Haiti and Pat Robertson

[carebear]

Hmmmm, voodoo.......not good stuff. Hope they can get away from that.

[michelle]

I think that while we have our opinions about the things that people say or do, especially when they are Christians in the spotlight, we have to remember the times that we do things to "slander" the Christian name. Pat Robertson and other Christians that are under public scrutiny are no different than we are. They are fallible. The price might be higher, but we have to have grace an trust that God will convict their hearts to be truly repentant if they are doing something sinful in the public eye.

Does it suck that the masses hear or see Christians doing to saying things that we see as being not Christ-like? Absolutely. I know that I've done some things that are far from Christ-like in my life and I have "slander" the name of Christianity by doing so. And if what I received was rebuke out of something other than love, I would probably be completely turned off to Christians. I think the best thing that we can do is pray for Pat that Jesus is in his heart every day and that the Spirit would guide his words and thoughts.

[krhagan19]

If Pat Robertson is a representative of God, and his vision, especially as to its implications for a group of slaves to overthrew their evil masters and the racist idea that they must have had supernatural help from Satan, we all know God is never on the side of slaves, and furthermore, he would never betray the wealthy white overlords is disgusting. Pat Robertson represents the very core reason that the world thinks the WORST of our faith.

[Josh]

Don't you think the core reason we are disdained is simply when we aren't acting like Christ?

[carebear]

A lot of people aren't going to like us when we do act like Christ too. We can't really look at the Jon Stewart show or places like that for support.

[Josh]

You're right. I retract my statement and amend it to:

Don't you think the core reason we are validly criticized is when we aren't acting like Christ?

[christopher]

Kevin,

I don't believe it's our place to judge another man's faith or motives...only his actions.

I personally give Robertson (and others like him) the benefit of the doubt on that. It is very likely (in my mind) that Pat is a true believer and that his motives are to encourage wide spread repentance serving God. All good things.

However, when they say things that are un-Christlike, it is totally appropriate to call them on it. And when they show a pattern of such behavior (as Pat certainly has) it's also quite appropriate to say that they are not fit for the position they are in (as rbbailey has stated).


Michelle,

I agree with everything you wrote in your last post. But leaders are held to a stricter judgment (James 3:1). I would imagine that the more people one leads, the stricter the judgment.

I think that if believers have set themselves up (or have accepted) a public and highly visible ministry, than it is important that they have a very high level of accountability for their actions as well. In this case, I would like to see some of the other highly visible Christian leaders like Rick Warren or Franklin Graham publicly rebuke Pat's statements and clarify what the bible says is God's true heart is for people. This is what Paul did to Peter (Gal 2).

Come to think of it, after 9/11, I seem to remember Graham doing just that on a news interview after Robertson and Falwell made statements that seemed to associate the tragedy with abortion and homosexuality. Although Graham was kind of weak on the rebuke part (if I remember right), he did clarify the true gospel on national TV.

I agree with the sentiment that Pat should be strongly urged to step down from public ministry. He represents an antiquated (and erroneous) fundamentalist ideology that is not only no longer useful* for the advancement of the kingdom, but is downright counterproductive to it.

* That is, if it ever was useful for the advancement of the kingdom.

[krhagan19]

www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-391134?hpt=Sbin This seems useful!

[krhagan19]

Another idea that strikes me when I review what Pat Robertson says is that it is in no way superior or less morally reprehensible than the good people at Fred Phelps church "Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas." With their charming website www.godhatesfags.com/
These people propose that all of the disasters that have struck America, from 9/11 to IED's blasting our soldiers to bits, to Katrina, and yes even that bridge the collapsed in St Paul, all bad things happen because America tolerates homosexuality which is of course a sin. To be honest, Nutcase Fred Phelps argument is actually less offensive to me than Pat Robertson's because Fred Phelps does not pretend to be anything but a spreader of hate, he truly believes that God hates the sinner as well as the sin. Robertson on the other hand, spreads vile hatred just like Phelps, but refuses to take that strong of a stand. Phelps is best known for picketing the funerals of Dead US soldiers, ironically, Pat Robertson has condemned Fred for doing just that. Well good for you Pat, your just as morally disgusting as Phelps without having the courage of his convictions.

[Kirby]

Some interesting historical analysis on Haiti's "pact with the devil" :

www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2918/whats-this-pact-with-the-devil-that-pat-robertson-says-caused-haitis-woes

[robin]

Well good for you Pat, your just as morally disgusting as Phelps without having the courage of his convictions.

Kevin, why are you filled with such hate?

[krhagan19]

I would not describe it as hate. I do not hate Pat Robertson, I just find his conduct to be disgusting. For example, in many country's animals have no rights. I have read stories about some countries were children entertain themselves torturing various types of wildlife to death without any intervention from adults or society at large. I do not hate those children, but I do have tremendous contempt for their conduct. Same with Patty boy.

[carebear]

Patty boy?

[Margot]

Jan 15, 2010 20:46:26 GMT -8 michelle said:

we have to remember the times that we do things to "slander" the Christian name.

Does it suck that the masses hear or see Christians doing to saying things that we see as being not Christ-like? Absolutely. I know that I've done some things that are far from Christ-like in my life and I have "slander" the name of Christianity by doing so.

Great reminder to remember the log in our own eye, Michelle!

[robin]

Jan 19, 2010 16:29:43 GMT -8 krhagan19 said:

I would not describe it as hate. I do not hate Pat Robertson, I just find his conduct to be disgusting. For example, in many country's animals have no rights. I have read stories about some countries were children entertain themselves torturing various types of wildlife to death without any intervention from adults or society at large. I do not hate those children, but I do have tremendous contempt for their conduct. Same with Patty boy.

I don't see the connection between the two.

[robin]

I sincerely hope that Steve Gregg Does not mind me posting his comments here, but I thought that there were particularly well thought out. I will email Steve and let him know that I have copied his statements and will remove them if he has any objections.

Here's what he said

Steve Gregg said on theos.org 1-20-2010

There would seem to be three possible reasons for objecting to a statement like that made by Pat Robertson: First, if it is inaccurate; Second, if it is motivated other than by love; and Third, if it has potential to incite harm. I am not able to demonstrate (nor am I so uncharitable as to assume without evidence) that any of these three conditions apply in the present case.

My thoughts about Robertson's statement (as expressed on The Road to Find Out) are:

1. Robertson has every right to believe in the devil, and to say so—even if secularists find this to be naive and superstitious in this modern age;

2. Those who believe in the devil do tend to attribute malevolent motives to him, so that his infliction of disaster would be something in keeping with his character, in general;

3. Pat Robertson believes that a pact was made between an earlier generation of Haitians and the devil around the time of their successful revolt against the French (I don't know what his source is for this information, but I wouldn't assume it to be ridiculous until I could examine his sources);

4. Pat Robertson believes that the devil has inflicted poverty, political chaos and natural disaster on Haiti ever since this pact was made, and that the recent earthquake is yet another instance of this.

5. I do not know that these things are true; nor do I know that they are false;

6. If his sources are reliable, I can find no fault with his stating his beliefs on this, even if I am not persuaded that such a connection can be established between the said "pact" and any given subsequent disaster;

7. Even if I determined that Robertson's sources were unreliable, I don't know that he is to be blamed for thinking them reliable—if he has examoned evidence to that effect, and reasonably trusts it;

8. Nothing in Pat's statements represent or misrepresent the character of God, since Pat did not make any statements about God;

9. Nothing in Pat's statements impute guilt for the earthquake to any present-day Haitians;

10. Nothing in Pat's statements can in any way be said to express lack of sympathy or compassion toward the Haitians (in fact, they were made in the context of appealing for Christians to send aid to the victims).

So far as I can discern, the negative reactions to Pat's statements have been of three types:

1. Those of people who do not believe in the devil's activities (nor in the devil's existence) at all, and who therefore see Pat Robertson as a nut because of his adherence to a biblical worldview—quite apart from the matter of Haiti;

2. Those of people who do believe in the devil's present-day activities, but who are not convinced that this earthquake is a case of such, and who are not persuaded even that Pat's historical information can be confirmed (many of whom, like myself, have not necessarily checked—and would not know where to check—to see if there is any factual basis for his statements);

3. Those who react irrationally and viscerally to what sounds like yet another embarrassing, superstitious and politically incorrect statement by yet another television evangelist (a class who have made a career of embarrassing the Christian public for decades), though the critic is unable to prove the statement false, and cannot give a reason why Pat should not say such a thing, if he thinks it true.

I am not a fan of Pat Robertson, nor of tele-evangelists as a group. However, I have not reacted negatively to Pat's statements, because I don't know them to be false (nor do I know them to be true). If they are true, there would seem to be nothing in them to object to. If they are false (and I do not know how to demonstrate them to be false), I can see no malice nor potential for harm in one's believing them. If Pat can be blamed at all for his statements, it may be that he expressed them as if expressing a belief held among Christians, without implying that it would not be universally believed by all Christians. On this score, however, every preacher can be faulted at one time or another.

[christopher]

Thanks for posting that Robin, I hadn't seen it until now. I thought I'd post my response on that forum and here as well:

Well, this is one of those rare times I'm going to have to disagree with you Steve.

I can't say anything about Robertson's motives, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that. But my question is, whether the pact with the devil is true or not, why even bring it up? Especially now. I see no value in it and it certainly doesn't help the situation. I can totally see why it was construed the way it was, especially in a world already jaded by reckless and un-Chrislike comments of the past. Certainly Mr Robertson is not ignorant of his reputation to outsiders.

Jesus told his disciples to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves", it appears to most (including me) that Pat has this backwards (no offense to doves)

It seems to me that during times of crisis, Christians (and especially Christian leaders with an audience of millions) would be wiser to speak through their actions rather than waxing prophetic with useless anecdotes.

I'm sorry, but I still think that the comments were not only useless and insensitive, but they did indeed incite harm, especially to the millions of Christians who are trying to build friendships and demonstrate the grace of God to unbelievers in their offices and campuses. To me, it doesn't matter what Pat's motives or his sources were, or if his words were wrestled out of context by the media. The comment was totally unnecessary and the perception that now remains in everyone's mind is just another damaging obstacle to the true message of the gospel.

I think Pat Robertson would do well to apologize to a world he has offended, whether he meant to or not.