Secularism and Britt Hume

The Big Hollywood blogger and actor Adam Baldwin, recently of the television series Chuckand Fireflyhas taken up his virtual pen to defend Britt Hume from those who have criticized him for suggesting that Tiger Woods should consider Christianity in his time of crisis. Hume made the statement on Fox News Sunday, thus prompting outrage from secularists who find such an offering offensive and irrelevant.

Baldwin scores several times in his blog piece. Here is the foundation:

As an avid golfer, Christian man, and therefore a witness to the historic fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Mr. Hume clearly offered his message in good faith with honest concern for both Tiger’s future and for that of his family, friends, fans and business associates.

Look carefully at what Baldwin has written. Britt Hume believes Christianity is true and is based on an actual historical event. He is not adverting to some mystery religion (reach for the seventh level, Tiger), but is instead giving advice every bit as practical, or perhaps more so, than urging Mr. Woods to seek marital counseling or to find a good attorney.

This is what secularists simply do not understand. They think Christianity is “inaccessible” to others. It is not. You can accept it or reject it, but there is no reason for confusion. The basis of the faith is quite clear. Either you accept the evidence that the resurrection of Christ actually occurred in time and space or you do not. In no case should you accuse the Christian of hitting you with a bunch of magical mysteriousness that you cannot possibly understand.

You should really consider reading the entire post. Baldwin completely exposes the inappropriateness and unfairness of the comparisons of sincere Christianity to Jihad and deftly analyzes the pretensions of secularism. I could try to summarize, but would just end up reproducing his essay.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Secularism and Britt Hume

  1. Well ok. I think that accepting Christianity has to do with giving your soul to Christ – that is not selling it but giving it. However whether you give or sell, it means you have to abide by certain laws and regulations governed by who or what you have given or sold your soul to. I don’t think anyone alive today can be a witness to an event such as the ressurrection as, if it did happen it was in a time gone by and outside of our lifespan. You cannot be a witness to something that occurred before your own existence. Therefore I don’t think Mr Baldwin is as you put it in this article, technically “a witness” to any such ressurrection. Other than belief or a strong conviction there is no real evidence that such a thing ever happened. The whole idea about the ressurrection is a complicated and sophisticated metaphorical concept that does not equate in any way, shape or form with what most people consider to be reality. To explain what the ressurrection really is or was is something that is most likely outside the confines of the understanding of the general Christian mindset,something they would not embrace nor even be able to concieve of. However you say the same thing to a Qabalist or a Mystic and they understand immediately. I, myself subscribe to Mystical Christianity which is a bit more in-depth than simply going to church and abiding by the commandments set forth by our Lord. You may or may not have heard of CRC. That is the Christian Rosy Cross – I am not going to divulge here which organisation I am a part of, as it is irrelevant. Christianity and giving up your life, your soul and the consequences are far more complicated than most people understand. To simply accept the ressurrection puts you in a position that you don’t understand or know the entire truth of, and I feel if people really knew what they were actually doing they’d put a lot more thought into it, it is really a big decision that involves not only the rest of your life but eternity thereafter.

  2. Sorry I’d like to make a correction as I spotted a typo in my reply. I didn’t mean Mr Baldwin as a witness but Mr HUME… also I understand those were Mr Baldwin’s words so if you could just disergard that typo thankyou.

  3. Shirley, I think you misunderstand the point. Sure, Brit Hume is not a person who saw the resurrected Christ, but he is part of the Christian church which bears continued witness to the evidence surrounded a physical resurrection. We are saying it happened in history just we say Caesar crossed the Rubicon. There is no one alive today to say it happened, but we still accept that it did based on the witness of the past.

  4. Ah but that wasn’t the point at all…

    What I was trying to say if you read again is that there is a lot at stake when deciding whether or not be a Christian in the fact that you have to give what you have of yourself to a cause you don’t fully understand. Its not just about accepting a ressurrection. Too many just give their lives to Christ without even understanding who or what Christ is. Blind faith is not always a good thing.

    In fact you might as well say you’re bearing false witness – the church is not a living breathing being – its an ideal and a faith, why give it an identity it doesn’t actually have and call it a witness then make out that you’re part of said entity? The concept is just that – a concept, not a reality.

  5. Mr Hunter Baker I would appreciate an answer – I am not trying to discredit you but in fact trying to understand the concepts presented in your book that secularism is a totalitarian faith. I do have to read it properly but I would like to understand your meaning.

  6. Shirley, I wouldn’t worry about an attempt to discredit me, anyway. Argument is fine. I wrote the book to stimulate the conversation. I have a hard time understanding your arguments regarding the resurrection. There is evidence for it. There were eyewitnesses identified. The authorities of the time could have disproved it if they’d had contrary evidence. The earliest Christians were witnesses to Christ’s miracles and to his resurrection. No other faith, outside of Judaism, can make similar claims. You act as though the lack of current eyewitnesses undercuts the idea of the resurrection. I cannot see how. We accept that Caesar crossed the rubicon. We do not have anyone alive today who saw such a thing happen. We only have the written histories of the day. Today’s Christians continue to proclaim the witness of the ancient church.

    I don’t think I claimed secularism is a totalitarian faith, but rather suggested that secularism has in many cases led to totalitarian results.

  7. Okay. I concede you are a whole lot smarter and up on this subject than I am. At least from a Christian perspective. For me the Bible is not a historical record, but it contains spiritual truth. The resurrection as a literal event does not make sense – even if the Bible states there were eye witnesses to it. In order to understand what the resurrection is I delved into Western Esoteric Mysticism which seemed to answer my questions. How could something like this ever happen? A man dies..and a God rises. Putting it like that makes it a lot clearer. When the man dies, then the God rises, it is not a resurrection of a man but the transition of man to God. It is something that is a very deep and powerful philosophy and an important part of man’s spiritual evolution. I have attended ceremonies at the Cathedral here in Lincoln and I have analysed the procedures of several er… I’ll call them rituals. Every Christmas, Christ is reborn and during the ritual, the Church congregation symbolically each of them becomes Christ in spirit. In this rite, Jesus is called Emmanuel (God is with us. Each of them a part of one entity, especially when they partake of the sacrament. Each of us is Jesus Christ (metaphorically speaking) We follow his story in the Bible and when he dies we also die, when he transcends to Godhood and becomes Jehovah we also symbolically and according to the cosmic law also become Jehovah we atone with Jesus, we become one with Jesus, we are one soul, one spirit, one Son of God. The Son – the smaller version of the larger, the microcosm.

    It is only through death that a man can become a God. Spiritual metaphoric concept – that makes powerful and amazing sense.

    Now, back to the secularism concept. We are all players in the field of life, even the secular people, but the secularists also think they are the referee.

    My problem here is you’re using a secular ideal against secularism, I mean, no one group of people has the right to superiority over others, and the secularist people think they do. Yet by taking a stand against them interfering you’re still being secular. Don’t you think so?

Comments are closed.