Then I hear about Pat Robertson's little theory. I quote from the Time story about Robertson, which relates this passage he offered up on an episode of his 700 Club (thanks to my father for the link):
"And you know, Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, you know, Napoleon the Third and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.' True story. And so the devil said, 'O.K., it's a deal.' "Because of this, Robinson concludes, Haiti has ever since been awash in catastrophe (except, of course, the catastrophe of enslavement by French colonialism. That they got rid of pretty successfully).
Video of the segment can be found embedded with the Time story. The article explains that Robertson refers here to an apocryphal tale of Haitian Voodoo (aka Vodou) priest sacrificing a pig in 1791 to jump-start the Haitian revolution (not, of course against Napoleon the Third, who lived in the mid-to-late 1800s).
Sigh.
A statement from Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network insists that "Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath." It goes on to assert Robertson's humanitarian concern with Haiti's plight, citing the ministry's work in helping those afflicted.
OK, I grant that Robertson did not literally say that the earthquake was God's wrath against Haitians. . . . but exactly what other conclusion are we to draw? Haiti (in Robertson's historical view) made a covenant with the devil (it's worth mentioning, of course, that the Christian devil plays no role in Vodou theology). Now they suffer disaster after disaster.
Why even try to spin that? After all Robertson has hardly been shy in the past about pinning blame for tragedies like Hurricane Katrina, 9-11, and the AIDS epidemic on specific groups of sinners (mainly gays and feminists). His belief in natural disasters as God's Whupping Stick is well-established. Why deny it now?
I get that Robertson probably does sincerely and simultaneously believe that A) most victims of the earthquake need help, prayer, and care; and B) the earthquake and other Haitian misfortunes are the result of that ritual of 1791. Haitians--corporately if not personally--are victims of a curse they brought upon themselves (the history of enslavement, colonialism, and impoverishment was all incidental, apparently). As victims they should be cared for, but it's worth remembering (and reminding everyone about) the source of their victimhood--themselves.
That logic flabbergasts me, and I could rail against it, but whatever. Even if you believe that logic, though, here's the question I want answered: is bringing it up right now the Christian thing to do? Right now--as people are digging through rubble and rock with their bare hands to find their loved ones--this is the time to say, however sheepishly, I know you don't want to hear this, but this is what you get for making a deal with Satan over three centuries ago... Really?
As my counselor sister says, "What do you want me to do with this information?" Exactly what should the Haitians--many of whom are devout Christians themselves and none of whom sacrificed a pig to anything in 1791--exactly what should they do with Robertson's vicious little lagniappe? How does this help them? How does that so-very-sad-tongue-clucking demonstrate the love and solidarity of God With Us?
[Or, in a less generous reading, perhaps Robertson's audience wasn't the victims but those of us here in the US at a remove (not a big one, mind) from one of the poorest countries in the world, a country in whose history the West (and especially the US) has played a large role? What does Robertson's message say to us except "Not our responsibility. They brought it on themselves. We can help, but it's above-and-beyond for us, and it'll never do any real good in the long run anyway. The Haitians will always be Haitians..." Somehow a pig sacrifice historiographically eclipses centuries of slavery before it and centuries of exploitation and intervention after it, absolving non-Haitians of any and all responsibility for the country's economic difficulties.]
I get that Robertson's ministry is on the ground in Haiti helping people. Good for them. But you know what? So are dozens of other organizations, religious and secular, and somehow--somehow--they've managed to render assistance without assigning blame, however far removed historically, to the victims of plate tectonics.
And this is nothing new for Robertson! I mean, he's practically trademarked foot-in-mouth evangelicalism. Remember when he called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez? Or when he intimated that Dover, PN would face destruction because of a court decision involving intelligent design? Or when he--well, heck, there's a whole Wikipedia entry about Robertson's controversies (including this one).
Inevitably, Robertson comes out expressing shock at the extremely negative reaction his comments caused--rarely if ever actually apologizing, mind you. Wait for it--he'll come out doddering about how shocked--shocked!--he is about how badly some people have misunderstood his remarks, doubtless because of the liberal media... Yet he continues to be respected as an authority for Christians. Never have I been a fan of Robertson or his organization, but really: how much longer can any Christian treat him seriously as a beneficial spokesperson for the faith? How many horrible, spiritually tone-deaf gaffes does he have to make before he's declared Unfit For Christian Representation?
I think a lot about evangelicals' concern about how Christianity is seen as mean-spirited, hypocritical, and judgmental by non-believers. So long as someone like Pat Robertson gets credit as a respected mouthpiece of the faith, we can hardly be surprised that this is so.
It's time he stepped away from the petty pulpit.
More tomorrow (and continue to give to/pray for Haitian relief!),
JF
No comments:
Post a Comment