And here's to you, Mr. Robertson (Jesus loves them more than you will know)

By Todd Stadler · Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:15pm

Sigh. Is this what it takes to rouse me from my bloggy slumber?

In response to the unimaginable horror of the 7.0 earthquake in Haiti this week, Pat Robertson, as almost everyone by now knows, did his shtick of reminding people that there's never a tragedy so bad that you can't pile his condemnation on top of it:

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. Napoleon the Third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, "We will serve you if you get us free from the prince." True story. And so the devil said, "OK, it's a deal." They kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor.

You know, if I ever said something that bone-achingly stupid on national TV, I'd hope that people would try to see it in the best light possible, so here is my best attempt at listing some mitigating factors.

First, this was not Robertson's only response to the earthquake's devastation. He was actually in the middle, as far as I can tell, of raising funds to help out the Haitians.

Second, he's not entirely the dementia-addled old man that he might seem on first hearing his reference to pacts with the devil. By which I mean that, well, there is at the very least a historical antecedent to his blathering. As Matt Yglesias notes, Robertson was probably referring to a Vodou ceremony that took place at Bois Caïman at the beginning of the Haitian Revolution. At that ceremony, a leader of the slave rebellion gave a speech that contrasted the slaves' god with that of the white, French plantation owners. So there's that, never mind that this was all before the first Napoleon came to power, much less his nephew Napoleon III and whatever.

But, of course, people aren't upset because Pat got his historical facts a little mixed up. They're upset — and rightly so — because he blamed people, as he so often does, for the horrible disaster that happened to them. He said (or at least gave every impression that he believed) that this earthquake happened to the Haitians because their revolutionary forebears did not worship Jesus.

Every time some major catastrophe happens, Robertson is there to tell the dead, the dying, the people in the rubble exactly what they did wrong, and what they can do in the future to avoid more catastrophes. It's a service he provides, I guess. The attacks of 9/11 could have been avoided if only America weren't so secular due to abortionists and feminists. Katrina wouldn't have happened if abortion were illegal. And, of course, Robertson's disastrous 1988 run for the Republican presidential slot could have been avoided had Amy Grant not crossed over to mainstream pop. (Joke! As with Napoleon III or whatever, she crossed over after he quit the presidential race.)

And while normally, I wouldn't care or even know what the man was talking about on any given day, I feel compelled to reply in this case because, to many people, Pat Robertson speaks for Christians. And I'm a Christian. (If you are a Democrat, consider what it would be like if anyone actually paid attention to Lyndon LaRouche and considered his every theory normative for Democrats.)

The main problem I have with Robertson's theology (as I've been exposed to it by contextless YouTube clips, at least) is that it's un-Biblical. And un-Christian. Other than that, you know, I have no problems with it ha ha ha.

No, seriously, it almost seems that, to him, the main point of Christianity is getting people to be good so they can avoid natural disasters and acts of terrorism. Failure to be good, of course, is like failing to pay your monthly home insurance installment: when something bad inevitably happens, you'll be fully accountable for it.

But then, Jesus puts it differently. In teaching his followers to love their enemies, Jesus reminds them that their "Father in heaven ... causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" — that is to say, He shows his love, even to people that hate Him. A different message than Robertson's, I would claim.

But then, what does the Bible say about natural disasters and other horrible events? Are they, as Robertson seems to claim, God's way of warning those affected by them, "You are bad. If you don't act good, more earthquakes!" Again, let's see what Jesus had to say about the matter:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them — do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

So, let's see. Some people from Galilee had apparently died in a horrible way at the hand of Pontius Pilate, and apparently there was some question as to whether this happened because they were bad people. To which Jesus clearly says no, going on to mention another recent catastrophe and pointing out that those who died in it were also no more guilty than anyone else.

Now I don't know if Robertson has read this passage or not, but you don't have any excuse. What do you see there — what does Jesus say that our response should be to tragedies and natural disasters? Is it to thank God that we're not as bad, as sinful as those so afflicted? No, no, no! It's to realize that bad things happen in this world because of sin, that we are as bad and sinful as those who suffered, and in light of that, to repent, because sinners — that is, all of us — need forgiveness. And that forgiveness is found in Jesus, not in being a good person (after all, how "good" is it if you're just obeying so you can avoid being punished by a tsunami?).

But here's the funny thing. It's easy to detest Robertson for his attitude. He seems to think that Haitians are bad people that bad things happen to, but that he personally is fine (erstwhile presidential campaigns notwithstanding) because he's a good person. And that's offensive, especially in light of what Jesus said in the previous quote.

But if we react by noting that Pat Robertson is a bad person but, well, we're not as bad as he is, then we obviously haven't learned the lesson here, either. Which is to say, Pat Robertson's latest media debacle is as much a call to repentance as any natural disaster. If all we take from this is that "Pat Robertson is a hateful man", without realizing the hate that is in our own hearts, then it's quite probable we're making the same mistake we're condemning him for.