Haiti and Anti-Evangelist Pat Robertson's 'Gospel' of Disgrace

I take Pat Robertson "cum grano salis." Rush Limbaugh has also spoken foolishness, seeking to politicize in an anti-Obama fashion the President's calls for compassion, and claiming he has already contributed to relief in Haiti through his income tax. And thanks to Tony Campolo for his blog on this site. Now is time to pray, and give $ for the relief effort. And those who are able should go to help in distribution of food and/or whatever can be done.

Opinion polls have found that most evangelicals have a negative view of Robertson. He has very little influence. Why dwell on his remarks in such a predictable fashion? Why not just ignore him?

I suspect other motives besides righteous indignation are at play here.

I like many others find both Rush and Pat Robertson to not represent a Christian response at any level. Please Pat and Rush don't speak for the millions of Christians that are trying to follow Christ.

It is gravely sad & disturbing that truly evil people like Robertson hide behind Christianity, claiming through their profound messages of hate, ignorance and judgementalism to represent Christ! If there are people out there who do listen to this man, the devil has won yet another victory through their hardened hearts!

Even though Robertson is a miserable excuse for a human being, he is merely expressing one version of a superstition that is part of the package when someone buys Christianity. If you are going to claim that when something good happens to you, it is a blessing from God, then you are also going to have to come up with an explanation for the bad things.

We are all but certain to hear stories from Christian Americans in Haiti talking about one miracle or another that saved them from harm. They'll go on the Christian Broadcasting Network and impress us all with their humility and holiness, giving all the "glory to God." What are they really saying, though? Jehovah saved *them* from harm, but not the tens of thousands who died and the millions that may be injured or without homes. Too bad those other poor heathen weren't as faithful as the Christians, eh? (Never mind that Haiti is 80% Roman Catholic.)

Don't get me wrong; I'm very glad and grateful for all the Christians expressing well-earned disgust at Robertson. Still, there are many versions of the same superstition Robertson embraces. Few Christians actually believe that sometimes, stuff just happens.

My mother died recently after ten years of encroaching paralysis and unconsciousness, and for years, I've watched our Christian relatives have an especially hard time coping with it. Was it because she didn't have enough faith? Was it because she sinned? Or maybe it was just the mystery of how god works his redemption...? The lord does work in mysterious ways, right?

No. She got sick because that happens to some people. The universe was not singling her out for this misery. There's no hidden purpose to her suffering, and that's okay. We may have no control over things like that in life, but we have a choice about how we respond to them. She and my father should be proud of how well they responded. Furthermore, because we no longer simply accept these things as a god's will, we can actually work to find medical treatments to save other people from the same pain and suffering.

Sadly, that reasoning isn't available to Christians. Once divine intervention is bought into, the dark times have to be explained through blame assignment. Either that, or one has to ignore the dissonance between the concept a loving creator who *can* intervene and the reality of one who doesn't.

Pray for Rush and Pat and then show by our actions and deeds what Christ would have us do - we will then show the unbelieving world what God can do.

Someone should remind Pat about Jesus' words about those killed by the falling of the tower of Siloam.

Pat Robertson is not a Christian, but a member of an anti-Christian fraternity that is best known for supporting realpolitik, traditional power structures and the suppression of women. Some years ago (I'm not sure of the exact issue), Robertson was photographed for the cover of Time magazine with his right fist in the 'Lion's Paw' position, which I am told is a Masonic sign. Sadly, the American Right is largely possessed by fraternities like Freemasonry and the Skull & Bones, which are about as demonic and anti-Christian as it gets.

Although I disagree with you 100%, I must commend you for a very thoughtful post. The age-old question of why good and bad things happen to people is a very interesting one, and there are no easy answers. But there are some partial answers, which although not necessarily satisfying, at least suggest some sense of purpose which the atheistic answer (well things just happen) tend to lack.

So here goes. First, the world we live in is fallen, meaning that it was not what God had intended when it was created; it had been morphed, perverted, or whatever you would want to call it, into what we have today. So bad things happening could well be a natural consequence of living in said world. Now, could God have stopped these things from happening? Of course - but at what cost? In the case of people, certainly God could have made us to be perfect automations at which point there would be no pain or suffering. But then there would be no real love either, since an automation cannot genuinely choose to love. It could be that God permits (note: not creates, but permits) certain evils to make certain greater goods possible.

How does such apply to earthquakes? Well, although earthquakes for the most part are not human-caused, they could be the products of said fallen world and/or the evil work of demons. You point out how we have no control over what happens, but can control our response to what happened. Very true. Disease is typically bad, but much heroism would be impossible without it. And there would be no searching for cures for disease if disease did not exist. Yes, said answers are unsatisfying, and in the book of Job God points out that sometimes we are not meant to know the reasons behind some suffering. And here's a parting thought experiment - if God actually did intervene miraculously for everyone after every natural disaster, knowing how people are, would people take such intervention for granted and write him out of the picture anyway?

Although I disagree with you 100%, I must commend you for a very thoughtful post. The age-old question of why good and bad things happen to people is a very interesting one, and there are no easy answers. But there are some partial answers, which although not necessarily satisfying, at least suggest some sense of purpose which the atheistic answer (well things just happen) tend to lack.

So here goes. First, the world we live in is fallen, meaning that it was not what God had intended when it was created; it had been morphed, perverted, or whatever you would want to call it, into what we have today. So bad things happening could well be a natural consequence of living in said world. Now, could God have stopped these things from happening? Of course - but at what cost? In the case of people, certainly God could have made us to be perfect automations at which point there would be no pain or suffering. But then there would be no real love either, since an automation cannot genuinely choose to love. It could be that God permits (note: not creates, but permits) certain evils to make certain greater goods possible.

How does such apply to earthquakes? Well, although earthquakes for the most part are not human-caused, they could be the products of said fallen world and/or the evil work of demons. You point out how we have no control over what happens, but can control our response to what happened. Very true. Disease is typically bad, but much heroism would be impossible without it. And there would be no searching for cures for disease if disease did not exist. Yes, said answers are unsatisfying, and in the book of Job God points out that sometimes we are not meant to know the reasons behind some suffering. And here's a parting thought experiment - if God actually did intervene miraculously for everyone after every natural disaster, knowing how people are, would people take such intervention for granted and write him out of the picture anyway?

Although I disagree with you 100%, I must commend you for a very thoughtful post. The age-old question of why good and bad things happen to people is a very interesting one, and there are no easy answers. But there are some partial answers, which although not necessarily satisfying, at least suggest some sense of purpose which the atheistic answer (well things just happen) tend to lack.

So here goes. First, the world we live in is fallen, meaning that it was not what God had intended when it was created; it had been morphed, perverted, or whatever you would want to call it, into what we have today. So bad things happening could well be a natural consequence of living in said world. Now, could God have stopped these things from happening? Of course - but at what cost? In the case of people, certainly God could have made us to be perfect automations at which point there would be no pain or suffering. But then there would be no real love either, since an automation cannot genuinely choose to love. It could be that God permits (note: not creates, but permits) certain evils to make certain greater goods possible.

How does such apply to earthquakes? Well, although earthquakes for the most part are not human-caused, they could be the products of said fallen world and/or the evil work of demons. You point out how we have no control over what happens, but can control our response to what happened. Very true. Disease is typically bad, but much heroism would be impossible without it. And there would be no searching for cures for disease if disease did not exist. Yes, said answers are unsatisfying, and in the book of Job God points out that sometimes we are not meant to know the reasons behind some suffering. And here's a parting thought experiment - if God actually did intervene miraculously for everyone after every natural disaster, knowing how people are, would people take such intervention for granted and write him out of the picture anyway?

Although I disagree with you 100%, I must commend you for a very thoughtful post. The age-old question of why good and bad things happen to people is a very interesting one, and there are no easy answers. But there are some partial answers, which although not necessarily satisfying, at least suggest some sense of purpose which the atheistic answer (well things just happen) tend to lack.

So here goes. First, the world we live in is fallen, meaning that it was not what God had intended when it was created; it had been morphed, perverted, or whatever you would want to call it, into what we have today. So bad things happening could well be a natural consequence of living in said world. Now, could God have stopped these things from happening? Of course - but at what cost? In the case of people, certainly God could have made us to be perfect automations at which point there would be no pain or suffering. But then there would be no real love either, since an automation cannot genuinely choose to love. It could be that God permits (note: not creates, but permits) certain evils to make certain greater goods possible.

How does such apply to earthquakes? Well, although earthquakes for the most part are not human-caused, they could be the products of said fallen world and/or the evil work of demons. You point out how we have no control over what happens, but can control our response to what happened. Very true. Disease is typically bad, but much heroism would be impossible without it. And there would be no searching for cures for disease if disease did not exist. Yes, said answers are unsatisfying, and in the book of Job God points out that sometimes we are not meant to know the reasons behind some suffering. And here's a parting thought experiment - if God actually did intervene miraculously for everyone after every natural disaster, knowing how people are, would people take such intervention for granted and write him out of the picture anyway?

Let's all get the criticism of Robertson out of the way quickly. I disagree with Robertson's assessment of the situation. I think his theology is wrong, his knowledge of history is flawed and his remarks are tasteless. That's easy, let's move on.

I'd like to address the broader issue here. Does God judge nations, countries or groups of people? I don't believe that God judges groups of people or countries on their collective action. I believe he judges us as individuals alone.* However, I've had debates with other commenters here at God's Politics who argue that God does judge countries. They've said that God will judge the U.S. for it's empire-building, for not providing adequate health care for its citizens, for destroying the environment or for not caring enough for undocumented immigrants, etc. While they don't say this judgment will take the form of a natural disaster, they have asserted that this judgment will come in some form or another on us as a collective. How is this view different in theory from the Robertson/Falwell view? Is there a difference other than the form that the judgment takes and the tastefulness of the way it's phrased? I'm interested in others' thoughts.

*The exception would be the ancient nation of Israel, with which God made a covenant. To my knowledge he has no covenant with any modern country.

Who in the faith community is remaining silent?

God is Sovereign! Read the book of Ecclesiastes and with much reading, get understanding. It is the perfect book that helps us to understand that God is not limited by man's thoughts and reasoning.

1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

Your comments reminded me of this verse from John 9. I think you have a somewhat distorted view of what many Christians believe. There are some who do believe that someone gets ill for lack of faith. Every facet of their lives is always by direct intervention from God. I don't believe that. I also do not believe that suffering has no meaning. Our faith is founded in the suffering of Christ for us. How can Christians believe then that suffering is always the result of their sin as punishment or lack of faith? Your statement that, "reasoning isn't available to Christians," is itself untrue and ignorant. You seem to believe in randomness and pointlessness. There is no pupose in anything? Your Christian relatives had to confront a fact of their mortality. If your mother's suffering brought others to ask questions it was not in vain. I am sorry for your loss. We believe God has intervened in the form of Jesus Christ as the ultimate expression of his love. Many of his disciples have, and more will be going to Haiti to help in any way possible. We, foolishly according to some, believe that is what we are called to do. Some refer to it as, "being the hands and feet of Christ."

Marion G. "Pat" Robertson will be 80 years old in March. (BTW, Marion is Spanish for "Big Mary".)

He no longer has a Christian Broadcasting Network, CBN; but, there is still a website for it.

He is no longer a leader of Evangelical-Charismatics. But, the national news media still acts like he is in the same way that they had Jerry Falwell represent Evangelicals.

I know quite a few that take him seriously -- one fellow I knew who grew up in my present church ended up leaving because the then-new pastor disparaged him on Biblical grounds.

Good on ya Jarrad, well said.

A very important sub text is the problems of "who speaks for Christianity?"

The time is long gone that the Pope in Rome was considered to be the spokes person. Likewise, the sub text of the problems of cultural difference. What may seem to be quite reasonable in one culture can come across as nonsense / cultural imperialism / inappropriate nationalism etc in others. In this case, the Australian audience has just been given another piece reinforcing that US Christianity is detached from reality. I suspect that this is the case else where in the world.

Is on a par with comments from a non Christian spokesperson that "women uncovered (on the beach) are an open invitation for rape

Pat Robertson and people like him so called Christian's must be the Devils messengers to make a statement like that about a people/nation when their down. I'm sick of so called Christians judging everyone, spreading fear and hate. Why are they brought up on charges for hate crimes. They are as bad as terrorists. We're all his children no matter our race, sex, religion, sins, or transgressions. "Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone". God protect us all. We need to love one another.

In the OT, I recall whole families being judged for the sin of one man. For example, when Achan took some of the spoils from Jericho he and his entire family were put to death.

In the judgment in Matthew 25:31 and following, Jesus says "all the nations" will be gathered before him. The Greek word is "ethne." It's translated "nations" in KJV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV, to name a few. It's the Greek word commonly used to translate the Hebrew "goyim" which is usually rendered into English as "Gentiles." I think you are off base biblically in your opinion that God judges us only as individuals.

Making Robertson a hate figure will only do more harm , yes he said what he said and it was wrong and insensitive but that dose not make the man evil. Lets challenge his theology on this issue but pray for the guy too. Having watched his program recently and I might add only due to the publicity over his latest rant, I did see some quite positive things on there including an appeal for the disaster in Haiti.

Can you point us to some documentation or other sources that would back up your statement? I am interested in looking into more details about it. Thanks.

Ngchen, thanks for the polite reply. When looking for the core of your comment, I came to your statement that sometimes we are not meant to know the reasons behind some suffering. That's the only logical conclusion I can imagine if we are to believe in divine intervention. That it's a mystery.

I'm glad that doctors don't settle for that, though, and that they've come up with cures or preventions for a lot of illnesses. Are they working against the will of god? Clearly, they are getting in the way of it if the suffering is supposed to work some good in the sufferer.

I suppose you could take the view that god allows the suffering so that humans will step in and make things better for each other. On the other hand, that doesn't make sense either, because it would mean god is training the human race to take care of itself and not rely on him. If his goal is utter reliance on him, then we *should*expect that he'll take care of every problem, which he doesn't.

There is no evidence to believe anything other than that some things just happen through no fault of anyone's, without sin, demons, divine retribution, Karma, or anything else being involved but physics.