Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Evangelizing is what evangelical Christians do
I'm not at all sure why the liberal left is always so shocked that evangelical Christians want other people to become Christians. The outrage that followed Fox News anchor Brit Hume's plea to Tiger Woods to find Jesus has been totally disproportionate to the statement itself. The usual suspects--MSNBC and The Huffington Post--and indeed the whole liberal left blogosphere leapt all over Hume for his arrogance and conservatism. These waves of criticism prompted another stab by Hume at saving Tiger's soul, this time on Bill O'Reilly's show.
The word "evangelical" comes from the Greek word for gospel, or "good news." Evangelical Christians are those who want to spread the good news. They aren't pretending to believe in salvation through Jesus Christ. They actually do believe that it--and yours, and mine--comes through him.
Now, it's distasteful (or cynical ratings-bait) for Hume to be flogging his religion on television and disingenuous for him to say that he meant no disrespect to Buddhists. (Though on those terms, he and Tiger are a fair match. Tiger has claimed an affinity for Buddhism, his mother's religion, but now that we know he's a pathological liar, it's hard to imagine him as a devout defender of any faith.) And it's silly of his interlocutor O'Reilly to say "Buddhists aside," when Buddhists--who, incidentally, do forgiveness better than almost anyone--are more than 300 million strong worldwide. But Hume's remarks are nothing if not unsurprising. Evangelizing is what evangelical Christians do.
In fact, Hume was at least the third prominent Christian to call for Tiger's conversion. More than a month ago, the syndicated columnist Cal Thomas--formerly Jerry Falwell's PR man--did exactly the same thing. "We should pray," he said on his radio show "for Tiger Woods that someone can meet his greatest need, which is not other women, but Jesus of Nazareth who will transform his life." Ten days later, Larry Ross, who runs a Dallas-based Christian PR company said almost as much in an essay on The Huffington Post. "Without introduction," wrote Ross, "God welcomes all men who turn to Him in repentance and faith. Perhaps through this ordeal, God may finally have Tiger's attention." Taking a different tack, Gov. Mike Huckabee simply pleaded with Americans to leave Tiger alone. "Focus," he said, "on what's going on behind the doors of your house." (He might as well have said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone.")
In the ridiculous, gratuitous world of nonstop news, Hume was using his platform and his airtime to give Tiger some free advice, just as a recovering alcoholic might recommend a 12-step program. Hume's pronouncements might not be the most edifying television. They might lead viewers to wonder about his journalistic neutrality when it comes to delivering the news, but that's all. You have the remote control. If you don't like it, you can turn it off.
By
Lisa Miller
|
January 11, 2010; 3:26 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Brit Hume and the right to stupid speech |
Next: Christians are being persecuted, but not here
Posted by: ChristopherGraves | January 15, 2010 8:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Convert them or condemn them. Real "Christian" of you. I weep for poor old Jesus for what you Huckabees do and say in His name.
Posted by: coloradodog | January 13, 2010 11:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Lisa Miller,
Everything you say is correct, BUT the context misses the point. Yes, evangelicals evangalize. However, this is precisely the problem, as perceived by secularists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.
The urge to evangelize and convert has caused very serious problems around the world. It is not a benign or amusing behavior which can just be ignored or the channel changed.
This is a bit overstated, but murderers murder. That does not make murder OK. One still has to make a judgement about the morality and the consequences of evangelizing and converting.
Let people come to your religion or philosophy based on their own. Respect others traditions and cultures. Respect an individual's rights. Don't stir up trouble for peoples in distant lands like the Amazon. Don't try to exploit the weakness in a society to divide and conquer so Christianity or Islam can spread and be more powerful. This is not politics.
Religion in the western world (Abrahamic) has too often been about power and politics and not about an individual or societies spiritual evolution in harmony.
SO, I disagree with you that this is an overreaction. Many people in the modern, global, scientific world sense that the cause of the problem is not jus "religion" but certain religions and their behavior, such and evangelizing.
Posted by: clearthinking1 | January 13, 2010 7:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
So Hume's comments are just a case of an evangelical being an evangelical, no harm no foul, and people should let it go. But "the liberal left blogosphere" commenting on his comments is somehow out-of-bounds.
In other words, your argument is that it's okay for conservative evangelicals to say anything they want (including denigrating the Buddhist faith) and people who don't like it should just turn the channel. But it's perfectly acceptable to criticize the "liberal left blogosphere" for their response.
It would be sad if it wasn't so typical of the right-wing mindset.
Posted by: js_edit | January 12, 2010 3:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
[[In the ridiculous, gratuitous world of nonstop news, Hume was using his platform and his airtime to give Tiger some free advice, just as a recovering alcoholic might recommend a 12-step program. Hume's pronouncements might not be the most edifying television. They might lead viewers to wonder about his journalistic neutrality when it comes to delivering the news, but that's all.]]
++++
Two things -- a recovering alcoholic telling another person with a drinking problem a way out of the misery is entirely different than Hume telling Woods to drop his faith and pick up Brit's. Second point -- Brit Hume is not an anchor anymore, he is a pundit and pundits offer biased opinions. He and O'Reilly can comiserate till the cows come home about the persecution of Christians in this country and FOX News is not going to stop them from making false statements. And why should they? The network makes oodles of money off of untruths.
Posted by: creatia52 | January 12, 2010 12:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
As Ms. Miller observes, Evangelicals will be Evangelicals, and why shouldn't they be? Afterall, Evangelical Christians possess the *evangelium* or the Gospel proclaiming the Good News that God has appeared to us in human form and taken our sins on himself and suffered eternal torment in our place in order to redeem us from the "sin that so easily besets us." This redemptive process offers the possibility to reconcile us to our Creator and offers us eternal life in a restored Garden of Eden. All each of us have to do is to accept this offer. Without Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross as he placed himself in the position of a "scape goat," we would be lost in our own evil dooming us to alienation from God and each other and self-destruction in this world and throughout eternity. Why would anyone not want to hear about this hope that Jesus has offered everyone in the world?
Mahayana Buddhists have a similar attitude toward others who have not attained Enlightenment (as they see Enlightenment) in their religion as a bodhisattva remains with others who have not attained Enlightenment in order to assist them. So, Mahayana Buddhists proclaim what they see as their good news to others in order to help them. Are Buddhists' efforts to help others equally arrogant or is proselytizing and missions only offensive when Christians share their faith in order to help others find salvation?