The Daily Detour

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.

"ReThink Church"

I was able to speak at Grace Church in Mooresville, Indiana this morning, and had a great opportunity to catch up with a lot of old friends. I spoke on the idea that it is time to "ReThink Church". In essence, the challenge for Christians is to reconnect with God's oirginal vision for what the Church is to be--namely, that it isn't about going to church; it's about being the Church.

One of the themes that I emphasized was the need for Christians to "be holy". That is, to be "set apart", living our lives in a way that is markedly different from the world. As I've shared on here often, it is imperative that Christians pursue a life that is tangibly different because of their Christian faith. Here are just a few highlights for those of you who may not have been there this morning:

In our attempt to be “in the world, but not of the world” we have created a reality in which too many of us are “in the world and of the world”.

George Barna writes in his book, The Second Coming of the Church:  “Most Christians . . . have fallen prey to the same disease as their worldly counterparts.  We think and behave no differently from anyone else. . . . In short, the spirituality of Americans is Christian in name only.”

When we become what Dick Keyes calls, Christian chameleons, “there is nothing to offer the world that the world does not already have.”...

What is “holiness?”

Often it has been defined in a very pharisaical way—that list of “Do’s and Don’ts” that are to be the defining characteristics of the good Christian.

We proudly proclaim, “I don’t drink and chew, and I don’t go with girls that do.” J

But is that really it?

I wonder, for example, if we actually going to see people like C.S. Lewis in heaven? (He smoked and drank regularly.)

Our emphasis on holiness has elicited a harsh reaction from people, in part because of what our version of holiness implies.

But also because we have promoted the concept in a way that is often less than loving.

In fact, it seems we have often come to be known more by what we’re against, than what we’re for. And in doing so, we have created the assumption that only people who live a certain lifestyle are invited into the “Christian club.”

And as a result, people don’t stop long enough to consider the merits of the Christian faith.

Christianity has come to be defined by behaviors.

But it is so much deeper than that.

It centers around TRANSFORMATION.

“If anyone is in Christ,” writes Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:17. “ He is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”

And that transformation—that butterfly-like metamorphosis into a new creation—results in our living in a way that is noticeably different from those around us. The way we think, the way we act, the way we interact with others—they are all different.

That is “holy living”. Being set apart…

Who do people see when they see you?

You may the only Jesus that people ever see! 

This last idea is the most significant where Christianity is concerned, because we are called to be Christ's ambassadors in the world. The challenge in this new year is to recommit to pursuing all that God wants of us as we continue to point people toward the hope found in Jesus Christ.

Speaking at Grace Church

Just wanted to let you all know that I'll be speaking at Grace Church in Mooresville this Sunday, on the topic "ReThink Church". It's a sermon intended to challenge our assumptions about what it means to be the Church today and broaden our understanding of how to make a difference in our world.

If you're in the neighborhood and want to stop in, be sure to come on over. The services times are 9:30 and 11:00 a.m. For more information and directions, click here.

Hope to you see you there.

A (tragic) Christmas Story

My apologies for the delays in getting more regular posts up here at TDD. The holiday festivities have compounded what has become an increasingly busy schedule these days.

I wanted to share a tragically all-too-frequent experience that I had on Christmas Eve. Jean and I took our kids downtown here in Indianapolis to attend a Christmas Eve with our extended family. It was a combined service between the Indy Metro Church and the City Community Church held at the historic Athenaeum theater. Nathan LaGrange, one of the pastors from City Community, gave an excellent message on the importance of promoting Christ over ourselves. (I've linked to some of Nathan's stuff in the past, from back when he was still at Lakeview Church.) It was a great service.

After the service, we all drove over to Brother Doug and Natalie's house for an evening of great food, going caroling, delivering totes of food to some of their neighbors in that lower income neighborhood, and rounding off the evening with an impromptu talent show from Caleb, Andrew, and their cousins, Hanna and Ella. In so many ways it was the perfect Christmas Eve.

And yet, it wasn't for all of us. For in the midst of the time together, there was a knock at the front door. A young boy I'll call Ryan was standing out on the porch in the cold. We invited him in, and then Doug talked to him and found that his father, in a fit of drunkenness, choked the boy, beat him up, and kicked him out of the house. On Christmas Eve of all times...

We gave Ryan some food, and then Doug went out with him to try to find his grandmother--to no avail, as we found out later when they returned. Apparently, they also went to three of the local bars looking for his mother and didn't find her either. So, as has so often been the case over the years at Crane gatherings, we simply adopted Ryan into the family for the evening.

The gravity of Ryan's situation struck me, especially as I was sitting watching all of the kids singing and dancing to the Christmas carols. I couldn't help but think, "This is what Christmas is supposed to be like!" And then I'd glance over at Ryan, sitting quietly on the couch, and realize that "peace on earth, goodwill toward men" is a pleasant, if not-always-realistic, ideal. Sadly, the real world is not something out of a Norman Rockwell painting. The thought actually brought tears to my eyes.

The tendency when witnessing such tragedy is to develop a growing cynicism, as if the ideal is not possible, and therefore, should not be pursued. And yet, I was heartened to see Doug and Natalie do what they have so often done, provide a safe haven for those in need. I was also glad to see that Ryan knew that there was a place to go. And I was happy that we were able to be there to help him in a moment of real crisis.

The events of this year's Christmas Eve served as a good reminder of how we need to be ever-vigilant for opportunities to reach out to the "Ryan's" in our world. Not every Christmas is the kind of "silent night, holy night" that we sing about in Christmas carols. And yet, it is through Jesus Christ that we can offer an oasis and genuine hope for those people whose holiday experiences may not mirror our own. That is, after all, what Christmas is truly all about! A belated Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year to all. 

UPDATE: I meant to share the rest of the story of what happened to Ryan. After we left, Doug and he went over to his grandmother's house to leave a note. The police showed up and talked to them. Ryan told them what had happened, and that he didn't want to go back to his house. So, they took him with them and put him some protective custody arrangement for the time being. None of ust heard what happened after that. So, if you're inclined to pray, you might think about Ryan and his situation and pray for him.

Tis' the season for "Reason's Greetings"

Last Christmas, a number of related atheist groups made international headlines with an orchestrated campaign that ran ads on billboards and buses running in cities like London, Chicago, Washington D.C., and even here in Indiana. It began what is apparently becoming an annual tradition.

There is now an additional campaign taking place in certain cities across the country. Slogans like "Heathen's Greetings" and "Yes, Virginia, there is no God." are finding their way onto billboards, sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

I happpened to run across this very interesting transcript of an interview between Laura Ingraham and Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the co-presidents of the organization. Ms. Ingraham was guest-hosting Bill O'Reilly's show. I did not see the actual interview (because my computer is starting to walk down the green mile) but reading the interview raises some issues to light that are worth considering.

In general, I don't have a huge problem with self-described "freethinkers" buying ads of this nature. I don't necessarily agree with their premise, but I do wholeheartedly believe that the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution extends to all citizens of the United States, especially those with whom I may disagree. That is what makes the governing system in our republic so unique and enviable, is that we have the right to speak up. (And ironically, as I've pointed out here before, that even includes those who bash our Founding Fathers--the ones who ensured that right to speak up.) Such is the essential nature of this wonderful country of ours, and that is a freedom that should be vigilantly protected.

My only real issue with these kinds of efforts by the skeptic community is that they seem more than a bit antagonistic toward those who don't share their beliefs. And I don't always understand why that needs to be the case. It seems to me that there can be (and should be) room for all of us at the table.

Perhaps it's because in many ways the non-religious among us feel as though they have been hurt, offended, or even attacked by the religious devotees. I don't know. But it is interesting to see the reaction by many skeptics toward what they see as the dogmatic nature of Christianity while simultaneously turning a blind eye to their own dogma--dogma about a different set of beliefs, but dogma nonetheless. Isn't the goal to try to be less dogmatic, while still leaving room to hold firmly to those convictions that we believe in? For the Christian, it separates what I call the "non-negotiable" beliefs from the "negotiable" beliefs. And the non-negotiables represent what C.S. Lewis termed "mere" Christianity.

Regardless, I find this particular exchange beneficial in a couple of immediate ways. First of all, it proves very illuminating concerning many of the feelings about, and arguments against, Christianity that many skeptics have. For those Christians who are serious about trying to reach out to their neighbors, the comments made by Ms. Gaylor are essentially what many (if not most) skeptics feel about Christians and Christianity (TDD skeptic readers: please do weigh in here and correct me if this is not the case). The arguments presented by skeptics are not merely theoretical attempts to stir the pot. Real, rational people have staked their lives and future on their sincere beliefs about these things. And they should be respected for that.

Secondly, the exchange here, and the corresponding ad campaign that it highlights, provide a great opportunity to have substantive dialogue about these kinds of issues. (I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Ms. Ingraham or Ms. Gaylor were engaged in that effort, though perhaps the attempt was being made by one side or the other at times.) But we all can certainly seek to explore and understand our differences of belief. And we can thoughtfully engage in the exchange of ideas as we pursue what we all are seeking--the Truth. That is, after all, the reason for any season.

UPDATE: Stephanie Simon over at The Wall Street Journal wrote this interesting article about last year's atheist ad campaign.

The grade is in...

During his Christmas special with Oprah, President Obama gave himself a "good, solid B-plus" for his first eleven months in office. I'm not seeing it myself, because after all, that is just a shade below an A-minus, and I don't think an objective assessment of Obama's first year in office would consider him an almost-A level student. That seems decidedly optimistic. (But, that's just me, and our differences of worldview would clearly affect why Obama might be so generous in his evaluation of himself.)

Unfortunately, for Obama, his assessment of himself is subordinate to the assessment of his constituents. It's our grade that ultimately matters. The first part of his grade will come during the mid-term elections in 2010, followed up by the next presidential election in 2012.

What about you? How would you grade Obama for his first year in office?

UPDATE: It was reported today, "ABC News/Washington Post poll: Obama's approval rating hits new low". Apparently, the American people aren't as enamored with Obama's performance as he is.

Obama trying to walk the fine line between war and peace

It was interesting as Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize last week that the event was often reported by various media sources as "the wartime president" accepting his peace prize. Such was/is the dichotomy that surrounds Obama. And as he gave his acceptance speech, the difficult tightrope he is walking is not lost on anyone, most especially his liberal base. One other writer termed his accept of the Nobel prize as the "Jekyll and Hyde" speech.

There are two issues surrounding Obama's Nobel Prize, received in the midst of his seemingly contradictory foreign affairs. 1. Should Obama have received the prize in the first place?, and 2. How is his reception of the prize reconciled in the midst of his decision to send more troops to the war in Afghanistan?

Concerning the former issue, even the Dalai Lama, himself a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his peaceful opposition to the Chinese rule in Tibet, candidly understated that President Obama's receiving the prize was "a little early". In fact, that is the notion that has plagued Obama since word came out in October that he had won the once-prestigious prize. People were trying to figure out where Obama fit within the pantheon of peace activists like Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and His holiness the Dalai Lama. (It reminds me of Christian Laettner's presence on the1992 Olympic Dream Team with Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Magic Johnson. I've always contended that Laettner was there to serve as the bellhop for the big boys. :)

I would agree with this assessment, that Obama's receiving the prize was inappropriate and undermined the significance of the award. Even the Nobel selection committee tried to justify their decision by admitting that it was given not based on Obama's securing peace but what he will presumably do. And as Obama himself acknowledged in his speech, the award was not for what he has actually accomplished, but what he "aspires" to do. And if he doesn't do it? (This whole event reveals the cult of personality that surrounds Obama and begs so many questions and problems--Namely, how do we measure whether or not he is successful in those aspirations? And, should we get credit for what we aspire to do, even if we don't actually carry it out--like school grades? If the aspiration for peace is the new criteria for the Noble Prize, perhaps every beauty pageant contestant should be considered for the award.)

Furthermore, Obama is making his case for what he calls the "just war" in Afghanistan. Others would disagree. What do you think? Is Afghanistan a just war? Is there any such thing? I believe there is, given the nature of those who use evil to achieve their ends. (But then again, I'm not up for the Nobel Peace prize.) 

UPDATE: This insightful article by Bonnie Erbe over at Politics Daily talks about the discontent of the Norwegians over having given Obama the prize. But more than that, she describes how he has come to embody the consumate politician. As she writes, "If only the Nobel Committee and the American voting public had dug a bit deeper before they endorsed Obama, they might not have been so surprised when he morphed into an unexpected type of president. The New York Times reported in February 2008 that Obama had a history of stretching his accomplishments and playing to his audience of the moment. It would have been easy to see what was coming if only voters had paid more attention to his record as a twister of facts and prince of prevarication." This tendency among politicians is hardly new. The question is, "What are we going to do about it?"

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

As Ronald Reagan famously said, these are the nine most terrifying words in the English language. Truer words were never spoken.

The AP just reported today,

"The Treasury Department is acknowledging for the first time that it lost $61 billion on two key programs designed to stabilize the economy after the largest financial crisis in decades."

So, apparently after all of the assurances that we needed bailouts and stimulus funding--and now, even more stimulus funding--to restart the economy, the government has fessed up to the fact that they have lost over $61 billion!?! (That's billion with a "b".)

This is what makes it difficult to feel confident when Obama & Co. essentially suggest to the American people, "Trust us, we know what's best for you and the country." Conservatives have been trying to sound this warning against that liberal mentality for some time. And to be fair, President Bush was no fiscal conservative, so the more courageous conservatives among us were warning the country back then. But the Obama presidency has taken spending to a whole other level.

Misspending (and in this case, losing $61 billion) is the luxury of those who are using other people's money. This is one of the many reasons why it is better to let people keep more of their money in their own pockets. The more the government overreaches, the greater the possibility for abuse. But then again, I guess we can at least find some comfort in the fact that they have enough integrity to admit their mistakes. :)

Copenhagen conference goes up in smoke

The big talk this week (other than Tiger Woods) centers on the 2-week long conference on global warming happening in Copenhagen, Denmark. This year's event has garnered considerable attention given the recent exposure of fraud on the climate change issue.

As the UK Telegraph points out, however, it seems the leading proponents of the evils of global warming are doing their fair share of contributing to the crisis that they are warning all of us about. The Copenhagen Conference seems to be going up in smoke--carbon dioxide, that is. The Telegraph reports that there have been 140 private planes and 1,200 limos being used by those who have come to Copenhagen.

Perhaps some may consider this little factoid an irrelevant point of emphasis. But these are the kinds of things that seriously undermine the credibililty of the Goracle and the rest of the "Chicken Littles" in the environmentalist movement. When their carbon footprint for one event--an event intended to reduce carbon footprints no less--is large enough to overshadow the energy usage of a small country, something is amiss. When those who are attempting to lead the movement are unwilling to follow their own admonitions, what does that say to the rest of us? Either those folks are okay with their hypocrisy, or perhaps they know something the rest of us don't about the true reality of the "global warming crisis." Perhaps it's not such a crisis after all. Otherwise, wouldn't those who care the most about this issue being making every effort to combat it? (Why not fly commercial and use public transportation like the rest of the world in order order to reduce the carbon footprint?)

UPDATE: There proves to be a record-breaking carbon footprint that the climate changers have left in Copenhagen after 2 weeks of deliberations about our impending doom. It was to be expected, but as this post attempted to emphasize, the whole affair smacks of "Do as we say, not as we do." Even the liberals are forced to admit that that is ALOT of carbon emissions, but are figuring out ways to justify this unavoidable dilemma. (So as to ease the conscience, and push the movement forward? Perhaps...)

What happens to the terrorists?

A while ago I introduced a new category detailing the bumber sticker battles taking place on our highways everyday. It's been some time since I've shared a bumper sticker, but this one caught my attention on Wednesday:

God's job is to forgive terrorists. Our job is to arrange the meeting.

This bumper sticker message begs the question, "Should God forgive unrepentant terrorists?"