Update (1/5/09): For those “challenging” my comment about no separation of church and state in the Constitution, I addressed the issue in a post about John Kerry years ago. Check it out. Separation of church and state became a legal doctrine read into the document. The First Amendment does not forbid the federal government from dealing with religion absolutely; it forbids the establishment of a national religion and interference with religious exercise. Everything else was read into the Constitution, just like the so-called right of privacy to kill babies in utero. (Can you believe it?)
Additionally, some folks are misreading and misinterpreting Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
Update II: Christian apologist and author James White writes (emphases in original):
“The secularists are, of course, howling in protest, but if you read what they are saying, one obvious underlying theme comes to the fore. No one is offering reasoned, objective criticism of the substance of Hume’s comments, because, quite simply, he is right. Buddhism does not, in fact, provide for redemption and forgiveness, but instead directs one to look inward for enlightenment and eventual freedom from suffering (via freedom from desire). But redemption? Not in this life, for in its classical expression, this would involve a long process of moving toward enlightenment through many lifetimes. In any case, secularists do not care about the objective truth contained in Hume’s words, but instead they are enraged that he would actually dare to express his thoughts in public—the realm over which they now claim absolute authority and control.”
***
Get ready for the inevitable Brit Hume backlash over this:
That’s right. FOX News analyst Brit Hume, a Christian, advises Tiger Woods to become a Christian for true forgiveness and redemption.
Reams will be written in response to Hume’s statements, and I want to respond to at least one backlash post. Liberal Washington Monthly blogger Steve Benen’s a bit perturbed:
“It’s hard to even know where to start with something like this. How many high-profile Christians have had damaging sex scandals of late? Why is Buddhism deemed inadequate for those with family problems? Why is a senior political analyst for a so-called “news” network proselytizing, on the air, during one of the network’s ‘news’ programs?”
First, that “many high-profile Christians have had damaging sex scandals” doesn’t negate or contradict Christ’s call to repent of our sins, to confess faith in his finished work on the cross to blot out sin, and to obey his commands. Christians are still sinners, living in fallen bodies in a fallen world, and our behavior doesn’t absolve unbelievers of their call to believe.
Yes, I cringe every time I hear or read about people, high-profile or otherwise, who say they’re Christians and yet do the most shameful things. In fact, I’m ashamed of myself for the “un-Christian” things I do, even though I know, in my bones, I am forgiven.
The Bible teaches that when we become saved, Christ is working in us to make us more like him, and that work will be complete. Sometimes we rebel and give in to temptation. Living the Christian life in a world filled with vice is a struggle, at least for this Christian. But Christ’s grace and mercy toward us is boundless.
That’s what unbelievers don’t seem to get. The Christian isn’t sinless; he is forgiven. If that seems “unfair” to unbelievers, consider this: the God of justice who must punish sin is also the God of mercy. If he were fair, we’d all walk through the gates of hell. But because he is merciful, he’s offering YOU a way to avoid those gates. His name is Jesus Christ.
It’s also possible these “high-profile Christians have had damaging sex scandals” weren’t Christians at all.
Second, Brit wasn’t talking about whether Woods’s can recover his family. He said “whether he can recover as a person” depends on his faith. Hume added:
“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.’”
In this context, I understand “total recovery” to mean being born again in Christ, becoming a new creature, which won’t necessarily bring Woods’s family back together.
Then again, I admit my bias toward the Christian faith.
Third, about Hume’s proselytizing, while I admit I’d have a problem with a Muslim proselytizing on a news show, it would be a personal problem. There’s no separation of church and news program in the Constitution, just as there’s no separation of church and state in the document. If news analysts want to inject their faith into the format, why not? It’s not unethical, illegal, immoral, or fattening. It may offend the sensibilities of some viewers, but as I said, it’s a personal problem.
Comments on this entry are closed.