As a general rule, human beings are awfully proud. 

We build buildings and create machines, all to advance the cause of the human race, and with each innovation, we puff up our chests and say, "See what fine work we have done!  We truly are the rulers of our domain, masters of all we see." 

But every so often, a power greater than our own knocks us off this pedestal of our own making. 

The normally steady earth moves beneath us to topple our fine structures. 

The skies come against us with wind and rain against which we cannot stand. 

The waters rise up and wash away the works of our hands like a child's sand castle. 

This is not to say that we ought not build and create.  That's certainly a part of the Divine spark that lies within us. 

Nor should we give up after such a loss.  We should take the time to mourn our dead, heal our sick and wounded, find our lost, and tend to our suffering.  And then we should rebuild what we can, learning whatever lessons we can to prevent history from repeating itself. 

However, in the midst of the chaos and confusion, while we wait for tragedy to turn to triumph, we should take a moment to consider the power and majesty of creation and allow ourselves to be humbled by that which is truly great. 

Brad Pardee
Editor

Nobody thinks, however, of any political party as being God's representative on earth.  Nobody draws inferences about who God is and what His view of man is based on the pronouncements of a political party. 

The same is not true of the clergy, particularly the vocal "in the spotlight" ministers.  They do profess to be God's ambassadors, and when they say or do something egregious, it does impact what people think about God, particularly those who might be seeking some kind of spiritual insight into their place in the universe. 

Even there, though, there is some kind of hierarchy of "damage done".  Take, for instance, the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka's Westboro Baptist Church.  He's long been known for his blasphemous and heretical "God hates fags" message, and even among those evangelicals who believe that homosexual behavior is sinful behavior, he is a pariah with few, if any, adherents. 

His most recent display was in Smyrna, Tennessee, where he showed that he's not content with picketing the funerals of homosexuals and AIDS victims.  In Smyrna, he picketed the funerals of two soldiers who were killed in Iraq, claiming that they were killed as an act of vengeance from God for having protected a country that harbors homosexuals. 

I suspect that, when Fred Phelps has his day in front of the throne of God, he's going to be shocked to find out that there were people who rejected God because of the false image of God which he conveyed.  I also think, though, that most honest observers recognize that he represents a very minute section of those who consider themselves Christians, so the damage he is able to do, real though it is, is fairly limited. 

Not so with the Rev. Pat Robertson.  His program, the 700 Club, airs three times a day on the ABC Family cable network.  He was one of the driving forces behind the founding of the Christian Coalition and the American Center For Law and Justice.  He is the founder of Regent University.  His books have sold millions of copies, and in 1987, he even launched a short-lived campaign for President. 

In short, Pat has impact, for good or for bad, and lately, it doesn't appear to have been for good. 

Last month, on the 700 Club, Robertson said the following about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez: 
 

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it." 

Needless to say, this was not well received, either in the United States or in Venezuela.  Several evangelical leaders spoke out to criticize his comments, and he had an opportunity to correct himself.  Instead, he made another foolish choice: dishonest spin: 
 

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him." 

Now, to be fair, his original comments did include the line, "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."  However, he was clearly referring to assassination when he said, "We really ought to go ahead and do it", and for him to suggest that his later reference to "take him out" only meant kidnapping is patently absurd.  And somehow, even if we bought his spin, I'm not sure that the Venezuelans would see a threat to kidnap their duly-elected President as much of an improvement over a threat to assassinate him. 

This isn't the first time that Pat the Pundit completely undermined Robertson the Reverend.  As recently as 2003, he advocated the use of a small nuclear device against our own State Department headquarters at Foggy Bottom.  That he was not criminally cited under anti-terrorism legislation continues to amaze me. 

There are four ways (at least) in which Robertson's remarks were clearly harmful. 

First, they complicate the ability of our diplomats to do their job, and not just in Venezuela.  If President Chavez believes that the United States wants to assassinate him, our diplomats would have the job of making it clear that this has not been United States policy going back at the very least to the Gerald Ford administration.  How much more difficult is it, though, to make that case when Chavez can reply, "But a person in the United States with a large following who even ran for President has advocated having me assassinated.  Why should I believe that he doesn't reflect the views of some within your government?"  Furthermore, how many diplomats in other capitols around the world will be met with statements like, "Are people like your Pat Robertson going to advocated killing OUR president, too, if we don't do your bidding?" 

Secondly, there are missionaries in Venezuela who are trying to reach people with the Gospel.  They aren't interested in political gamesmanship but rather in saving souls.  In countries which are not open to missionary activity, it is common for the government to accuse the missionaries of working for the CIA or some other government agency.  How many of those countries are going to use the words of a well-known television evangelist as proof that the missionaries really are potential threats to their government?  More importantly, how much missionary activity will, accordingly, be placed in jeopardy by Robertson's words, not to mention the lives of the missionaries themselves? 

Third, a minister is an ambassador of Christ, not of the United States government.  Is President Chavez evil?  If he is, then Pat Robertson should be on his knees, leading the church in prayer, interceding for Chavez and asking God to reach into Chavez's heart and change it, not advocating Chavez's death (and presumably, his damnation if he is as evil and unrepentant as Robertson seems to believe).  If a person is going to do ministry, that's what it is going to entail.  If he wants to fulfill a prophetic role, which is one of the historic and legitimate roles of the church, then he needs to address his words to our government or governments abroad, calling them to fear God, not American covert operations forces.  If, on the other hand, he wants to be a pundit or a diplomat who is involved in international relations, then he needs to step down from ministry so that there is no ambiguity about when he is representing an earthly government's interests and when he is purporting to represent God's interests. 

Finally, completely apart from the role of a minister is the responsibility of a Christian to reflect Christ.  There is an old saying I remember from college that said, "You may be the only Gospel that another person sees."  St. Francis of Assisi said it this way: "Preach the gospel at all times.  If necessary, use words."  When people look at those who identify themselves as Christians, what they see in those Christians are the first, and strongest, images they have of who our God is.  When we act as God would have us act, we draw people to God.  When we do not, we place obstacles between them and God, and Jesus makes it clear that placing obstacles like this is not something he takes lightly.  In Matthew 18:7, He says, "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!"  It strikes me that, in calling for the assassination of President Chavez, Pat Robertson placed significant stumbling blocks in the path of people who otherwise might want to learn more about God, leaving behind a mess for others to have to clean up. 

Pat Robertson should know better.  If he doesn't, or if he can't hold his tongue, then maybe it's time he stepped down from his ministry and his pulpit and left that spot open for someone who can. 

Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.  Used by permission. (http://www.Lockman.org)