Brit, Tiger & redemption

By now, you know the Tiger Woods story of 2009. It's a story that transcends golf: Serial adultery. Depending on who's counting, more than 1o, maybe 13, mistresses. A marriage in tatters. Abandonment by advertisers. Shame.

The issue came up on Fox News Sunday Jan. 3. Hume, a senior political analyst for Fox News and a regular on the program, weighed in on what he believes will be required for Woods to get his life, not his golf game, in order.

Here's what Hume said: "Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person, I think, is a very open question, and it's a tragic situation for him. I think he's lost his family. It's not clear to me if he'll be able to have a relationship with his children. But the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal—the extent to which he can recover—seems to me to depend on his faith. He's said to be a Buddhist; 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.'" (You can listen for yourself on this YouTube video.)

Storm of protest

 As you might imagine, Hume's comments ignited a verbal firestorm. He upset many Buddhists, of course. Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, and Tom Shales, TV critic for the Washington Post, vilified him. Ann Coulter, a political commentator and author, defended him. The blogs have been full of Hume lately—some for, some against.

Most of the arguments for and against Hume's comments have focused on (a) the propriety of a political commentator "proselytizing" on behalf of Christianity in a national news program and (b) the propriety of a famous Christian seemingly disrespecting another world religion in a national news program.

Missing the point

The more I read the blogs and the op/ed pieces and the transcripts of TV shows, the more I feel they're missing the point—at least from the Christian side of the equation. Two aspects of this are worth noting:

Wrong debate

First, Christians who agree with Hume should not be debating whether Hume had the right to say what he did (it's a free country, after all) or whether the people who have criticized him are fair to Christianity (some are; some aren't). Instead, the discussion should be about whether Hume's approach was the best way either to answer the plaguing problem of infidelity or to spread the gospel.

The answers are no and no.

With all the famous and semi-famous Christian adulterers making the news and/or the local gossiplines, proposing Christianity as morally superior to other religions gets zero traction in the publi square. Of course, Christians know our faith points to a higher ideal. But the moral failures of so many Chritian leaders, politicians, athletes, celebrities, clergy, deacons and what-not undermine public assertions that Christianity is superior to Buddhism or just about any other faith. Unbelievers just aren't buying it. And if you were they, you wouldn't, either.

Also, one of Christianity's major problems with evangelism—and maybe it's the major problem with evangelism—is that so many Christians start out by making practically everyone else angry. Sure, they defend themselves by quoting Jesus from Mark 13:13, "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved," as if social condemnation were a badge of honor. But Jesus' Great Commission to "make disciples" of all people requires more winsomeness than wilfullness. If Hume really wanted to help Woods turn his life around, he should've made an appointment, bought the golfer a cup of coffee and told him how Christ transformed Hume's life when his oldest son committed suicide more than a decade ago. That's a far better approach that using a major cable news program to suggest Woods can "trade up," religiously speaking.

Tell the truth clearly

And that leads to the second point: Christians should be discussing the theological accuracy of Hume's claim.

At it's simplest, it's on target: Faith in Christ can help turn anyone's life around. Coulter expressed it in a more earthy, yet memorable, way: "God sent his only son to get the crap beaten out of him, die for our sins and rise from the dead. If you believe that, you're in. Your sins are washed away from you—sins even worse than adultery!—because of the cross."

The problem isn't with what Hume says, but what he didn't say. OK, I know he was on TV and speaking time is measured in tenths of a second, so he didn't have the opportunity to dive into systematic theology. But still, his flat statement undersold Christianity to a broad audience that has multiplied many times over because of the controversy it touched off.

No cheap grace

Yes, Christianity can turn lives around. But Christianity is not cheap or easy. It's not some sort of cosmic/divine "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Millions of people heard—with justification—Hume imply a Christian can sin all he or she wants and it's all OK. That's not the gospel. Don't believe me? Read the Apostle Paul's letter to the Galatians. 

I wish Hume had been more nuanced. I wish he had explained the concept of repentance within redemption. Probably the show's producers wouldn't have allowed it. Not because they're anti-Christian, but because TV has to run on time. 

More than that, I wish Hume had used his clout and credentials to get a private meeting with Tiger Woods. Imagine the impact if the world's greatest golfer, now a tragic figure and the butt of jokes, could stand alongside his new Christian friend and say, "Just like Brit Hume, Jesus Christ transformed my life."