The Aftermath

I've been avoiding talking about the Pat Robertson fiasco precisely because I'm not surprised that he's an idiot. Then when he lied about what he said, that annoyed me enough to comment on two other blogs, especially since his remarks were broadcast and documented. His lie was so obvious, everyone knew this "Christian leader" was lying. But now...now that he's apologized I have to say something. Why? Here's what the AP reported:

When the AP had called Robertson on Tuesday for elaboration, spokeswoman Angell Watts said Robertson would not do interviews and had no statement about his remarks. He also declined several interview requests Wednesday.

So, he's willing to make remarks off the cuff during his own broadcast when he's in complete control, but he's not willing to be held accountable on someone else's program? What definition of Christianity is Robertson operating under? How does he understand accountability? If you make such a public gaffe, shouldn't you make a public apology and be willing to answer for it publicly? Does posting an apology on his website without addressing a television audience (the place where the stupidity was uttered) count as repentance? Seriously, let's not politicize the truth this time. Can Christians of all kinds demand of him that he apologize publicly, contritely, and with some humility? I know the last two are anathema to him, but at some level the testimony of the Church is at stake here.

Comments

[Scott in Houston]

It's interesting that people like that can develope so prevelant a "God-Complex" that they think nothing is beyond their ability to address and to pass judgment upon. He's getting old...

[goz]

The fact he lied is disgusting and trying to cover it up with flimsy semantic wallpaper ('take him out' could have meant kidnap don'cha know) makes it all the worse.

Reading through his apology/statement/justification (not quite sure which it is) on the website he invokes the Bonhoeffer argument for his words which, as he cites, popular history reports as being:

“If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.”

Robertson goes on to say: "On the strength of this reasoning, Bonhoeffer decided to lend his support to those in Germany who had joined together in an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer was imprisoned and killed by the Nazis, but his example deserves our respect and consideration today."

In effect he's saying: :sorry- I said one thing then tried to cover it up, then realised it as caught on tape so admitted it, then apologied, but, as a caveat, here's why I still think I'm right anyway..."

Greg- could you just unpick his argument for us. I know it's a wildly different set of circumstances in this instance (Bonhoeffer wasn't motivated by oil concerns foir starters; and, as I read it, he said 'wrestle' the steering wheel, not shoot the guy in the head...) but I can't quite clear the arguments up in my head.

[Alice Clay]

Goz, i don't think there is any clearing the arguments up. Robertson runs his mouth, tries to spin it, realizes that nobody (even his sheep) will buy said spin, and then offers an "apology" which amounts to a different spin. I think Scott is right, it's the God complex thing. Folks like him think they're men or women of God and therefore speak for God...cause after all, they know the bible better than you. Therefore, since they speak on the infalliable word, then they themselves are infalliable.

It's mind-blowing arrogance.

[smitheeboy]

Greg I'm glad you finally brought up the topic. I was discussing Pat's comments the other night with a friend and i wondered aloud, "how is his comments any different than a radical muslim in the middle east?" With the exception of the religion I see no difference in the hate language he spewed from his forked tongue a few days ago. Maybe I'm wrong? I sure hope so.

[Joe]

The "God-Complex" is a very good example. History shows examples of this complex with nations leaders. Kings used to believe they were destined by God to be the ruler of the kingdom and therefore felt they were allowed to do whatever they pleased. King Louis the fourteenth or sixteenth is a good example of this. Of course we have seen it in this generation with Hitler and even some Presidents throw it in as well.

I am not too sure it applies with this matter as much as the fact that an idiot put his foot in his mouth and then tried to back track.

[jvpastor]

If I could get away with it next week our sign would read, "Pat Robertson should be assassinated."

[kenosis]

It a shame. Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing has helped thousands in need; the open prayer lines have given free counsel to many in distress. Yet, his comments (which rightly, Ted Haggard said, do not represent the views of all evangelical christians), which seem to happen all to often lately, cloud the good that he has done. If you watch 700 Club, you will see his son, Gordon, wince at some of the things he says, negating many of the things that he is spot-on in his commentary.