Pat Robertson's Days

Are Pat Robertson’s days numbered? Of course they are, just like the rest of us. But I mean, is he about to get the “left hand of fellowship” from a number of Christians who are increasingly embarrassed by his public comments?

He doesn’t help the image of Christians as portrayed by media who are only too happy to find something done or said by someone from “The Christian Right” that sets one's eyes rolling, even among some of the Right.

Columnist Terry Mattingly writes about "Excommunicating Pat Robertson" in a new column written for journalists (at Poynter.org), and his opening lines are dead on:

Let's pretend it is Oct. 1, 2005.

After a long, long September of storms, Hurricane Wilma misses the Keys and veers into the Gulf of Mexico. It heads straight for Louisiana.

After a long, long day in the newsroom, you sit on the couch flipping from one cable news channel to another. Then you see a familiar face in an MSNBC tease and hear, "We'll be back, live, with the Rev. Pat Robertson, who says that this new hurricane is more evidence that God is angry at New Orleans because ..."

Pause for a minute.

When you hear these words do you experience (a) an acidic surge of joy because you are 99.9 percent sure that you know what Robertson is going to say, or (b) a sense of sorrow for precisely the same reason?

If you answered (a), then I would bet the moon and the stars that you are someone who doesn't think highly of Christian conservatives and their beliefs. If you answered (b), you are probably one of those Christians.

Mattingly means "excommunication" in the sense of journalists ignoring him in the future, and finding other newer, fresher sources, some of whom he names later in his article.

Mattingly is not alone in his criticism of Robertson. Joseph Loconte posted an article on the Knight-Ridder news wires earlier this week, about Christianity’s Religion Problem. Pat Robertson was front and center:

Robertson has a 20-year record of reckless statements and duplicitous behavior, all under the sanctified umbrella of Christian ministry. He once predicted divine judgment for Orlando, in the form of a hurricane, if Disney World allowed gay-pride events on its premises. While trying to negotiate a deal to get his CBN network into China, he downplayed the communist state's one-child policy (accomplished by forced sterilizations and abortions). Mindful of his financial investments in Africa, he defended Liberian thug Charles Taylor as a man of God -- up until the moment Taylor was indicted for war crimes and forced into exile.

In the age of Islamic terror, an American minister who pontificates about international politics has a civic -- and moral -- obligation to think before he opens his mouth. Robertson called for a political assassination, news that rippled into the Muslim world. Then, with classic Bill Clinton panache, he lied about it -- and then apologized. The question with Pat Robertson is not whether his fatuousness will reassert itself, but when.

Loconte, however, is not telling journalists to "excommunicate" Robertson--in the very next paragraph he directs his comments to evangelical leaders, who should move in the direction that word implies, though he doesn't use that word:

Before it does, evangelical leaders would be wise to marginalize Robertson and his media empire -- publicly and decisively. They should editorialize against his excesses, refuse to appear on his television program, and deny him advertising space in their magazines. Board members should threaten to resign unless he steps down from his public platform. Religious leaders rightly worry about airing their dirty laundry. But Robertson has made himself a public figure -- and a massive public relations problem for the church. Until more evangelicals make a visible break with him, they'll be vulnerable to the crass caricatures that dominate media coverage of conservative religion in America.

While certain Christians may well pay less attention to Robertson, will the media stop quoting him if no one else is listening?

The Psalmist tells us to number our days, so that we might get a heart of wisdom. And in Proverbs we are told that the better part of wisdom oftentimes is not in what we say but what we don’t say.

Comments

[Gabriel Sanchez]

He doesn’t help the image of Christians as portrayed by media who are only too happy to find something done or said by someone from “The Christian Right” that sets one's eyes rolling, even among some of the Right.

I believe there is the more critical problem that the meida tends to portray all Christians as being part of "The Christian Right" or some watered down followers of "hippie" Jesus and [his] peace & love social philosophy. For them, Robertson exemplifies the excesses and eccentricities of that membership; even better, he's willing to stand up in public and shout it out with pride from the mountain tops without regard to that natural barrier which exists between mind and mouth called "common sense."

Mattingly means "excommunication" in the sense of journalists ignoring him in the future, and finding other newer, fresher sources, some of whom he names later in his article.

I would certainly support Christian and religious journalists doing just that, but why would the secular media? Robertson is almost too good to be true; he sticks his foot in his mouth routinely and his words are sensational at riling up the reading public (religious and non-religious alike). Who could ask for anything more?

While certain Christians may well pay less attention to Robertson, will the media stop quoting him if no one else is listening?

Those in society who either skeptical or outright hostile towards religion will not stop listening. That's the point. If that were to ever happen, it would take Christians--evangelical and otherwise--"excommunicating" Roberts fully in the way Loconte outlines. Christianity as a whole would need to make a loud enough fuss to the public at large and through the media that Robertson ought to be ignored and taken as unrepresentative of Christians everywhere.

However, it should be remembered that Protestants generally and evangelicals specifically really cannot "excommunicate" anyone except socially. Robertson will always be able to maintain that he is a Christian and given his charisma, convince others that's entirely so. Given how low the bar has been set for who can be defined as a Christian, I only see tactics which cut away at Robertson's capacity to have a public forum through advertising dollars, speaking engagements, and references from others in the Christian limelight. If he cannot be denied the title, certainly he can be denied the means to calling attention to that fact and expounding upon it.

[Joe Long]

Yes - the suggestion that the Press find other evangelical sources presupposes that they WANT a representative spokesman; actually, they're very happy with someone who acts out the caricature they've already got of Christians! It makes life a good deal simpler, you see.

[Will S.]

Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Long are right; Pat Robertson is too useful to liberals to be discarded by the secular media; he makes their opponents look foolish, so that is seen as desirable. Regardless of how is received henceforth in evangelical circles (and I doubt there will be lasting repercussions), he will always have a secular, liberal media platform...

[Will S.]

Just a minor point - some Protestant traditions do practise excommunication, such as traditionalist Calvinism (of which I am an adherent), but it's true that it is particularly rare amongst evangelicals, since they so rarely practice church discipline within their churches - and it's so easy for someone excommunicated from one church to move on to another - or for that matter, start their own, and so any official censure by an evangelical Protestant church body has less impact than it would in the Reformed tradition, for instance. Hence, indeed, excommunication of Pat Robertson in a literal sense is certainly impossible, practically speaking, regardless of the rules of his particular denomination (I don't know what that is).

[macleod]

so dead on. i've written to many of the more approachable "talking heads" about this. i've been a christian some 40 years , with ups and downs in my faith. i've done medical missions in several countries. in short, i've lived a pretty typical "christian" life, and in no way, shape or form does pat robertson speak for me, my family or my friends. and his comments make it that much more difficult to share my faith with people who don't share it.
before i entered medical school, a missionary friend quizzed me about topics like abortion. since i didn't really know where i stood, i was very wishy-washy. he was appalled and informed that if i did things in my practice that ran counter to God's teachings, God would remove me. that was a sobering thought. of course, if pat robertson is any indication, we know it's not true.

[dennis]

My wife thinks that this approach to Mr. Robertson is unChristian and that it lacks love for the man. Perhaps embarrassment is something one has to live with and allow that God is bigger than the foolish way we Christians often appear, even when the appearance is not based on a "central" Christian value or message. It's like going to the store with your handicapped cousin who shouts obscenities at everyone, sure it makes you look a little foolish, but hey it's family. Perhaps those who are not against us are for us.

I'm not really sure what I think of this sentiment. I realize the difficulty of "managing" the image of Evangelicals, since the term is so broadly applied. It does seem to reinforce what I understand to be an element of Evangelical Christianity, namely that personal interaction and evangelism is just that, personal. It means talking to individuals and explaining that I don't agree with Mr. Robertson or feel that he is representative of who we are. Perhaps the 'left hand of fellowship' must be reserved for those who speak officially for a body. For instance, if Mr. Robertson was a deacon in your church, the pastor would appear to have an obligation to censure what he says, as he speaks representatively of the church. However, when we are only loosely associated, perhaps all we can do is not watch 700 club and be willing to live an example other than Mr. Robertson's.

Now, let me qualify that all these "we's" are used generously as I would be hard to define as evangelical. After some negative experiences in the Evangelical Charismatic wing of Christianity I am currently in a theological limbo of sorts and so I claim little authority to speak on behalf of who we "evangelicals" are. I can only claim personal experience and the ongoing experience of living in a rural community full of conservative Evangelicals. Well, that's all. I apologize for my non-standard usage of punctuation and capitalization, such is the degenerating influence of the internet.

[Will S.]

Like Dennis, I, too, am an ex-evangelical, and I was a mainline liberal Protestant before that. Now, and henceforth, I am and will be, a traditionalist Calvinist.

Pat Robertson doesn't embarrass me, because since I'm not an evangelical (in the usual current understanding of the term), I can and will say to anyone who confuses me with an evangelical, and makes a snarky comment about Robertson and his ilk and links me with them, "I'm not evangelical; here's where we differ", explain briefly, and then explain that "Pat Robertson does not speak for me, and I can't speak for him.", whilst nevertheless stating where all conservative Christians, evangelical and otherwise, would agree on matters, esp. social issues. All of us who are conservative traditionalist Christians of various stripes, but aren't evangelical, can do the same. As for how evangelicals should cope with Robertson, I can't say. I know I made my choice; I left, after becoming disillusioned with evangelicalism.

[Will S.]

Dennis: if I may ask, what sort of negative experiences made you become disillusioned with evangelicalism? Just curious.

(For me, it was a combination of things: foolishness in the things Robertson and Falwell and many other high-profile evangelical leaders have said; the vacuous, feel-good, self-centred, non-liturgical nature of modern worship (and, as Wolf points out, the knee-jerk support for the U.S. government on foreign-policy matters); the general "out-there" weirdness of evangelicals; the unbiblical prohibition of many evangelical denominations against consumption of alcoholic beverages (and tobacco), the practice in many evangelical churches of female pastors, elders and/or deacons (which is unbiblical), and more...)

[Juli]

Now, and henceforth, I am and will be, a traditionalist Calvinist.

Unless God has other plans.

[Russ]

I would only suggest that Robertson may be more deserving of the left foot of fellowship rather than the left hand.

[dennis]

Will,
I am willing to discuss your question but not here as I don't want to hijack this forum for that. Feel free to follow the link on my name and comment there.

[Will S.]

Good point, Dennis; I had in fact looked to see if you had an email address, but didn't see any, but if you're okay with it, I'll comment at your site, on the latest post (even if it's not related ;) ).

[Will S.]

What's more, my intent here at Mere Comments is to focus on matters of common interest, so I shouldn't have elaborated in my above question (explaining my reasons), I consider that to have been a bit of a mistake, in my opinion; henceforth, here and in other posts, I plan to stay more "on message", as best as I can.