Tiger Woods' conversion to Christianity

Brit Hume, commentator on FOX News, just became a national news story for his brief comment on "FOX News Sunday" yesterday that Tiger Woods should convert to Christianity from Buddhism if he hopes to recover from the crisis he has made for himself. Here is the actual text of Hume's comments:

"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.'"

It's interesting how much attention Hume's comments have received for his momentary foray into the religious realm. Many people are responding--some very unfavorably--to what he said. On the one hand, it seems as if people feel as though he committed some kind of unforgivable sin by passing any kind of judgement on someone or something. In addition, however, there are a number of people who have extrapolated various interpretations out of what Hume said, seeming to jump to conclusions that he may (or may not) have been implying with his comments.

Beyond all of that, I would suggest that there is another way to evaluate his comments. It seems as I read back over them (and saw the exchange on video) that he is simply making a passing observation about a key theological distinction between Buddhism and Christianity. And it's that distinction that I would draw your attention to.

As Hume said, "I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith." The key question is, "Is he correct in his assessement on that point?"

In fact, he is, because one of the fundamental beliefs of Buddhism is that there is no concept of "sin". As such, then, if there is no sin, then there is no need for forgiveness or redemption. This is one of the major hurdles that Buddhism faces when set against the backdrop of evil in the world. If there is no sin, then we have lost the ability to judge evil and condemn it accordingly.

People will certainly argue about whether or not Buddhism or Christianity (or whatever belief system) is right for Tiger Woods. And they will often cite the inconsistencies lived out by professing Christians as evidence for dismissing the merits of Christianity. As I pointed out in my talk yesterday, however, there are a great many people who claim to be Christians, but claiming something doesn't necessarily make it true. Our actions must back up our words.

Are Christians perfect? Hardly. But that is all the more reason why we need the ability to ask for forgiveness and find the redemption that will ultimately be found in the one who perfectly saves...Jesus Christ. A point that Brit Hume was trying to make in a genuine effort to point Tiger toward the help that he so obviously needs.

UPDATE: As the "controversy" heats up, Brit Hume stands by his comments. On a side note, it's ironic how quickly people assume that someone is proselytizing when the subject of religion comes up...a subject which has become one of the forbidden topics of conversation in the public square of this "tolerant" society.

Comments

[Mike Erickson]

Well said, John.

[chris corwin]

ditto, mostly -- well said.

i don't agree with everything you said, of course, but you said it well.

;)

one change i'd make is that with this phrase:

> a key theological distinction between Buddhism and Christianity

this is (of course) overly simplistic, but it assumes that there is *a* christian theology, and sort of ignores the fact that buddhism completely ignores theology: it is not a religious faith, but rather a rational philosophy.

one can't have a theological distinction between the two, as the former does not make theological points.

one can be both a buddhist *and* a christian in a way that one can not be both a christian and a muslim, or a christian and hindu.

again: this is painting with quite a wide brush, and is therefore overly simplistic.

but it is essentially true.

the problem (and it IS a problem) that you've pointed out is something many agnostics and atheists share: where do we turn for forgiveness/redemption?

even though i am unconvinced that there is a creator/god who is in a position to hand such forgiveness out (ie: i'm an atheist) i still have the very human need to feel restored after i come to the conclusion that i've wronged others.

i still feel a need to forgive and be forgiven.

some may say that need comes from it being built into our *souls* by a creator.

i think it is likely the side effect of being empathetic, and that itself is a side effect of us being a species that seems to have thrived in small groups --- IE: we evolved into beings that do better when we take care of one another, and one mechanism that's evolved to that effect is that we feel badly when we realize we've treated others in a way that we ourselves do not like to be treated.

(insert caveat about this being hugely simplistic again -- can't be said enough!)

make sense?

[Resident Atheist]

I think the interesting thing here is that Hume thinks that being forgiven by a diety is somehow more satisfying. I would argue that if he wants to be forgiven, perhaps he should try to make amends to his wife (who, by the way, can actually communicate forgiveness.)

John, in your statements about sin, are you actually suggesting that people who don't believe in the religious connotation of 'sin' are unable to identify immoral behavior? You seem to be implying that to Buddhists, no act can be deemed 'wrong'.

[Derek]

It's worth talking about how much semantics plays into a dialogue like this. Saying there's no Buddhist concept of 'sin' assumes too much. Buddhists stress 'right morals' and 'right attitudes'. I hear this on a regular basis from my Thai seniors. You might as well say that although Jesus suffered, but he didn't understand 'dukkha'.

Buddhism and Christianity both talk about 'sin' and 'suffering', but they use different terms and employ different levels of specificity. In any event, Buddhists believe you reap what you sow. They just don't quote the Bible when they say it.

Lest I be accused of traipsing off-topic: I do think it's fair to say Buddhists don't embrace capital-F 'forgiveness'. (Here comes my unfounded opinion:) That kind of talk is smoke-and mirrors to Buddhist devotees. Better than external forgiveness is internal change. If you remove the obstacles to 'right (or appropriate) thinking' then you can do one better than being forgiven -- you can stop hurting yourself and others. Exit suffering.

Christians balk at this because it circumvents forgiveness, but the end result is the same: transformation. I realize that it's not the same thing, semantically. But the process (acknowledgment/confession, followed by transformative power) is similar.