Aside from how cool a band name that would make, gonna talk a bit about this new “Haiti’s earthquake is God’s judgment” deal going on w/ Pat Robertson.

First off, I think it’s utterly contemptible we even have to talk about it. There’s really only one reason I feel ok talking about it, but I’m not gonna disclose why that is.

Ok.

So, there’s this earthquake in Haiti. Then Pat Robertson, apparently, is like, “This is God’s judgment or wrath because the people of Haiti entered into a pact with Satan.”

I’m on Twitter @ work (because I can’t get on Facebook anymore, and I need some sort of social networking outlet), and I see tons of the emergent types posting about Haiti. Then, as this Pat Robertson stuff comes out, more and more of the trends go toward Robertson, and less is said about Haiti.

And eventually, folks like Tony Jones (infamous emergent author, speaker, production manager, etc.) are saying “let’s make this PatRobertsonDoesNotSpeakForGod thing a trend on Twitter!” And that quick, it all quickly takes the focus off the events in Haiti.

People started repeating slogans like: “Pat Robertson does not speak for God.” “Pat Robertson does not speak for Jesus.” “Jesus would have handled it differently!” etc.

And all that brought these points to mind, regarding the Robertson fiasco:

1. While it may be true that Pat Robertson does not speak for God, neither does Jay Bakker (who was one of the folks posting that Twitter trend). To me, Pat Robertson speaks for God at least as much as Jay Bakker or Tony Jones does. That’s what bothers me about these folks. They make equally shocking claims on the liberal theological side as Robertson and company do on the more “conservative” side, yet they get real rigid in responses to Robertson’s statements. So in the end you have: “Gays can be Christians!” (Jay Bakker doesn’t speak for God!) and “Haiti is God’s judgment!” (Pat Robertson doesn’t speak for God). It’s just a frighteningly funny circle of who does and who doesn’t speak for God. Not saying that some conclusion can’t be reached (perhaps neither speak for God?), it’s just a little funny.

2. “Jesus would’ve handled it differently!” That may be the case, but I’m still not sure he would’ve handled it in the way that Baker, Jones and crew would expect. In fact, we have an example in the gospels about Jesus’ reaction and response to a calamity. When Pilate kills Galileans and mingles their blood with the sacrifices, they ask Jesus what’s up with that, and his answer is noticeable: first, he doesn’t address the disaster at all, but instead turns the question back on them and says, “Unless you repent, the same is gonna happen to you.” Wow. What if we said that in response to people asking us about the Haiti incident? “What do you think, as a Christian, about the Haiti earthquake?” “Well, unless you repent, the same may happen to you.” Isn’t that closer to Robertson’s statement than the emerging liberals?

3. Is the earthquake a judgment from God? This is what people are blasting Pat for right now. But my response is not instant repulsion. My only response is, that I doubt Pat Robertson has the authority to make such a certain claim. But, unless you deny the validity of the Bible, many times God uses other nations to chastise Israel (which resulted in the death and enslavement of many). This is the same God who was so repentant over the sinfulness of man that he flooded the earth, and saved only Noah and his family from the total destruction. So, unless you hold that these stories are symbols, metaphors, etc. and stop there, then we do serve a God who has at times used natural, earthly, physical things as judgments. So I’m not repulsed by Robertson’s statement. I’m not sure that he has the authority to say something like that, and you can’t just go around saying that about every disaster.

There’s just three random things that are going through my mind right now. Probably shoddily thrown together because I’m writing this and watching Dog Bounty Hunter at the same time.

Oh well.

Take it as it is