Main image
14th January
2010
written by evancurry

I understand that a lot of Christians are upset with Pat Robertson, and, in a sense, so am I. However, our response must be one of love, but we must also point out where we, Christians, go wrong. I do believe Pat is a Christian, and I do believe much of his theology is poor. I am perturbed that Pat would say these things about the Haitian people when they are down (I suppose, kicking them when they are down). But he’s not the first to claim a disaster is God’s judgment on an area. I have pointed out another time recently when Christians have made rash statements about God’s judgment. Regardless, Pat’s statement was foolish (and I mean this in a “lacking wisdom” way, not a “he’s an idiot” way).

First, Pat, such a statement is offensive to Christians in Haiti. I have met many Haitian Christians over my life, and I know of a few Christian organizations/churches in Haiti. I say this in a compassionate way, How do they feel about such a statement? Wouldn’t it hurt them, Pat, if they heard what you said?

Second, Pat, what is more offensive from a theological standpoint, is your contrast between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The thought process is, the Haitians are poor because of their pact with the Devil, but the Dominicans are prosperous and have “resorts” because they are not like the Haitians (does that make the Dominicans Christian? I don’t know). Once again, we’ve fallen into a consumeristic mentality and fallen for the myth of progress that says that progress is always good, and “good” manifests itself in technological advances and luxurious living. I understand that wealth and good land is part of what God gives, but it is not always the case.

I recently studied Luke 2 about Christ’s birth announcement to the shepherds. The shepherds were the marginalized, the poor, the outcasts. God decides to reveal his redemptive plan first to them, not the rich or powerful. In fact, the Gospel of Luke is very harsh on the rich. Jesus’ mission is wrapped around giving help to the poor (cf. Lk. 4:18). Mary’s song exclaims, “He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty” (Lk. 1:53 NIV). It’s a theological downfall to say that those who have much have been favored by God and those who have little are not. I think Luke’s Gospel refutes your contrast, Pat.

Third, I forgive you, Pat. It has been hard for me, at times, to love people like you, but we are called to love other Christians. Please do not see this as a harsh critique on you but, rather, as a critique on bad theology and rash statements. Jesus calls us to forgiveness, not hatred; love, not anger; unity, not division. If you were to walk into my office today, I would try to point out where you went wrong, and I would work hard to end it with reconciliation and redemption. Sometimes, you have to get in another Christian’s face, but our solution must be one of love and forgiveness.

What are your thoughts on the situation with Pat Robertson?

++++++++

Suggested blog posts on this matter:

Don Miller

Ed Cyzewski

Related Posts with Thumbnails

5 Comments

  1. 14/01/2010

    This is very good, Evan. But I think we need to state the truth: it was foolish in BOTH senses. It was seriously lacking in wisdom, but it was also a stupid and idiotic thing to say. I’d be willing to say that it was itself a satanic comment (i.e., representative of what is anti-Christ), the kind of thing Jesus rebuked Pharisees and others for saying. The church needs to love Robertson by effectively excommunicating him. I mean that in all seriousness. The more Christians give him a slap on the hand and call him a Christian, the more we taint the witness of the church in this world. I sincerely believe the only way to honor Christ is to publicly condemn his theology and insist that his views are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

  2. 14/01/2010

    @Dave,

    While I agree that it was unwise, I am not ready to “excommunicate” anyone. I am not sure how to exactly go about that, but I will leave that up to fireandrose.blogspot.com ;) . I do believe it was in the spirit of anti-christ, but I still want someone like Pat to know that his is forgiven by me, even though he never apologized.

  3. Christopher U.
    15/01/2010

    i’m going to push a bit farther than dave here. especially since excommunication seems a bit odd outside of a certain sacramental ecclesiology. i don’t think that i or any group of like-minded christians can (or should) excommunicate robertson. but i do think that we positively should not be forgiving him. this seems to me immoral, and more than this, anti-Christ.

    it is immoral because (and only one of these need to be true) 1) he has not asked for forgiveness; 2) he has not shown contrition; 3) he has not made steps to counter the damage of his utter idiocy. so, he’s lacking in verbal, emotional, and spiritual grounds for forgiveness.

    further, forgiving robertson is anti-Christ. why? because the gospel makes very clear that forgiveness comes at a cost. and i think any attempt to explain the atonement by claiming that Christ’s work substitutes for real, active attempts to make up for our errors is just plain missing the point. Christ’s work does not let us off the hook; rather, it opens the door to grace, so that our striving will amount to something whereas otherwise it would be empty.

    similarly, any claims to have forgiven robertson are empty. it’s not that he doesn’t deserve to be forgiven. it is that, as things stand, the unapologetic, unrepentant fool cannot be forgiven. among other things, forgiveness can only be complete when reconciliation is final. so unless he signals some move away from his comments, he still stands against anyone who takes offense at his outrageously false and ignorant statements.

    as i anticipate a certain amount of dissent from my views, and also a certain lack of sympathy for my demeanor, let me end by calling for objections to my reasoning and not my person. even if i am unforgiving, i have offered reasons above, and they require a response. as to my resolute condemnation, perhaps it will soften my appearance if i note that i never claimed to be unwilling to forgive robertson. i am only maintaining that forgiveness is not a unilateral activity, and one of the requirements on the side of the transgressor is a certain degree of distancing from the transgression.

  4. 15/01/2010

    @Christopher U.

    As I said to Dave, while I agree with you that what Pat said was unwise, I do think forgiveness is OK without one asking for it. I’m not sure you are saying that exactly, but, if Christ can forgive his murders while he hangs on a tree, I think I can at least give Pat forgiveness. If the Amish can forgive the schoolhouse murder who killed many of their children, I can forgive Pat. I have been indirectly affected by his statements. However, I am not ultimately the one who forgives Pat because I have not been directly affected by his statements. The Haitians would have to do that. I hope that gives a little insight into where I am coming from.

Leave a Reply