Yesterday Televangelist Pat Robertson took the time to say a thing or two about the island nation of Haiti which had just suffered a massive earthquake. Predictably, OUTRAGE!11!!!! was immediately broadcast and published from all sectors of society, including staffers at the “Historic” and “unprecedented” White House Administration of Barack Hussein Obama, who took the time from their busy schedules figuring out new and better ways to continue to attack private enterprise, figuring out how to accomplish more government intrusion into our private lives, and ignoring the Constitution to toss their Klown Kurrency into the Marketplace of Ideas and the bidding on Robertson’s comments. What did he say, exactly?
I highlighted the last part, because that is the part that is conveniently forgotten by most of the hawkers of OUTRAGE!11!!!! who spent the day walking to and fro in the MarketPlace of Ideas selling their wares to any with ears to hear. And it was on display in all types in an appeal to sell to every buyer who wandered through. There were the outraged leftists (although that is generally a redundant term), non-Christians reading what they wanted into the comment and seeing yet another opportunity to question without a scintila of understanding, the joiners, who love a good gang-pile, and the opportunists, enjoying the chance to take scrutiny off of the dirty doings behind closed doors in the capital, and an economy owned lock, stock, and barrel by an inexperienced neophyte desperate to blame it on his predecessor. All utterly reject the idea that God might be involved in tragedy, or that evil exists and that man might actually suffer the consequences of embracing it. Surely anyone who thinks otherwise would be insane. And anyone who might dare to suggest it out loud is “stupid”, “Not Helpful”, or needs to “Shut the Hell Up”. While everyone was busy reading their own personal spins and inferences in to the part they chose to be offended by, they were concentrating just as hard on ignoring the rest, which is why truth was a casualty yesterday, not in the comment that launched a thousand responses, but in the responses themselves. This is why the rest bears repeating, especially for our liberal friends who are always claiming to have been taken out of context when they utter something exceedingly stupid and get called on it.
“They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to God and out of this tragedy I’m optimistic something good may come. But right now we are helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable.”
Guess what? That wasn’t controversial at all. Christians believe in prayer. So did noteworthy Americans. Benjamin Franklin. George Washington. Abraham Lincoln. George S. Patton. Dwight D. Eisenhower. Harry S. Truman, just to name a few. And yes, the ministry which Pat Robertson is a prominent part of is helping in Haiti, and was doing so before this tragedy.
CBN’s Operation Blessing International has a relief team on the ground in Haiti.
Surprisingly, I did find one article that appeared to defend Pat Robertson’s statement.
Is he right that Haitians made a deal with the Devil to cast off the French? I don’t know. Haitian history is not my strong suit. Heck, it isn’t even my weak suit. But do I think that is it possible that God punishes evil? As a Christian, I have to say “Yes.” Genesis 19 was pretty clear about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, and why he destroyed them. Do I think that God sicced an earthquake on Haiti? No, I don’t, if only because in the Bible, God left little doubt that he was showing his wrath, and it was clearly understood why he was wrathful. That message wouldn’t be coming to us only from the lips of Pat Robertson.
While I’m not of a mind to think that his statements are going to win converts to Christianity or be especially well received within the Church itself, I do think that he has the right idea about what to do about it. Pray and help, or in that ministry’s example, pray and continue to help. And while I don’t believe in trying to tailor Christianity to its intended audience, I do think that there is a place for being mindful of what you are saying. However, having watched the show a few times before, I am equally certain that a discussion about evil and God’s judgment of it could have been raised in a different way that might have made it harder to extrapolate the idea that the earthquake was God’s punishment for evil admitted in another century and perpetuated to this day. But he is also a man under a grave charge. If he believes what he said is true, then he should not be ashamed to say it. Nor should he believe that other Christians will simply accept it at face value. That is our faith’s charge to us: to continually test such statements against the Word, and if it is found lacking, to issue correction, in the spirit of love. I am not a full-blown Bible scholar, nor do I have a life-long believer’s understanding of the Bible. His statement clangs for me more than it rings true, but in the spirit of total honesty, I will have to discuss it with my learned pastor, go back and read the Word myself, study a few commentaries, consider and pray before I’ll be able to say with conviction that it is either he or I who still have much learning to do, though in my heart, I suspect that the answer is that we both do. Having said that, I don’t doubt that he is a man of faith with a heart for bringing people to Jesus. That is why that ministry was there trying to help before the earthquake, and will likely be there long after many of the other relief efforts have packed their kit bags and departed to the next tragedy, ready to save the bodies, and forgetting about the souls left behind.
CBN, the parent network for the 700 Club released a statement in the wake of the furor, which again highlights what was said rather than what was heard, and explained a bit more about Robertson’s understanding of the history he mentioned. In pertinent part:
“Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath. If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson’s compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. He called for prayer for them. His humanitarian arm has been working to help thousands of people in Haiti over the last year, and they are currently launching a major relief and recovery effort to help the victims of this disaster. They have sent a shipment of millions of dollars worth of medications that is now in Haiti, and their disaster team leaders are expected to arrive tomorrow and begin operations to ease the suffering.”
This is just a guess, but I’ll bet that many of the OUTRAGED!!11!!1! weren’t doing as much before the disaster for the people of Haiti. I know I wasn’t. What do you say? Any takers?
The time to talk about Haiti’s deal with the devil was also before the disaster, not after. It is insensitive and callow to make those sorts of comments when people are buried in rubble. Blaming the victims of a disaster for the purported evils of people generations ago when they’re still digging out from the ruins is unconscionable.
BIC,
I enjoy your posts and though I have defended Robertson in the past for some things he has said and done, I would like to explain why I have condemned Robertson concerning Haiti and I’ve been vocal about it. My criticism was not done out of popular opinion, but personal aghast. I say this as a life-long Christian with Apologetics a hobby of sorts.
First, in fairness to Robertson his caricature developed by the secular media is mostly unearned and mostly unfair. As I said at Rutherford’s blog, Operation Blessing does wonderful charitable work and seldom gets mentioned for that. They will be in Haiti there working diligently when the cameras leave.
Geoff beat me to why I criticized Robertson. And my criticism is that while I believe Pat Robertson may indeed be “theologically” correct about Haiti being cursed, or at the very least God’s protection has been removed, immediately after a tragedy is not the time to render opinion in judgment. It would be if somebody asked me what happened to their non-believing mother immediately upon her death. Would it be Christian love to answer, “She went straight to hell…”
There is a time and a season for everything. To be an obeying Christian also means showing the wisdom to know when to talk, when to act, when to proselytize.
And I would remind everyone that Pat Robertson is no prophet. He has been wrong in the past about some of his predictions, telling me based on the Word of God that Pat Robertson is not one of God’s prophets, for God’s prophets are never wrong.
I commend Pat Robertson for his good works. I condemn Pat Robertson for his callousness concerning his Haitian remarks.
We who call ourselves Christian must be very careful when we profess to speak for God. As I told my friends yesterday, “His ways are not our ways, and his thoughts not our thoughts; for as heaven is above earth, God is above us.” Way above us…
I Have to say when I first heard of Robertson’s remarks my reaction was the same as most everyone else’s. During my daily blog rounds though I came across a post by the indespensible Ghost of a Flea that shined some historical and cultural context on this issue and it certainly changed my perspective.
Still, given Pat’s own history for sparking such outraged responses I can’t help but think that he chooses the timing and wording of these kinds of statements to maximize the outrage very deliberately. He knows how to push these buttons and this time he pulled out the big Gallagher hammer to do so. Ulttimately I get the feeling that much of this was less about drawing attention to the word of God, and more about drawing attention to Pat Robertson.
Both bad timing (unforgivably bad timing) and a disgusting representation of what is supposed to be a compassionate loving church. He said Haitians deserve their misfortune for turning to Satan … misfortunes including what we all commonly refer to as “acts of God”. And the quote you say we conveniently ignore is the most damning quote in his entire babble-fest. They must turn to God since they obviously have not done so sufficiently thus far.
It’s reprehensible but I give you kudos for not only supporting this filth over at my blog but putting your money where your mouth is and putting it on your own. Bravo!
P.S. I’ve always stated, as a religious skeptic, that if God is worth anything He judges us by our actions, not our words. That being the case, the money that Robertson’s church is sending to Haiti will probably get him past the pearly gates despite the lunacy that spews from his mouth.
R,
We can have this conversation, but frankly, trying to explain to someone who is not just non-Christian, but hostile to Christianity why so many of your conclusions are not just erroneous but require more than a minimal amount of mental gymnastics is a little like arguing about all the hues in the spectrum with a one-eyed man who only sees in black and white. Not only can you not make out the differences and distinctions, you don’t have any reason to care.
Since a number of Christians agree with me that Pat was out of order, I think my “hostility” has nothing to do with it.
R, I really don’t think you’re qualified to have the conversation. Not after sterling displays such as this:
Me:What makes a muslim “radical”, R?
Is it their believing in the tenents of Islam, or is it acting on them?
You:The same damn thing that makes a Christian radical. Any Christian can subjugate his wife and use the Bible as a defense. Fortunately, secularism has resulted in a society where the average self respecting woman would kick her husband’s ass if he tried subjugating her. I assure you, if it weren’t for secular legislation women would still not have the vote in this country.
And the ensuing back and forth where I challenged you to come up with the scripture that would support that extraordinary bit of ignorance you uttered as fact.
After much reluctance, you fished up 1 Timothy 2:11, and Ephesians 5:22. We had the whole discussion on the meaning of the word “submission” which is very different from your word “subjugate”, not only in connotation, but because it would pervert the message of those scriptures first and formost by changing who was being told to do what, and was read by you without any understanding of what was occurring in the regions to which those epistles were written.
Still, your “skepticism” lead you to disemble and lament engaging in a christian lawyer in such a discussion, rather than acknowledging how you got it wrong, and apologizing for it. Maybe its because you at least understand enough about Christianity to know that I wasn’t going to declare a fatwa against you or cut off your head, one of the many reasons that Christians make such fine targets for liberals and they avoid any real discussion of Islam and the very real dangers that are endemic to that “religion”.
For us to go there would be like me trying to argue with a physics professor about how we’re all going to die when CERN gets to fire up and test their new toy, only having my purpose for doing so being the fact that I hate all machinery and think that we he need to go back to being an agrarian society. (Damn it Jim, I’m a country lawyer, not a theoretical physicist!)
So, by your reasoning, as long as I ask for prayer afterwards I can utter whatever blasphemous, theological nonsense that comes to mind and be immune from criticism? Wow.
Isn’t that the foundation of Catholicism — say three hail Mary’s and all is forgiven. Yes I know Robertson is not Catholic but I’m just sayin’.
I knew this would happen…and on a day when I really am super busy and can’t devote as much time to this as I really want to.
Brew, I’m addressing you first, because I think it really would be helpful for you to explain why you feel what he said was blasphemous. What he said. Not what nearly everyone heard. Please cite some authority for your conclusion, so we can all follow along, too.
As for it being theological nonesense, you’ll note I linked one article that doesn’t share your conclusion and actually offers some explanation why. Maybe you could convince me that you are correct by refuting some of the points it lays out?
Finally, please re-read my post. Carefully this time. You should notice that I don’t offer my sanction for what he said, but I take note of the whole remark, not just the juicy MSNBC nugget, as means to explain why I’m not doing the knee-jerk reaction that seems to be the consensus everywhere else right now, as well as the fact that the ministry Robertson is involved with is and has been walking the walk as well as talking the talk. If you can find anywhere where I said what you paraphrase, please point it out to me, and I’ll do a mea culpa, because that was not what I meant to say. Otherwise, please share your reasoning as well as your conclusions. You’re smarter and keep better company than to “argue” like a liberal, which is not to argue at all, but to toss a bomb and then leave.
Brewfan … BRAV-friggin-O!!!! BiW, your take on this really has me stumped. Alfie threw me for a loop over at my place too. It just boggles the mind.
I wish Wickle would come here or my place to add two cents (I should go check his blog). I’d have trouble believing he defends this nonsense.
R, what about this?
The earthquake was the result of Coppenhaggen? Earthquake’s come from global warming?
Really, which side is the cook in this?
For those who believe in Jesus Christ and as a retort to my friend Rutherford’s vacuous comment:
Everyone not familiar with Rutherford and his “skepticism” of the “Christian” God, which really isn’t just skepticism but laziness, arrogance and self-absorption, needs to understand that Rutherford lacks the theological wisdom to comprehend why the following admissions/accusations are not true and can not be true:
(1) Islam, Judaism, Christianity and most other religions are about the same in faith and claim (cough, cough).
(2) By invoking Jesus’ name in debate and being charitable to the poor, you get a free pass to heaven, no matter your heart.
(3) God can not be a loving God because he allows disaster and tragedy to happen.
(4) Since Christians are not perfect, their God must not be perfect. And since Christians can be evil and cruel and it said man is made in God’s image, therefore God must be evil and cruel too – at least when He is in the ‘mood’ to be evil and cruel.
Actually, I believe Rutherford to be a good guy and an intellect of sorts by how the world defines it, but a lost sheep bleating in the secular humanist pasture. I believe in large part it explains Rutherford’s own political commentary – one that is obviously leans to the entire progressive community.
Like so many intellects I met in academia, if Rutherford would bring himself to say it, he believes the concept of faith is an idea that is unprovable and accepted by only the weak minded. It isn’t until the end of days that a great deal of thought is extended to contemplate otherwise, because there are so many other concerns we should focus first – like health care and Sarah Palin.
Throughout the Bible, whenever God decided to visit His wrath upon His creation, it was made clear, through a prophet, that it was God’s wrath. So, when Mr. Robertson says something is God’s wrath why shouldn’t we believe him? Because he does not meet the Biblical standard of being one of God’s prophets. What is that standard? It is perfection; if you make a prophecy that is wrong you are not God’s prophet. Mr. Robertson has a history of false prophecy, therefore he is a false prophet and should STFU. For more information on false prophets please refer to Matthew 7:15-23.
And when Jesus said this, I think he might have had Mr. Robertson and his fellow modern day pharisees in mind:
“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Matthew 6:1-6
See? Was that so hard to do, Brew?
I sense that I’m kinda irritating you about this, but given the type of hostility that Christianity already faces from much of the world, I figure that it is important for those who are disagreeing with each other like they are on this topic to actually say why and go into some detail.
But does this address both your charges of blasphemous and theological nonesense, or merely an explanation of why you think he is wrong? I think we owe our non-believing spectator the benefit of clarity on the subject.
And again, can you point me to what I said that you extrapolated into the paraphrase you gave earlier? I really would like to clear that up, as well.
I swear I’m not Brewfan – but he must a “genius” like me (just kidding there Rutherford). 😛
My words from above: And I would remind everyone that Pat Robertson is no prophet. He has been wrong in the past about some of his predictions, telling me based on the Word of God that Pat Robertson is not one of God’s prophets, for God’s prophets are never wrong.
Brewfan’s words from above: So, when Mr. Robertson says something is God’s wrath why shouldn’t we believe him? Because he does not meet the Biblical standard of being one of God’s prophets. What is that standard? It is perfection; if you make a prophecy that is wrong you are not God’s prophet. Mr. Robertson has a history of false prophecy, therefore he is a false prophet and should STFU.
See Rutherford how great minds think alike? Genius is a common trait amongst biblical Conservatives Rutherford, and you’re outmanned and overmatched.
BIC needs to post more of this so I can hammer Rutherford some more. It sends a tickle down my leg like Obama did with Chrissie. I can see why Matthews enjoyed it so.
See? Was that so hard to do, Brew?
No, but I was at work all day so I didn’t have time to do anything but some drive-by snark.
I sense that I’m kinda irritating you about this
No, Pat Robertson is irritating me. In my not so humble opinion the worse thing that has happened to Christianity in the last 50 years is ‘Christian’ Television and Pat Robertson epitomizes all that is wrong with it.
But does this address both your charges of blasphemous and theological nonesense, or merely an explanation of why you think he is wrong?
Yes.
can you point me to what I said that you extrapolated into the paraphrase you gave earlier
This => “I highlighted the last part, because that is the part that is conveniently forgotten by most of the hawkers of OUTRAGE!11!!!!”
And this => “All utterly reject the idea that God might be involved in tragedy, or that evil exists and that man might actually suffer the consequences of embracing it.”
The former is objectionable because it implies that you can say any outrageous thing you want as long as you say something reasonable immediately afterwords. With regards to Christians who are condemning Robertson’s comments the latter is a strawman. No Christian I know rejects the idea that God can and sometimes may visit righteous judgement on His creation but all the serious Christians I know reject the idea that Pat Robertson knows these things for certain. The fact that Robertson would say something like that in public is amazingly hard-hearted given the circumstances and is just another indication that if he is a Christian he is bearing no fruit.
Well thank you for explaining the extrapolation. I think you’re still reaching to get to me “Defending” what Robertson said, but if that’s how you take it, I obviously didn’t express myself correctly. I wanted to highlight the fact that the noise from the non-Christians and Christians alike sounded the same, and how there shouldn’t be the same reasons underlying this.
As for your clarification, I think I still find it lacking. If Robertson believed what he said (that Haiti got its freedom in a deal with the Devil and that it is cursed) how is it blasphemous (impiously irreverent) to say so? How is it is theological nonsense? I’m pretty sure I can find such things in my Bible without looking too hard.
And as for :
Throughout the Bible, whenever God decided to visit His wrath upon His creation, it was made clear, through a prophet, that it was God’s wrath.
I’ve looked in Genesis 17, 18, and 19. I don’t see a prophet proclaiming God’s wrath before smiting Soddom and Gomorah. Does that make your analysis blasphemous and theological nonsense?
Listen, I don’t like the way he did it, but I don’t think that the left has any place for legitimate criticism when they don’t believe anyway and take the blanket criticism from Christians as confirmation that their own criticisms, which are couched in suffocating prejudices and stultifying ignorance are somehow legitimate. Robertson may have given Christianity a black eye, but I think other Christians who make incomplete and simplistic condemnations whack it in the knees with a baseball bat.
Rutherford!
I need your call in number for your ‘radio show’.
We could talk on the ‘air’ and have some fun.
Doing some catch-up today Dick and just noticed this comment. Just visit the radio show page for the call-in number. You can navigate there from my blog. (I’m trying to do a minimum of link-drop-pimping here.)
I’ve looked in Genesis 17, 18, and 19. I don’t see a prophet proclaiming God’s wrath before smiting Soddom and Gomorah.
You better reread my statement. Then you better go back and read Genesis 18. Was there any doubt who kicked S&G’s ass? I rest my case.
Throughout the Bible, whenever God decided to visit His wrath upon His creation, it was made clear, through a prophet, that it was God’s wrath.
Genesis 18. Don’t see a prophet. See the Lord tending to business himself, which is why there is no doubt, but to call him a prophet? I think that’s cheating, Brew. Lighten up, Francis. 😉
BIC excellent post.
This was a bit of an eye opener, BiW. I may have over reacted to Robertson’s statement.
Mare, all I’m saying is that maybe what he *actually* said deserves something more than the “STFU” that has come from the usual suspects and is being echoed in places that might have reason to take a harder look.
I’m doing some catch-up today on a snow day and re-read much of this thread. Really depressing. Fortunately decent people of all stripes condemned Robertson as they should have.
Considering how you spat on Jack Murtha’s grave in one of your most recent posts, BiW I now understand the brand of Christianity you practice. I think, somewhere, even you referred to it as “judgmental” and took some pride in that.
More power to you.
R,
As usual, you demonstrate that you “understand” nothing of what you continually pass judgement upon:
“20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
-Romans, 1:20-22, NKJV
Rutherford never could determine the difference between discernment and judgment.
Oh, R’s feelings were hurt…
How about the Marines who were slande4red by that fat crooked SOB? How about the robbing of the American people so that fat fuck can have an airport- that no one uses- named after him?
Screw him and his grave. There should be a line of Marines pissing on it, but he doesn’t deserve the honor of their attention…
Hey, G, you real worked up about McCain’s involvement in the Keating 5? Didn’t think so.
I’ll save any other comments for the appropriate thread.
R what kind of comment is that? Oh yeah completely f#$%ed up one typical “I got nothing” liberal one.
Gorilla wasn’t mentioning abscam in his comment on Murtha. Your comparison is weak and pathetic.
[…] January 15, I posted on the furor over Pat Robertson’s remarks about Haiti in the wake of a devastating earthquake […]