Sunday, January 10, 2010

Knee Deep In The Hoopla-Destination, Dark Ages

When Brit Hume suggests that Tiger Woods should think of becoming a Christian in order to achieve the kind of forgiveness that isn't available in Buddhism-which is Wood's stated religious belief-it behooves us to look rationally at what he is really saying, as opposed to the knee-jerk reactions that we typically see from most pundits who want to shut out any and all kind of public discourse regarding matters of faith.

The first thing we need to look at is the difference between the two faiths, and their usual approach to such matters as the Tiger Woods scandal. I am neither an expert at Buddhism or Christianity, but the main applicable difference, as I see it, is-

In Buddhism, one is taught that attachment to the material world is the cause of all hardships, grief, and anxiety. In order to extricate oneself from this situation, one needs to withdraw from the source of the problem. Otherwise, much like the oft-quoted definition of insanity, you are bound to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

In the case of Tiger Woods, the question becomes, to what extent is his personal peccadilloes, his sexual infidelities and the resultant marital woes, an outgrowth of the fame, wealth, and the adulation of his pro-golf life and lifestyle. An honest assessment might reveal that they are directly related. Or, this might not be the case, but it is almost a foregone conclusion that Wood's personal life and problems have certainly been enhanced as well as negatively influenced by his public persona.

The Buddhist approach would almost certainly suggest that, in order to begin the healing process, Woods should withdraw from public life, from professional golf, possibly even completely from golf, withdraw at least temporarily but for an extended time into a life of seclusion and reflection. There is a good probability that he would be led to withdraw permanently from his former life. There is even a chance he might be led to withdraw from any form of social life, including any present, past, or potentially future romantic or sexual relationships-including his relationship with his wife.

The Christian approach might be entirely different. Although it would almost definitely suggest a similar need for temporary withdrawal, prayer, and reflection, this would be more of a very brief and temporary approach, mainly to afford Woods a breathing space. It would be up to Woods to honestly look at where he needs to change his life, but the main thing he would be asked to look at is how, as a sinner, he can not possibly change himself, no matter how badly he might honestly want to do so.

The Christian answer would be for Woods to turn his life over to God by asking for forgiveness of his sins through the blood shed by Jesus Christ on the cross. He would be assured that by trusting in the shed blood of Christ, his sins would be forgiven. However, he must honestly desire this, and the only way this can possibly come about is if he recognizes the fact of his sinful nature and his need for God and for God's forgiveness.

What would follow is an incremental growing process. Once Woods is saved, it must be stressed that this does not mean that he is a changed person inside and out. He should, if truly saved, desire to change his life by following the Biblical command of Jesus to "go, and sin no more". There is no assurance that Woods would never sin again. There is only the assurance that, if he has faith, he can change, and he can grow. God can make of him a "new creature". Whether or not Woods remains in the world of pro-golf, with all the public pressure that brings, is up to him. But, it might well be a greater inducement for him to remain faithful, so he would doubtless bee encouraged to remain in the world of pro-golf.

The Bible never states that any such change is easy. In fact, it promises, in effect, that there will be a constant war between the spirit and the flesh. He would definitely be encouraged to reconcile with his wife, if that is at all possible, and he would be strongly discouraged, quite naturally, from any further extra-marital affairs (or premarital sexual relationships should he fail to reconcile with his wife).

But the main thing that should be stressed is that Brit Hume was, I think, referring to the effect on Tiger Woods life in the here and now should he become a Christian, as much as he was talking about the afterlife and prospect of going to heaven.

That is what Brit Hume meant, I think, when he made the statement that God would use Woods, if he became a Christian, as an example of his power and grace, of how through him such a person can rise above their sinful natures and be better than ever. There would not necessarily be a need to abandon the sport he loves that has brought him such success, and in fact, more than likely the world of pro-golf would remain an important part of Woods life, and God's plan, whereas in Buddhism, Woods would almost certainly be or feel encouraged to abandon that life completely, and irrevocably.

That's the way I look at Hume's statement anyway. I am sure there will continue to be those who will say that people like Hume should not make such public statements proselytizing for his faith. Well, for one thing, Hume is speaking from personal experience. He became a devout Christian following the death of his son, and it has helped him cope with the loss. His advice to Tiger was something that he felt obligated to offer in return for what he honestly feels God has done for him.

I would also point out that Hume made this statement in his capacity as commentator, not as a hard news reporter, but many others don't see it that way. Others simply disagree.

For other views on this complex subject and controversy, I would direct you to the following sites.

Buddhists are by no means in agreement with Hume's assessment, as might be expected, and this article points out that, if fact, Buddhists tend to to be more faithful in the marital relationships than Christians.

Atheists are by and large incensed, of course, incensed that the subject has even come up at all in the public sphere. One such site has honored Hume with the appellation Idiot Of The Week.

The Washington Post has an excellent piece up, by columnist Michael Gerson, which defends Brit Humes First Amendment right to express his opinion on the subject.

Gerson's column in fact expresses my sentiments exactly. As far as I'm concerned, the only people who need or deserved to be shut out of public discourse are those people and their ideals that proclaim the need to shut anyone or anything else out of public discourse.

So yes, I can defend Hume's right to make such statements without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with him, and I give short shrift to anyone that deigns it their constitutional right to limit the constitutional rights of others, even news commentators and Christians, out of some misguided notion or ideal of the need for laser guided and targeted tolerance or sensitivity.

I could and well might at some point offer reasons as to why I think Tiger Woods-or for that matter Brit Hume-might consider becoming a pagan. Such a proposal, were it ever to see the light of day in a major media outlet, might well be the subject of mirth in many quarters, but I seriously doubt I would be criticized for intolerance or insensitivity in the inherent implication that I dare to publicly proclaim my own faith superior to any other.

We're headed deeper and deeper these days into the well-charted but yet uncertain dark waters of a very old kind of intolerance. If we don't set a firm course of resistance, we might well find ourselves in way over our heads.

13 comments:

beakerkin said...

It was a silly comment by Hume and no need for uproar. This comment got way more coverage than Rosie's 9-11 conspiracy crap.

Frank Partisan said...

I would have expected Hume to be smarter. I guess I'm wrong.

OT: Judas is portrayed as betraying Christ to the Romans. If Christ did as it is written, what could Judas have said, that the Roman officials didn't know?

Anonymous said...

Did Judas betray Christ to the "Romans" or to the jealousies and fears of the Jewish priesthood?

Follow the money.

Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve; he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers of the temple police about how he might betray him to them. They were greatly pleased and agreed to give him money. So he consented and began to look for an opportunity to betray him to them when no crowd was present. [Luke 22:3-6, NRSV]

Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. When they heard it, they were greatly pleased, and promised to give him money. So he began to look for an opportunity to betray him. [Mark 14:10-11, NRSV]

SecondComingOfBast said...

Ren-

FJ is correct. The Romans supposedly had no problem with Christ, who did not promote armed insurrection. Jesus preached a spiritually based "Kingdom of God", which he said was "not of this world", but was "within".

Judas betrayed him to the Jewish Sanhedrin, not the Romans, and the charge against him was heresy, for proclaiming himself to be the son of God. Bear in mind this was not something Jesus said publicly, he proclaimed this to none but his closest followers, unless I am mistaken, so the Jewish elders needed a witness to testify against him.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

On Tiger Woods and Buddhism - one of the mandates of Dharma is not to abuse / misuse sex. Though Buddhism does not per se have concepts of "sin" and "blasphemy" the Eightfold Path is indeed concerned with "rightness" or "correctness" (right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration) which infers that there are many "wrongs" or "incorrectnesses" that bring suffering, the ultimate suffering coming from the desire for things to not be what they are (Tiger Woods desired it to be "correct" to cheat on his wife as long as she didn't know).

Brit Hume converting Tiger Woods to Christianity isn't going to make Tiger Woods' actions "right" or "correct" but rather transform him from a lousy Buddhist to a lousy Christian.

---

On Jesus, I want no part of "hippy" peaceful Jesus interpretations.

The man was going to be stoned to death by crowds a few times before he was arrested and crucified by the Romans. He escaped those stonings. That some of his followers carried swords likely had something to do with it. You don't walk away from a crowd stoning you. You fight your way out.

Anonymous said...

I'd be interested in why Tiger Woods should become a pagan.

***

Hippy Jesus?

Probably the most effective way to prevent being stoned is to mingle with those throwing them. "He passed through their midst and departed."

Start pulling out swords and knives and people will move away. That presents a target.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Beamish-

I was mainly just defending Hume's right to express his opinion, which he did as a commentator on a panel. In criticizing Hume, people are misrepresenting what he said so far as why Christianity might be a better choice for Woods than Buddhism, so I just made an attempt to expand on what I think he was getting at.

"Brit Hume converting Tiger Woods to Christianity isn't going to make Tiger Woods' actions "right" or "correct" but rather transform him from a lousy Buddhist to a lousy Christian."

Granted, Woods was a lousy Buddhist, but I don't think Hume was saying that if Woods converted he would magically become a "good" person just because he became a Christian. I don't think even the most devout Christian believes that.

Being "saved", to a Christian, just takes faith. That in itself might not be so easy, granted, but actually becoming a better person really takes a special effort. Hume is probably making the assumption that once Woods was saved, it would have the effect of making him want to work on being a better person, whereas Buddhism evidently never inspired him to make the attempt.

To my way of thinking, this was probably because he never really immersed himself in the philosophy of Buddhism to begin with, other than a few rounds of meditation geared to improve his golf game.

I'm of the mind that a person doesn't really need religion of any kind to become a good person, or to work on becoming a better one. Nothing should inspire a person to change his ways quite like the prospect of losing tens or potentially hundreds of millions of dollars worth of endorsement deals over the course of a months time, your wife walking out on you with the kids and potentially taking you to the cleaners, and becoming the butt of jokes on late night television and Comedy Central, while going from one of the most admired men in America to one of the most reviled.

The main religion Woods should convert from might not be Buddhism so much as the one he's built up around himself where he's the god at the center of the only universe that matters-his own.

But as far as Hume goes, I think he was saying the only way Tiger can go with Buddhism is to walk away from his life as a professional golfer as it was a major source of all or most of his problems. In Christianity, he can remain in the world of pro-golf and God will use him to make an example of his power through the shed blood of Jesus.

In other words, he wasn't talking about salvation in this world so much as the effect of being saved on the here and now.

SecondComingOfBast said...

"he wasn't talking about salvation in this world so much as the effect of being saved on the here and now."

BRAIN FART DUrrrrr

I meant Hume wasn't talking so much about salvation in the next world (going to heaven) so much as the effect of being saved on Tiger's life in the here and now.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Tragedy-

He probably shouldn't be a pagan, but if he was one, he would be encouraged to take responsibility for his actions and work on making his life better, and himself a better and more responsible person. It might involve looking into discovering why his problems are what they are. Some of it might be genetic, not on a racial level but as an individual person with a specific DNA arrangement, but for the most part he should look at tracing the root causes of why he is what he is, and absolve to work on at least controlling his more destructive, self-debasing urges.

Some people just have to learn that in life, you are expected to make certain sacrifices as much for your own good as for anyone else. The benefits outweigh the inconveniences of, in his case, not balling every good looking white blond-haired woman he comes across. The question becomes, why is that such a big deal to him to the extent that he has up in the teens (that we know about) in numbers of women he is messing around with at any given time.

Does this fill some kind of void in his life that nothing else can fill, and if so, what is the reason for that void and what can he do about it, if anything? There might not be any easy answers, or any answers at all.

That statement in the Bible about the crowd wanting to stone Jesus, and how he just walked away from it, I always found confusing.

As for "hippy Jesus", maybe he was the First Century Jewish Che Guevara, who knows? Nobody really knows anything about him, actually, assuming he actually existed to begin with. Everything written about him, even the Gospels, was second hand. The Gospels weren't written by the Apostles they were named after, but by their followers. Mark was actually a disciple of Peter.

They were also written something like forty years after the fact.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Start pulling out swords and knives and people will move away. That presents a target.

Or, it clears a path for the target of the stoning to "pass throguh their midst and depart."

One of Jesus' followers cut off the ear of a Roman soldier coming to arrest Jesus at Gethsemane.

Jesus claimed he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.

Jesus didn't politely ask the moneychangers in the temple to leave.

Jesus was no peacenik.

And that's a good thing.

Rufus said...

I'm not really sure that Christians are saved by faith alone. Actually, we were always told that you're saved by God's grace and that it's well nigh impossible to know with any certainty if you've been saved. I think the Protestants have an idea of earning salvation by faith- as opposed to salvation by good works- but I'm still pretty sure that it ultimately comes by grace.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Rufus-

I think you are right, in that we are saved by God's grace, but I'm pretty sure it takes faith on the part of the person to gain that grace. God might reach out to the person and speak to his heart, but it is up to the person to answer that call or accept God's grace, which takes faith.

The works follows as a natural consequence to those who are blessed with that grace, but of themselves works does not save a person, they just serve to demonstrate the power of God's grace.

Anonymous said...

If Adoph Hitler funded a Christian cathedral, he'd have many more "works"" to speak for his soul's redemption then that of the most ardent and believing mendicant monk.

But which soul is more deserving?

That's where "Grace" comes in.