During the Roman Empire’s secularist era those who acknowledged the deity of
Christ were frequently fed to the lions to entertain – for lack of a better word
– the “progressive” elites of the day. There’s little doubt that if many of
today’s secular-“progressives” (more accurately: “moonbat liberals”) had their
way, Caesar Obama would call out the lions once again.
Nothing makes the left lose its collective noodle like an open proclamation of
Christian faith. You don’t see it when Muslims proselytize in government
schools; the ACLU doesn’t sue when Wiccans share their witchy ways; militant
“gay” activists don’t picket Buddhist temples with bullhorns while inhabitants
grasp at Zen. No, there’s something about Christianity that just drives ‘em
nuts. Always has. Always will.
Case in point: Recently, on two separate occasions, Fox News veteran Brit Hume
both publicly pronounced his own faith in Jesus Christ and boldly suggested that
Tiger Woods might find “forgiveness and redemption” for his serial philandering
should he “turn to the Christian faith.”
Hume first offered Tiger the advice on “Fox News Sunday” and then reiterated his
sage, though decidedly non-PC counsel on “The O’Reilly Factor” the following
night. When asked by host Bill O’Reilly what kind of response he’d received for
his comments, Hume replied, in part: “It’s always been a puzzling thing to me.
The Bible even speaks of it. You speak the name Jesus Christ… and all hell
After Hume made his comments, and as if on cue (Lord forgive them for not
knowing what they do or why they do it), liberals went apoplectic. Here’s a
As reported by CNSNews.com: “Tom Shales, media critic for the Washington Post ,
in a Tuesday column, demanded that Hume apologize and called his Christian
remarks ‘even only a few days into January, as one of the most ridiculous of the
MSNBC’s reliably raspy Keith Olbermann accused Hume of attempting “to threaten
Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity” and demanded that his Fox News
ratings superior “keep religious advocacy out of public life” (back in the
closet, Brit old boy).
Olblubberman then compared Hume to a terrorist, suggesting that “the worst
example” of this kind of “proselytizing” are “jihadists.” Finally, he betrayed
the left’s typical anti-Christian bigotry, suggesting that Jesus may have been a
homosexual and wondering aloud: “WWJDIHS: What would Jesus do if he’s straight?”
While the mainstream media’s rage was clumsily managed (or masked), unbridled
hate boiled over in the left-wing blogosphere.
On the sexual anarchist site, “JoeMyGod,” poster “QScribe” suggested that Brit
Hume’s deceased son had been “gay” and viciously accused Hume of being
responsible for the young man’s suicide: “Brit Hume still hasn't ‘repented’ for
trashing his gay son and driving him to suicide. When I want moral guidance from
a pig like that, I'll be sure to ask. Until then, he really ought to STFU.”
(Hume has publicly shared that his son’s heartbreaking suicide played a large
role in his acceptance of Christ.)
The next commenter went so far as to cruelly imply that Hume had sexually
molested his own child and further mocked the tragic suicide, writing: “Dead
victims don't tell on their molesters.”
Commenting on the Huffington Post, “Kandaher” bypassed Hume altogether and aimed
his vitriol directly at his Creator: “anyone (sic) watched ‘The passion of
Christ’? I thoruhgly (sic) enjoyed it. Nothing like watching this bloke getting
beaten up! He deserved what he got and more!”
You get the idea.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I very much enjoy
watching liberals go goofy when the light of truth pierces that shadowy void
called moral relativism. When the left’s religion of choice – secular-humanism –
is challenged through exposure to the gospel message, they almost universally
and instinctively react with such visceral, knee-jerk spasms. You can set your
clock to it.
But believe it or not, there’s actually something rather delightful about such
hateful lashing about. These poor souls – to be pitied and prayed for – fail to
realize that, manifest within their own unwittingly bizarre behavior, is certain
affirmation of the very words of Christ on the subject.
Jesus addressed this peculiar and deeply spiritual phenomenon on more than one
occasion over two thousand years ago. In John 15:18-20 (NIV), for instance, He
reminds His followers: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me
first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you
do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why
the world hates you.”
Now, I’m real sorry that most “progressives” and other non-believers feel that
Christianity is deficiently “tolerant” or “inclusive” of various man-made
religions and lifestyle choices. But it’s just not our call. Christ Himself
reveals over and again that the pathway to heaven is a very narrow one,
requiring membership in a rather “exclusive” club – a club wherein belief in Him
and repentance from sin are the only membership requirements.
Christ said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me.” (John 14:6). Note that, rather conspicuously, He did
not say: “…No one comes to the Father except through me, the Buddha, Muhammad,
Ganesh, and – on Tuesdays – L. Ron Hubbard.”
But lest you have any doubt, consider John 3:36, which warns every man, woman
and child on earth – past, present and future: “Whoever believes in the Son
[Jesus] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for
God’s wrath remains on him.”
So, Brit Hume had it right, didn’t he? I mean, it is kind of an all or nothing
proposition, isn’t it?
As my favorite author and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis famously pointed out in
his blockbuster book “Mere Christianity,” Christ could only have been one of
three things: A lunatic, a liar, or – as Jesus oft claimed and as billions have
believed – the sovereign Lord and Creator of the universe.
“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be
a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man
who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must
make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman
or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill
him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let
us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher.
He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. – C.S. Lewis
So, what does this all mean? Well, and please take this in the spirit (little
‘s’) intended: Brit Hume’s woolly, wily, wandering critics really ought to just
un-knot their knickers; mudra, mantra or something; and seriously reflect upon
the man’s words and heart.
Perhaps they should – being all “tolerant,” “diverse” and whatnot – consider, if
only for a moment, the very Spirit (big ‘S’) from which came those words and was
formed that heart.
In the meantime, to Mr. Hume: “Well done good and faithful servant.”