Recently, on the show Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume said that Tiger Woods needs to turn to Christianity to be able to recover personally from his recent transgressions. It was in the midst of a conversation about whether he could recover both professionally and personally from the recent scandal of his marital infidelity. Here's a quote:

Whether he can recover as a person 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 to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

A number of things make this story very interesting to me:

1. The most obvious is that a news personality dared to make an exclusive truth claim on national TV. That's not really surprising, considering it's Fox News. (Though, in the interest of full disclosure, I believe Fox News conflates political conservatism with Christianity far too often. For that reason, I'm really not a fan, and didn't actually watch the show. I saw the clip linked online as the story spread virally just like every other semi-newsworthy story does these days. But I digress.)
2. I think Mr. Hume is correct in the truth of his statement, and I was surprised to hear someone on TV say it so clearly and accurately. Everyone, including Tiger Woods, needs to hear the Gospel (Acts 4:12), and Christianity alone is based on forgiveness, not working towards earning salvation (Eph. 2:8-10). And I believe that he accurately represented the unique claim of Christianity: forgiveness and redemption is found only in Jesus. (Granted, he didn't say "in Jesus", he said "by the Christian faith", but the meaning is the same.) To hear that on TV is very interesting.
3. The reactions against his statements (which were inevitable) are consistent with the understandings of our culture today. It's not that most people simply think Christianity is wrong and another way is right. The reaction is against the very fact that Christianity makes an exclusive truth claim. So most people don't say, "Jesus is wrong, Buddha is right". They say, "You can't tell me that Christianity is the only way". So the argument is not in favour of one religion or another; it is that any religion that claims to be true (and therefore, implicitly claiming all others are false) is arrogant and wrong. These critques are all over the place now (including one hilarious parody panel (which includes a shout-out to Lutherans), and follow-up segment, done by The Daily Show as only they can do.) (The discussion on that point alone is a whole other blog post, and has been the subject of many, many other writings. One recent example is the book The Reason for God by Tim Keller, which I'd highly recommend. Indulge me very briefly while I summarize: the claim that anyone who makes an exclusive truth claim is arrogant is itself an exclusive truth claim. I love irony.)
4. Tiger Woods used the word "transgressions" to describe his actions, which was interesting in itself. And now people are now using it as a euphemism. Ironic.
5. The most interesting thing to me is the platform from which Mr. Hume spoke. He used a TV news discussion panel to make this statement. Regardless of the fact that I think his statement is true, my question is, was that an appropriate platform to use to speak this truth? It's not a rhetorical question. I geniuinely wrestle with answering it.

And this is the point I'd most like to engage with you, dear reader. (By the way, thanks for reading!) I don't know if Mr. Hume has any kind of personal relationship with Tiger Woods. If not, is it then enough for the statement to simply stay on TV and the Internet? Should Brit Hume (or anyone else, for that matter) attempt to convey this message personally, and more fully, to Tiger Woods?

I actually don't think Mr. Hume was trying to be an evangelist in this instance. I think he was just giving his opinion when asked how he thought Mr. Woods could recover from this scandal. But we know what happens when someone just gives their opinion and then it all goes bad. (Right, Carrie Prejean and Perez Hilton?)

The question then becomes more personal for every Christian: what platforms do we have as individuals, and what are appropriate platforms for statements of Christian truth and evangelism? When we are asked our opinion and give it, should that be seen as trying to evangelize and "force our views down someone's throat"? How does this all apply to our own relationships?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Comment below, and let's dialogue.

(Just another note: I'm writing this on Jan. 6, the festival of Epiphany, a word which means "revealing". It's the day that the church celebrates that Jesus did not just come for one group of people, but for the whole world. The traditional Scripture reading for the day is Matthew 2:1-12, the account of the wise men coming from afar to worship Jesus. A rather appropriate topic to be thinking about on Epiphany, no?)