Is faith a private or public conversation?

Fox News analyst Brit Hume “caught hell” in past weeks over his suggestion that Tiger Woods turn to Christianity as the means of finding personal solace from his scandalous, adulterous affairs. “Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person, I think is a very open question,” Hume said on the show Fox News Sunday. “The Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover, seems to me, 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.”
This is a newsworthy event that Christians ought to think about and discuss. Brit Hume put himself on the line. Is that what Christians are called to do?  If so, what holds us back is probably pretty obvious considering the reaction he got. If not, then what does it mean to be a Christian witness?
The program broadcasting Hume’s comments, was speculating on how the scandal will affect Tiger in 2010. While other panelists made predictions about Tiger’s golf game, Hume’s concerns for the man were more personal.  I wonder if addiction was the issue (and it may well be) if someone suggested a 12-step group, would folks think that’s out of line? 
In speaking with quite a few Christians, many expressed pleasure at Hume’s willingness to share his faith publicly, yet were skeptical of the appropriateness of his method. Some say that calling out a person publicly has no biblical precedent and should only be done privately and personally rather than over the airwaves. But Brit Hume and Tiger Woods don’t exactly run in the same crowd, so how else is the message to be transmitted?  It’s inaccurate to say that Hume called Tiger out, because everyone in the world already knows his sin. That’s the heartache of it all. Unlike those condemning Tiger, Hume offers him a hopeful solution, not unlike what Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery.
From my perspective, Hume’s words carried no judgment, only an offer of shared grace. Nor was there anything resembling a holier-than-thou attitude, only an acknowledgment that Hume himself had found forgiveness and healing through his Christian faith.  Still, some believe Hume’s motive was self-aggrandizing, drawing attention to his own personal beliefs to confirm his opinion of himself as a good “Christian.”  Better to lead by example, they say! What, then, does it mean to lead by example?
Christians are often reluctant to speak about our faith because people will think we’re just trying to make ourselves look spiritually superior. So we remain silent.  Hume simply recommended the Christian Faith as a solution to a man who’s sinking fast. How are Christians to speak specifically to our faith? Or should we? What does it mean to lead by example in that regard? 
Is it that hard to believe that Brit Hume was speaking out of compassion for Tiger, by realizing the intensity of guilt and sorrow he’s experiencing, and which may be taking him to the low of lows?  Many years ago Brit lost a son to suicide. Perhaps that colored his perception that Tiger, given the significant burden he’s carrying, may also be at risk to give up all hope and possibly take his own life. Does that justify his remarks or not?
Hume is criticized for denigrating Tiger’s Buddhist faith, but did he? Subsequent interviews with experts acknowledge the fact that Buddhism offers no path to forgiveness because it doesn’t recognize the concept of sin. Due to the cause-effect theory, known as karma, or action-reaction, immoral behavior is a consequence of ignorant thinking, and the solution is to go inside oneself and seek enlightenment through meditation, which Tiger may be doing, since no one’s seen him. Self-realization is believed to result in right thinking and therefore right behavior, but not forgiveness as such. Does Hume’s suggestion then, have spiritual merit or not?
While negative media reaction isn’t surprising, the response of almost all of the Christians I’ve spoken to is. It’s disheartening and discouraging to anyone who might want to bear witness to Jesus in a public way, to think that, at the very least, our fellow Christians don’t even have our back. Yet Jesus warns us about this, even as he calls us to boldly proclaim him.
What does it mean to be a Christian witness?  What role does political correctness play in determining what a person of any faith does or says?  What makes expressing the truth that’s been revealed to us through our faith (in a public way) an invitation to ridicule or a gift of grace? I’d love to hear what Christians, Buddhists and other readers think as well. Peace!