Thursday, January 7, 2010

Talking Publicly about Our Faith - What Christians Can Learn from the Reactions to Brit Hume

On a FoxNews panel on Sunday, Brit Hume said the following about Tiger Woods: "The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is 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.'"

This is not something we hear often on a television news broadcast, even on Fox.

The reactions have been swift and severe. Jon Stewart was merciless on The Daily Show. In the Washington Post, Tom Shales wrote that Hume's statement "will probably rank ... as one of the most ridiculous of the year." John A. Farrell, one of the contributing editors of US News, writes that Hume's comment was "creepy ... what a stupid thing to think." The blogosphere is full of writers who used the occasion to write about the hypocrisy of Christians in particular and the uselessness of religion in general.

My purpose here is not to defend Hume or to attack his attackers. He is a big boy and can handle that for himself. This blog is also not the place to flyspeck his theology. Instead, I want to take a moment to analyze what this whole tempest-in-a-teapot can teach people like me, Christians who believe that our faith is to be shared and who care about rhetoric and how messages are received.

1. Many people are offended by comparison of religions. What seems to pass muster in society is sincerity, regardless of what is being sincerely felt. If Person A sincerely believes Religion X (or Concept X, or Feeling X), it is impolitic for Person B to suggest that Religion Y is better than Religion X. This may result from a genuine belief that "all ways lead to God" or alternatively from a genuine confusion about whether any religion is worthwhile. It often masquerades as "tolerance," but since the offended are not very "tolerant" of the vocal Christian, surely another explanation lurks beneath the surface.

In any event, those of us who articulate our specific faith need to understand that some of the battle we face is not from those who disbelieve our faith per se but rather from those who hold that we should not argue that we know something that is better than what they - or somebody else - believes.

2. "Proselytizing" has become a dirty word. The word means persuasion. Simply put, to proselytize is to make converts. It should not imply intolerance, meanness, underhanded dealings, or rudeness. It merely means attempting to change the mind of somebody else with regard to faith. Assuming it is done with respect and without forcing the listener to participate unwillingly in the conversation, why is that bad? Jon Stewart and others charge - or at least savagely hint - that proselytizing is something evil, as though it were akin to selling drugs to minors or being a sexual predator.

3. The many, many public failures of high profile Christians, hypocricies of self-proclaimed prophets, and well-known internal disputes within churches and denominations have given Christianity a terrible name and left so many with a bad taste that they think they want nothing to do with our faith.

None of these points is news, of course, but they have bubbled to the surface again this week. If you Google "Brit Hume Tiger Woods", you will see how Christianity is - in circles as diverse as and MSNBC, not to mention The Huffington Post - nothing more than a punch line.

Those of us who are evangelicals (in a New Testament sense, not in the political "religious right" sense) believe that we have something good that would be helpful to everyone. We know someone who offers - to anyone, regardless of what s/he has done - forgiveness, love, and literal salvation. We believe that we are commanded to "teach all nations" and "always to be ready with an answer." If our friends were in a burning house and we knew the way out, we would tell them; to us, this is the same thing.

Style is a concern, of course. Hitting people over the head, shoving a tract into their hand, shouting them down, playing on guilt (real or manufactured), or otherwise forcing our point of view on someone who does not want to hear it or is not ready for it seems fruitless and silly to me. In my own experience, I have found that sharing my beliefs with someone whom I have not first gotten to know pretty well falls flat.

Once again, I turn to my experiences as a debater and a jury lawyer to help. In both of those fora, I could not be successful without remembering the principle of audience adaptation. No matter how good the news we have to share is, if we don't package it appropriately and present it with respect and proper timing, we (and thus Christ) will not be well received. If we are most eloquent but do not act (both when we are sharing our beliefs and every other time) with love, then we are no more than (to quote Paul) resounding gongs and clanging cymbals. I have learned that lesson the hard way more than once - my poor presentations and/or unloving actions toward some have, I fear, made me ineffective in sharing anything about my faith with them. They don't want to hear it from me. I have to hope somebody else who has lived and loved better can talk to them.

"Packaging" and "presentation" as I use them in the preceding paragraph do not mean anything dishonest. They simply are explanations for how we go about sharing our faith. I believe the reason that "proselytizing" has gotten a bad name is related to how it has been done, not to its substance. Those who reject Christ on the merits - and the number who actually hear and consider our faith on the merits and still reject it is pretty low in comparison to those who reject our message out of hand without thoughtfully considering the substance - make their decision for a variety of reasons, but almost never is it because they think that our trying to persuade them with what we believe is an evil thing to do. The secret, then, is to get the conversation to the merits of our faith without offending.

I don't find what Brit Hume said to have been offensive. To state his honest belief that Tiger Woods would find in Christ forgiveness that Buddhism does not even offer is not rude or mean. But it is a stumbling block to many. The New Testament correctly predicts that. We have seen the effects of that stumbling block played out this week. Many in the world hate the name of Christ and any mention of Christ. The New Testament is right about that too.

Our response cannot be anger. It cannot be to give up. It has to be to recognize how our message is often initially received and to understand the prejudices that are in place. I believe we have to be honest in admitting that many of those stumbling blocks and prejudices are the fault of the church and of those who call themselves Christians - we have in many ways created a monster, and we must deal with that.

At the end of the day, though, if we agree with Brit Hume that those who "turn to Jesus Christ" can "make a total recovery," we have no alternative but to share what we know. We must, then, use some sense in how we do it, and we must always do so in love.

1 comment:

Jim Hurlburt said...

I see 2 inextricably interconnected issues here.

One is the world currently can't distinguish between knowledge v. belief/commitment/information; it has categorically determined that "religious knowledge" by definition can't be the same kind of knowledge that we'd build a nuclear facility on. With that in place, it's near impossible to have a meaningful dialogue when we equate our "message" to a "burning house". We're assuming "knowledge"; others assume opinion.

Two, if the Christiam message is to acquire/reacquire a position of "knowledge" in any society, then those who communicate it - a message of a unique and special quality of love - will necessarily need to express the core message easily and routinely.

Christians struggle here immensely (and you and i have made our admissions too); after the 3rd century, it's been the universal historical sin. I think its quite fair for the world's challenge to Christianity to be "show me why should I become a Christian" "show me the money" when it's followers are not really marked by love/fruit of the spirit.

For you and I, I think we also make the challenge to the world (and Buddhism, et al), "show me why I shouldn't follow Jesus me something or someone I should follow instead."

The proof is in the pudding. But when the world tastes us, the taste has not been good, has not been this special type of love. That's OUR problem. Until we figure this out - until we become the REAL DEAL in our REAL LIVES - we're no different than any other religion in my book, and this conversation will go on and on and on.

There's a management premise that applies: our system is perfectly designed to yield the results were getting. Christians should think very long, very hard about this.

Brit spoke with sincerity, and I believe, he spoke from the basis of "knowledge". But the uproar is too predictable, and I believe, easily cured, well not easily perhaps...

I Peter 4:1-2 as been a recent challenge. If the theology here was truly "integrated" into professing Christians' lives, this uproar would not exist.

I love your writing and thoughtfulness. Keep going, keep pressing onward, upward, my friend. Let's fight the good fight together...