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.