Blog author: hunter.baker
by on Wednesday, January 6, 2010

The Big Hollywood blogger and actor Adam Baldwin, recently of the television series Chuck and Firefly, has taken up his virtual pen to defend Brit 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. Brit 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.


  • JohnElfering

    Jayne?! ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/ )

    An actor I’ve seen in movies and TV speaking up for Christianity? Nice!

  • Ray

    I especially liked the quote Adam Baldwin provided from that Hunter Baker guy. Thanks for bringing Baldwin’s thoughts to our attention.

  • Roger McKinney

    The outcry is typical of the censorship that non-Christians would like to impose on the rest of us.

  • Neal Lang

    Keith Olbermann: “This crosses that principle [of keeping] religious advocacy out of public life, since, you know, the worst examples of that are jihadists, not to mention, you know, guys who don’t know their own religions or somebody else’s religion, like Brit Hume.”

    Since when has it become a sin to profess one’s religious beliefs in public. This character must believe he lives that secular paradise known as the form Soviet Union.
    Obviously Olbermannsee Tiger’s martial infidelity as being some sort of political problem, instead of the moral problem it obviously is. As such, Olbermann thinks that Tiger’s soul can be healed by strictly secular means such as government punitively taxes his “ill-gotten” product endorsement gains.

  • Neal Lang

    ‘Hunter Baker defines Secularism as ‘a radical concept that involves the privatization of religious belief: [i.e.] when we are together in the public square, if we are ‘virtuous and civil’ then we will not speak of religion at all, we will confine it to our private lives and presumably – many elites believe – when we do that, religious belief will eventually disappear’.”

    And without religion, by what standard will society define what constitutes ‘virtuous and civil’ behavior?

  • David

    “As an avid golfer, Christian man, and therefore a witness to the historic fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

    Baldwin is being entirely too modest. Apparently he needs to add time traveler to his resume.

    Although there were a few messianic figures going by the name Joshua/Yeshua/Jesus in Palestine a couple millennia ago, and it’s impossible to rule out that Christianity wasn’t built on an actual historical personage whose fanciful biography is depicted in scripture, the only unbiased mention of J.C. by a historian of the era, the so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” from Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews,” has long been considered by scholars of any repute to be a forgery, inserted by a later Christian writer (perhaps Euseubius) to lend some veracity to the faith.

    And as for societies being unable to establish standards of virtue and civility without religions, gimme a break. The Bible endorses everything from slavery to genocide to killing anybody who eats shrimp or sasses their parents.

  • Hunter Baker

    David, read N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God. It is an amazingly powerful argument for the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, it is over 1000 pages long. If you need something shorter, go with Did the Resurrection Really Happen by Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew.

  • Chris

    Am I missing something? Hume should have just shut the f. up and not said it. Just made some analysis and commentary and that’s that. Why are we even debating this?

  • Carolyn Smith

    I am so proud of Brit Hume. I have thought how I would like to sit down with Tiger Woods and tell him how much God loves him. His life is not over. If he would confess his sins to God, accept God’s gift of salvation and believe that God can save him from eternal hell, Tiger will be a new creature and can begin a new life in Christ. He could then begin to try to build his life and family back. I, for one, will be praying the someone can get to him and share the wonderful Gospel with Tiger. Again thank you, Brit Hume for taking a stand for Christ. God bless you.

  • Larry

    Baker writes “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.”

    This is absurd reasoning. What Christianity asks of us is precisely to believe in a magical mystery, to “accept it or not”. The basis is to accept without evidence ‘historical’ events involving spirits, after-death experiences, and predictions of the future. So Christianity clearly “hits” you with a mystery that cannot be possibly understood with the same rational mind that would understand anything in daily life.

  • Hunter Baker

    That’s an absurd position, Chris. He was asked for his opinion and he gave it. Is there any particular reason you can’t hear a man’s opinion if it involves God? Isn’t that a form of bigotry and intolerance?

  • Hunter Baker

    Larry, it is not a magical mystery. Christianity offers the only claim of which I am aware of a supernatural event that is plausibly based on real evidence. Not a slam dunk, but it definitely can be accepted by the rational mind. How much have you looked into the question?

  • Larry

    Hunter, it is really hard to pick and choose one’s magical mysteries, that is, to say this is true and that is not, when none are in fact a ‘slam dunk’. Since the entire discussion is, in the background, pitting Christianity against Buddhism (the original topic here and what you presumably referenced as magical mystery), we should also ask how it stands up to these criteria of slam dunkery. Buddhism is based on ethics, ethics founded on an understanding of cause and effect in human life. Such a moral foundation should appeal to the Acton Institute. Tiger failed in his Buddhism, just as Christians so often fail in their creed. Moreover, this was not a time to pit one faith against another, as Brit Hume did, but to ask people to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences. Redemption comes entirely from this starting point – what kind of person Tiger will become is the measure of his redemption, not whether people, or God, forget about or forgive his transgressions.

  • Race

    To assert that Jesus actually did, in history, rise from the dead, is to entangle Christianity with magical mysteriousness. If God is spirit, then God is not matter, not located physically in time and space. Saying Jesus’ resurrected body ascended into heaven (into spirit) is throughly magically mysterious. His resurrection is not the center of it all. It never was to begin with. He wasn’t killed because he was the son of God. He was killed because he preached unapologetically against the secular and religious powers that existed in his day. If it weren’t for his preachings, he would not have been tortured and killed and there would be no talk of the resurrection. Understanding what Jesus preached is the task at hand. Some of it is ethical and counterintuitive but actually makes you happy. Others are end-of-the-world topics that are a bit superstitious today but in the flat-earth society of 200 years ago, the end of the world seemed imminent, what with the Romans running everything.

    Brit should have had some knowledge about Buddhism before making his suggestion. It is the Muslims, after all who have no knowledge of Christianity, who are seeking mass conversions through fear. Hell being the worst violence of all, is surely a vulgar inducement toward Christianity for Tiger, though a little less vulgar than the mere moments of violence brought about by Mulsims seeking to save eternal souls.

    It is those, in my opinion, who are so thoroughly preparing for the next world who make life so miserable for those trying to live in this world.

  • John Galt

    Brit Hume is a media figure — one step removed from reality. Tiger Woods is an absurdly rich sports star and product endorser — also removed from reality. Brit Hume commenting on Tiger Woods is thus, in a sense, two degrees removed from reality. Here’s a good rule: anything that anybody says, ever, on television is not to be taken seriously. In fact, Christians probably shouldn’t be watching television. Excuse me, but aren’t there real problems in the world to write about? Is this nonsense grist for the think-tank mill these days?

  • Hunter Baker

    I don’t know, John Galt, but you are commenting on the comment about the comment. What does that say about you? :-)

  • John Galt

    > What does that say about you?

    It should say that I respect the intellectual caliber of the people here enough to want make some comments that are sincere and genuinely intended to be constructive. I’m using a blog that is designed to facilitate exchange of ideas. I’m bypassing the mainstream media, which as far as I can tell is/are neatly summarized by the word “toxic.”

  • Hunter Baker

    That is a good answer, John Galt, but it does not correctly characterize your comment which amounted to, “Isn’t this a dumb thing for someone to write about?” I felt the Hume story merited discussion because it reflects the kind of unthinking secularism that is often assumed by members of the media.

  • Neal Lang

    “And as for societies being unable to establish standards of virtue and civility without religions, gimme a break.”

    Please, by all means, inspire us all by listing one or two virtuous and civil irreligious societies.

  • Neal Lang

    “Am I missing something? Hume should have just shut the f. up and not said it. Just made some analysis and commentary and that’s that.”

    That is 3exactly what Brit did. Too bad you can’t see the truth of his “analysis and commentary.”

    “Why are we even debating this?”

    Because as a scociety our Nation has lost its “moral compass” as your commentary readily demonstrate.

  • Neal Lang

    “This is absurd reasoning. What Christianity asks of us is precisely to believe in a magical mystery, to ‘accept it or not’.”

    And your answer has what? A historical or scientific basis that can be accepted without resorting to faith that Darwin was right. That man is merely an animal. No better or worse that pond slim.

    “The basis is to accept without evidence ‘historical’ events involving spirits, after-death experiences, and predictions of the future. So Christianity clearly ‘hits’ you with a mystery that cannot be possibly understood with the same rational mind that would understand anything in daily life.”

    Some 2 billion people would be to differ with you. You, of course, have your own god, your own creator of life, and his name is “Chaos.” You cannot point to any scientific fact to demonstrate how your god, Chaos, work his magic to spontaneously create life, so your religion of Secular Materialism requires in mor “faith” then do the adherents of Christianity. What history does tell us, Larry, is that thousands of people, many of whom meet and listened to Jesus, the Christ, were willing to suffer torture and death in cruel ways rather then deny their beliefs in a Divine and risen Lord. Are you willing to die for your beliefs in your god, Chaos?

  • Neal Lang

    “Excuse me, but aren’t there real problems in the world to write about? Is this nonsense grist for the think-tank mill these days?”

    Excuseme, but if you think Tiger Woods tragic marriage is a problem, tham you are part of the problem and not the solution.

  • Neal Lang

    “Brit should have had some knowledge about Buddhism before making his suggestion.”

    Actually, Brit is quite correct about the Buddhism, as its Nirvina is that all Buddhist are to become gods. I think Tiger’s actions manifest this idea.

    “It is the Muslims, after all who have no knowledge of Christianity, who are seeking mass conversions through fear.”

    Actually you are wrong. Islam recognizes Jesus, the Christ, as a great prophet, and even recognizes His mother, Mary. Their knowledge of Jesus, the Christ, is however, corrupted, and they do not recognize Him as the Son of God. The tomb of Jesus, the Christ, unlike that of Mohammed, is, however, empty.

  • Neal Lang

    “Since the entire discussion is, in the background, pitting Christianity against Buddhism (the original topic here and what you presumably referenced as magical mystery), we should also ask how it stands up to these criteria of slam dunkery. Buddhism is based on ethics, ethics founded on an understanding of cause and effect in human life.”

    However, in Buddhism, unlike Christianity, there is no Redemption, unlike Christianity. Tyhe was Brit’s entire point.