Pat Robertson should retire
by OriginalSoapbox
Pat Robertson has disgraced himself with statements he made on the 700 Club this Tuesday condoning divorce in the case of a man whose wife has Alzheimer’s disease. A viewer’s question was read on the show:
“I have a friend whose wife suffers from Alzheimers. She doesn’t even recognize him anymore, and, as you can imagine, the marriage has been rough. My friend has gotten bitter at God for allowing her to be in that condition, and now he’s started seeing another woman. He says that he should be allowed to see other people, because his wife as he knows her is gone… I’m not quite sure what to tell him. Please help.”
Here’s the helpful advice Robertson offered:
“That is a terribly hard thing. It is… I hate Alzheimers! It is one of the most awful things because here is the loved one, this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years, and suddenly that person is gone! They’re gone! They are gone! So–what he says basically is correct… I, I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s gonna do something he should divorce her and start all over again, but, you know, to make sure she has custodial care, somebody looking after her–”
At this point the moderator interjected:
“But isn’t that the vow that we take when we marry someone, that it’s for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer–”
Robertson continued:
“Yeah, well I know, is–if you respect that vow, but if you say that till death do us part, this is a kind of death. So that’s what he’s saying, is that she’s like–This is an ethical question that is beyond my ken… to tell you, but I certainly wouldn’t put a guilt trip on you if you decided that, you know, you had to have companionship, you’re lonely and you’re asking for some companionship as opposed to–what a grief! I know one man who went to see his wife every single day, and she didn’t recognize him one single day, and she would complain that he never came to see her, and it was just… really hurtful, because they say crazy things. And… well… she–she finally died, I don’t know what he’s done, but nevertheless its–it’s a terribly difficult thing for somebody, and I–I can’t fault them for wanting some kind of uh, um, companionship, and if he says in a sense she’s gone, he’s right, it’s like a walking death. But, I–get some ethicist besides me to give you the answer [laughs]. I recognize the dilemma, the last thing I’d do is condemn you for taking that kind of action.”
Pat Robertson is taking a running jump down the slippery slope to euthanasia, and scandalously denying Christ’s teaching on divorce and adultery. This clearly shows that he does not believe in the inherent dignity, humanity and worth of the human body. If a person is not enough of a person to stay married to–if she is the walking dead, if she is “gone,” why should you provide “custodial care?” If the person has actually departed, why keep her body alive? But, if marriage is to be honored both “in sickness and in health,” according to the marriage vows, then it does not matter how diseased the person’s mind is, or how much they have forgotten. As long as they are alive, the marriage covenant must not be broken whether by adultery or divorce, and they must be cared for with love and tenderness.
I am getting married in two weeks. If the marriage vows meant no more to me than this, I should have to call off the marriage. It is unjust and immoral to treat a spouse this way.
Robertson’s theology is the false “theology of glory” that is at odds with the “theology of the Cross.” The theology of glory gives us false hopes of health, wealth, and happiness–and then leads us into temptation when its promises don’t pan out. The theology of the Cross promises us only Christ–but assures us that whatever may happen, His grace will be enough for us. Robertson had a chance to preach this true Gospel, and he blew it. Again. He has no business speaking for Christ and the church, and should retire.
See my previous post on Pat Robertson here.
UPDATE: Russell Moore says it better than me. Read his article here.
Nicely written.
I was going to link to Russell Moore’s article — which was excellent — but you already did.
Your paragraph on the “theology of glory” versus the “theology of the cross” is particularly helpful, I think. Hadn’t seen that put quite so succinctly in those terms.