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 