The gospel according to Brit Hume (Sunday Reflections for January 10, 2010)

Since we live in a secular culture, religion does not have a defined place and it can pop up anywhere. One of its most recent public eruptions involved FOX newsman Brit Hume. He created a hullabaloo last week by providing on-air spiritual advice for Tiger Woods. In Hume’s view, Woods is most in need of the “forgiveness and redemption” which only “the Christian faith” can provide. Or at least it provides it much better, in Hume’s view, than the Buddhism that Woods reportedly practices. A lively discussion of Hume’s comments has broken out among other news people, comedians, bloggers, and religious commentators.

There are so many things that are odd about this story it’s hard to know where to begin. Even in that, it tells us something our culture and our confusion about spirituality and religion. The first thing to remember about Hume’s comments is its context, a news talk show, and the second is the subject, the marital infidelity of a pro-golfer. What are these two things even doing together? For better or for worse, many 24-7 cable channels fill in their schedules with what is little more than water cooler conversation. Supposedly smart people sit around and talk, often about whatever pops into their heads.

Then, of course, there is the popular obsession with celebrities. Just as we gossip about our neighbors or coworkers, we enjoy talking about the outsized lives of entertainers, professional athletes and anyone else who manages to get them self in the national media spotlight (including the “famous for being famous”). A talk show like this one is an example of a common twist on this phenomenon, which is basically celebrities talking about other celebrities.

Seeing only the Hume clip, I don’t know how Woods came up in the conversation in the first place. The rest of the panel did seem a bit stunned by the earnestness of Hume’s comments, however. Hume expressed great admiration for Woods as a golfer and as a “person.” The latter seems strange and rather artificial. Hume never indicated he personally knows Woods or really has any relationship with him. Woods has been notoriously protective of his private life (ending only recently with his very public driveway car crash), projecting a carefully managed but rather two-dimensional image through his product endorsements. Beyond his golf, Woods really hasn’t tried to be much of a role model, except perhaps as a savvy businessman.

So without any real personal relationship with Woods, it would seem Hume really took this as an opportunity for some old-fashioned evangelical witness, talking more to his TV audience than to Woods. And that brings us to Hume’s own story. He is now semi-retired. Among the things he said he wanted to do by working less was spend more time with his family and work on his recently revived faith life. Hume is himself divorced and remarried, so this may partially explain his interest in Woods’ domestic problems.

Hume also lost a son to suicide and this he credits with renewing his interest in religion. He specifically cited this event as leading to his own experience of the forgiveness and redemption which he believes Woods now needs to “recover as a person.” Hume is certainly sincere in describing his own experience of personal transformation. However, he has fallen into a trap most of us are susceptible to, which is to assume that something that was of great value and importance to us should be the same for everyone else.

What does Tiger Woods need right now? I have no idea and I can’t imagine Brit Hume knows either. Evangelicalism often views Christian faith as a life saver, as a way to fix our personal flat tires. This is the experience of Amazing Grace: “I once was lost but now am found; was blind but now I see.” “Jesus saves” the billboards and bumper stickers tell us.

Of course, this is a genuine experience for many and a legitimate and valuable part of the Christian life. Yet not every Christian has such an experience and Christianity is much more than this. So I have a problem with Hume’s simplistic message to Woods: you have a big problem and should become a Christian to fix it. Such thinking over-simplifies Christianity, over-simplifies the person who is Tiger Woods, and over-simplifies life.

Christianity is not primarily, I don’t believe, about “fixing” things. It is a way of life that more often than not shows us how to live with all the stuff that can’t be fixed. Things in our lives “break” all the time and most of them can’t be put back together. Living by faith and grace helps us leave behind what’s broken and move on, rather than endlessly grieving and obsessing. We find the energy and courage to start anew. We internalize the gospel story of life arising from death. We learn to live with hope.

Can Woods save his marriage or family, as Hume is so concerned that he do? Maybe, maybe not. For one thing, it’s not just up to him. And becoming a Christian certainly won’t guarantee that or any other outcome. I don’t know a lot about Buddhism but I do know it has the spiritual resources that can lead to personal renewal and transformation, if they’re used and if that’s what’s needed. But perhaps what Woods needs is marriage counseling or psychotherapy or new meds or a vacation or a slap upside the head or . . . none of the above. We can’t know and we haven’t been asked.

Being entertained by celebrity pratfalls is mostly harmless. Schadenfreude, getting pleasure from others’ misfortunes, probably has been a human trait for a long time. In the media realm, however, perspectives get distorted and we can lose sense of what is genuinely meaningful and important. The salacious stories of celebrity lives rarely are.

In general, I don’t think media attention does religion much good either. The British broadcaster, Malcolm Muggeridge, who became a Christian in his later life, believed media—especially TV—distorts everything it touches. He once described a “fourth temptation” in which the devil offers Jesus a primetime broadcast. Jesus declines that temptation, as well. In most instances, the already unreal nature of celebrity life isn’t clarified by the media but made even more sensational and bizarre. It shouldn’t be surprising then that what the media tells us about the depth and complexity of spiritual life usually isn’t very helpful, either.

Update: Christianity Today published online today an interview with Brit Hume. I found two things of interest. One was his immediate assumption of the persecution mantle, a badge of honor for many evangelicals. He describes his experience as being "mocked for his faith" and yet I have found little that resembles a personal attack on him. The other comes near the end when he's asked if he attends church. Like so many contemporary Christians, the simple answer is "No." He attends "home church" and participates in men's Bible studies. In my experience, such groups also tend toward a more therapeutic, self-help oriented form of Christianity.

Ditch the religion?

From two very different places on the religious spectrum come similar ideas: maybe we should just ditch the religion part.

Over on Beliefnet’s Buddhism blog, "One City," Jerry Kolber has created a bit of a stir by suggesting American Buddhism really needs to consider its branding. Specifically, it needs to pare down all the stuff that shouts EASTERN RELIGION, which can turn off Westerners. By its own teaching, much of this is just accessories to Buddhism: the robes, bells and even Buddha statues. The essential core is meditation practice, which he believes can be promoted in a way to appeal to anyone.

With the right branding and advertising Buddhism can be the iPod of philosophies, cool first then available at Walmart three years later.

From another corner comes Anne Graham Lotz, the daughter of evangelist Billy Graham. She is promoting her new book which, among other things, recounts her many frustrating experiences with churches. In interviews with both TIME and Newsweek she frankly says that religion is one of the greatest impediments to finding God.

And by "religion," I don't mean "faith." I mean rituals, creeds, traditions, and often leaders--all of our means of trying to connect with God.

Lotz somewhat confusingly still thinks Christians should belong to a church. It’s better that way, anyway, but often just not going to work out. In some ways this echoes the ambiguous message of her father. While he encouraged those who came to his revivals to join a church, his own ministry was intentionally unrelated to any denomination and he avoided sectarian doctrine in his preaching and teaching (something which fundamentalists in particular criticized him for).

Can you be religious without being part of a religion? That paradoxical state is increasingly true for many people, often without their even recognizing it. In addition to avoiding sectarian labels, people often have no interest in being part of an organization with buildings and staff to pay for, organizational structures to maintain and meetings to attend, and cranky and neurotic members to endure.

American churches especially are missing this challenge. Their evangelism and outreach efforts try to connect people with God and with Jesus. The case that isn’t being made, though, is what that has to do with belonging to a local congregation. Indeed, as Graham Lotz shows, many have found church life to actually be a detriment to their faith.

Christianity without the church? It may be the fastest growing religion around.