Pat Robertson is a Christian. I am a Christian. Pat Robertson is a preacher. I am a preacher. Pat Robertson is a speaker. I am a speaker. Pat Robertson is a public figure (big “P”). I am a public figure (little “p”). Does that mean I think Hugo Chavez should be assassinated too? What’s the difference? Pat Robertson believes that politics can be baptized and our nation made Christian. I refuse to believe the church (not individual “called” Christians) should waste its time/effort in trying to redeem a man-centered system. Why? Because it leads to statements about killing people who get in the way with our nation. Pat Robertson’s cause is misdirected and that is why his comments were “aimed” (pure pun) at Chavez who could stand in the way.
If our goal is to make a kingdom here and now, then by all means kill Chavez. But if our goal is to spread God’s fame by expressing the Gospel then we would never say such things since our focus is not on making this world our home. Wasn’t that the desire of Jesus? Jesus never wasted His time with the Roman Government because making this world better was not His passion.
Unfortunatly, Pat said exactly what a person with his goals should say and now I, and any other Christian, is lumped in with him in the eyes of the world.
Don’t believe me? Read this.
Or, how about this:
http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=10981
It is interesting to note the difference in reaction to a Christian making a call for an assassination and a Muslim making the same call. One nut out of how many millions of Christians in the world goes a little wacky and the world goes crazy. Muslim leaders call for the death of President Bush and America every day without the slightest reaction. It shows the contrast between the two groups.
Excellent distinction, Mr. Farr. It also shows the lengths to which the media will go to tear down Christ.
Yes, nice observation.
Many believers allow Mr. Robertson to speak for them. Month after month they send him their money. Election after election they blindly vote based on a mailer they get from the Christian Coalition — and many churchs hand out to their congregations.
He may be a Christian but I see him more as a politician using religion/Christianity as a platform.
What’s worse in this story is his cover up. He said he was taken out of context. That “take him out” could mean kidnapping too … uh, sorry you weren’t taken out of context, nice try.
Yes. I think Pat Robertson blundered. But did he blunder by thinking that we should assassinate a despot or by being reckless with his national TV show?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn’t just suggest that Hitler be assassinated, he actively participated in the deed.
Were Bonhoeffer’s actions an attempt to make a kingdom here and now?
And David, what’s wrong with being a politician who uses his Christianity as a platform? If you were a politician–or a political pundit as Robertson is–how would you avoid the influence of Jesus on your trade?
Good point. David, you don’t expect him to be a ‘secular’ politician, do you?
Non blog-junkies see John Lee’s post (and comments) called “Eminem vs. Toby Mac – You Decide” for background.
Good point, should political assassination be defined as murder? What about the person out in CA that shot and killed someone they saw attacking a women in a Wal-Mart parking lot? Murder?
Regarding my statement, it’s not that his Christianity influences his politics but that he uses the banner of all of Christianity to promote his politics. It implies that if you disagree with him then you disagree with God.
I can’t articulate it well but it just smacks of a man that may have started with good intentions but has distorted the mission into legislating what certain people THINK Christianity is and is mostly concerned with defending his own position — maintaining the machine.
How do you legislate, in the name of God, issues the Church itself can’t agree on? Hmmmm.
Ken – Two questions.
1. Do you see Chavez and Hitler as the same? I mean, when does a bad guy become assination worthy? Castro? Michael Moore? When? If one holds this view, then one must answer this question…
2. So, you think that Pat Robertson was right? Maybe your comments were made to just get others worked up?
Dan,
1. Not yet. Neither did Robertson. He said that perhaps we should take him out covertly instead of overtly in an expensive war…assuming that we had reached the point where we considered it necessary to enter a war with Venezuela.
2. I think Robertson was reckless. But I do think that assassination of an enemy’s dictator/despot is, in fact, a legitimate means of waging war in order to save lives in the long run. Are we at that point with Sr. Chavez? No. He’s just a blow hard.
I don’t think that he can wield enough influence in our hemisphere to categorize him as a real threat to the well-being of the US. However, let’s paint a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say Chavez openly embraces the cause of Al Qaida and supports their terror tactics with money, protection, and a base of operations. And let’s just say that he was stupid enough to do this “in our face”…just to stick it to George W. If a terrorist attack occurs on US soil or US interests abroad and can be traced to this Venezuelan group, I could easliy see justification for a covert action against Chavez. This is especially true since he has shown himself to be a corrupt dictator having maintained his position by a fraudulant vote. A covert action would prevent significant loss of life of Venezuelans who are basically being held hostage by this guy.
Thanks for the clarification. Considering that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was in the middle of a world war, had visible evidence in regard to the slaughter of innocent people and did not speak for a political movement; I think the comparison is faulty. Also, there are many examples of civilians suffering today due to their government leadership. I do not believe it is our main concern as Christians to employ assissination as a weapon of change. Our weapons are spiritual and that is where we must concentrate. To do otherwise is to muddy the waters of our intentions in this world and blunt our message as followers of Christ.
Dan,
Based on your statements, would you consider yourself to be a pacifist or conscientious objector?
Every argument you make against assassination as a legitimate means of warfare can be made against more conventional means. Ergo, “our weapons are spiritual”… therefore we must not wield M-16s, or fly B-1s, or carry a sidearm as a police officer, etc.
I hope this doesn’t sound condescending or like fake piety, but, here it goes… I would say that I believe that God is being gracious to enable our government to protect the people of America. Since I am a follower of Christ my role is to mimic what He did when He walked this earth – call people to repent and trust in Him. I use the protection given by our country to do this by all means possible. If we would be invaded or become involved in a war, I would seek to encourage people to glorify God in their actions above any allegiance to government. If that involved being a pacifist at some point that is what I would be. If that involved being a conscientious objector at some point then that is what I would be. I would not be either as a matter of policy, but only as I would/could determine as it relates to God’s glory.
I believe Pat Robertson did more than slip. He portrayed his misguided allegiance to our country over God’s Kingdom. How can I say this? Simple. He called for an anti-Kingdom position of murder when the situation did not in any way sanction it. God did not tell him to do it or say it and the “just-war” theory does not apply since there is no war to take a rightous position in. Pat even realizes he was wrong, hence, his apology. I appreciate that and hope he will take the time to not say this, but to correct his thinking pattern that led to the statement in the first place. While political activism can be good and responsible, it can also, like anything else, become our focus and that, for Christians, has never been our goal.
I hope that clarifies my vantage point. I am not saying it is an easy thing to determine in all situations. Life can be complex, but if my grid for thinking His glory via His Word, then I am better able to make the tough calls. Thanks for asking.