Coulter alone is thus far the only one who hasn't missed the key point of the whole Britt Hume "controversy." Hume's words--both about Christianity and about Buddhism--were, as Ann puts it, "100 percent factually correct." As I watched the clip of the "incident" on Youtube, I found myself wondering what specifically was so shocking about what Hume said.
And what he said was:
The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is 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 to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.
Ask any Buddhist if they are assured of being forgiven, if they know themselves to be redeemed, or if they have total confidence that something better awaits them in the hereafter. Depending on what kind of Buddhist you're talking to, they might not even believe in forgiveness for negative karma. And they certainly can't say for certain whether they've stored up enough good karma for an upgrade on their next "rebirth" as they struggle toward an enlightened state (Nirvana) or ultimate rebirth in the Buddhist concept of a higher, heaven-like existence. The Buddhist simply does not have assurance of forgiveness. The Christian does.
Furthermore, a Buddhist's struggle for self-improvement is simply his lone burden to bear against the world and his own fallen nature. It's him (his own merit and striving) against everything, including himself. Christians by contrast know that they're not good enough to "make a total recovery," as Hume puts it, or indeed to do anything good at all. The Christian knows that he is by nature corrupt, lousy, sinful, prone to depravity, and that, given the chance to improve himself by his own effort, he will screw it up 100% of the time.
But the good news for the Christian is that he doesn't have to be good enough. Christ did the paying of the penalty of the sin by dying on the cross, thereby stamping those who trust in him with an indelible "not guilty"; not only this, but by rising from the grave in a glorified state, Christ demonstrates to believers that not only do we not have to fear death, but we have also been transformed into new beings who are actually capable of doing right. ("Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" 2 Corinthians 5:17) Like the Apostle Paul, I can declare that if I have been "crucified with Christ," then I (old, pre-Christian me) "no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." (Galatians 2:20) As I mentioned before, the Buddhist has no such similar assurance but must simply strive as best he can in an enterprise which the Christian recognizes is doomed to failure.
Truthfully, the only thing in any way shocking about Hume's remarks is that anyone would find them to be such. Of course, in order to find myself shocked by the "shock" of the "shocked," I would have to be as disingenuous, hysterical and sophomoric as they.
No comments:
Post a Comment