I thought I would pass along a few more thoughts/links/stories related to the Brit Hume issue.

First, in case you didn’t know, Hume stepped down from his full time job at Fox News a couple of years ago.  In a short interview (you can access the full interview here), he explained several reasons for his decision.  One reason was the gospel.  Hume stated,

I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done. I’m not claiming it’s impossible to do when you work in this business. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died (by suicide in 1998), I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what you say you believe, it’s a pretty big thing. If you do it part time, you’re not really living it.

Second, the outcry in the media, although not at all surprising, is telling.

For instance, Tom Shales, writing for The Washington Post, lashed out at Hume in an article on Tuesday, entitled,
“Brit Hume’s off message: Have faith, Tiger Woods, as long as it’s Christianity.”  According to Shales,

In a way that many others had spoken of this particular faith, Hume seemed so bolstered by Christianity that he just had to go tell it on the mountain. And the golf course. And Fox news-talk shows.

Whatever his motivations, and however his statement regarding Woods reflected Hume’s own emotional turmoil, the remark will probably rank, even only a few days into January, as one of the most ridiculous of the year. It tends at the least to banish any wayward hopes that the looniness of the Bawdy Aughties is over; we’re not out of the woods, or the Woods, yet. Oh no, the madness will go on and on and on, at least until some sanctimonious busybody takes it upon himself to go even roguer than Hume.

If Hume’s remark is going to turn out to be a mere starting point, where in the name of all that’s holy (really holy, genuinely holy) is the finishing line going to find us? Or leave us?

Hume has a message for Woods; lots of people will have a message for Hume. First off, apologize. You gotta. Just say you are a man who is comfortable with his faith, so comfortable that sometimes he gets a wee bit carried away with it. If Hume wants to do the satellite-age equivalent of going door-to-door and spreading what he considers the gospel, he should do it on his own time, not try to cross-pollinate religion and journalism and use Fox facilities to do it.

Peter Wehner, over at National Review Online, replied to Shale’s article.  His response, Hume’s Gentle Witness, nails the problem on the head.

The intensity of offense taken at what Hume said is itself revealing. Perhaps it can partly be chalked up to shock; maybe Shales and Hume’s other critics are genuinely surprised to learn that those who hold the Christian faith do so because they believe the claims of Christ are true, that His story is real. But of course if Christians didn’t believe their faith were true, there would be no reason to embrace it, as the Apostle Paul himself understood.

Some people obviously disagree with Hume; that is certainly their right. They can offer a different remedy to Woods if they so desire. They may think that a commitment to materialism, or atheism, or pantheism, or something quite different, is what Woods needs. Or they may think what Woods did was not problematic, and that he should be free to indulge his appetites and passions. If so, let them make their case. But Hume, in the context of the discussion he was having, should be free to make his case. And one cannot help but think that if Hume had recommended that Woods embrace Transcendental Meditation, the philosophy of Deepak Chopra, or the New Age movement, instead of Christianity, Shales would not have been so offended.

I should add that when Christopher Hitchens, whom I like and whose company I enjoy, appeared on television shows promoting his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, he was far more critical of Christianity than Hume was of Buddhism. Yet I don’t recall the Left saying that those criticisms were inappropriate for public debate. In fact, they weren’t — and neither are Hume’s words. Furthermore, those who are unnerved by Hume’s “sectarianism” were untroubled by the aggressive atheism of Hitchens.

Third, Christianity Today interviewed Hume.  You can read the entire interview here.

In this discussion about Tiger Woods, it seems as though some are offended that you would say something about Christianity specifically.

Instead of urging that Tiger Woods turn to Christianity, if I had said what he needed to do was to strengthen his Buddhist commitment or turn to Hinduism, I don’t think anybody would have said a word. It’s Christ and Christianity that get people stirred up.

Fourth, Dr. Albert Mohler did an entire radio show on this issue.  You can listen here.

Fifth, Michael Gerson’s article today in The Washington Post, “Brit Hume’s Tiger Woods remarks shine light on true intolerance,” is right on target.