(Editor’s Note: This is the first of two special opinion pieces on the Brit Hume-Tiger Woods controversy by ABP Senior Columnist Jim Denison. The second part will be published tomorrow, Jan. 13. Denison’s regular FaithLines column will continue to be published every other Monday, with the next column scheduled for publication Jan. 25.)
By Jim Denison
Commentator Brit Hume recently made a statement on “Fox News Sunday” that has evoked vigorous debate in the media and in employee break rooms. To quote Hume: “Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question. It’s a tragic situation. He’s lost his family. It’s not clear to me whether he’ll be able to have a relationship with his children. But the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He’s 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 your faith, turn to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.'”
The next night, Fox’s Bill O’Reilly asked Hume about his comments. Despite the firestorm of criticism he has received, Hume did not back down: “My sense about Tiger is that he needs something that Christianity especially provides and gives and offers, and that is redemption and forgiveness…. I think that Jesus Christ offers Tiger Woods something that Tiger Woods badly needs.” If Woods became a Christian, he continued, “it would be a magnificent thing to witness.”
Did Hume do the right thing? What is the appropriate use of a public platform or workplace for evangelism? What standards should apply when a person uses a forum unavailable to the rest of us to state his or her religious views?
To be specific: Should an employer express her spiritual beliefs to her employees? A teacher to his students? A broadcaster to his audience? I think the unequivocal answer is “no.” And “yes.”
It is wrong to use a position of power for coercive purposes. Your employer should force neither her religious views nor any other personal convictions on you. She would be wrong to use her authority to tell you how to vote or what to believe.
(By the way, Hume did none of this in his comments on Fox. As Michael Gerson told the Washington Post, “A semi-retired broadcaster holds no unfair advantage over a multimillionaire athlete.”)
At the same time, a broadcaster or employer or teacher has the right to personal, non-coercive conversations. If a person in power cannot ever discuss her personal beliefs with those she leads, how is she to build the honest rapport and transparent relationships that make her leadership effective?
Here’s the dilemma: How do we distinguish coercion from conversation?
It’s an issue of motive, both intended and perceived. As a Christian, you are commissioned to tell others about Jesus. But if you’re in a position of power, before you share the gospel with someone who might consider your evangelism to be coercive, ask yourself two questions.
First: Have you earned the right to express your faith? Does this person know that you care for him as a person and friend, and that your relationship will be just as strong if he rejects your faith? If your roles were reversed, would you feel cared about or coerced?
Second: Does your life match your words? John R. Mott was right: “The greatest hindrances to the evangelization of the world are those within the church.” Hypocrisy is a common accusation against Christians because it’s a common occurrence. But a believer who lives for Jesus every day can talk about Jesus every day.
Brit Hume’s own faith underwent a significant transformation in 1998 when his son committed suicide. A decade later, while departing from Fox’s “Special Report,” Hume explained: “I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done…. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died, 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.”
Are you “really living it?”