to without having to worry about giving “equal time” to other views.
The tricky thing with El Al is that Ben Gurion International Airport, which is their major hub, handles roughly the same number of passengers as the Sacramento airport.
We could do the intense profiling that they engage in and hire the high-caliber professionals they do… only if we’re ready to conduct 10% of the flights we currently handle and pay 10 times what we currently pay to fly.
MG – let me also add that El Al has the best in-flight menu of all the airlines I’ve flown.
#93 He claims to be a member, and if he is a member, that would require that he would be subject to a little thing called church discipline.
Of course, anyone can attend ( and many probably do) without becoming members. Membership should have a call to being a believer and bearing fruit in keeping with repentance. It is a bad testimony to say I am a member and then live like a pagan.
#103 and #104
You all are missing the point.
Missional: Looking like, talking like, acting like the world so that Christ is interesting to them.
This is a random picture of goth, punk, and I might add some normal folk. It is not a judgement that they are not saved. It is not a condemnation on the way they look. I just could not find a picture of a youth pastor with penut butter in their armpits. When I do that, I will replace the picture
Chad (#120), that is so apples and oranges. Please go back and read your post and Phil’s again, and notice the verb tenses.
The paranoia on the left in the Bush years was expressed as what the gov’t was supposedly doing (but actually not even close to doing).
The paranoia on the right was prediction of what they thought would happen in the future, based on promises that Obama made to the far left kooks. Thankfully, the prognostication was wrong.
The right’s only mistake was believing Obama when his lips were moving.
PB (#126) — He claims to be a member…
And you believe the word of a “porn purveyor”? Please explain to us how/why you buy into what Murdoch says when it fits into your template.
#128 – oh, of course.
verb tenses. how silly of me.
lol.
Chad, thank you for your thoughtful responses. Did you learn that whole “latch onto one or two words and evade the actual point” thing from Ken Silva? Because you do it almost as well as he does.
I’ll jump in, Brendt.
Do you mind providing which promises that Obama made to “left wing kooks,” and then explaining why it was reasonable for people to then conclude that Obama was going to
1.) destroy the U.S. economy
2.) gather all of the guns
3.) install a Marxist state, abolishing the constitution.
I’m curious. Really.
Brendt, you are welcome.
Hey, back off man, that was a promise Obama actually kept! (I kid, I kid!)
I am not surprised nor disappointed that a number of promises made by an incoming president have not been kept. Honestly, I could care less.
My point to Phil, Brendt, despite your constipation over verb tenses, was that the “right” had no shortage of fear-mongering over the election of Obama. I listened to talk radio nearly every day during that time (for sheer entertainment) and all of them were telling America their jobs were going to be lost, everyone’s guns were going to be confiscated and we would be a Marxist, socialist nation within the year (which is now). A load of crap. All of it
#128 is an example of how convenient short-term memory can be when politics is involved.
MG (#133), not sure if this will fully answer your question, but I’ll take a shot. Some of these may not be direct promises (so I stepped a bit overboard with that part of my statement), but they do speak to where the paranoia probably came from.
a) “The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8 ) Side note: Not that he’s done much, yet, but I’m pretty sure he’s done one or two things. Why isn’t PP incessantly on his case for breaking that promise?
b) Even in his state sentorial days, he was talking up “redistribution of wealth” — and those are his words, not the words of conservative pundits. You may disagree, but most conservatives feel that this would definitely bring about #1 (on your list) and be a step toward #3.
c) The few times that he didn’t vote “present” (wow, you’re actually here? what dedication) earned him a ranking of one of the most liberal US senators in his short term of office. While they may not have always come from Obama’s mouth, the ideas/plans given by the left — even by people more conservative than he — lead to all three. It is not at all unreasonable to conclude that such an administration, backed by both houses of Congress controlled by the same party would get lots of stuff done really fast.
M.G.
Perhaps your questions overloaded the Faux News blather servers?
I posted 139 at the same time 138 was posted.
I think that is a pretty fair assessment.
It finally struck me; who you always reminded me of Ruby.
God Love you, man!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_(short_story)
ps: you’d have to read the story to understand
‘course, church membership is a man-made tradition… i’m surprised you put so much stock in a man-made tradition.
OK, Chad, I’ll type more slowly this time.
I’m not denying that conservative pundits were decrying the upcoming election/installation of Obama. I’d even agree that some of them went significantly overboard in what they predicted. But their statements were in reference to what they feared would happen (future tense).
In contrast, the statements of the left during the Bush administration (to which Phil referred) was over stuff that they were claiming was happening at that very moment (present tense).
Even if we disregard the fact that their claims about Bush were demonstrably (sometimes laughably) false, it is clear that one cannot directly correlate these allegations to future prognostication.
Chad (#140): I think that is a pretty fair assessment.
I take back my Silva comment and apologize for my error.
It’s obvious that you taught him, Jedi-Master.
Brendt,
I find it funny that it is only after I have shown numerous ways various writers on this site are like Silva and the other ODMs that I am now compared to the same. It’s a game of who can say it the most to make it true.
What’s funny about it is it doesn’t matter to me. I am not the one who set up a site committed to debunking Silva and his cronies – you and your pals are. So comparing me to Silva is really nothing to me.
Wow, Chad (#145), you truly are a Jedi-Master. Even when responding to this, you latch on to “Silva”, and totally ignore the actual issue of ignoring the real point. We’re dangerously close to an infinite loop here.
Re: 143
I’m really confused by your thinking that the distinction is somehow significant or that Chad’s comment encapsulated every single right-wing complaint about Obama.
Right now, there are plenty of conservatives who are convinced that Obama IS destroying America, instituting socialism, destroying religious freedom, etc., etc. (Present tense).
There are nutjobs on both sides.
Point is, we have a President who ordered a surge in Afghanistan, kept the Patriot Act, kept to the timetable in Iraq, and has shown a repeated willingness to compromise significantly with Congress in order to pass legislation. Obama has surrounded himself with former Clinton officials, and has (besides for language) essentially kept Bush’s foreign policy in place.
We have a center-left President. And yet Republicans are more angry at this President than ever before in history. (Barely eclipsing the rage the left had over GWB. Barely).
It’s madness.
Brendt,
You are the one who brought up Silva, not me. Grow up.
And I don’t care about the difference between future or present. M.G. summed it up well enough. That is not the point and you are trying to make it the point.
All you have accomplished is proving that the “left” addressed concerns as they were happening while the “right” expressed fears that were in the future.
One need only to turn on Faux News any hour of the day to hear the fear-mongers trying to grab on to something else to scare their base with, since the last thing didn’t seem to pan out.
Oh, and btw, have I mentioned that I could care less?
And btw, Brendt, why don’t you read Phil’s response to me in #123 (I was responding to him, not you, as I recall) which was very reasonable and didn’t latch on to the silly rabbit trail you butted in with?
You just had to charge in and defend your GOP, huh?
MG (#147), I don’t disagree with you regarding present conservative reaction to the administration and Congress. But that was not what Chad said at all. He directly correlated present tense claims of the left with future tense predictions of the right.
As to your assessment of Obama’s performance/activities thus far, please tell me that you’re not naive enough to think that this is what would be done if not bound by pragmatism.
And the point ONLY being that both sides play the fear card
You are being petty
Chad (#148): have I mentioned that I could care less?
Yeah, I can tell by how you keep rebutting the notion every time I raise it.
Chad (#149): You just had to charge in and defend your GOP, huh?
You criticize “A”. I state that your criticism of “A” was inaccurate. You assume that I am a supporter of “A”.
I’d say who else makes that tiresome assumption all the time, but you’ve already said that you couldn’t care less.
Chad (#149): you butted in with
Well, at least we’re kinda back on topic. Me and Hume — both running our mouths at inappropriate times.
I don’t consider myself particularly naïve. I recognize that Obama is compromising. In fact, that’s what I said in my previous comment, no?
In any event, yes, Obama would support single-payer if it could pass. He’s also probably prefer a more progressive tax code, a smaller military, etc., etc.
Foreign policy wise, he certainly wasn’t forced to order a surge. And he isn’t forced to keep much of Bush’s foreign policy in place. I think that’s merely a function that the Executive branch, necessarily, skews conservative in the way that the legislative or judicial branches do not.
Regardless, Obama is clearly a liberal. Gasp. Shocking. But he isn’t a Marxist, the anti-Christ, etc.
Chad (#151): And the point ONLY being that both sides play the fear card
Well, see, I don’t have “discernment”, so I can’t read your mind.
With the exception of the fact that you’ve already used your lifetime quota for the word “fear”, I even agree with your assessment.
MG (#153), not even Chad has the chutzpah to use the word “progressive”.
I agree with your assessment of all administrations skewing conservative when it comes to foreign policy — that’s at least part of what I was referring to regarding pragmatism.
RE: 155
That’s not pragmatism, that’s power. Presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, love power. Mmmm. Tasty stuff.
And how do we, generally speaking, classify a strong executive branch, willing to use military might to accomplish its ends?
The word starts with a C…
I think that a lot of conservatives’ present fears are based on the notion that, at some point, the administration is going to grow tired of the pragmatism (esp regarding domestic policy) and just go with their idealism.
Brendt, you are right. And it should be more than just Republicans. All thinking Americans should remain vigilant.
I fear this day is coming soon.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/international_con_man_barack_obama
There are no such things as liberals and conservatives. They are man made labels.
When we get involved with politics, we consciously and subconsciously begin to gategorize people and look at them differently. There are only lost sinners and saved sinners, and to divide people is wrong.
So the same man who decries dividing people because of race, will without conscience divide people according to their political persuasion. That is unredemptive and surely unchristlike.
We are called to love people, but that calling becomes impossible if we see people differently and exhibit levels of embracement and levels of rejection based solely upon their political affiliation. And this all goes back to who do we see ourselves as?
Are we followers of Jesus, or followers of moral and political issues who happen to believe in Jesus? Some of you here rightly point out the shallowness of the sinner’s prayer construct and the “left behind” mindset. But most believers and churches that embrace such things are aggressively “right wing” and are ardent supporters and quoters of rightwing radio and television personalities. Can you not see how offensive that is to the very fabric of the everlasting gospel?
Politics offers no redemption, and in fact, arrays battle lines against people simply because they may see things differently and even wrongly. The gospel is FOR the wrong people! It reaches out to the Barney Franks and Barak Obama’s of this world. And that is the foundational point I was making as it concerns not just Brit Hume, but the genre in which he operates and how that very political construct obfuscates the gospel message and completely dismembers the very essence of redemption.
These types of forums encourage labels, name calling, and demeaning satire. The same man who abhors the satirical posters that PB posts has no qualms making verbal slights againt President Obama (for instance). Thou that judges he who makes satirical posters, dost thou speak such things as well?
But strip away the particulars. Wipe away all the positional conflicts that must be won in part by demeaning your oponent’s motives and intelligence. Now ask yourself, what is the catalyst for such unchristian behavior? I used to watch certain politicians on televison and as soon as their face appeared it would elicit disgust. Was that Christ? Was that the Spirit being disgusted at them?
That is when I began to question why this was happening inside of me, and everyone knows about which I speak. I realized that politics was the antithesis of the gospel.
Politics divides. The gospel unites.
Politics demeans. The gospel lifts up.
Politics destroys. The gospel redeems.
Politics is led by men. The gospel is led by Jesus.
Politics seeks to destroy its enemies. The gospel dies for its enemies.
I pray God will use Brit Hume. But I also pray that the Spirit will begin to sanctify him and lead him away from a genre that is completely at odds with the divine calling he now feels. From Hannity to Oberman and everywhere in between, we must follow only one Master and be used of God to reach into that dunghill, regardless of anyone’s political affiliation, and be redeemed repairers of the breach. There is no other way to truly follow Jesus.
Who else has such an opportunity to speak into the lives of such folks? Does our sanctification, becoming more like Christ, heighten our compassion for lost people who are all around us in our vocation? Or does being sanctified mean leaving our work and huddling with a bunch of like minded people and not engaging the world? I fail to see the compassion in this stand. Being missional does not mean looking like and acting like and talking like people in the world, in means intentionally engaging them with the Gospel. I disagree, Brit Hume and Mike Huckabee are exactly where God has placed them and called them.
You mean compassion like your self-righteous, belittling posters on your blog, John Chisham?
So if Hugh Hefner got saved he should reamin in that genre? I consider the political talk/attack show genre as sin. I have never heard Hume or Huckabee give the gospel on Fox, and if they did it would still be like a stripper giving the gospel while at work.
Your view on Hume is tainted because he is “conservative”. Would you recommend Keith Oberman stay with countdown if he became a believer? What better forum? And would it be OK if his show remained with the same views and format?
Oh, that’s right, when a sinner gets saved he becomes politically conservative or his conversion wasn’t real.
Rick,
I don’t think that Hefner at Playboy mansion and the set of Fox News are fair comparisons (even if both require drugs to derive a benefit).
“Politics” in and of itself, is not evil. Politics is, essentially, the way people are organized together. Politics is part of our every day lives whether we acknowledge it or not. Now, how we use politics can be sinful, but politics itself is benign.
I think God can use any number of people in any sort of career path. It can be a good thing to have a Christian voice within the sphere of politics. I do not think that just because you become a Christian you must leave the field of political discourse.
So calling Obama the “messiah” and a long stream of demeaning names isn’t sin? Glenn Beck saying Obama hates white people isn’t sin? The constant stream of demeaning and self righteous language from Coulter and Hannity, that isn’t sin?
In my mind attacking and demeaning people is as great a sin as being a stripper – maybe worse.
Even Chris L. has taken demeaning swipes and lables at Obama. When is Christianity appropriate? Show me the political genre that respects all others and you know what people call that?
Compromise.
Rick, as I said, how we use politics can be sinful.
I think it’s terrible (and sinful) the way they attack each other and demean one another, all because their political views differ from one another.
People in all sorts of professions act like idiots. That doesn’t mean their professional is necessarily sinful.
Point me to the American political section that operates with respect, compassion, fiscal responsibility, humility, and redemption and I will sign up. Western politics by design is carnal and fleshly and self promoting.
Rick,
I’ll admit we probably have never seen a political figure actually think theologically inside of their profession. This does not mean it cannot be done.
This has been one of my constant critiques of this site when the issue of politics comes up. Several of the writers here think through their political lens rather than a theological one far too often.
Rick, the same can be said of churches and pastors.
Look. Anytime humans get their hands on something the probability of it becoming carnal and “fleshly” and “self-serving” goes up exponentially.
But it doesn’t mean humans or the things they operate within (like politics) are beyond redemption.
Western government, like all governments, make up the “powers” that are every bit as fallen as you and I. Yet they were created for a purpose and they were created in and through Christ. The call to work within those “powers” in hopes of aligning them in some small way with the way of Christ is not a call everyone hears or heeds and is not something everyone can or should do.
The western political system is leveraged by money, access, and personal aggrandizement. The western pastorate in many cases has much of the same construcet.
In effect, it is blind fish swimming in a humanistic and hedonistic pool, and with no common moorings except what helps #1. I scratch your gills and you scratch mine.
And what really gets me is this: How many (not you Chad) believers insist that politics can be used of God and that believers can be involved in them, but they continue to operate within it with some of the same unchristian speech and behavior. I am open to review a political believer who overtly and remarkably represents Christ – not on issues – but in tone, humility, and redemption.
A man is a carpenter and for a living builds houses. He comes to a saving knowledge of Christ. Does he then stop building houses and only build churches?
Apples and oranges, Scotty. I am speaking of a system that attempts to rule people, make laws of morality, and receive and spend taxes. All while profitteering from said system.
And too many of our commenters just don’t think at all.
Very nice, Jerry.
Try not to be text book case of what Rick is talking about.
Rick, if Keith Olberman became a Christian and decided to stay in his genre, I would be all for it. I would only expect that the change would be one that would be noticable not in his politics, necessarily, but in his tone. Brit Hume cannot be called anything but a gentleman.
Glen Beck is not a Christian, he is a Mormon.
Sean Hannity is not a Christian, he is a Catholic.
Bill O’ Reilly is not a Christian, he is a Catholic.
None of the other people ( I don’t even think Brit Hume) claim to be born-again.
Any human endeavor in which there’s an element of competition involved can become decisive. I could own a store that sells men’s clothing and so could someone else in the church. If I’m not careful, that could develop into a division. That doesn’t mean selling men’s clothing is inherently evil.
It all depends on our personal outlook on these. If we can’t get involved in politics without demonizing those who don’t agree with us, than it’s probably best to stay uninvolved. However, I don’t think every Christian who votes is a rabid partisan. Actually, if you look at polling of Americans, the amount of political involvement has steadily declined over the last 50 years.
Of course the extreme voices on either side get the most press, and I’ve found that even people who are relatively reserved in their views can be goaded to become more extreme given the right trigger. So I guess it is something to be on guard for. I don’t like taking the attitude that outright condemn huge parts of the church just because they see something differently than I do.
#162 are you saying the pastors on my posters on my blog are lost, chad?
Here I thought everyone is saved.
Of course, in your world the truth does not matter. Did anyone bother looking at the update?
Chad,
I’m just a fella trying to find the right words to say that you will approve of so that I can stop being such a disappointment to you. I see I’m failing. But I’m daring to dream…daring to dream….and someday, by the help of the Buddha I just might make it.
#181
Try Allah, I hear he’s really tolerant.
It’s not apples and oranges, Rick, when staying with the original intent of the OP and Brit Hume. I’m talking about the news business, Rick. And should Christians be in that business.
Sorry – I was speaking of politics not the news business. I think the closest to respectful news is the PBS.
PB – Did you take down all those posters?
#185 click on the tab to the right.
Thank you Holy Spirit, John Chisham, for declaring definitively that Doug Pagitt, Shane Hipps, Phyllis Tickle and Rob Bell are non-members of the Body of Christ. I will make sure to come to you when I have other questions about people’s salvation so that you can make a judgment for me.
Rick, why are you offended at the posters? Some of them are actually rather funny…
#187, where did I say anything remotely like this?
From the introduction to the posters:
“No modern church person was hurt (physically) in the making of these posters. These posters illustrate the modern institutional church, whom are non members of the true Bride of Christ.”
Point 1: It is okay to hurt people non-physically through what you write on your hate blog. This must mean that you are divine because you have decided to change Scriptural teachings about how we love one another.
Point 2: “non members of the true body of Christ” – You made the declaration. You must be divine.
Poorly worded. Fixed.
Thank you for the change…So is the next one going to be a picture of you for your lack of faithfulness to the word of God and its teachings regarding how to treat others? I could come up with several for you…
PB – I appreciate you changing that one poster. Although I find some satire to be informational and some designed to wound, I abhor using the unsaved for satire. Jay Bakker is faier game in that context.
Corey, those posters are either direct quotes from those people, or, they are interpretations of ideas that they promote. How is it unloving to go after ideas that are unbiblical? I do not understand your reasoning. I do not hate any of those people. I hate what they preach.
Corey, I think it is the ultimate hatred towards others is to lie about their condition, to not reprove their understanding, to be complacent that it will all work out in the end. I honestly believe that when people die that they will either receive justice for sin not paid for, or mercy because they have believed the gospel.
Do you not believe the same?
If you were truly concerned about their souls, you wouldn’t make mocking posters of them. That is simply a lie to make yourself appear to have pure motives. You make them to mock and ridicule and spew hate toward them as is evident by the laughing and joking about these people on your facebook page. You could not care less about their souls. You just want to score points and make yourself appear clever.
Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. http://read.ly/Prov9.8.KJV
Again, I am not mocking them, I am mocking their ideas.
Jesus and Paul were both very adept at using sarcasm and mockery to make a point.
This is also an effective tool for the visual learner to be able to better understand the heretical teachings. It also breaks them down into small bites for the MtV generation to be able to consume.
Corey, are you judging me? I am feeling pretty judged by you. I am not sure if that is very loving.
Psalm 1: 1 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.
Proverbs 1: 22 “How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 3: 34 He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble.
Proverbs 29: 8 Mockers stir up a city, but wise men turn away anger.
Right back atcha…This is fun! Let’s do another!!
Nope…I’m rebuking you…So you better respond with love or you’ll prove yourself to be in the ’scorner’ camp
Hmmmmm… One out of three judged correctly…
FYI – Brit Hume is Anglican.
Or their theological lens happens to inform their political lens, rather than vice-versa…
#203–you better watch out or Chad might accuse you of being a poster child illustrating his point.
Jerry-
Actually, Chris L is entitled to his opinion of 203. I disagree with it, but he’s entitled to it.
You, on the other hand, just tried to insult me. Not that Chris L hasn’t done that plenty of times in the past, but he didn’t do it here.