Pat Robertson's view of Alzheimer’s and divorce: Not just wrong, but dangerous
/
My heart ached today as I read this introduction to Russell Moore's post:
The opinion Robertson gave is wrong. It is not supported by scripture. I could write an entire post on why his words fly in the face of biblical teaching about both earthly marriage and the union between Christ and the church. Moore has already done an excellent job of explaining that, though, so I suggest you read his post.
When it comes to people with special needs, from the littlest ones to the elderly wife he said the husband could divorce, Robertson's words are more than wrong. They are dangerous.
If it's okay to say that a husband can desert his wife because she is "not there" anymore, what else is okay? How about a parent deserting a child because she can't communicate verbally? Or aborting a child because he has a disability? Or telling the world that you wish you could have had an abortion so your child wouldn't have to watch other kids run and play without being able to join in? Or what about a judge forcing a couple to fight to adopt a child with a disability because that judge doesn't think the child deserves anything more than a sterile institution? If it's okay to walk away from marriage because your wife isn't cognitively there anymore, then why aren't all of those things okay too?
Or, to return to the topic of marriage for a moment, how about me? When we were dating, my husband and I charted out several lengthy rock-climbing adventures we planned to do one day. Rock climbing was a passion we shared and loved together, and we expected it to be a major part of our married lives too, at least while we were younger. We also each wrote on our premarital counseling surveys that I would probably be the one to get up during the night with the kids. We didn't know I would have two chronic and incurable diseases before our second wedding anniversary, health conditions that make sleepless nights much harder for me (so he's the one to get up with the kids, not me) and that ended our rock climbing plans (though I still have them saved because those dreams are still precious to remember). Would it be okay for my husband to walk away because our lives are vastly different than we planned and because he has to do more to support and care for me than we ever anticipated at this stage in our lives? Thank God that the answer is no!
And what about a church that says it's just too hard to include people with disabilities, especially those who might not be able to understand basic theological instruction? If it's okay for a husband to divorce his wife who has Alzheimer’s, then logic would allow the church to neglect those who we deem to be "not there" by our standards. Neither is acceptable.
I opened with Russ Moore's words about this, and I'll close with them as well, because he nails it far better than I could:
This week on his television show Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said a man would be morally justified to divorce his wife with Alzheimer’s disease in order to marry another woman. The dementia-riddled wife is, Robertson said, “not there” anymore. This is more than an embarrassment. This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The opinion Robertson gave is wrong. It is not supported by scripture. I could write an entire post on why his words fly in the face of biblical teaching about both earthly marriage and the union between Christ and the church. Moore has already done an excellent job of explaining that, though, so I suggest you read his post.
When it comes to people with special needs, from the littlest ones to the elderly wife he said the husband could divorce, Robertson's words are more than wrong. They are dangerous.
If it's okay to say that a husband can desert his wife because she is "not there" anymore, what else is okay? How about a parent deserting a child because she can't communicate verbally? Or aborting a child because he has a disability? Or telling the world that you wish you could have had an abortion so your child wouldn't have to watch other kids run and play without being able to join in? Or what about a judge forcing a couple to fight to adopt a child with a disability because that judge doesn't think the child deserves anything more than a sterile institution? If it's okay to walk away from marriage because your wife isn't cognitively there anymore, then why aren't all of those things okay too?
Or, to return to the topic of marriage for a moment, how about me? When we were dating, my husband and I charted out several lengthy rock-climbing adventures we planned to do one day. Rock climbing was a passion we shared and loved together, and we expected it to be a major part of our married lives too, at least while we were younger. We also each wrote on our premarital counseling surveys that I would probably be the one to get up during the night with the kids. We didn't know I would have two chronic and incurable diseases before our second wedding anniversary, health conditions that make sleepless nights much harder for me (so he's the one to get up with the kids, not me) and that ended our rock climbing plans (though I still have them saved because those dreams are still precious to remember). Would it be okay for my husband to walk away because our lives are vastly different than we planned and because he has to do more to support and care for me than we ever anticipated at this stage in our lives? Thank God that the answer is no!
And what about a church that says it's just too hard to include people with disabilities, especially those who might not be able to understand basic theological instruction? If it's okay for a husband to divorce his wife who has Alzheimer’s, then logic would allow the church to neglect those who we deem to be "not there" by our standards. Neither is acceptable.
I opened with Russ Moore's words about this, and I'll close with them as well, because he nails it far better than I could:
Sadly, many of our neighbors assume that when they hear the parade of cartoon characters we allow to speak for us, that they are hearing the gospel. They assume that when they see the giggling evangelist on the television screen, that they see Jesus. They assume that when they see the stadium political rallies to “take back America for Christ,” that they see Jesus. But Jesus isn’t there.
Jesus tells us he is present in the weak, the vulnerable, the useless. He is there in the least of these (Matt. 25:31-46). Somewhere out there right now, a man is wiping the drool from an 85 year-old woman who flinches because she think he’s a stranger. No television cameras are around. No politicians are seeking a meeting with them.
But the gospel is there. Jesus is there.