Proselytize … A Dirty Word

The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word proselytize as inducing someone to convert to one’s faith. It is a word that seems to carry a negative connotation and, based on the reaction of Brit Hume’s comments regarding Tiger Woods, is a concept that offends a number of people. Based on his comments, Hume has been charged with (and seemingly found guilty of) proselytizing by the media and members of the Buddhist faith. Here is what he said:

“The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith,” said Hume. “He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of redemption and forgiveness offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger is, ‘Tiger turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

Hume’s comments were made on the show Fox News Sunday when a member of the shows panel predicted Woods would rebound from his current mess and win the Masters tournament in 2010. Hume’s words have been interpreted by some as inappropriate proselytizing and by others as disparaging to Buddhists in a firestorm of responses across the blogosphere.

This story caught my attention because Hume was involved. While I did not watch him a great deal during his career at the Fox News anchor desk, I was impressed by the story he revealed in the course of his retirement. Hume related how he had turned to Christianity in the wake of his son’s tragic death and how he hoped to spend more time serving Christ in his retirement. His testimony caught my eye. I was impressed that a prominent figure such as Hume was willing to share his faith to a nationwide audience. Hume seemed to me to be a genuine and honest person at the time.

In light of his past, I doubt Hume was in any way trying to insult or degrade Buddhists with his comments.  In fact, I am a little stunned that his words were perceived that way. In fact, his comments seem fairly accurate. In the course of criticizing Hume, Buddhist writer Barbara O’Brian writes that that the concept of sin is foreign to Buddhism. While forgiveness from one person to another may be a part of a Buddhist’s faith, there is no concept of divine forgiveness in Buddhism. Christ’s take on sin was a little different … in fact; one of the things that irked the Jewish leaders of the day was that Jesus dared to forgive sins:

When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5: 20-21, NIV)

Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” (Luke 7: 48-49, NIV)

It seems as if Hume was accurate when he said Buddhism doesn’t offer the kind of redemption and forgiveness offered by Christ. Buddhism’s claim that there is no sin makes it clear there is a huge difference on the issue between the two faiths. Hume was right to claim the two faiths are different (there’s no denying they are), but his words were taken as insulting because they were unsolicited. Proselytizing has been given a negative connotation in our modern culture because it is assumed the act is unwanted by the recipient. It is viewed by most as being forced on the recipient against his or her wishes. In that regard, Hume did offer unsolicited advice for Tiger Woods. According to most people, this fact alone places Hume in a bad light; this is a shame, however, because in my experience, some of the best advice I ever received was unsolicited.  

In a perfect world and circumstance a Christian will have the opportunity to forge a relationship with a person before sharing Christ with them. In the absence of that relationship, it is too easy to interpret proselytizing in a negative light. Hume shared his faith with Tiger outside of a caring relationship and on such a public stage that it was too easy for others to misconstrue what he was trying to do. It’s important to remember; however, that we are not always presented with a perfect situation. Sometimes, as Christians, we have to take the best shot we have and share Christ in spite of the backlash. Hume took that chance and for that should be respected.

Criticize Hume if you must … but how awesome would it be if Tiger did turn to Christ in his darkest moments? What if he did become a Christian and use his faith to inspire countless fans and youth? We’ve all been in Tiger’s shoes in some way or another. The enemy loves to expose and embarrass us. The enemy loves to drag us through the gutter whether we deserve it or not. In Christ, there is a clear path to turn darkness into light. It is up to us to flip the switch.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post Post to Facebook Facebook

2 Responses to “Proselytize … A Dirty Word”

  1. Ty

    Clark, the problems with a situation such as Hume found himself in are numerous, and more social/political than truly spiritual.

    When it comes to religion nowadays, everyone has thin skins. No one likes being preached at (even if they’re not really being “preached” at). Why? Mainly because most people feel religion in one form or another has been shoved down their throats,or they’ve been told by others that their particular religion is the wrong one. Or people are tired of being told how they should live their life. It’s a situation that comes with democracy, concerning the U.S. specifically.

    The Christian church (the various organizations as a whole, and sometimes as individual groups or even individuals) are as guilty of this as other faiths. Even the atheists and (to a far lesser extent) agnostics have gotten on the wagon about this one.

    The best an individual Christian can do is share their word, then “shake the dust from (their) feet.”

  2. Todd French

    The thin skin nature of our culture really bugs me sometimes. A single pundit exercised his first amendment freedoms to express his view regarding the best route for Tiger Woods going forward. That pundit has been roundly vilified for doing so. I don’t honestly think there is any harm in anything he said, and it is a good thing for our society, our culture, our nation, and our world when people of all walks of life do so.

    It seems the only group of people that get roundly bashed for the content of their speech are people of faith. The Charlie Sheen’s of the world can express their views at will without serious attack. Let a person of faith encourage a public figure to review his religious perspective and the politically correct crowd seems to got absolutely insane.

    I don’t understand and likely never will. Our founders didn’t intend for it to be this way.

Leave a Reply

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

RSS for Posts RSS for Comments