The devil on television

I have been thinking about recent comments made by the television evangelist Pat Robertson. My first thought is that people should read this excellent piece by Natalie Hopkinson, in which she does much to correct the false and narrow, and I think, racist views expressed by Roberston. Link to the article:

http://www.theroot.com/views/pat-robertson-and-haiti-s-deal-devil?page=1

My other thoughts have to do with Robertson’s view of God.

Robertson sees a devastating earthquake as the product of God’s wrath against the people of Haiti. This tells us that he sees God as an angry and violent holder of grudges, who will use pain, death, and terror to wreak revenge, not on the perpetrators of this supposed “pact” with the devil, but on people living hundreds of years later. This is a scary God.

If we believe that God is all powerful, and is “hands-on” in every aspect of nature, and of human history, then it follows that we hold God responsible for everything that falls under the category of “act of God” on insurance policies- every disaster, every weather event, every shift of tectonic plates that leads to earthquakes and tsunamis.

If God is all powerful, and is “pulling all the strings”, and literally making all these things happen, then we want to know why. (This is out of fearful self-interest- so we can avoid doing or saying whatever it as that brings down that kind of punishment.)

All through human history, cultures have looked for human causes to explain why God would act so maliciously. What people have usually done is blame the victims.

Is this the God that Jesus talked about? Is this a god of love?

In the Gospel of Luke, chapter 13, we can read part of a conversation between Jesus and some of the people he taught. The topic seems to be the question of whether or not disaster befalls people as punishment for their sins.

"Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Jesus rejects the idea that those who died when the tower in Siloam fell were somehow “more guilty”, or more deserving of punishment than anyone else.

Robertson, and many other preachers over the centuries have tried to scare people into accepting their version or “brand” of faith. Often the “sales pitch” has included the not-so-subtle hint that “believers” will be protected from the kind of harm that befell the people in Siloam, and Haiti.

"a fine balance between hope and despair"- WB Yeats

During the Christmas season I read “A Fine Balance”. It first appeared in 1995, the second novel by Rohinton Mistry. Mistry lives in Canada, but was born and raised in Mumbai, India. The story is set in Mumbai, and occurs between 1975 and 1977. In this period the government of India responded to what was called “The Emergency” with the suspension of certain constitutional rights, and “crackdowns” on those perceived as being in opposition.

The story focuses on the lives of 4 unlikely housemates, who seem to be thrown together by monumental forces. For a brief time, these characters experience a sense of community, and happiness. But all around them there is tremendous difficulty and misery.

The characters in “A Fine Balance” exist in a well-rendered, complex setting. Their lives, the forces at work around them, and the choices available to them are clearly shaped by the long history of this sub-continent. I hesitate to draw any simple morals, because I don’t think that would do justice to the scope of Mistry’s work.

But having said that, I would also observe that the characters who are portrayed as having wealth, power, and privilege, are essentially unhappy. The characters who seem most able to “maintain a fine balance between hope and despair”, are the ones the world would see as the poorest, the weakest, and the most vulnerable.

In the end, the character who had the most “promise” has given up, and two “untouchables”, who can no longer work, and now eke out a subsistence as beggars, are still able to find joy and meaning in their days. That gave me a lot to think about over the holidays.