The Hoopla over Brit Hume’s Comment,
from a Christian Perspective
by Patrick Davis
Before starting on this comment I wanted to tell you of an interesting article that thoroughly covers the controversy here. The controversy is over Brit Hume’s comment that Tiger Woods would be better off if he turned to Christianity:
"I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.'"
From my perspective as a Christian, Brit’s comments do not seem to be controversial except that I do note that in giving news a reporter should strive towards fairness. But in this instance, Brit made the comment not as a reporter, but rather as a commentator as part of a panel discussion.
I suppose what strikes me as so odd is not the number, or the vitriol of those many other columnists (very well covered in the above link), but rather the sheer hypocrisy of our culture. Hillary, as much as I hate to admit it, was right about the 3 A.M. phone call. Obama, and his administration simply do not get it: the system is not working. Islam, not Christianity, has the violent history. It is the religion which says convert or die. It is the religion that murders cartoonists and rewards its most violent with promises of virgins.
Christianity in history has certainly had its faults; we find history full of Christians who have warped the good news to their own destructive ends. But the message of Christ has remained true to mankind, and the good news is still that Christ has come to redeem a lost world. To really believe that message is apparently too much for many in America, but it has always been too much for some. Rejection of Christ is nothing new, and that part of the gospel remains as fresh today as yesteryear: “But he that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten of the Father.” (John 3:18) When society tries to have equivalence of Islam and Christianity, they are right in one respect but wrong in the main comparison.
Christians have remained meek, seeking to change the heart from decisions; it is Islam which carries the sword, and preaches destruction. It is Christianity which has brought forth the flower of mankind while Islam brings forth the thorns and thistles of mankind. There is no moral equivalence between the two; equivalence between them does lie in the fact that they are both closed systems, and preclude all others necessarily as being correct. Islam seeks to control the closing of that system by destroying those who do not believe; Christians are content to warn the world of immanent judgment.
Hinduism, if I understand it at all, would be quite comfortable with adding the God of the Bible to its ever-growing list of gods. It is our jealous God who forbids all others. It is our jealous God who tells us that He will one day judge the world, not for its many sins, but rather for its rejection of Himself. For Woods to depart from false worship to the worship of the living God would be dramatic and permanent improvement. And it seems to me, that for Brit to say so is a quite normal observation for a Christian to make. Even those who are not Christian should surely be able to see the normalness of his comment. Bully for Brit’s comment! May he find other sources to more fully express his faith in the future.
Christianity is the one great difference that has lead western civilization to the most successful and tolerant government of all time. America, contrary to what the president says, is exceptional. Denying the exceptionalism which Christianity has given us is the first mark of the great fool. Unfortunately, it seems to be a growing mark that separates liberals from conservatives.