Wait, what?
As far as I can tell, Right Wing Watch had this story first. It is now getting around.
Watch as Pat Robertson recommends divorce to a man who asked about how to handle relationships given the fact that his wife has Alzheimer’s.
Robertson says:
I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her.
According to the Alzheimer’s Association, divorce is uncommon in such situations…which is a good thing, it seems to me.
Looking around, some Christian leaders condemned the remarks as noted by the Christian Post.
Might be time to hang up the microphone…
Justin Taylor has a great post on this, and in it he quotes Russell Moore, entitling his original post as “The Gospel-Emptying Cruelty of Pat Robertson”. It’s here:
If a person is cared for – and if he/she is no more able to recognize who cares – it’s, from the angle of that person, irrelevant who cares for her.
Of course, from the angle of the spouse, it may be better to hold fast – I don’t know about that.
The motive of Robertson’s critics is apparently the joy to be, at least one time, more rigorous as the laxist Robertson. It’s a cheap amusement -but as, of course, alll those “Right Wing Watchers” remain in marriage until death parts them, they are qualified to call Robertson a hypocrite.
Dave:
Yeah, it is very ambiguous when he says that this man, if he does anything should divorce her and start over again. Who knows what he really meant to say?
And as far as the full clip, it doesn’t make him look better. It makes him look worse. It is nothing short of shocking that he would plead that he is not an ethicist. Why would that even come up? For 50 years he has been teaching that right and wrong can be found in God’s Word, the Bible. He has never promoted “ethics” as a moral system and in fact ethics and in particular situational ethics is a frequent target of condemnation. So not only does no not discuss a single Biblical passage in the full clip, he pleads that he can’t give a definitive answer b/c he is not an ethicist. He also says that the husband’s need for “companionship” should shield his divorce and/or extra-marital affairs from condemnation. A radical departure from the standard to which he has sought to hold tens of millions of people.
This is the true face of American Christianity. Hypocrisy, greed, materialism, cruelty, political manipulation and outcome-driven ethics occasionally justified post hoc by references to the Bronze Age fantasies of murderous tribesmen.
Warren,
Your point is well taken .. I just felt that a full quote was a bit more fair than the partial by Right Wing watch. Even with the full quote I believe most Christians would disagree with his ‘advice’ despite his disclaimer that he is not an ethicist.
As I said already its a shame he allowed emotion to guide his response and not God’s word. Additionally .. he seemed to be alluding that the wife with Alzheimer’s was already dead … an idea that many who care for loved ones with Alzeheimers might partially understand since they often lose their loved one a little bit at a time .. though I doubt they would take it to the literal conclusion he does.
Dave
What about all of us singles, str8 or gay, widowed or whatnot, that need ‘companionship’? Pat Robertson may not speak for ‘all’ Christians; but, his bully pulpit has affected a lot of people, adversely.
I tend to agree with David … not all Christians opt for the easy way out … but, in my estimation the great middle sure do. Easy to talk the talk …
What a kick in the butt for all those spouses that have stuck through all this, to the end. Thank God, there’s a God.
In the 10 years I spent in nursing homes that tended to have a specializition in dementias ranging from typical dementia care to the only place in the state that will take Grandma after she chased Grandpa down the road with a carving knife and a gun I have seen ONE time that the well spouse divorced the ill one. And in that case it was because of the horrible lack of prepardness we have for young-onset, terminal, progressive illness. The patient was about 28 and had 2 young children. If I remember it was all medicaid based; he couldn’t qualify if he was married because of assets, but giving up all assets made him eligibile for coverage. This was horrible for the patient and in fact Warren you may recall a funny after the fact story of my chasing a violent patient through a cornfield some years ago………that was the reaction. It was so hard feel anything but pity for him. Never, though have I seen this because of Alzheimer’s.
I would suppose that Robertson thinks that gay Christians should live a celibate lifestyle for their entire life, but that would be WAY too much to ask a man to go through for a few years if his wife is in a nursing home.
Well… the video cuts his comments short .. see here for a complete video. At the end he says he is not an ethicist and that he would have trouble condemning someone in this kind of situation. So I am not sure that he is advocating divorce here as it appears he is saying in the beginning of the video.
Its a shame he doesn’t talk more about the man having a support system .. friends he can be with and such .. to help counteract some of the obvious loneliness he is experiencing. Pat’s leap to unfaithfulness being OK is rather disturbing.
Dave
Dave – I had read that elsewhere as well, but I think that is a cop out for Robertson to advise people daily, give answers to questions with his platform but then say he is not an ethicist.
So apparently Roberson’s vows are more like:
“Til death do you part… or one of you becomes to burdensome”
WAY past time…
It’s ironic – I’m no Christian, in any sense of the word. I believe in no gods, not the Easter Bunny, not Odin, not Amaterasu or Quetzalcoatl.
I rarely make vows. Too many times, unforeseen circumstances would make keeping them contrary to the spirit of the vow, and yet it’s vital that they be held to to the letter, else they’re meaningless.
Divorce is sometimes necessary, sometimes the only humane solution. The whole thing about divorce in the bible though is that it prohibits casting off a partner when and if they become inconvenient. That was at a time when women were property, and needed a protector and wealth-owner to cover them.
A woman – or a man – disabled by Alzheimers is vulnerable; they are the very people the Biblical strictures on divorce are supposed to cover. It was also the raison d’etre for allowing polygamy under certain circumstances.
A sane, humane society would say that this husband should be allowed some measure of human happiness, with an additional wife or concubine, legally recognised or not, while still requiring him to live up to his responsibilities, and keep his marriage vows. To the extent that those are inconsistent, the responsibilities take absolute priority.
It’s ironic – I’m no Christian, in any sense of the word. I believe in no gods, not the Easter Bunny, not Odin, not Amaterasu or Quetzalcoatl.
I rarely make vows. Too many times, unforeseen circumstances would make keeping them contrary to the spirit of the vow, and yet it’s vital that they be held to to the letter, else they’re meaningless.
Divorce is sometimes necessary, sometimes the only humane solution. The whole thing about divorce in the bible though is that it prohibits casting off a partner when and if they become inconvenient. That was at a time when women were property, and needed a protector and wealth-owner to cover them.
A woman – or a man – disabled by Alzheimers is vulnerable; they are the very people the Biblical strictures on divorce are supposed to cover. It was also the raison d’etre for allowing polygamy under certain circumstances.
A sane, humane society would say that this husband should be allowed some measure of human happiness, with an additional wife or concubine, legally recognised or not, while still requiring him to live up to his responsibilities, and keep his marriage vows. To the extent that those are inconsistent, the responsibilities take absolute priority.
Oops…for some reason, the link didn’t work. Here’s the post:
Sometimes I think the category of “righteous anger” was created to respond to people like Pat Robertson.
His latest cringe-inducing statement is that a man should divorce his wife suffering with Alzheimer’s disease and “start all over again” if he is lonely and in need of companionship. When asked about the vow “to death due us part,” Robertson responded that “if you respect that vow,” then Alzheimer’s can be viewed as “a kind of a death.”
The best counsel is usually to ignore Robertson. But when a professing Christian says such cruel and worldly things, it also presents an opportunity to reexamine gospel truth afresh. In that regard Russell Moore has provided a wonderful service for us. He rightly writes that Robertson’s statement “is more than an embarrassment. This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
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.
But Jesus didn’t die for a Christian Coalition; he died for a church. And the church, across the ages, isn’t significant because of her size or influence. She is weak, helpless, and spattered in blood. He is faithful to us anyway.
If our churches are to survive, we must repudiate this Canaanite mammonocracy that so often speaks for us. But, beyond that, we must train up a new generation to see the gospel embedded in fidelity, a fidelity that is cruciform.
Justin Taylor has a great post on this, and in it he quotes Russell Moore, entitling his original post as “The Gospel-Emptying Cruelty of Pat Robertson”. It’s here:
Oops…for some reason, the link didn’t work. Here’s the post:
Sometimes I think the category of “righteous anger” was created to respond to people like Pat Robertson.
His latest cringe-inducing statement is that a man should divorce his wife suffering with Alzheimer’s disease and “start all over again” if he is lonely and in need of companionship. When asked about the vow “to death due us part,” Robertson responded that “if you respect that vow,” then Alzheimer’s can be viewed as “a kind of a death.”
The best counsel is usually to ignore Robertson. But when a professing Christian says such cruel and worldly things, it also presents an opportunity to reexamine gospel truth afresh. In that regard Russell Moore has provided a wonderful service for us. He rightly writes that Robertson’s statement “is more than an embarrassment. This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
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.
But Jesus didn’t die for a Christian Coalition; he died for a church. And the church, across the ages, isn’t significant because of her size or influence. She is weak, helpless, and spattered in blood. He is faithful to us anyway.
If our churches are to survive, we must repudiate this Canaanite mammonocracy that so often speaks for us. But, beyond that, we must train up a new generation to see the gospel embedded in fidelity, a fidelity that is cruciform.
If a person is cared for – and if he/she is no more able to recognize who cares – it’s, from the angle of that person, irrelevant who cares for her.
Of course, from the angle of the spouse, it may be better to hold fast – I don’t know about that.
The motive of Robertson’s critics is apparently the joy to be, at least one time, more rigorous as the laxist Robertson. It’s a cheap amusement -but as, of course, alll those “Right Wing Watchers” remain in marriage until death parts them, they are qualified to call Robertson a hypocrite.
Way, WAY past time to hang up the microphone. Pat Robertson has been embarrassing Christians for years, if not decades, and this is another of those. I’d say—at least I’d hope—that Pat Robertson doesn’t speak for hardly ANY of “Christianity”.
What about all of us singles, str8 or gay, widowed or whatnot, that need ‘companionship’? Pat Robertson may not speak for ‘all’ Christians; but, his bully pulpit has affected a lot of people, adversely.
I tend to agree with David … not all Christians opt for the easy way out … but, in my estimation the great middle sure do. Easy to talk the talk …
What a kick in the butt for all those spouses that have stuck through all this, to the end. Thank God, there’s a God.
Way, WAY past time to hang up the microphone. Pat Robertson has been embarrassing Christians for years, if not decades, and this is another of those. I’d say—at least I’d hope—that Pat Robertson doesn’t speak for hardly ANY of “Christianity”.
@David who said…
SInce many Christians are rebutalling what he has said including this one .. making the claim that this is the true face of American Christianity is bit overdone. Pat Robertson does not speak for all of Christianit y.. American or otherwise.
Dave
Dave:
Yeah, it is very ambiguous when he says that this man, if he does anything should divorce her and start over again. Who knows what he really meant to say?
And as far as the full clip, it doesn’t make him look better. It makes him look worse. It is nothing short of shocking that he would plead that he is not an ethicist. Why would that even come up? For 50 years he has been teaching that right and wrong can be found in God’s Word, the Bible. He has never promoted “ethics” as a moral system and in fact ethics and in particular situational ethics is a frequent target of condemnation. So not only does no not discuss a single Biblical passage in the full clip, he pleads that he can’t give a definitive answer b/c he is not an ethicist. He also says that the husband’s need for “companionship” should shield his divorce and/or extra-marital affairs from condemnation. A radical departure from the standard to which he has sought to hold tens of millions of people.
This is the true face of American Christianity. Hypocrisy, greed, materialism, cruelty, political manipulation and outcome-driven ethics occasionally justified post hoc by references to the Bronze Age fantasies of murderous tribesmen.
@David who said…
SInce many Christians are rebutalling what he has said including this one .. making the claim that this is the true face of American Christianity is bit overdone. Pat Robertson does not speak for all of Christianit y.. American or otherwise.
Dave
Warren,
Your point is well taken .. I just felt that a full quote was a bit more fair than the partial by Right Wing watch. Even with the full quote I believe most Christians would disagree with his ‘advice’ despite his disclaimer that he is not an ethicist.
As I said already its a shame he allowed emotion to guide his response and not God’s word. Additionally .. he seemed to be alluding that the wife with Alzheimer’s was already dead … an idea that many who care for loved ones with Alzeheimers might partially understand since they often lose their loved one a little bit at a time .. though I doubt they would take it to the literal conclusion he does.
Dave
Well… the video cuts his comments short .. see here for a complete video. At the end he says he is not an ethicist and that he would have trouble condemning someone in this kind of situation. So I am not sure that he is advocating divorce here as it appears he is saying in the beginning of the video.
Its a shame he doesn’t talk more about the man having a support system .. friends he can be with and such .. to help counteract some of the obvious loneliness he is experiencing. Pat’s leap to unfaithfulness being OK is rather disturbing.
Dave
Dave – I had read that elsewhere as well, but I think that is a cop out for Robertson to advise people daily, give answers to questions with his platform but then say he is not an ethicist.
I can’t believe he said these things about marriage. As said, “till death do us part” not “till Alzheimer’s do us part”. This is absurd thought about how couple can handle this kind of health problem, but I think divorce is not okay specially with a person who has this mental disability, instead the support and understanding is much needed not the non-sense talk of “divorce”.
I guess he forgot the part of the vow that says, “Till Death do us part”
I can’t believe he said these things about marriage. As said, “till death do us part” not “till Alzheimer’s do us part”. This is absurd thought about how couple can handle this kind of health problem, but I think divorce is not okay specially with a person who has this mental disability, instead the support and understanding is much needed not the non-sense talk of “divorce”.
In the 10 years I spent in nursing homes that tended to have a specializition in dementias ranging from typical dementia care to the only place in the state that will take Grandma after she chased Grandpa down the road with a carving knife and a gun I have seen ONE time that the well spouse divorced the ill one. And in that case it was because of the horrible lack of prepardness we have for young-onset, terminal, progressive illness. The patient was about 28 and had 2 young children. If I remember it was all medicaid based; he couldn’t qualify if he was married because of assets, but giving up all assets made him eligibile for coverage. This was horrible for the patient and in fact Warren you may recall a funny after the fact story of my chasing a violent patient through a cornfield some years ago………that was the reaction. It was so hard feel anything but pity for him. Never, though have I seen this because of Alzheimer’s.
I would suppose that Robertson thinks that gay Christians should live a celibate lifestyle for their entire life, but that would be WAY too much to ask a man to go through for a few years if his wife is in a nursing home.
I guess he forgot the part of the vow that says, “Till Death do us part”
WAY past time…
So apparently Roberson’s vows are more like:
“Til death do you part… or one of you becomes to burdensome”