« Brit Hume's Witness | Main | Today Is Epiphany »

January 05, 2010

Comments

I literally voiced loudly to the tv YES! This respected and long time voice from the Hill unapologetically used the JC words in identifying the only solution for Tiger and the sins of mankind. AMEN and AMEN.

But which of the Christianities in the café? How about Christianities like the Adventists, Mormons or JWs?

Just imagine the hounding Woods is likely to get from nutjobs now this pronouncement has been made.

Doesn't Hume make a highly unsound link between salvation and moral uprightness, too?

>>"But which of the Christianities in the café? How about Christianities like the Adventists, Mormons or JWs?"

Same questions posed over the decades by those who neither know Jesus nor know about Jesus.

Are you seriously purporting all three of your examples are "christians??"


>>"Just imagine the hounding Woods is likely to get from nutjobs now this pronouncement has been made."

Huh?

>>"Doesn't Hume make a highly unsound link between salvation and moral uprightness, too?"

No.

Whenever I meet someone who feels the need to tell me that they are a Christian, I know that I have met an ignorant bigot.

>>"...I know that I have met an ignorant bigot."

Nice display of ignorance and bigotry, Phillip. Sheesh.

I love it!!! It gave me chills to watch this. It takes a courageous man to stand up for Christ especially in the media spotlight. may God bless him beyond measure for his faith.

Phillip,

Would you feel the same way about someone who felt the need to tell you they were an atheist? Or a lawyer? Or an accountant? In other words, is it the feeling the need that you have a problem with or is that just your descriptor for a Christian?

Hi David Jenkins.

>> Are you seriously purporting all three of your examples are "christians??

No, they're heretics. But they're also just other protestant sects: who are also heretics. :)

When there's a universal Protestant Catechism, then you can claim they're not Christian, but until then, you can't claim they're not, but just that you happen to think they're not. You might accept the Creed, but I know plenty of bible-alone Christians who believe that everything after the first apostles was apostasy - a view they hold in common with the Mormons... As a protestant anyone can believe almost whatever they like and claim to be Christian. If they say they are, they are because there's no one standard beyond manifold interpretations of scripture.

Greg is remarkably quiet on the issue that Protestantism is just Christian Relativism, when he really needs to prove this before throwing stones in his own glasshouse by bleating about dissenting and heretical Catholic priests he's talked with on talk shows. It's funny how he neglects alluding to protestant liberalism in his disingenuous examples.

But if you'd like a go showing me how Protestantism is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, then, I'm all ears!
---
>>"Doesn't Hume make a highly unsound link between salvation and moral uprightness, too?"

No.

- How exactly does salvation lead to moral uprightness? Do you stop being a sinner, then, simply by accepting Jesus into your life? Surely, it's grace and not guaranteed? Or is sinlessness a sign of your redemption? the more sinless you are, the more saved you are? If so, isn't that just your opinion in the supermarket of protestantism...?

Hi James,

I read your reply to David. His last name is actually Hawkins - not Jenkins.

Two questions...Did you have a similar reaction to Bud Reeves (comment above) when Brit Hume offered this advice to Tiger on national TV? If not, why not?

Thanks,
John

If I were Elin...

... and if Tiger were to apologize to me and act like he meant it and love me he would save his marriage.

Otherwise, with or without Jesus, Tiger would end up divorced like Brit Hume.

RonH

Hi RonH,

I think you assume Tiger would only convert to save the marriage. That would not be conversion.

I'll speculate with you RonH...

What would be the reason for the apology?

Because Tiger was...

1. Sorry he got caught?
2. Sorry he has to face the social consequences? (ex: losing his wife, family, endorsements)?
3. Or because his heart just magically changed and he is now a different person?

John

Hi there, John.

Thanks for your reply. I'm in the UK so I'd never heard of Brit Hume before this issue.

No, I didn't really think it was that good - because 'Jesus Christ' could mean anything to anyone - couldn't it? Which Jesus? Which Denomination? Hence my comment about nutjobs. Where on the spectrum of orthodoxy to the bizarre does 'Jesus Christ' sit? Who's got it right amongst yourselves when you all believe the bible's true, yet disagree so much and come to such widely differing conclusions about what it teaches like feeling the elephant?

However, RonH puts a different complexion on it: that Brit Hume is a serial adulterer through remarriage - so he's not really got anything to commend him after all from a moral perspective - so there isn't a link between salvation and moral uprightness, then - unless you include mortal sin as being OK. Oops, sorry, David Hawkins doesn't believe in that. You only commit adultery if you're not married to the person, so if you get bored, just divorce and remarry. Legitimate sex with multiple partners - cool! The only difference is, you have to wait! (Or, divorce your current fellowship too if they get snotty and tell you it's biblically wrong - find one that interprets the bible in your favour, and that Jesus is OK with it - problem solved!)

Of course, divorce and remarriage, like contraception, are conveniently seen seen as outside the bounds of Christian morality for most bible-believers, so why should Tiger fix his marriage when he can just trade his wife in even if he becomes a Christian, and get himself a new model, like Brit Hume? The problem is with Tiger's affairs, not if he divorced an remarried - people are more likely to feel pity for him then - but the net result's the same - sex with two women, one socially acceptable, one not - because marriage has no sacramental validity and is not something more than legitimating sexual conduct.

There's no reason to save his current marriage if remarriage isn't a problem, is there? As long as he's monogamous when he's with each woman, then it's OK, isn't it? The only problem is having sex with a woman you're not married to, and that's as theologically deep (sorry, shallow) as it gets.

Rather than fornicate why don't young Christians marry until it gets boring?

When he gets bored with her, instead of having an affair, just trade her in, like a car, as Brit Hume did.

I know a couple of pastors who've had adulterous affairs which prove David Hawkins wrong, too. Morality doesn't necessarily go with salvation. If only they'd been patient, and got divorced and remarried first, they could have had sex with the other woman with whom they had been having the affair with "God's" blessing!
Luckily all they had to do was some public snivelling, and then the affair was all fine with their fellowship! Thank God for Tod Bentley and Fresh Fire Minsitries! With 'Jesus' you can do absolutely ANYTHING and get away with it once your bible scholars ('lawyers') have found you a loophole.

But the easy solution to this for Protestants is polyamory - like the Mormons - after all, it was advocated by the father of Protestantism - here's wikipedia on it:

Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living "constantly in a state of adultery and fornication," a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret however, to avoid public scandal. Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.")

Maybe Tiger should get (at least) two wives and become a Christian - best of both worlds and everyone's theologically, and sexually, satisfied!

Hi James,

Do you find it interesting that Brit Hume did not mention the name 'Jesus Christ' in his initial comments on Fox News Sunday?

From your reply it appears this is the basis of your frustration with Brit Hume's comment. I agree that on it's face the name 'Jesus Christ' can mean many different things to many people. But this is not what Brit said.

The exact term he used was "the Christian faith".

Does that change your opinion? If not, why not?

Thanks,
John

(Your last name is Scottish correct?)

Hi James:

You wrote:

>>”No, I didn't really think it was that good - because 'Jesus Christ' could mean anything to anyone - couldn't it? Which Jesus? Which Denomination?”

Under your view, no person should talk about Jesus Christ ever. Because it could mean anything.

James,

I find it interesting that while you state that there is no "official Protestant Catechism" you continue to put down ALL of protestantism. So if what you say is correct then I would imagine you are a experienced expert in EVERY form of protestant Christianity in order to make such an wide reaching general claim about all of Protestantism.

Using your method it wouldn't be too hard to find an individual with mistakes, wrong theology or just plain something I dont' like in whatever 'organization' you believe in, belong to, like to hang out with etc etc. And then find them guilty by association. I find that your claims here generically assume too much and on that same basis I could take issue with you being a human being because of what Hitler did because he was a human as well.

However if you have a specific issue with a specific denomination, or specific teaching that is something that can discussed in detail. However just because SOME protestant churches have bad theology or act badly doesn't necessarily mean that ALL protestant churches do.

God Bless

KWM,

I think you assume Tiger would only convert to save the marriage. That would not be conversion.

No I don't make that assumption.
Do you assume that converting would save his marriage?

John,

What would be the reason for the apology?

Why would I (Elin) want an apology?
Because I'm hurt by what Tiger's done, of course.

My pain grounds my demand for the apology (and the rest).
My pain is an objecitve state of affairs.

RonH

RonH,

>>”Do you assume that converting would save his marriage?”

No, definitely not.

RonH,

I don't think Mr. Hume's comments were directed at Elin.

Again, in your view, why would Tiger apologize?

Because...
1. He got caught?
2. He has to face the social consequences? (ex: losing his wife, family, endorsements)?
3. Or because his heart just magically changed and he is now a different person?

...or some other reason?

Thanks,
John

RonH said: "Otherwise, with or without Jesus, Tiger would end up divorced like Brit Hume."

I don't know anything concerning Hume being divorced or the circumstances surrounding it if it is true. I am curious why RonH considered this significant to mention.

I don't think that BH was suggesting the Tiger convert to Christianity to save his marriage. The clear sense of BH's remarks is that Tiger's marriage is toast and his relationship to his children is probably toast as well. That's why Hume said repeatedly that Tiger "has lost" his family. Not "is in danger of losing", "has lost".

BH was suggesting that Tiger convert for his own good.

James-

You said that Adventists, Mormons and JWs are heretics just like all Protestant sects.

Here's my reply:

When there's a universal non-Protestant Catechism, then you can claim they're not Christian, but until then, you can't claim they're not, but just that you happen to think they're not.

Ain't special pleading grand?

Hi John,


I don't think Mr. Hume's comments were directed at Elin.
Again, in your view, why would Tiger apologize?
Because...
1. He got caught?
2. He has to face the social consequences? (ex: losing his wife, family, endorsements)?
3. Or because his heart just magically changed and he is now a different person?
...or some other reason?

Since Elin and the kids are the main victims here I think it's appropriate to focus on them rather than 'the grounding problem'. But since you insist:

Tiger feels guilty/ashamed*. He dislikes himself. Apologizing and following up are his only relief.

I'm not psychoanalyzing Tiger here; I'm talking about human nature. The social consequences you bring up about have co-evolved along with guilt/shame. Without this complementary pair of behaviors (guilt and denunciation) we would not be the kind of social animal we are. A village of sociopaths can't exist. Societies and individuals agree about what to denounce: murdering, lying, stealing, etc. Clearly, these things interfere with our being social and threaten all of us. In this sense, morality is objective. Again, a village of sociopaths can't exist.

An aside?: Christianity replaces the social consequences with the Law and guilt with gratitude (for being saved). But there is still a particular Law that the Christian is not under. Hmm. This Law was constrained by the facts above when it was promulgated (by men).

* I'm assuming he's not a sociopath.
___________________________________

Hi William Wilcox,

I am curious why RonH considered this [that Brit Hume is divorced] significant to mention.
People seeking to offer advice often go to great lengths to build up what they call 'qualifications'. People wanting advice often check these 'qualifications' before they take advice. Silly isn't it? Yet there it is.

To claim that Brit's divorce is irrelevant is to ignore Tiger's circumstances.

RonH

There is one person who feels Tiger's betrayal more poignantly than Elin and the children ever will: The Omniscient God. The One who took all that pain on Himself and feels all the wretched consequences of it to the very bottom.

Elin and the kids will probably never forgive Tiger. But there's someone who can and will and whose suffering and forgiveness shows that their lack forgiveness is just more sin: sin that He also suffered for.

Tiger needs to get right with God first, since God is the most injured. God is also the one who has promised to forgive him. When Tiger receives forgiveness from the most injured party, he may come to accept the fact that He will not be forgiven by his other victims.

(Not that he shouldn't apologize to Elin and the children as well...of course he should.)

WL,

What you say might be true if the Christian story were true.

But if what I say is true then Elin is the principle victim and the Christian story is a great distraction from her real pain. Look at all the different rabbit holes the great detectives in these threads have gone down. Maybe Brit is a heretic, for example. Is Brit's church really Christian? And on and on.

I hope Elin and the kids do forgive him. I hope he gives them good reason to.

RonH

RonH,

If I understand you then you see Hume's divorce as giving him more believability in speaking to Tiger Woods situation. I don't necessarily disagree. However in all the clips that I have heard Hume hasn't used his divorce in his outreach.

This is also not the way you presented the issue in your brief mention. You implied that, if Woods doesn't apologise, act like he means it and love his wife he will end up divorced like Hume. This implies knowledge of Hume's divorce that you haven't shared.

It is quite possible that Woods could do all the things you suggest and still end up divorced. Regardless, it seems Hume's Christian testimony is very appropriate for Wood's situation.

RonH said: The social consequences you bring up about have co-evolved along with guilt/shame.

I am interested in your proof for this statement.

I can't imagine why we havn't "evolved" such that we don't do things that induce guilt and shame!

Perhaps we are "evolving" into a less social animal. I expect that you would not have a problem with that.

>>To claim that Brit's divorce is irrelevant is to ignore Tiger's circumstances.

It seems to me that a person who has been through the pain of suicide and divorce is in a particularly good place to know from where help and forgiveness come.

Hi RonH,

My question was not in regards to the 'grounding problem'.

Here is exactly what I'm getting at:

You wrote:

"Tiger feels guilty/ashamed*. He dislikes himself. Apologizing and following up are his only relief."

In your view did Tiger feel these emotions prior to "being found out"? If so, given your view of morality, why didn't he apologize before?

If he didn't feel these emotions before being found out - only after the affairs became public - then what hope could Elin ever have in accepting a sincere apology? Did she not think he was sincere when he said his wedding vows?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "buck up and try harder", but I don't think that advice works here.

Thanks,
John

"But if what I say is true then Elin is the principle victim and the Christian story is a great distraction from her real pain."

But, again, Hume was not suggesting a course of action for Tiger that would save his marriage. I think Hume assumes, as do I, that that's done, no matter how nice an apology he makes. Hume is trying to suggest a way in which the rest of Tiger's life may be salvaged.

The Christian story is true, and it is quite relevant to that project.

Greetings William Wilcox,

You said

If I understand you then you see Hume's divorce as giving him more believability in speaking to Tiger Woods situation.

No, I meant that his being divorced obviously detracted from his credentials for giving Tiger advice.
But now that I've thought about it some more, I'm not so sure. Who is more likely to be better equipped to give marital advice - one who's been divorced or one who has not? I thought the answer was obviously the one who had not. But now I think it might require empirical study.

RH: The social consequences you bring up about have co-evolved along with guilt/shame.

WW: I am interested in your proof for this statement.

I think 'proof' is for math but I'll give you an argument that I find persuades me.

A group with rules against murder, stealing, and lying will grow (in numbers) faster than a group without such rules.
To the extent that a group's members internalize these rules (using denunciation plus guilt rather than enforcement) that group saves resources.
That is, the internalizing group needs fewer police, etc. than a group whose members don't internalize the rules.
A group needing fewer police, etc. has more resorces for having and raising children.
A group with more resources for raising children will grow faster and become a greater proportion of the population as whole.

That's my argument. What do you think?

Here's a paper that seems to be saying much the same thing.
http://tinyurl.com/ycebtxn

I can't imagine why we havn't "evolved" such that we don't do things that induce guilt and shame!

Don't think black and white.

1) It's not that one group grows and the other dies. One group grows faster than another.
2) The abilities to induce and feel guilt and shame don't determine the growth of a group entirely.

Perhaps we are "evolving" into a less social animal. I expect that you would not have a problem with that.

(Why put every instance of every form of the word in scare quotes? I get it: you deny evolution.)

What I think: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ch3.pdf
Or try: http://tinyurl.com/co7q3u

Not that I like it.

_______________

Greetings John Willis,

Yes, I think Tiger probably felt guilty before being exposed.
Had he not been found out he might have confessed and apologized. That happens.
Better yet (perhaps): he might have just decided to straighten up and fly right without confessing.* That happens too.
Elin can't ever know for sure. She's not alone there.
If he asks her to, she might start by taking a calculated risk - hoping for a big payoff (a trusted spouse) sometime in the distant future.
Over time she might be shown good reason to think the risk was declining and the payoff materializing.
You don't think so. Maybe you are right. You can get odds from bookies in Britain on how much Elin will get in any divorce.

* "Here's something that doesn't cost you 25 bucks an hour: You carry your own water, Ellery. You understand? You carry your OWN water." - "Hoover" in the movie "Mulholland Falls" It's been a while, but I think he was arguing against confessing adultry: just stop.

RonH

RonH,

I am glad to see that you are open to considering Hume's testimony as of some possible value.

RonH said: "I get it: you deny evolution.)"

It is more accurate to say that I am sceptical of many of the claims attributed to "evolution" and that without careful definition using the term can lead to confusion. The quotes are a way of drawing attention to that.

RonH said: "That's my argument. What do you think?"

Sorry, I think that I best not encourage you to go further off topic.

RonH said: "if what I say is true then Elin is the principle victim"

There are victims all over including Tiger Woods, all his family, the women he used, their families, anyone who looked to Woods as a role model etc. Evaluating who is hurting the most or will be hurt the most is probably not possible or necessary. Tiger Woods is responsible, as are the women who consented to his advances.

It seems to me that Hume's Christian testimony gives hope to all the people who are the victims of sin. This hope is not that their life will be free of suffering but that they all can be saved from the consequences of their sin through Christ's atoning work, the grace of a God who loves even the most despicable.

The Apostle Paul in Romans, particularly chapters 5-8 hits on a lot that seems appropriate to the Christian view. I would encourage you to read through it a couple of times. It can be difficult to follow somtimes particularly in some translations.

Hello RonH,

I agree with you that Tiger probably felt deep guilt over his adultery before it became public. However, I suspect our reasons for arriving at this common conclusion are different.

But let's put the reasons aside for a minute and discuss another option you suggested concerning his adultery - "Just stop".

If Tiger did feel guilt - and deep guilt at that, why couldn't he "just stop"? I think you'll agree from the evidence that's it's obvious he could not. (how many woman have come forward now?)

Given this fact, maybe his behavioral problem can't be solved by Christianity (I think it can). But we can say with certainty that this doesn't point to the conclusion that Tiger needed a double dose of the worldview he already prescribes to! (Whether it really is Buddhism, or narcissistic hedonism - as the evidence suggests). The logical conclusion to his worldview and thought life has now become plain and painfully obvious to Tiger.

I think Brit Hume's advice (and the media reaction) have brought something to the forefront that is both beautiful and tragic in Tiger's situation.

As William Wilcox notes in his post above, Tiger's situation is tragic because of the wake of damage and destruction his behavior has caused and will most likely continue to cause for many, many years to come.

It is also something incredibly beautiful at the same time because his situation is filled with hope and promise, far beyond the scale of anything Tiger has done or will accomplish. This is what compelled Brit Hume to offer the advice he did.

Right now - in a way Tiger may have never been before - he finds himself at the "entrance to the gates of heaven", so to speak.

Because of the public nature and the serious social and financial consequences he is facing, Tiger is now closer to the reality of his own wickedness then maybe he has ever been in his entire life.

Jesus Christ taught that prostitutes and thieves were closer to the gates of heaven then the religious leaders of their time for exactly this reason. The former group knows in a very real and painful way that they are sinners, who have not just offended themselves or others, but have offended the One who made them with moral categories in the first place. The religious leaders of Christ's time (and perhaps many in our time) could not humble themselves to admit this fact.

Tiger does not need Jesus Christ if he is not a sinner. All good people go to heaven when they die. Case closed. Tiger is perhaps one of the most public people who has ever lived. He has now been confronted with his own wickedness in that arena.

In this sense, this story is incredibly beautiful and has the potential (as Brit Hume pointed out) to be a shining light millions of others. God has met Tiger where he lives.

Your thoughts?

John

My mistake, the comments referenced in my post above were Wisdomlover's not Williams Wilcox's.

Thanks William,

I am reading as you suggest. Started with Chapter 4, actually, because Chapter 5 starts with "Therefore..."

Be skeptical when lacking sufficient reason to believe. Apply evenly and across the board.

RE: off topic. Here's a suggestion: This thread is old now. There are new posts on Brit and Tiger anyway. So suppose you tell me where you think my argument goes off the tracks and I promise I won't even respond.

RonH

Brit Hume is a CHAMPION!

The comments to this entry are closed.