Editorial for September 1, 2005
By Jim White
Country singer Dierks Bentley croons, “Well, I know what I was feeling, but what was I thinking?” Perhaps Pat Robertson has adopted this as the theme song for The 700 Club. Waxing eloquent on what we ought to do in about President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, he said, “We have the ability to take him out and I think we should exercise that ability.” In a follow-up, Robertson said, “ ‘Taking out' can mean a lot of things. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press] but that happens all the time.”
His protests to the contrary, it seems very unlikely that he was talking about taking Chavez out for pizza. Preceding his “taking out” comment, he had said, “I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we are trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced and without question this is a dangerous enemy to our south controlling a huge pool of oil that could hurt us very badly.” Presumably the “other doctrines” referred to were not biblical ones.
Chavez is not a popular guy even in Venezeula. In 2002, he was removed from office for two days by a coup which he accused the U.S. of instigating. Last year he survived by a vote of 58 percent a recall attempt. His ties with Fidel Castro have caused concerns in the U.S. State Department. Still, he is the head of a sovereign state, and, since 1976, assassinating him is against U.S. law-not to mention a higher law we can name. After being confronted with his comments in context, Robertson apologized for them. “Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him.”
Robertson's comments clearly illustrate religion run amok. It is easier for us to see this tendency in other religions, of course. When the Taliban take over a country and orchestrate the assassination of those who strenuously oppose their way of life, we gasp in amazement that any “religious” figure could rationalize so heinous a crime. Yet, Brother Robertson's brand of religion is not so far removed from a Taliban mentality. Religious extremists of whatever stripe become singularly committed to the notion that the end justifies the means. Some of the greatest atrocities the world has known have come at the hands of misguided religious people.
Seeking to justify his attitude, Robertson quoted German Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was hanged in 1945 by the Nazis for his participation in a failed attempt to assassinate Hitler: “[If a madman were] 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.”
But Hitler had already murdered millions of people and had flung war upon the world. There is a vast difference between “taking out” an intruder who, after murdering your neighbors, is threatening your family and “taking out” a burglar who is siphoning gas from your car.
Religion that justifies sin on the basis of results requires a unique perspective. It is so convinced of its own rightness that forcing that right on others becomes a responsibility. Relgion run amok might even argue that it is the loving thing to do. Give people the choice. Convert or die. That's one way to baptize a million people next year. It seems to be working for the Muslems in Sudan. If lies are told, if people get hurt, if integrity is sacrificed, so be it. They are considered collateral damage in spiritual warfare.
Muslem extremists justify detonating bombs on crowded buses on the basis of a holy war against infidels. Pat Robertson justifies assassinating a foreign head of state by citing how his political views and potential adverse economic impact would affect us. Others, closer to home, justify lying about what their brothers believe because they think their own cause is right and are seeking to influence others to join them. I have lost count of the number of times I have gone to BGAV churches to answer questions. They have been told that the BGAV supports homosexuality and want to know the truth. (For anyone wondering, the answer is “no, they don't.”)
In a way, I feel sorry for Brother Robertson. He has done many good things in the name of the Lord-including a television program promoting a Christian perspective. But it must be difficult day in and day out to find something captivating to say to the Pat-patrons out there. Maintaining a grip on a communications empire must be taxing. I know the difficulties I face, at times, remembering whose kingdom I am building. It must be much harder for someone who actually oversees a kingdom of sorts.
Truth is, anyone's religion has run amok if he uses it to get his own way or to further his own views. God-talk can become a device used to further one's own selfish ambitions. Stained-glass language may fool shallow saints, but discerning spiritual Christ-followers will look closely to see if the walk matches the talk.
Perhaps its time for every Christian to reaffirm a basic spiritual truth. The closer we get to God, the more like him we become. Look for the fruits of the spirit in yourself and in spiritual leaders. “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other” (Gal. 5:22-26, NIV).
Jim White is editor and business manager of the Religious Herald.