The recent controversy over Brit Hume inviting Tiger Woods to seek redemption in Christianity rather than Buddhism elucidates three major themes that modern day pop and media culture do not seem to understand and thus, make unnecessarily complicated.
Brit Hume is a Senior Political Analyst and Fox News Sunday panelist and Tiger Woods became a gazillionaire by hitting a ball with a stick.
Within the context of the recent outing of Tiger Woods as a womanizing adulterer Brit Hume made the following comment1
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 with him. I think he’s lost his family. It’s not clear to me that — whether 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 depends 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 your faith — turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”
Some are shocked that Brit Hume did that which Christians have been doing for two millennia; from the very establishment of the new covenant. Indeed, something which is a part of Jesus’ words to His followers, something that is a part of the New Testament, something which is a part of traditional/biblical Christianity, the “great commission” itself.It may not be appreciated, it may make some uncomfortable, some may not like it, others may want to oppress Christians for following the dictates of their own religion but the fact is that in Matthew 28:19 Jesus stated, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations (NKJV).
Incidentally, note that He stated that “disciples” are to be made and not converts. It is not the task of Christians to convert people but to make people who convert into disciples. That is to say; to disciple those who convert since a disciple is one who wants to learn and are assisted along the way via those who are already in the way.
How this is controversial is flummoxing yet, only understood within the context of pop-culture and the politics of personal destruction via the eager anti-conservative media.
Comments made against Brit Hume have been as expected and shockingly militant as they are contradictory; these basically consist of correlating him with Al-Queda and or the Talibam in referring to him as dangerous.
Overall, Hume is being referred to as being intolerant, an exclusivist, one who lacks diversity, who is narrow minded and who thinks that he is right while Woods is wrong.
These are the lesson that emotionally driven pop-culture and fantastical media needs to learn:In referring to Brit Hume as intolerant what follows is that he should not be tolerated-the supposed tolerant do not tolerated the intolerant Hume and thus, become intolerant themselves.In referring to Brit Hume as an exclusivist what follows is that he is to be excluded-the supposed inclusivists do not include the exclusivist Hume and thus, become exclusivists themselves.In referring to Brit Hume as narrow minded what follows is that he should broaden, open, his mind and embrace alternate opinions-the supposed broad/open minded are not broad/open minded enough to embrace Hume’s opinions and thus, become narrow minded themselves.
In referring to Brit Hume as lacking diversity what follows is that the diversity of the supposed diverse is not diverse enough to embrace him-the supposed diverse demand that Hume embrace the pseudo-neo-diversity which does not amount to diversity but to uniformity.
The bottom line is that Brit Hume is intolerant, an exclusivist, lacks diversity and is narrow minded because his implication is that he is right and Tiger Woods is wrong-the supposed tolerant, inclusivist, diverse, broad/open minded respond by asserting that they are right and Hume is wrong.
Tolerance, inclusivism, diversity, broad/open minded used to mean, “I will tolerate, include, be diverse and broad/open minded about even that with which I disagree.” Now it means, “I will only tolerate, include, be diverse and broad/open minded about that with which I agree.”
In the USA, a country founded upon the premise of freedom of religious expression, Brit Hume has the right given to him by “our Creator_nature’s God” (as per the Declaration of Independence) to express his opinion and invite Tiger Woods to seek redemption in Christianity. Likewise, Tiger Woods has the right to choose one of, at least, two responses: he could say, “Yes” or he could say, “No.”
Is it really so very difficult and complex? If someone invites you anywhere to do anything you can answer in the same way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.