Pat Robertson has come under fire by many evangelicals for comments on his show yesterday regarding a question about divorcing a spouse with Alzheimer's.
Pat Robertson Says Divorce Okay if Spouse has Alzheimer's: "That is a terribly hard thing," Robertson said. "I hate Alzheimer's. It is one of the most awful things because here is a loved one—this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years. And suddenly that person is gone. They're gone. They are gone. So, what he says basically is correct. But I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something he should divorce her and start all over again. But to make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her."
Co-host Terry Meeuwsen asked Pat, "But isn't that the vow that we take when we marry someone? That it’s For better or for worse. For richer or poorer?"
Robertson said that the viewer's friend could obey this vow of "death till you part" because the disease was a "kind of death." Robertson said he would understand if someone started another relationship out of a need for companionship.
Predictably, the shots started coming. His co-host even attempted to push back during the show, foreshadowing the response he would get. My favorite response, though has come from Al Mohler's twitter:
I have to admit that I have absolutely no idea what it means to "do theology and morality by your gizzard," but it does sound kind of fun. I think I'll start trying it.
NOTE: Robertson does end that segment by saying that he's not an ethicist and that the person seeking advice should talk to an ethicist. Christianity Today, unsurprisingly, failed to report that part of the segment.
So, there are two questions we can ask about this.
1) What do you think about Robertson's point that he certainly would not cast judgment on someone who divorced a spouse with Alzheimer's?
And the more fun question,
2) Just how do we do theology by our gizzard?