Monday, October 10, 2005

Analyzing Pat Robertson

"When the perfect government is established during the Millennium, Jesus Christ will combine in Himself the offices of prophet, priest, and king. This will be a perfect theocracy, made possible because the perfect law of God will be universally accepted by all mankind, and "the earth shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (Isaiah 11:9). Perfect government comes from God and is controlled by God. Short of that, the next best government is a limited democracy in which the people acknowledge rights given by God but voluntarily grant government limited power to do those things the people cannot do individually. Contrast these forms of government with Communism, which maintains that the dictatorship of the proletariat is supreme and an essential evolution of history; that God does not exist; and that citizens have only those privileges granted by the state." -Pat Robertson (

Hmmm... I will have to think on this for a while. It seems to me the whole "Short of that..." statement is a defeatist compromising attitude that requires no faith in Christ. Since the perfect government "comes from God and is controlled by God," then we ought to demand for that government. The Bible does not give us the freedom to settle for the lesser of multiple evils. We must fight for the ideal - trusting in God to fulfill His promises.

The problem is this. A government whose central focus is not to give glory to God is a government that is based fundamentally in philosophy that is idolatrous, shallow, hollow and deceptive - sinking sand. The logical conclusion then becomes a government that then forms policy based on the will (and anxieties) of the people. Making big decisions based on the anxiety of the masses is a very foolhardy thing to do. That is why I am against democracy. Statesmen should make decisions based on faith in God - considering all decisions in light of God's promises.

It seems to me that Pat is trying to win politically by taking practical steps in our sin-sick world. Since he is so obsessed with winning, he criticizes people like Roy Moore, but calls a person like Rudy Giuliani (who is fundamentally a secularist and pro-choice and pro-homosexuality) a good man. (,

This would seem like wisdom. But making decisions based on electability or the current, cultural, political climate of America is not wise. Frienship with the world is hatred toward God. (James 4) The wise man attacks the city of the mighty and pulls down the strongholds in which they trust. (Proverbs)

We must be principled in our stance, and we must not waiver. Don't tell me that by doing so we can not win. That is slander! (Numbers 13, 14). Don't spread a bad report. Meditate on the promises of God. Seek the counsel of Scripture. Make decisions based on faith and wisdom. Be courageous. God will give us victory as we continue to do things God's way. Pat needs to repent for endorsing a man who is pro-abortion. And the Christian community needs to wake up and stop following Pat Robertson as if he was the Lord Himself. Pat is nothing but a sinner. God have mercy on him. God have mercy on us.

I think Pat is doing more harm than good by taking the stances that he does. We need leaders with faith, wisdom, and commitment. Good intentions are not good enough.

Incidentally, that is also why Sean Hannity is wrong. He has some pretty good intentions; but he is not making his decisions based on the promises of God. Rather, he is making decisions based on beating Hillary Clinton. Again, it seems wise. I myself am tempted to rally behind the "Stop Hillary" movement. But that is reactionary politics. Reactionary politics is not wise. We need pro-active faith politics.

We all would do well to meditate on the promises of God as we engage our culture. Look not to the surrounding storm. Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus. Against all hope, in hope, hang on to faith.

It is time to break from the secular-ness of the Republican party and all their secular arguments. Secular arguments are based on sinking sand. Even if you make a secular argument for a tenet of the faith (for example standing up for the unborn based on the presuppositions of democracy the way Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter say we should), you are on sinking sand. That strategy can very easily backfire. The tide of public opinion can turn - and then endorsing democracy would mean that abortion remains legal. Besides, a trained logician will be able to expose your logical fallacies, contradicting statements, and contradicting presuppositions. Do not use secular arguments to fight for God's purposes. That is complete foolishness. Use logic, rather, to expose the false presuppositions of the opposition, and then take off the gloves and speak the truth in love - contending for the faith. When you identify the stasis of an opponent's argument, the argument doesn't end; that's where it really begins. That's when we start tearing down those idolatrous strongholds.

The issue is really a matter of the heart. We must not be half-hearted in our commitment to establish justice.


Blogger JKnott said...

I never thought I'd be defending Pat Robertson, but I think there is some Christian legitimacy to the claim that we can't have perfect government now brought about by human effort.

In fact, that is a way I have criticized Pat in the past, because he seems to think early America was the kingdom of God on earth or the Garden of Eden, with the "Fall" comming with Marbury vs. Madison.

Nevertheless, you are absolutely right to say that we Christians do not need to jettison our faith to be involved in politics. It's just that we need to remember the Fall and the fact that Jesus hasn't come back yet, and when he does it will be "like a thief in the night" and NOT something we bring about. The question is how to live, even politically, as Christians waiting for Christ's return and yet living, even now, under his Lordship.

On this, I think you might be helped by Oliver O'Donovan's book _The Desire of the Nations_, and also I would be fascinated to hear what you think of it. Not that I agree with EVERYTHING he says, but there is some good stuff in that book. Also I'd be glad to email you my paper I wrote for a seminary course on O'Donovan's ecclesiology.


11:54 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home