Comments on: Pat Robertson says divorce ok if spouse has Alzheimer's

By: Byron

Byron — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:58:53 +0000

Justin Taylor has a great post on this, and in it he quotes Russell Moore, entitling his original post as "The Gospel-Emptying Cruelty of Pat Robertson". It's here:

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:58:53 +0000

If a person is cared for – and if he/she is no more able to recognize who cares – it’s, from the angle of that person, irrelevant who cares for her.
Of course, from the angle of the spouse, it may be better to hold fast – I don’t know about that.
The motive of Robertson’s critics is apparently the joy to be, at least one time, more rigorous as the laxist Robertson. It’s a cheap amusement -but as, of course, alll those “Right Wing Watchers” remain in marriage until death parts them, they are qualified to call Robertson a hypocrite.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:05:42 +0000

In reply to Dave. Dave - I had read that elsewhere as well, but I think that is a cop out for Robertson to advise people daily, give answers to questions with his platform but then say he is not an ethicist.

By: Just Me

Just Me — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:51:42 +0000

In the 10 years I spent in nursing homes that tended to have a specializition in dementias ranging from typical dementia care to the only place in the state that will take Grandma after she chased Grandpa down the road with a carving knife and a gun I have seen ONE time that the well spouse divorced the ill one. And in that case it was because of the horrible lack of prepardness we have for young-onset, terminal, progressive illness. The patient was about 28 and had 2 young children. If I remember it was all medicaid based; he couldn’t qualify if he was married because of assets, but giving up all assets made him eligibile for coverage. This was horrible for the patient and in fact Warren you may recall a funny after the fact story of my chasing a violent patient through a cornfield some years ago………that was the reaction. It was so hard feel anything but pity for him. Never, though have I seen this because of Alzheimer’s.

By: David

David — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:51:42 +0000

Dave:
Yeah, it is very ambiguous when he says that this man, if he does anything should divorce her and start over again. Who knows what he really meant to say?
And as far as the full clip, it doesn’t make him look better. It makes him look worse. It is nothing short of shocking that he would plead that he is not an ethicist. Why would that even come up? For 50 years he has been teaching that right and wrong can be found in God’s Word, the Bible. He has never promoted “ethics” as a moral system and in fact ethics and in particular situational ethics is a frequent target of condemnation. So not only does no not discuss a single Biblical passage in the full clip, he pleads that he can’t give a definitive answer b/c he is not an ethicist. He also says that the husband’s need for “companionship” should shield his divorce and/or extra-marital affairs from condemnation. A radical departure from the standard to which he has sought to hold tens of millions of people.
This is the true face of American Christianity. Hypocrisy, greed, materialism, cruelty, political manipulation and outcome-driven ethics occasionally justified post hoc by references to the Bronze Age fantasies of murderous tribesmen.