Pat Robertson Responds
— Thursday, September 29th, 2011 —
Pat Robertson says his comments about divorce and Alzheimer’s disease were “misinterpreted.” The problem is, his clarification doesn’t clarify.
According to Sarah Pulliam Bailey in Christianity Today, Robertson addressed the controversy over his advice to a questioner to his 700 Club television program by telling the man he could divorce his wife in order to date another woman. Robertson said he was merely “saying, adultery is not a good thing, and you might as well straighten your life out, and the only way to do it is to kind of get your affair with your wife in order.”
This is nonsense.
Robertson did not, in fact, say that. He said, “I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something he should divorce her and start all over again.”
Robertson now says he would never advise anyone to leave a sick spouse, but he doesn’t repent of the previous statement. He simply says he was focusing on the “specific case” and not advice for “the whole world.” He said he envied a Catholic priest because the priest’s confessional counsel is “all kept secret” whereas when he has “somebody asking me for advice, it spreads worldwide and it’s misunderstood.”
First of all, Robertson’s advice didn’t “spread worldwide.” No one was tapping his phone or hacking his email account. It was broadcast. Robertson is a broadcaster with a television program using satellite technology to see to it that his advice gets carried across the world. That’s the problem.
More problematic, though, was Robertson’s flippant response to the abhorrent theology behind the whole issue.
“And remember, they come to me asking for specific advice and I give them specific advice about their condition, not for the world. I’m not giving a theological (defense); I’m not John Calvin giving the Institutes of the Christian Religion.”
To tell a man to stay with his sick wife, that to divorce her or leave her because of her illness, is, in every situation, wrong, is not some abstract point of doctrine. No one was asking Robertson to, on his feet, explain the Molinist account of providence or to answer a tricky ethical dilemma about lying to save the lives of others. This question was about the most basic sign of the gospel, the union between Christ and his church. One doesn’t even need to know any Scripture beyond John 3:16 to intuit the spirit of antichrist in the notion of abandoning a suffering spouse.
If one can’t answer a question that basic to the Christian faith, with clarity and conviction, one shouldn’t teach first-grade Sunday School, much less broadcast one’s spiritual guidance to the whole world.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Robertson’s comments on divorce and Alzheimer’s here, and later had the opportunity to speak to the issue on CNN, which you can watch here.
18 Responses to “Pat Robertson Responds”
Trackbacks
- Pat Robertson Responds . . . Inadequately | Denny Burk
- Russel Moore Repudiates Albert Mohler’s Theological Triage | T h e o • p h i l o g u e
- Pat Robertson’s clarification that doesn’t clarify « Strengthened by Grace
- What I Read Online – 09/30/2011 (a.m.) | Emeth Aletheia
- Elsewhere: Pat Robertson “Clarifies”, Rob Bell Goes to Hollywood, Dogs Surf | Christ and Pop Culture
- Treading Grain » Post Topic » Around the Horn – 10.06.11
- This and That 10-08-11 « The Thompsonian Times
- one year anniversary ideas
Thank you for continuing to show a sincere and pure devotion to Christ and for writing what you’ve written.
Even the specific advice Robertson gave to a specific person was itself not specific to a situation of which he was personally aware. Does Pat Robertson know the man to whom he was speaking? The man’s question was anonymous yet public, thus making this whole thing nothing but showmanship, not pastoral care.
I am beginning to wonder if HE has Alzheimer’s and if so, how would he feel about his wife leaving him.
Thanks indeed. I quoted some of your original statements on the Alzheimer’s Reading Room blog. I also blogged about this. I am in my marriage for better, for worse, with my beloved husband who has Alzheimer’s.
God bless!
Carol
It is sad when a Christian spokesman like Pat Robertson is unable to defend the sacred bonds of marriage. But on the other hand, the defense of marriage is in dire straits all around us now-a-days.
In the meantime, I pray for my daughters to have husbands who love Christ and his Church, and will love my daughters as Christ loved his Church.
Lord have mercy.
Kudos Dr. Moore for calling Robertson out on his back peddling.
Robertson doesn’t have the courage of his convictions but instead of eating humble pie, he’s blaming others for misunderstanding him.
When are people going to stop watching the 700 Club and stop giving Robertson any credence?
WCD
Amen, amen, amen, AMEN, Dr. Moore!
What part of “in sickness and in health, till death do us part” does Robertson not understand?
The Romans and pagans of Jesus’ time believed in and practiced euthanasia. Of CHRISTIANS, in vivid contrast, was it said, “See how they love one another!”
@Kathy from Kansas,
Amen! Thanks for your adherence to wedding vows, and scripture.For putting your statement on a firm foundation.
Why doesn’t this man just retire and let some intelligent Christians do the broad casting… he is just making it harder and harder for the rest of us.
Thanks Dr. Moore for your willingness to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Your frankness in those last few paragraphs was much needed, and much appreciated. I have a friend who goes to your school, and I’m glad to know he is learning from you and others.