It’s only been in the last 200 years or so—and only in the Western world—that natural disasters have been entirely explained as the capricious whims of low pressure systems, the arbitrary shifting of tectonic plates or the random release of lava from volcanic pockets. The Enlightenment disabused the Western world of its archaic notions of divine judgment, along with the outdated mythology of angry river gods who flood villages and beneficent rain gods who water crops.

So, when an aging televangelist like Pat Robertson blames a devastating earthquake on a nation’s apocryphal pact with the devil, both the Christian and secular world recoil in disgust and label him an insensitive and outdated buffoon. But is it possible that there is some proverbial meat left on the bones of Robertson’s misled statement?

If we look at the biblical record, we will be hard pressed to find a natural disaster that does not have some spiritual dimension. Robertson’s error was in his implication that a current crisis was judgment for an incident 200 years ago—and that we as humans are in a place to make these cause and effect connections.

In doing this, he falls into the same error as Jesus’ undiscerning disciples who asked about the man born blind in John 9:2-3, “Who sinned, this man or his parents?” and the followers who inquired about the Galileans Pilate murdered (Luke 13:1-5).

In both incidents, Jesus turned their attention from idle speculation to worship (“Neither,” he said of the blind man. “This happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.”) and repentance (“But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”)

Robertson’s comments were a distraction from the true spiritual reality of earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, famines and floods: The earth is groaning under the weight of a universal curse and waits expectantly for its redemption. Both sinners and saints equally suffer under this judgment—some in despair and others in expectation of creation’s transformation into a new heavens and new earth (Romans 8:18-25).

What has a Mormon to do with an evangelical university?

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, February 18, 2007

Under “normal” conditions, I would resist the urge to write another post on Mormon presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. However, when a friend and Regent University alum sent this to me, I just couldn’t resist. As the official press release from Regent reads, the school is “pleased to announce that Mitt Romney will deliver the Regent University Commencement Address on Saturday, May 5, 2007.”

Founded in 1978 by Pat Robertson, Regent has a reputation in the evangelical and secular world for its academic standards–particularly in the areas of law and communications. (On Feb. 11, students from Regent University’s School of Law won the American Bar Association’s Negotiation Competition. Regent succeeds last year’s winner, Harvard Law School, in claiming the top prize for legal negotiation.)

As the Regent press release notes, “Romney joins Al Gore, Bob Dole, Wesley Clark, Alan Dershowitz, Ehud Barak, Hanan Ashrawi and others as recent principal speakers on the Regent University campus.” Kudos to Regent for exposing its students to individuals who do not necessarily fit the right-wing, evangelical stereotype. (I can’t help but wonder if Dershowitz’s Harvard would ever invite Robertson to speak … )

That being said, what are we to think when a university which exists “to bring glory to God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit” invites a practicing Mormon to deliver the commencement address? From my observation, college commencement speakers are usually chosen because they represent models of success that graduating students may someday attain. As an entrepreneur and family man, Romney deserves our respect. But, as a Mormon, his religious beliefs are far from conventional and are contradictory to the basic doctrines of orthodox Christianity.

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but could it be that Romney’s appearance at Regent is the result of two converging political dynamics? The first is that Romney must allay the concerns of the evangelical voting public by downplaying Mormon distinctives and aligning the religion as merely another “denomination” within the broad landscape of American Christianity. Giving the commencement address at a prominent evangelical university definitely helps accomplish this objective. The second is that Pat Robertson may see Romney as the only candidate capable of effectively challenging the democratic juggernauts of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Therefore, he may be willing to overlook the conflict of Romney’s faith and Regent’s mission for the purpose of enhancing Romney’s reputation among evangelicals.

copyright 2007, Strang Communications

Should we cover the ‘nakedness’ of leaders who embarrass us?

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, January 3, 2007

Once again, a Christian leader who has otherwise accomplished much to advance the cause of the gospel in the past five decades has issued a cringe-inducing public prediction–much to the glee of late-night comedians and faux news anchors. The situation made me think of the often overlooked account of Noah’s post-flood lapse found in Genesis 9–one of the strangest stories in the Bible.

For some, the patriarch’s drunkenness serves as a cautionary tale on the dangers of wine-bibbing. Others have used it as substantiation for the so-called “curse of Ham” and justification for the oppression of the African peoples (who some believe descended from Ham). In its setting immediately following the flood, the account stands in parallel to Adam’s first sin and the consequences it brought to his descendants. It serves as further reinforcement that, even after the cleansing effects of the flood, the potential for human wickedness had yet to be effectively dealt with.

However, a secondary application of this narrative seems to be this: We share responsibility to guard the reputations of our elders–even in their most embarrassing moments. This principle is vividly countercultural in a society of voyeurs and gossips who delight in the downfall of the high and mighty–from dictators to CEOs and televangelists. But where are the Shems and Japheths who will “cover the nakedness” of respected leaders who say and do foolish things? When high-profile leaders make bizarre predictions and threats, where are the family members and staff who will gently help them reconsider their actions and preserve their reputations in their later years?

In practical terms, perhaps leaders should surround themselves with people who have the intestinal fortitude to ask them whether they really want to make that prediction about the tsunami, the nuclear bomb or God destroying all the homosexuals with fire. Perhaps these leaders should hire a media adviser to help them communicate to the secular press without sounding like religious nutjobs. Maybe leaders should submit their more unusual or risky prophecies to a group of their peers before airing them publicly.

I’m not suggesting we use a different set of standards for fathers in the faith, or that we make a habit of justifying the actions of an embarrassing few. And I’m not absolving the guilt of those who should know by now how to guard their tongue in front of a microphone and TV camera. However, we should do everything in our power to help and encourage those with a broad hearing to more effectively represent the Body of Christ.

copyright 2007, Strang Communications