Skip to content

Back To Divorce: Pat Robertson May Also Have Alzheimer’s

September 30, 2011

Pat Robertson was in the news again.  This time, giving advice to a man whose wife no longer recognizes him due to Alzheimer’s.  His advice?  Divorce her and pay for her medical care.  His justification?  Alzheimer’s is a type of death.  Even the co-anchor of the show questioned him on air.  I think it may be Robertson suffering from Alzheimer’s.  I believe him to be a sound American and Christian, and probably adds minor significance to a conservative America to some extent (at least to those who haven’t written him off completely), but adding that particular controversy to the 9/11 comments, and the Haiti earthquake comments and (insert controversy), even with good intentions, I believe he has the unique ability to mislead a great number of people in his Biblical reasoning with a sincere heart.

The issue for me is simple.  Even if my wife did not recognize me.  I would still recognize her. And God would still recognize her as “breathing”.

You can read the whole New York Times spill here.

Russell Moore, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary says this about the issue,

At the arrest of Christ, his Bride, the church, forgot who she was, and denied who he was. He didn’t divorce her. He didn’t leave.

The Bride of Christ fled his side, and went back to their old ways of life. When Jesus came to them after the resurrection, the church was about the very thing they were doing when Jesus found them in the first place: out on the boats with their nets. Jesus didn’t leave. He stood by his words, stood by his Bride, even to the Place of the Skull, and beyond.

A woman or a man with Alzheimer’s can’t do anything for you. There’s no romance, no sex, no partnership, not even companionship. That’s just the point. Because marriage is a Christ/church icon, a man loves his wife as his own flesh. He cannot sever her off from him simply because she isn’t “useful” anymore.

Pat Robertson’s cruel marriage statement is no anomaly. He and his cohorts have given us for years a prosperity gospel with more in common with an Asherah pole than a cross. They have given us a politicized Christianity that uses churches to “mobilize” voters rather than to stand prophetically outside the power structures as a witness for the gospel.

You can also read the rest of Dr. Russell Moore’s objection here.


From → Culture, Gospel

  1. Amen!

    All too often I when I am dealing with people about the things of God, they’ll automatically think I am in “his camp”. “Well, your boy Pat Robertson said…”

    He often gives conservative Christianity a bad name.

  2. What’s really ludicrous is that there’s this Canadian guy who calls himself a rigorous academic (smothered chortle) and said that he “sympathizes” with Robertson. You can see a nice demolition of him here:

  3. Should probably address this little aside though:

    “They have given us a politicized Christianity that uses churches to ‘mobilize’ voters rather than to stand prophetically outside the power structures as a witness for the gospel.”

    That implies that there’s something wrong with “being political” qua being political. Which is very misguided. Mind you, I have no sympathy for Pat Robertson, but that’s just because I think he’s a scumbag and a fake. In general, there’s nothing wrong with mobilizing Christian voters for Christian causes. Politics is one front of the spiritual warfare we read of in the Scriptures. God needs soldiers. It’s very simple.

    • No, it implies that some people (like Robertson) may be found more guilty of ‘mobilizing voters’ rather than speaking Biblical truth and seeing converts. Nothing wrong with being political and upholding certain conservative principles, but many ministers get sidetracked and put political agendas before Biblical truth (once again, like Robertson has done).

      • I’m not sure I see the political agenda in arguing for the divorce of your Alzheimer’s spouse. That’s just a case of morality versus immorality.

      • There is no direct link with politics in that statement. Never said there was. Go back and read the context. Rather, the thrust of what it was aimed towards.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: