Eugene Cho

brit hume on tiger woods: what’s the big deal?

Maybe you’ve seen it or not but if you haven’t, I invite you to watch the video (below) and contribute to our dialogue. My simple question:

What’s the big deal? Did you or do you have any problems with what he shared? Did he violate the tenets of “good journalism?”

For those that don’t knowBrit Hume is a TV commentator and journalist. He now mostly works at FOX News as a senior political analyst. Truth be told, he’s one of the few I can listen to on FOX News when I’m watching it mainly because he’s not screaming. MSNBC isn’t much better. But I digress…

But here’s the context and the situation (from wikipedia):

On January 3, 2010, as a guest on Fox News Sunday Hume offered advice to Tiger Woods that he might turn his faith to Christianity. Hume’s comments came in the wake of the revelation of Tiger Woods’ habitual adultery and the resulting deterioration of his relationship with his family. Hume stated on the show that

“Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, and it’s a tragic situation for him. I think he’s lost his family, it’s not clear to me if he’ll be able to have a relationship with his children, but the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal — the extent to which he can recover — seems to me to depend 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.'”

Hume was immediately criticized for these comments, but he stood firm with his remarks and reiterated them the following day on The O’Reilly Factor with Bill O’Reilly. Hume insisted to O’Reilly that he never meant to insult Buddhism, and stated that:

“I was really meaning to say in those comments yesterday more about Christianity than I was about anything else. I mentioned the Buddhism only because his mother is a Buddhist and he has apparently said that he is a Buddhist. I’m not sure how seriously he practices that.”

This explanation also drew criticism as having been trying to defend his previous actions. Hume gave reason for his strong feelings on Christianity in an interview where he explained how he committed his life to Jesus Christ “in a way that was very meaningful” to him. This being in the aftermath of his son’s death by suicide in 1998.

For me:

  • We live in a larger marketplace of ideas and thoughts. The TV from what I can gather asked for the opinions of columnists.
  • I agree. I don’t think he was dismissing Buddhism as he was simply speaking of Christianity. While it wasn’t classic journalism, he was giving his honest opinion and…
  • He did it with respect. I didn’t interpret his words, posture, or attitude as condescending, ruthless, or an agenda to proselytize.  The medium is as important as the message [think street evangelist with “you’re going to hell” signs blowing on the bullhorns].
  • For those who were offended by his Buddhist comment, don’t get upset and offended…share your thoughts and convictions with the larger marketplace of ideas. I’d love to read a thoughtful response rather than a vitriolic rant.
  • Folks criticized he had no right to offer any advice because he is a divorcee and remarried. Really? No one can make any comments if they have any blemishes?

Share/Bookmark

Filed under: , , , ,

39 Responses

  1. Jermayn says:

    If they said any other religion, the outcry would not be there. So to me that is a good thing that shows that Christianity is still relevant in todays world, if not it would be something like “Obviously Christianity did not work so try Islam”…

  2. He didn’t violate the rules of journalism because he aired his opinion on an editorial roundtable. He did it respectfully and in the tone that ‘this is my opinion,’ which is hugely different from when Keith Olbermann and others air their opinions (which is all the time). I thought it was a ballsy move, and he should get credit for saying something that needed to be said which he knew would blow back in his face.

  3. thinkpoint says:

    Totally agree with Matt! Hey where’s the outcry and mockery of Olbermann?

  4. Danny Bixby says:

    I agree with what Matt said about not violating any rules of journalism due to the format of the show. It isn’t pretending to be news, it’s an opinion show. So his opinion on the situation is quite valid.

    To be honest, I had more problems with his interview on O’Reily than the original piece itself. He tried to insist that he wasn’t proselytizing ….but that’s pretty much exactly what he was doing. Sure, proselytizing may have a negative connotation; but attempting to persuade someone to another faith is basically the textbook definition of it.

    I thought the original statement was respectful, gutsy, and true.

    • Danny – I totally agree. The original comment wasn’t a big deal to me because it was clearly an editorial one, but when Hume tried to insist he wasn’t proselytizing and when folks started to claim “religious persecution” over the matter, I couldn’t help but roll my eyes.

      I’ve noticed that I always agree with your comments on these blogs!🙂

  5. what I don’t understand are the people who don’t understand how others might be offended when someone publicly insults one religion and says theirs is better. Who cares which religions they were, it’s going to be offensive no matter if you are a journalist or a preacher (although preachers are expected to be offensive). To be offended isn’t to attack Christianity, it’s just being truthful about one’s feeling just like Brit Hume was. If he can’t own the responsibility for how his words might affect others good or bad, then perhaps he should have just kept his opinions to himself. But being surprised or hurt that people might disagree with him just doesn’t cut it.

    now the truthfulness of his statement is a whole different topic…

  6. Andy M says:

    While I have no doubt that he said it in good intention, and while I may not even disagree with him, I personally think it was innapropriate.

    First off, I don’t like any Christian telling someone that they should turn to Christianity, when they have no basis of relationship with that person, in particular when there is no chance of relationship, like through a TV show. To clarify, if I was in conversation with a stranger I would feel free to share my faith with them because I would invest something in that relationship. But through TV you cannot invest into a relationship. It gives the wrong impression about Christianity.

    Now, I’m probably out of the loop as far as what is going on with Tiger and his family. But I think that his comment about, “I think he’s lost his family”, was also innapropriate, whether it is true or not. But honestly, this stems to a larger problem with our media, because I believe that Tiger Woods’ family and personal life is none of our business and has no place on TV. That isn’t going to change, but that is my opinion.

    Like I said before, I’m sure Brit Hume had good intentions. But I don’t think that his comments will do Tiger Woods or Christianity any good.

    I will say though, that his comments were said much more respectfully than many other people would have been. That does help.

  7. Kyle Reed says:

    I struggle with this…
    One part of me is right behind him in what he said, but another part of me finds this not appropriate for the time and situation.
    As much as I agree with what he said and I believe in what he said, I think it was not the time or even his place to say what he did to Tiger.
    Mainly I say this because of the way Christians are viewed by the media and through the media in different ways that this message would be taken for something different then what it really means.

    Now going back to the other side of me, he preached the gospel and is letting God work. Who knows, maybe Tiger will hear this and the gospel will hit him.

    More questions then answers.

  8. Rebecca says:

    I admire his courage to come out and say that on television, knowing that he would probably get this reaction. It’s amazing that in a society that preaches tolerance it’s somehow unacceptable for a man to convey his personal religious conviction in a setting that is asking for opinions, particularly if that conviction is Christianity. I can’t help but wonder what reaction he would have gotten if he was encouraging Tiger to pursue his Buddhism or some other religious path.

  9. I think the interest generated by Hume’s comment is just a symptom of some bigger problems:

    1) Too many cable news networks continually blur the lines between news and opinion, playing to their “base” rather than reporting the news with integrity. While Hume was clearly in editorial mode, (which is why I think most of this is much ado about nothing), sometimes it seems like the Fox News network (and MSNBC) are ALWAYS in editorial mode. I’m concerned about what’s going to happen when we pick and choose our sources for news based on the fact that we just want to confirm what we already believe.

    2) Christians in America are too quick to play the persecution card over trivial stuff like this. What I’m hearing from non-Christian friends is an irritation over the persecution complex that has resurfaced as Christians react to negative response to Hume’s comments. As Julie said, Hume has to live with the fact that when you say that one religion is better than another, folks are going to get offended.

    • Amber Himes says:

      I agree with you here.

      My thoughts are, instead of playing the persecution card and engaging in a pointless argument amounting to “did not; did too,” why couldn’t he reframe the word, “proselytizing”, to something less hot-buttonish, yet also accurate/true, and engage in a thoughtful debate on agreed-upon terms? I am asking too much here, I know. His opinion was valid and could have been reasonably and respectfully defended. On tone, he had it down. As for the rest, a learning experience for all.

    • Eugene Cho says:

      rachel:

      i wonder if some of this stems from the fact that “many” christians:

      a) feel a sense of entitlement (once) being the uber-dominant presence

      b) truth be told, there does seem to be lots of christian bashing. i rarely hear any positive things about christians or churches. sometimes i wonder if the rule of journalism is don’t let folks talk about faith, God, Christ, etc. in their reporting but when bad things happen – those descriptives come out.

      thinking out loud.

      • Amber – LOVE the point about how “proselytize” is such a hot-button word. But I can’t think of a better one! “Witness” has a Christianese ring to it and also implies an actual conversation with someone. Hmmm…

        Anyone have any ideas?

        Eugene – Yeah, I think it’s a bit of entitlement thing. I understand why folks get irritated when others belittle their faith. But when we consider the very real persecution of Christians around the world, and when we consider the very real persecution faced by the first Christians, it seems kinda silly to get worked up over using “holiday” instead of “Christmas”. In fact, I would argue that, historically, the church is at its best when it is marginalized. As followers of Christ, we’re supposed to “rejoice” when people ridicule and mistreat us, not walllow when we don’t get our way.

  10. Josh Roberts says:

    Not really sure Hume said his faith was better than an other. I believe he pointed out that Christianity inherently offers something that Buddhism doesn’t; redemption. He also was sharing from his personal experience with the Christian faith. He was offering help from a place where he has received help.

  11. Travis McKee says:

    I don’t argue with promoting Christianity. Yes, in an editorial standpoint, he should be able to say, “turn to the savior for forgiveness” sure.

    I have a problem with the absolute ignorance of Buddhism put forth by Hume, Pat Robertson, and others in this whole situation. The commentators say they don’t know anything about Buddhism, but still profess to Christianity to offer something that Buddhism doesn’t.

    If you claim ignorance, does that make you free to throw out claims as fact? It is like saying, “I don’t know much about Christianity, but my solution would be to not kill people, since that is what Christians do.” We’d be too offended by that, why shouldn’t Buddhists (and defenders of inter-faith dialogue)

  12. Josh says:

    I feel that it was as appropriate as possible for national television, so I give him props for that. May he rejoice in his soon-to-be sufferings from his peers. 🙂

  13. I don’t know that he was wrong or out of line in what he said, though I believe the backlash is to be expected.

    The cynic in me though worries that Fox manufactured it into something to pander to their audience, after all controversy draws a crowd and a crowd means more ad revenue. And Fox’s crowd is already of the mindset that everybody in America is out to get good old fashioned Christians.

    The checking point for me though is to ask how I will respond when I hear someone say in the opinions that Christianity doesn’t offer the best route, that Buddhism or Islam or something else is a better route, will I give an uproar and be offended that someone would give such an opinion, or will I react in a different way?

  14. Jake Tucker says:

    I saw this on the daily show, and they seemed to make proselytizing (which is indeed what Hume was doing) out to be a completely insensitive and offensive thing to do. I don’t see how it is. It shouldn’t have such an extreme negative connotation. I also like how straight forward Hume was. I don’t think cable news is the best place to share your faith, but I don’t think it’s horrible to bring faith into the public discourse; especially not when the discourse has a clear theme of morality as in the Tiger Woods fiasco. As much as I enjoy the show, it seems like the Daily Show (and others like it) would like it if religion remained completely removed from public discourse and those who wish to discuss the differences in religion as if the mattered to be marginalized as fanatics.

  15. Travis McKee says:

    as crass as i can be, a friend of mine commented on the situation. He is responding to Stuart Roy’s analysis, which can be found in the full article linked below

    “The assumption that forgiveness can only be granted by or through some higher power is the failing point of both Hume’s original slap at Buddhism and Roy’s misguided attempt at a defense. If he were a religious scholar, he might realize that one of the greatest failures of Christian theology is its tendency to lock forgiveness into the relationship between an individual human being and some higher power. When a person may somehow feel absolved of failing in their relationship to another human being (or group of them for that matter), there is no reason to seek the forgiveness of the wronged party and to engage in a process of dialogue and reconciliation. Christianity has plagued the western landscape with this attitude that “Because I’ve made things right with God, I don’t have to worry about making things right with my neighbor.” I’m pretty sure that’s inconsistent with the red-lettered words in Mr. Roy’s unread Bible.”

    http://xeniainstitute.org/2010/01/08/responding-to-britt-hume%E2%80%99s-responders/

  16. I saw this on the Daily Show too, though I really think that they, along with Colbert, for example, really do want religion in public discourse, they just want it done intelligently.

    For example, the Daily Show has brought folks like Jim Wallis on and had wonderful conversations about faith and activism. Colbert has done the same with N.T. Wright, and many others.

    I think they (and I, for that matter) just don’t want folks in public discourse to talk about other religions in ways that are 1) ignorant, 2) arrogant, and 3) attempts to make claims on other people’s lives.

    Hume certainly has every right to talk about the grace of Jesus if he wants to and I think it would be great if he did, especially in light of his own story, but to speak to a person of another faith, while being ignorant of that other faith, and blatantly tell the other person to reject that faith, in spite of Hume’s ignorance of it and strictly because of his opinion is just disrespectful, and not a good thing to have in public discourse.

    It would be bad enough to share one’s faith *that way* in the context of a friendship, but to do it on TV is even less respectful. I think that is the case regardless of whether his remark is true.

  17. Norris Hall says:

    Brit Hume’s comments reveals how little he knows about Buddhism. That’s typical of most Amercans. To say” I don’t think that faith (Buddhism) offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.” reveals his ignorance about Buddhism.

    Buddhism is not a religion with a heaven for good people and a hell for bad people. You don’t have to convert to Buddhism. There is no such thing as salvation or going to heaven (as Brit implies).
    Buddah is not a God. He does not need to be prayed to, pleased, praised, adored, worshiped or in any way have his ego stroked to keep him happy.
    There are rules to follow in order to get rewards.
    Buddah is considered a great teacher…much in the same way that Lincoln is considered a great president. We honor Lincolns memory. We build monuments to him. We celebrate his life. But we don’t worship Lincoln or pray to Lincoln to give us things. He’s not a God that needs us to
    praise him. He’s not like Santa Claus

    Perhaps it would be helpful for Brit to google “Buddhism” before he makes broad sweeping statements about things he knows nothing about.
    There are many good links to the teachings of Buddah on the internet. It never hurts to do a little research first

    Too many news analysts just aren’t adhering to basic journalistic standards anymore. They are going by what they’ve heard rather than what they’ve researched.

    So fiction now has the same force as fact.

    • Channing says:

      I find your comment difficult to understand. You quote Hume’s statment “I don’t think that faith (Buddhism) offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.”
      And then reinforce it when you state “There is no such thing as salvation or going to heaven (as Brit implies).”
      Aren’t you agreeing with his assessment?

      • Travis McKee says:

        that redemption issue isn’t the same thing in Buddhism as it is in Christianity. Redemption isn’t offered in the same format is what is being said.

  18. Frank Kim says:

    Though I did not actually see it I do think it was inappropriate. Brit Hume was using his power to tell someone who is at rock bottom to become a Christian. It is unsolicited advice at best. It is not surprising that such arrogance was not well-received by the general public.

  19. Ben says:

    MediaCurves.com conducted a study among 604 viewers of a news clip in which Brit Hume states that only the Christian faith, not Tiger Wood’s current Buddhist faith, can offer forgiveness for his alleged affairs. Results showed that the majority of respondents (74%) indicated that Brit Hume’s on-air comments were ‘not at all effective’ at convincing Tiger Woods to switch his faith to Christianity. More in depth results can be seen at:
    http://www.mediacurves.com/Religion/J7697-BritHumeFaith/Index.cfm
    Thanks,
    Ben

  20. Matthew says:

    I also did a blog post on the subject:

    http://existentialmusingsofmatt.blogspot.com/2010/01/theocracy-laicism-and-moderation.html

    The reasons I objected to Brit Hume’s commentary is that it came off as ‘Buddhism is what is wrong with Tiger Woods’, and it came off as further sanctimony from gossip-driven media. It did no service to Buddhism and it certainly did none to Christianity.

  21. tourist2010 says:

    Brit Hume overlooked a serious statistic…the rate of divorce among born again Christians is no better than for non-believers like Woods. And worse than for Asians

    In other words, being a born again Christian doesn’t make for a better family life than non Christians like Woods.

    In fact, Asians…most of whom are Buddhist and Muslim are less likely of all groups to experience a divorce

    Barna Research Group, which does religious polling in the US came out with a controversial and eyepopping study that challenged the often assumed notion that born again Christians are more family centered than the rest of the population.

    You can read the poll results here

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marriageplusonline.com%2FNew%2520Marriage%2520and%2520Divorce%2520Statistics%2520Released%2520-%2520Barna.pdf&ei=mCZNS_e8I4ikswPV-tSKAQ&usg=AFQjCNFWO90henPVgSEUnD_xjvxCEG1y6w&sig2=q6nQtQhbhfxkSjAU6mSySw

  22. Benjamin says:

    Is this America? Does our Constitution give us the right of freedom of expression;freedom of worship and the freedom to bear arms? Let’s face it. Mr. Hume had a choice to say what he said. And he exercised his choice. Millions of babies are aborted everyday because women chose to abort. That freedom is protected under our Constitution. I thank you Mr. Hume. Now is the time for Christians to stand up for the Bible. America was founded on Christian beliefs. Ps. 33:12 states, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.

  23. paulglavic says:

    On a journalistic level, Hume did nothing wrong. While it wouldn’t fly with the “just the facts” journalism of 40 years ago, “new journalism” really allows journalists the freedom to show their hand a little bit when covering stories. For better or worse, the journalists become the topic of interest and entertainment just as much as that which they cover. It’s the case with everything from ESPN to CNN to the local morning news shows in every city that are crammed full of soft feature stories. Some people really hate this; I’m somewhere between indifferent and favorable toward it.

    FOX News, as a network, has a polarizing reputation. Its shortcomings are met with scrutiny that I rarely see paralleled in treatment of other major news outlets that are equally biased in their story selection and so forth (could just be that I live in a far-left city…). So part of me feels compelled to mock the outcry, because it’s tough to call any of these niche media outlets the “public sphere” in one breath while acknowledging that these outlets reaffirm their viewers’ previously-held beliefs in the next breath.

    The people who are livid toward Hume aren’t his viewers, anyway. And the people watching FOX News watch it to engage with the personalities and opinions of people like Hume, who are paid to leak a bit of their own worldview. It’s no different than turning to ESPN to hear Jim Rome trash Tom Brady’s lifestyle and promote something else in its place. I know what (or who) I’m getting if I turn on Jim Rome’s show — Rome’s worldview.

    It’s really not a big deal.

  24. I’m curious if folks here would be as readily accepting of the “It was just his opinion” defense if he chose to suggest that the problem was not with Tiger’s religion but with his race. Something like “I don’t know about all folks who’ve got asian or black genetics but white people…” (end that sentence however you want).

    • Dan Hauge says:

      I was a bit uncomfortable with some of Brit Hume’s tone and language, Jack, but I think the genuine difference here is that race is something inherent in people, whereas the choice of religious beliefs is just that, a choice of philosophy. Yes, religion does often coincide with a person’s culture, and can therefore be seen as part of identity to an extent, but it also has the characteristics of chosen values. I have always found it a bit confusing that, in our current cultural climate, to disagree about religious beliefs is seen as an ‘attack on identity’ rather than as a robust disagreement of spiritual views.

      To to turn the question on it’s head, and frame it another way: would those who are so offended by Hume’s comments be as upset if he said “I think (whoever’s) liberal politics are a source of real problems in their life, whereas a shift to a conservative position would be better.” I would suggest that we might really disagree with that statement, but wouldn’t respond in such a visceral way as if our very identity was being attacked.

  25. Dave says:

    @ Benjamin

    I cannot agree with your statement that “America was founded on Christian Beleifs”. This statement is utterly incorrect. Most of the founding fathers were deists and did not beleive in Christ and the trinitarian God. Thomas jefferson created his own bible in which he removed all the parts pertaining to anything supernatural. If you study, you will soon find out that our founding fathers were not the bible belt christians that you think they are. Here are some resources:

    http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/founding-fathers-xtianity.html

    “The Myth of a Christian Nation” by Greg Boyd.

    Also, your use of Psalm 33:12 is wrong here. David is not speaking about America here. This is an eschatological statement projecting to the coming Kingdom of heaven to where Christ will physically rule as king. This is a longing for that day when christ will return again in Glory, not a call for Christians to regain America as a christian nation. Im sure America would be blessed if God was truly our king, but he is not.

    And for future reference, when you take only a part of a verse and quote it out of context, you are prooftexting scripture and making it say what you want. The second part of that verse is, “the people he chose for his inheritance”. It is speaking about the Church, not America.

    In regards to Brit Humes comment, I am surprised at his last statement, “Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’” This is a very shallow theology to state that if he accepted Christ, he would not have to feel the consequences of his actions. Because of the corruption of his heart, he has chosen to be unfaithful, and will therefore suffer the consequences. Coming to a faith in Christ will not simply erase that, it would still require much repentence, and forgiveness on behalf of his wife to have a ‘total recovery’, as Hume suggests. It is arrogant to say that that coming to Christ would automatically initiate a full recovery of all his status, wealth, family and fame. Who knows if he would be a great example to the world. That is for God to decide. Christianity is not that simple, and Hume was arrogant to say this.

  26. […] Brit Hume On Tiger Woods: What's The Big Deal? « Eugene ChoI have a problem with the absolute ignorance of Buddhism put forth by Hume, Pat Robertson,… […]

  27. Drew H says:

    The only thing I see as a possible problem is If you beleive Brit’s motives were money. I don’t see that as the case. If Brit truely beleives that Is faith in Christ has been extensively beneficial in his life and he thinks it could help Tiger to find the love of christ in his life, then you understand that is motive was good whether or not you beleive in God or not. Telling someone about something you beleive has helped you is not a bad thing. If he had said he found healing in Hindu or Wisdom and guidance from Islam would there be an outcry. I doubt it. So why is it offensive to people for a man to say, “I found peace in Christianity?”

  28. Brit Hume is ridiculous. No one wants to hear a news anchor’s personal points of view. We simply want to hear the news. If I wanted to hear someone’s deep and intimate thoughts, I’d watch Dr. Phil.

  29. Thanks for your posting on the traveling industry. Id personally also like to add that if you are a senior taking into consideration traveling, its absolutely vital that you buy travel cover for seniors. When traveling, golden-agers are at high risk of getting a healthcare emergency. Obtaining the right insurance package on your age group can protect your health and give you peace of mind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

stuff, connect, info

One Day’s Wages

My Instagram

As I soaked in this breathtaking sunrise this morning above the clouds, I felt compelled to pray for so my places in America and around the world that are experiencing such pain, heartache, injustice, and violence. At times, it feels so overwhelming but in prayer, I was reminded of these words from John 16:33. As we keep striving, working, hoping, preaching, loving, truthtelling, reconciling, repenting, forgiving, dismantling, peacemaking, Kingdom building...may we fix our eyes on Christ: “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” - John 16:33 Grateful for a very full weekend of ministry and preaching in Toronto, Canada (GTA). Such a privilege to partner with @worldvisioncan @wvcollective to advocate for the most vulnerable around the world. God is so gracious. A true honor to meet and encourage local pastors, lecture at Tyndale University & Seminary (photo), and preach at Richmond Hills Community Church, Compass Point Bible Church, and New City Church. Thank you, Lord, that you use broken and imperfect people like me to speak of Your love. Today, Minhee and I dropped off our eldest child at her college. We have been thinking and praying about this day for many years. On some days, we hoped it would never come. On other days, we couldn't wait for it to come. On some days, we prayed for time to stop and other days, we prayed with anticipation. 
After an entire summer of laughing it off, it hit us...hard...this week. Seeing all of her stuff laid out on the basement floor was the catalyst to a load of emotions.

After unloading the car and taking her stuff to her new home for this year and mindful that she might never live with us again; helping sort out her stuff, saying hello to her roommates...I wasn't sure what to do or say.

A flood of thoughts rushed my mind.

Is she ready?
Have we done enough?
Have we taught her enough? 
What if this? What if that?

And so we shared what we have shared with her the moment she began to understand words: "Remember who you are. Remember WHO you belong to. Remember what you're about. God loves you so much. Please hold God's Word and His promises close and dear to your heart. We love you so much and we are so proud of you." And with that, we said goodbye. Even if she may not be thousands of miles away, this is a new chapter for her and even for us. I kept it composed. Her roommate was staring at me. I didn't want to be that father. I have street cred to uphold. Another final hug. 
And I came home.
And I wept.
Forget my street cred.
I miss her. I love her.
She will always be my little baby.

I'm no parenting guru. I just laughed as I wrote that line. No, I'm stumbling and bumbling along but I'd love to share an ephiphany I learned not that long ago. Coming to this realization was incredibly painful but simultaneously, liberating. To be honest, it was the ultimate game-changer in my understanding as a parent seeking after the heart of God.

While there are many methods, tools, philosophies, and biblical principles to parenting, there is – in my opinion – only one purpose or destination.

Our purpose as parents is to eventually…release them. Send forth. For His glory. Met a friend and fellow pastor who I haven't seen in over 20 years. In him, I saw a glimpse of my future. While only 10 years older, his kids are married and he's now a grandfather of 3. His love for his wife and family were so evident and his passion for the Gospel has not wavered. It was so good to see someone a bit older still passionately serving the Lord with such joy and faithfulness. Lord, help me to keep running the race for your Glory. Happy wife.
Happy life. - Eugenius 3:16

I still remember that time, many years ago, when Minhee was pregnant with our first child. She had left her family and friends in Korea just two years before. Her morning sickness was horrible and when she finally had an appetite, she craved her favorite Korean food from certain restaurants in her neighborhood in Seoul, Korea. I had no way of getting that food from those restaurants so I actually said, "How about a Whopper? Big Mac?" Sorry honey. Eat away. You deserve it. I don't care if it sounds mushy but sunsets are one of my love languages. Seoul, Korea was amazing but WOW...what a breathtaking welcome back sunset by Seattle. Not ready to let go of summer.

my tweets

  • The Gospel, not social justice, is our identity as believers but the Gospel compels us to love God/love people incl. work 4 the common good. || 20 hours ago
  • Folks often ask me, "What is social justice?" "Social justice" are fancier words for "Give a Damn". || 20 hours ago
  • RT @EugeneCho: Just met Edna, a sister-in-Christ. She's 90 years old. She met Jesus when she was 85. You're never too young or too old to f… || 22 hours ago
  • Thank you @fullerfyi @KPowellFYI for this important resource about listening, engaging, and discipling young people: churchesgrowingyoung.com || 22 hours ago
  • Just met Edna, a sister-in-Christ. She's 90 years old. She met Jesus when she was 85. You're never too young or too old to follow Christ. || 1 day ago
  • RT @jennysimmons: Hard to convey the profound impact @EugeneCho has had on me. His endorsement of #MadeWellBook means a great deal. https:/… || 1 day ago

JOIN ME ON FACEBOOK

advertisements

Blog Stats

  • 3,418,977 hits