Despite the frenzied media coverage of the last two months surrounding the disclosure of Tiger Woods’ manifold adulterous relationships, I have been mildly surprised at the lack of Christian engagement with this story (so far) in Christian media. Do most Christian magazines and pundits already have their hands full enough making sense of the indiscretions of Christian leaders without expending energy opining on those of a Buddhist-oriented golfer?
Still, the case of Tiger Woods intrigues me as a) a Christian; b) a married man; and c) a golf lover. What deep, dark emptiness was Tiger Woods trying to fill with these tawdry liaisons? If ever there was the proverbial “man who had it all” – but obviously didn’t – we see him in Tiger Woods.
I feel sure that countless Christians have had the same thoughts and prayers I have over these two months: imagine if Tiger Woods would allow Christ to fill that vacancy in his otherwise charmed life. Might someone – a friend perhaps – offer to him a compelling testimony of the forgiveness and new life of grace in Jesus? Imagine what a powerful witness his conversion would be for the Kingdom. But at least in the Christian magazines and blogs I read, I did not see much written about this story. Not that there has been a shortage of reporting on Tiger in other sources.
An article in the The New Yorker did not explore the moral implications of Woods’ conduct (of course), his spiritual well-being, or the prospects of his family’s reconciliation. Rather, the real issue addressed was how his indiscretions have hurt his “brand.” Writer James Surowiecki wonders how the damage to Tiger’s carefully cultivated image of fierce discipline and self-control will affect his earnings and his sponsors: “The problem isn’t a question of morals, exactly; it’s that a huge gap has opened up between Woods’ advertising persona and his public image.” Read the article here:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2009/12/21/091221ta_talk_surowiecki
Alas, Fox News political analyst Brit Hume stirred up a hornet’s nest with his comments on Tiger Woods. The gist of Hume’s remarks was that Woods would undoubtedly return to form as a golfer, but there remained unanswered questions about his return “as a person.” Speaking on a political panel discussion on the network, Hume expressed his hope that Woods would turn to Christianity with its robust and unique understandings of forgiveness and redemption. Hume’s comment can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgMr_Zc3OtA
Here are some of the less hysterical reactions to Hume’s comments that followed in the media, none of these complimentary:
Fisharewet.org tries to steer around hot-button issues raging on the surface of today’s “culture wars” and instead seeks to examine underlying cultural assumptions from the perspective of thoughtful Christian engagement. This particular tempest has the feel of another skirmish in these culture wars. So I tread lightly. But I cannot help sensing that more is evidenced here than questioning the appropriateness of a political commentator who happens to be a Christian simply stating the very raison d’être of Christianity: to share the unique gospel message that inheres in our faith with hopes that others will come to embrace forgiveness and redemption in Christ.
Why is this message so offensive? One may legitimately question how useful or wise it was for Hume to share his opinion on a political opinion panel. But is the reaction in many quarters only about a lack of good manners in talking of religion so publically? And why does a shared conviction in the uniqueness of Christianity seem to elicit such outrage among so many public commentators (I did not supply links to many of these reactions I came across)?
One could argue that the answers to these questions lie in conflicting worldviews, most especially regarding contestable notions about any universal truth claims. I believe at the very least this media episode reflects a cultural bias that would drive discussions of faith from the public square and relegate religion to the sphere of private and personal choice. Perhaps most profoundly at issue here is the reality that there inheres in the gospel message a spiritual power that offends many at a very deep level. It has always been so. And a perennial reaction of those who take offense is scoffing: see Jude 1:17-23. Of course there is also Psalm 1: “Happy is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers, but his delight is in the law of the Lord and on his law he meditates day and night.”