Jay Bakker and I had an exchange on Twitter. He talks about it here: http://www.revolutionnyc.com/god-crushed-in-haiti/
My response:
Jay, I wouldnât normally post on here. I understand I can come across as bitter and antagonistic (I very well may be). Iâm working on that. But Iâm the âlolâ guy you mention in your sermon here. I just wanted to maybe clear up my point so we better understand each other.
My main issue in our discussion, or maybe the main point I was trying to make, is that we canât really speak of natural disasters and their relationship with God, unless you claim to have that authority (as some sort of prophet or such). Nobodyâs really in a place to say that God caused or didnât cause an earthquake, unless theyâre claiming a pretty heavy inspiration. All we can do is help those in need.
Allow me to take a minute and explain some of my beliefs: I believe that what happened in the Bible, actually did happen, one way or the other. And we mentioned the flood in the time of Noah. In that time (whether you believe in partial flood or full-earth flood, the situation was the same) there were, Iâm sure, varying degrees of people just as there were in Haiti. And God repented of having created this race of humans at all because of what they had become, and decided to wipe them out with a flood. These were real people, I believe. Not a metaphor, not a storybook village. These were people, with families, and worries, and concerns, and mouths to feed, etc. Just like in Haiti or anywhere else. So, what I was trying to point out in our short 140 word maximum conversation
is that those who are utterly repulsed by Pat Robertsonâs statement have, as far as I can tell (there may undoubtedly be more), at least two options to justify the repulsion: 1) to say that yes, that flood story is true, but it was under a different covenant, and God doesnât act that way anymore, and 2) that flood storyâs just metaphorical and just didnât happen, or that if it did, weâre reading back into history and doing exactly what Pat Robertson did.
In your Twitter remark, you took the first approach (That was God under the Old Covenant and He no longer judges folks via natural disasters.) (As an aside, I LOLâd that Old Covenant type of thinking, and you wrongly accused me of laughing at the situation in Haiti, which was very uncool of you to do.)
My problem with the âOld Covenantâ approach is, A: It makes God pretty freaking temporally bipolar, and B: It patronizes, so to speak, people of ancient times. For example, this conversation in Heaven: âOh, Joe Adamite, huh? You died in the flood? Man, thatâs terrible. I wish youâd been born a thousand years later, âcause then God mellowed out a whole lot and stopped killing people.â Is this clear at all? I hope Iâm adequately communicating my issue with this point.
And if people really do have such a revulsion against a God who would cause an earthquake today, then I think they should have an equal revulsion for a God who caused a flood centuries ago. Do we need to have a corporate âForgiving of Godâ to clear this up? Jesus even mentions Noah, and says that in the last days itâll be like people were in the time of Noah. He didnât say âand while weâre talking about it, letâs take some time to talk about how God isnât really like that.â Peter mentions Noah, and doesnât take an opportunity to clear up Godâs pancake flipping nature, either. So I have to go with the truth that an unchanging God has corporately judged and punished people before. Iâm just not saying that thatâs the case in Haiti.
::takes a moment to realize the utter hopelessness of getting his point across here::
My problem with the second point is a lot shorter: I just believe that the Noahic flood is a historical fact, and that it was in fact initiated by God.
Do I believe that this is Godâs judgment on Haiti? No. Do I believe that Pat Robertson has even the smallest lick of sense? No. Iâm just not getting as repulsed as others at the thought that God would judge nations and people through physical material means like this. I can find no theory (such as the âOld Covenant New Covenantâ) that could support otherwise.
In response to Pat, I CANNOT say that âThatâs disgusting God would NEVER do that!â âCause, He kinda did, whether He does anymore or not. Thatâs all I was saying.
It seems like your problem is a God who would do something like the flood in our time. But honestly, could you really follow a God who had EVER done something like what just happened in Haiti? He did, if you believe the Bible, with the flood, and with using armies and other nations to punish each other, as if soldiers and kings were pawns in Godâs sovereign plan. If that stopped with the âNew Covenantâ. . . I mean, that doesnât NEGATE that HE DID IT in the past. Right?
Iâm not asking redundant questions. Iâd love to talk with you about it. Youâre right, theology can make us jackasses, and I saw that we were both going that way with our conversation, and I think we both chose to end it at a time before it got out of hand.
But I just canât agree with you on this Old Covenant/New Covenant deal, although I do agree that we look at the scriptures through Christ.
And man, for trying to heal my own bitterness, I sure do wish you didnât talk about our conversation with the kind of superior tones you used in this sermon.
I mean, you seem to have been really offended at my LOL. I was laughing because I find the Old Covenant theory lacking in foundation. That didnât bear on how I feel about Haiti. It was a sidenote. A chuckle. And in return I got accused of being pretty much heartless. If you want, can you send me a list of how many times and what I can LOL at during this tragedy? Can I eat cheeseburgers, or maybe just cabbage and bitter tea? Are we doing the sackcloth and ashes thing? I mean, people are dying still: have you sold your ipod or phone or shoes or found a cheaper place to live to donate more? Why are you not down there???? (Before Iâm ONCE AGAIN misinterpreted, Iâm pointing out that weâre gonna LOL through tragedy. Doesnât mean we donât care, itâs just part of who we are. I know a lot of folks who feel bad about Haiti but are still LOLing and going to the movies.)
Iâll share an observation with you. Youâre all about restoring hope, love, acceptance, this and that. But youâre not very respectful when it comes to folks who disagree with you. I found that out pretty damn quick. We would have had a much more civil conversation, I feel like, or at least I for one would not be so bitter towards you in my heart, if you would have not attacked my compassion or where I was coming from for a simple âlol.â
If Iâve misinterpreted you, Iâm sorry. And I do the same thing to others, so I bear the same lashes. But I just felt incredibly misrepresented by you and felt you were really condescending.
Youâve got my email if you wanna talk further. Iâm not gonna be visiting this page anymore. And Iâm takinâ ya off my twitter.
Take it or leave it. Cheers.










Get more thoughts from James in his book, available
I completely agree with you. Thank you for stating your opinions so reasonable and articulately.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jay Bakker and jcardinell, James Townsend. James Townsend said: The Trouble with Mr. Bakker http://thecondition.net/the-same-old-revolution/ [...]
James, I am very sorry that I came off sounding superior and/or condescending. I know you were not laughing at Haiti,on your twitter you were clear that it was my theology. I did not mean to be disrespectful to you or any other of the folks that I have mentioned. What I do, is share my experience with the church, and I talk about things that have impacted me good or bad. Our twitter conversation was such an example. As you may know I have had my fair share of critics and I feel that I may have taken some of that frustration out on you and for that I am truly sorry. Thank you for taking the time to write to me and tell me how you feel, especially since most do not. I have taken everything you said to heart and your words do not fall on deaf ears.
In GRACE, Jay Bakker
Thanks for posting Jay. I’m sure that I heard more superiority than was really there, due to my bitterness of heart. I’m a bitter smart-ass with a default aversion to “the emrging types” (as you may have noticed). I don’t know if I’ll ever be cured of that. But please don’t think that I’ve said anything without being aware of my own concdescending and hypocritical nature.