Pat Robertson has done it again. His television show, the 700 Club, exists--one would assume--to draw the general public into the wonders of the Christian faith. In actuality, the show probably drives more people away than it saves. The Reverend runs the gambit from tolerably eccentric to raving lunatic who in no way speaks for the rest of us simple Christians. His latest antic involves Ariel Sharon, whose latest stroke is apparently divine retribution for "dividing God's land."
"The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, 'divide my land.' God considers this land to be his."
Quick query Pat: Technically, doesn't God consider all land his? Shouldn't all division of any land fall under the jurisdiction of this one verse? This means we have to give Texas back... I think. Also, I am not certain if we are allowed to sell our homes anymore. After all, private ownership is suspect under this one verse. Maybe God wants us to be socialists!
This incident demonstrates two things. First, one cannot read one verse of the Bible, apply it literally and out of context, and proclaim that to be God's will. This seems to be evidence of the need of some authority on the faith, such as we Catholics have in Rome. There are many people who disagree with the teaching of the Popes, but at least the magisterium takes its time issuing a decision, rather than making careless claims in an effort to boost ratings. Further, since there is one authority within the Church, there is no confusion over multiple and contradictory interpretations by people like Robertson.
Secondly, Joel may be "clear" in this one verse, but the entire book of Job makes something clear that Robertson chooses to ignore. Job was punished, not merely despite being good, but despite being the best. In this way he prefigures the Christ that Robertson claims to serve, who suffered though he did absolutely no wrong. Now, Sharon is not Christ; he is not even Job. But is it so beyond the pale to believe he is being punished, not for some sin he has committed, but only because he is human? We live in a world that is full of suffering. Yet the rain falls on the righteous as well as the wicked. The Reverend should either consult Job or read Matthew 5:45.
If justice is enacted by God on this earth, we have no need for heaven. Yet Christian teaching is clear that while Heaven and Hell exists, perfect justice on this earth does not. The writers of the Old Testament were caught up in a painful fact. This life is not completely just. Thus, the wailings of the Psalmist, the frustration of Solomon in pleading men to behave justly, and the "vanity of vanities" lamented in the book of Ecclesiastes.
My point is not to claim that I know more about Christianity than Robertson. In an effort to be brief, I may seem to have fallen into the same trap as he did, namely taking a solitary verse and using it to show a wider truth. I will let the reader judge, but it should be noted that I do not have my own TV show. With power, comes responsibility--or rather, it should.
4 comments:
I think you have a much deeper understanding of scripture than wacky Pat.At some point they will need to put on the white jacket and escort him to a nice padded room.
As for Jesus being a socialist, I need to study more but my limited understanding lends support to the Liberation theology of the Latin American Church. Where do you stand on political intervention by priests for the poor and downtrodden?
Political intervention... hmmm.
Archbishop Romero was assasinated by someone trained at the School of the Americas for being too vocal about the violence in El Salvador. Clearly, Romero's action were just as well as courageous.
For the most part, I think Bishops and priests should get involved politically, but they need to be careful. If a priest condemns the Republicans for not looking out for the poor, he may seem to be implying that the Democrat position is the Catholic position. It is not.
Likewise, one could assume that because the Republicans oppose abortion--at least at a vocal level--they are God's party. I think Christ would have a very hard time voting for either of the last several presidential candidates, at least from the two major parties.
During the last election, at least in Catholic circles, a debate raged over whether Kerry and other pro-choice candidates should be given the Eucharist. I say that Bishops need to grow a pair and stand up for Church Teaching.
Now, on one hand, there is going to be severe backlash. The Catholic Church has taken a bloody beating for its embarrassing behavior in the recent scandals and bad P.R. is the last thing she needs. At the same time, the objective of the Church is not to fill the pews; it is to fill the heavens.
In the words of Romero, "A church that suffers no persecution but enjoys the privileges and support of the things of the earth - beware! - is not the true church of Jesus Christ. A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good, so that they are secured in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call."
Amen.
It almost reminds me of the debate surrounding judicial philosophy concerning the constitution.The originalists would be like a Pope who interprets the bible in a certain, more traditional way.Opposing that would be an interpretation which is more flexible, or able to evolve with modernity.Does this make sense? isnt there some kind of debate on interpretation within the church?
By the way, you can imagine how hard it is for me to pick candidates in US elections!
There is and there isn't. Now that I've wasted a sentence, I'll move on.
The Church moves very, very slowly. The world moves, very, very, quickly. The Church wishes to make sure she has something right before pronouncing it so. The world does not suffer a conscious dogmatism and bounces from creed to creed.
As a good example of church doctrine which was evolved over time, we have the Assumption, the idea that the Virgin Mary was taken body and soul into heaven. Though suspected for a long time--there is no place in the world where Mary is presumed to be buried, unlike, say, St. Peter--the doctrine was not formalized until 1950.
As for debate, we are seeing this happen with the idea of limbo. Augustine postulated that unborn babies and infants who were not babtized went to hell. St. Thomas Aquinas was instrumental in getting the Church to accept the polict of limbo. See Dante's Divine Comedy for a brief bit on that.
Well, now the Church is re-thinking limbo. So the answer then is that by thinking slowly and carefully about an issue we can try to get it right. Further, by Divine Grace, we eventually get it all right. And it must be by Grace that we get anything right at all.
And that is the big difference. Infallibility would be an impossible doctrine to swallow without God's hand in the affairs of the Church. This is why those who worship at the throne of precedence always make me laugh. The Pope may be able to get it right, but nine judges in robes, come on!
I've only voted in one election, but I'll wager that it's going to be a difficult procedure for all of my life. It must be the same for you.
Post a Comment