On Sunday, Brit Hume, Fox News commentator, suggested that Tiger Woods become a Christian because the Christian faith offers a better path to forgiveness and restoration (the implications were both for now and eternity, it seems). Here's Brit Hume, explaining himself to Bill O'Reilly:
I can already hear the postmodernists up in arms. And it doesn't really matter what kind of postmodernist you are, either. Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, or others who subscribe more to relativism than to the rigors of their own professed worldview would be and are offended by Hume. "How dare he promote his own faith on television!? You wouldn't want an atheist or a Muslim doing the same thing, would you?"
Well, yes, I would. If we actually had an honest dialogue about truth claims and what different worldviews said about God, humanity, and human liberation/salvation, we'd actually be discussing something real. By perpetually avoiding the religion topic or pretending that all world religions or worldviews are the same, we've watered down religion and public discourse in the process. And for that matter, if all we're suggesting is that Tiger Woods go to counseling and take some pills, then we've already fallen prey to a more naturalistic worldview anyways. Why should naturalism always win?
Imagine if we actually had an honest evaluation of worldviews on television. Let's take the Tiger Woods example. How does each faith respond to his circumstance? (If I misrepresent anyone's view, please let me know. While having a cursory knowledge of many worldviews, I cannot claim to be an expert in most of them).
Christianity: Tiger Woods has offended both God and his fellow humans. He should seek forgiveness from both of those places. And no matter how much he tries to be a better person, he cannot by his own will. He simply must admit his weakness and trust in Christ for his ultimate redemption.
Buddhism: Both pleasure and pain are illusions. Tiger should seek a higher plane of consciousness and remove himself from all desire. It was his desire for erotic pleasure that has brought him so much pain in the first place.
Islam: The Holy Book does not forbid polygamy. In many cases, it is encouraged. Tiger's only mistake was to not make these women his spouse before having an affair with him. But as it was an adulterous affair, Tiger must be put to death according to the laws of the Qu'ran. At least that's what occurs where Shar'ia law is practiced.
Atheism: Big deal. Marriage is a process constructed by humans. It is simply a construct of our own sociological patterns. What Tiger did was wrong, sure. But let's not crucify him for his mistake or suggest that his answer is spiritual. This is all there is.
I admit that this is a simple list. But it remains true nonetheless. Let's have that panel. Let's debate the truth-claims of world religions. For my money, Christianity will always have the most appropriate theological and philsophical response to the human condition. You go, Brit Hume!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
That's an interesting apologetic. It's kind of the pragmatic approach: Which religion actually deals with your issue?
Great post, Dave.
Z
Okay... so this is what a group of folks at the coffee shop where I work were talking about today. They called Hume's remarks totally offensive. Well, sure; exclusive claims are offensive in our culture. But, like you say, let's actually talk about our exclusive claims.
Ben, right-o. If no one thinks their worldview is actually right, then what are they doing and how can they even live consistently?
Pantheism is really the only worldview that lends itself to our culture's relativism/pluralism. So, let's get some guts and just tell others what we believe, and have some honest dialogue, no matter our worldview.
Chesterton's book, The Ball and the Cross, is precisely about this issue. An atheist and a Christian are so convicted by their own positions that they debate in so many forums and look for a place to actually physically dual. By the end, they are good friends.
Post a Comment