Brit, Tiger, Faith, and Media

Just when all the media noise and some of the rumors surrounding the Tiger Woods saga had begun to subside, a spin-off scandal began. Fox News journalist Brit Hume, a Christian whose faith has been known to colleagues and has been credited with sustaining him through the tragic suicide of his son, was asked what he would say to Tiger Woods. Innocent enough a question, one might surmise, and one stated in such a way as to allow him to speak freely without fear. What would he say?

However, a firestorm of protest, not to mention fodder for comedy and talk show hosts of many flavors, almost immediately ensued. It's a long list of indignant, incredulous media luminaries weighing in with their outrage. Don Imus, Jon stewart, Keith Olberman, Dan Savage, anyone who gets to pontificate for a living (as opposed to those of us who do it gratis). Why? Well, in the course of his comments, Mr. Hume apparently committed the unpardonable sin. How? He dared to suggest that Christianity offers a path to forgiveness and redemption which Buddhism, the nominal religion of Mr. Woods, could not match. In other words, Brit Hume had the audacity to suggest that one religion is actually superior to another.

In perusing the shows on which the comments have been aired, several things are immediately apparent. For starters, virtually all of them omit the introductory question to which Hume responded. I'm not sure how much difference this would actially make in the minds of his critics, but it should be noted that he responded to a hypothetical opportunity to speak directly to the world's most recently fallen hero. Secondly, it is universally taken an axiomatic that no religion should ever claim to be better than another. This, of course, owes to the fact that "everybody knows" that religious belief is one of those things built upon (blind) faith, not on any empirical evidence. It has to do with subjective preference, not objective validity. In this vein, even the claim that Christianity offers "a kind of forgiveness and redemption" that Buddhism cannot match is not to be tested, but dismissed as an example of hubris. One does not, according to prevailing canons in politically correct circle, simply test the claim, asking whether or not it is true that the tenets of the two faiths actually do differ (they do, by quite an astounding gap).

Hume also alluded to his belief that mention of the name of Jesus Christ is what sets off immediate reaction in the mainstream media. This is a familiar refrain to Christians, but one continually scoffed at by those who--well, by those who do the scoffing. Part of that scoffing in the present case comes in the form of twisting Hume's terms--forgiveness and redemption--into an extreme form of cheap grace. All Tiger needs to do, in the media rendering of Hume's position, is confess and move on. Relatively speaking, that's quite simple, a good deal. Completely missed is Hume's passion for the wholeness of Tiger Woods, matching a compassion over the loss of his family sure to ensue from this scandal.

I wonder, though, if all too much of the caricature is self-drawn by Christians. Does our passion for people extend to their wholeness, not merely to their forgiveness--and that without deeply felt conviction and remorse, not simply over what has been done, but over what one is? The world hated Christ, and he told us to expect it to hate those who are his as well. That doesn't mean we wear a persecution complex as a badge to be displayed; it means that speak with integrity and hope. That hope is what we must offer as the ultimate redemption, for Tiger Woods and Keith Olberman and Ken Miller alike.