Okay, another post from the netherworld of oldlife contrarianism. But could there be an easier target than Pat Robertson and his comments about the earthquake in Haiti? The gist of Robertson’s gaffe seems to be that the recent catastrophe is God’s payback for the country’s “pact with the devil†during the revolution in 1791 against France.
The blogosphere is alive with various posts condemning Robertson. I won’t link to them because some are friends and don’t want to appear to be singling them out. But if you go to Google search under blogs you can find any number of negative reactions, many even self-righteous.
Some of these bloggers make useful points about the difficulty of reading providence, and criticize Robertson for overreaching in his interpretation of the earthquake. Some also make the quite sensible observation that what the television show host was in bad taste.
So what’s the problem? Well, if we cannot know providence – as I myself believe – if we cannot read history and tally up the good guys and the bad, the blessed and the cursed, then how do we know Robertson was wrong? If providence is mysterious, Robertson could have been right. No one would actually be able to tell. So why not react to Robertson with a measure of the reserve that he should have shown to providence?
Lest some interpret this as a way to stay on Robertson’s good side and perhaps land a job at Regent University, consider that IVP published a book a few years ago, God’s Judgments: Interpreting History and the Christian Faith, by the lesser known Keillor brother, Steven, who argued that 9/11 was a divine judgment upon the United States. Keillor qualified this argument in a host of intelligent and theologically adept ways. Although I was not persuaded, his case for trying to interpret providence was not nutty.
Which is to say that Robertson may not have been bonkers either to enter the land of discerning God’s will in the circumstances of life in this world.
But the real reason for suggesting a less hostile perspective on Robertson’s comments, especially after seeing some of the reactions to comments here about Brit Hume, is to question the way that Christians pile on when their faith goes public. When Brit said good things, then let’s pat him on the back and bask in some good pr for the gospel. And when Pat says bad things, then let’s quickly point out how wrongheaded he is at least so that others will know we are not part of the simian faithful.
In other words, do Christian bloggers have to be that predictable? Isn’t the mojo of the kingdom for which we pray in the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer above, beyond, and more resilient than what appears on Fox News or CNN? In case anyone’s wondering, the answer here is decidedly yes.
Old Life 
This entry, particularly those last sentences, have earned you another e-hug.
LikeLike
Predictable or lazy? I lean towards lazy since we all fail to do our homework and are all too ready to offer uninformed opinions. One of the things I found interesting about Robertson’s story was the way Reporter Jake Tapper handled it and how he put Robertson’s gaffe into context (article: http://tinyurl.com/yjyqyzk ):
“Robertson’s tale stems from a legend that Jean Jacques Dessalines, who led the Haitian revolution against the French Army, entered into a pact with Satan disguised as a voodoo deity in exchange for a military victory, which finally happened in 1803.”
I do not agree with Robertson, but he does not sound quite as crazy when Haitian myths are cited. Another good article that helps put Haiti into perspective is from an informative Times Online article from last May where a Haitians is quoted who believes that God has caused their suffering (article: http://tinyurl.com/ogxxu2 ):
“Just why is Haiti in such a dire situation, so much worse than any other country in the Americas, and as bad as anywhere on Earth? Some blame the United Nations. Some blame the Americans. Some have theories about the collision of global warming with global capitalism. All are careful to point out that the Haitian elite deserves its reputation for being greedy, negligent and kleptocratic. “I think the Haitian people have been made to suffer by God,†Wilbert, a teacher, tells me, “but the time will come soon when we will be rewarded with Heaven.â€
After reading the Online Times article, I wondered if God in his ever lavish mercy allowed the earthquake so the West would finally come to the aid of the Haitians and relieve their suffering from deep poverty.
LikeLike
But where would Christians be without that bastion of unbiased reporting, Fox News? Surely the Kingdom cannot persever without it…
More seriously, I noticed that Piper, much as I respect the guy, attempted to interpret providence a while back as well. Did he receive such a vitriolic response from the same quarters? Hmm…
LikeLike
Daryl,
I thought the issue with Hume was that he was criticised for speaking at all, not for being right or wrong.
He was defended for his right to make a faith statement in public discourse.
Robertson is also free to make his statement.
His statement resembles (somewhat) what a lot of folk think: that God takes care of good people and punishes bad people. If something bad happens to you, then you must have done something bad.
For that reason it is helpful to counter his words with something closer to the Biblical position.
I’m not sure that 9/11 and an earthquake are equivalent occurrences of providence to support your point, either.
LikeLike
You think this is vitriolic? You should see me on family visits.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I wasn’t referring to your post, rather folks who are so vocal about their offense at Robertson’s words. Sorry if I wasn’t clear! I didn’t like them either, but I don’t see how it’s much different from Piper. Personally, I thought your post was insightful.
Looks like the Outhouse got to that point before me though (link above). Always two steps behind.
LikeLike
Carter,
From a strictly theological perspective, Robertson’s statement is much like Piper’s. But the context is vastly different. Robertson made his claim while there were still thousand’s of people buried under the buildings collapsed by the earthquake. As far as I remember the Minneapolis tornado didn’t hurt anyone.
LikeLike
I don’t think Robertson’s statement is particularly controversial. He’s like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.
LikeLike
Granted, it was in remarkably poor taste. So perhaps critiques need to remain focused on that, to avoid the arbitrary criticism of Robertson over Piper (Love a lot of what Piper does btw, not hammering on him overmuch). I just think it’s inconsistent to be more upset about Robertson’s statement over Piper’s for any reason other than that it was a really stupid time to say it.
I do think it’s wrong btw. And no, I’m not particularly worked up about it. I expect such things from Robertson.
LikeLike
Belgic 13 doesn’t seem to make much room for discerning providence so long as it is with couth and good timing.
Besides, isn’t Robertson just being a good Pentecostal while Piper is arguably being more neo- than paleo-Calvinist?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not to knock Piper, but his proper classification should be Regular Baptist or semi-Calvinist, since he really lays claim only to the Dorthian foyer of Calvinism (i.e., the 5 Points).
LikeLike
Zrim, I agree, attempts at interpreting providence are out, regardless of situation. Any of those who are bashing Robertson on theological grounds, yet did not do so in Piper’s case, are being inconsistent. I don’t think Piper is terribly paleo- in any case, being a Particular Baptist continuationist and all.
LikeLike
Well, actually, Robertson tried to explain his gaffe later, thus:
“Haiti? Haiti? I thought they said Hades – which certainly does have a pact with Satan and deserve everything they got. But, jeez, I can see where if people thought I was talking about Haiti, why they must think I’m some sort of insensitive a** hole!”
LikeLike