Home > Christian Love, Marriage > Pat Robertson and Platonism

Pat Robertson and Platonism

Televangelist Pat Robertson shocked his audience by sanctioning a husband’s desire to divorce his wife due to her affliction with Alzheimers. A steady flow of negative feedback to his position has been documented in the reports found here and here. The Christian feedback has resounded with the marital vows: “for better or worse, in sickness and in health, til death do us part.” Clearly, Alzheimers is not a justifiable grounds for divorce. Watching a spouse suffer through such a condition is a cross to bear. And that is what Christ calls upon us to do, bear our cross. In this case, it is done in loving devotion to a spouse to whom one is bound by marital vows.

The criticisms of Robertson’s position which I have read have not commented on an issue at the core of his statement, namely, that he takes a Platonic position. Plato’s philosophical legacy includes the crass division between the material/physical and the “spiritual.” Such a position stands in stark contrast with the Biblical worldview which holds that the physical and the spiritual are bound together in a union from creation that was meant by the Creator to remain united for all time. It is the tragic result of the fall into sin that physical death tears us apart so that body and soul are separated. It is the blessed promise, the fullness of Christ’s salvation, that the day is coming when He will raise our bodies, rid them of Alzheimers and all other infirmities, and reunite them with our perfected souls that we might be whole for all eternity.

While that is the Christian hope awaiting fulfillment on the Last Day, it has a mighty impact upon how we live here and now. One clear deduction from this Christian doctrine is that we are not to separate a person’s being from their physical body. Thus, when a person’s condition deteriorates to a point that they appear vegetative to us, we still show great care for their body. When one dies, we treat the body with the utmost respect. This truth is captured in the blessing which I have the honor of speaking at funerals:

 God the Father who created this body,
The Son who by His blood redeemed this body,
and the Holy Spirit who through Holy Baptism sanctified this body to be His temple
shall keep these remains until the day of the resurrection of all flesh.

Marriage is a prinicipal location for respecting the intrinsic value of the body. When Christ established marriage in the Garden of Eden, He did so, saying, “the two shall become one flesh.” Not one spirit, but one flesh – you don’t get any more physical than that. As heart-breaking as it is to see a spouse deteriorate, the one-flesh union calls us to fidelity.

GK Chesterton once commented that the marriage vows are made when they are not needed. His point was that the young couple that is head-over-heels in love doesn’t need to the vows, because they are so smitten. But we make the vow at that point so that it is there to hold us faithful when we must bear the cross. Let us pray for those who bear the cross in marriage, whatever form in which it comes, that they might be held faithful to their vows by He who has borne the cross for them.

Advertisement
Categories: Christian Love, Marriage
  1. September 16, 2011 at 4:30 pm | #1

    Good thoughts, Kevin. You and my friend Mike Wittmer (http://mikewittmer.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/till-alzheimers-we-do-part/) are the only two people I’ve seen focus on the Platonic aspect. Very needed angle on this sad story.

    Also…are you familiar with the Andrew Peterson song, Dancing in the Minefields? I posted it a year ago on my 15th wedding anniversary (http://pcscrib.blogspot.com/2010/09/marriage-fifteen-years-in.html). It’s a beautiful song about marriage that echoes Chesterton’s thoughts. One of my favorite lines in it is, “This is harder than we dreamed, but I believe that’s what the promise is for.”

  2. September 17, 2011 at 8:14 am | #2

    Pete – Glad to see that Mike also noted the Platonic aspect. If I’m a lone voice, I wonder if I’m alone because I’m wrong. Also, glad to hear the Peterson song (of which I was ignorant until you pointed me to it). I’m also reminded of Chesterton’s statement that “the whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when compatibility becomes unquestionable.” Earlier in the same work, he noted: “I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one.” His point is that the ideal of the compatible marriage is illusory. Man and woman are different, even incompatible, which is why a vow holds them together and why the bond is such a blessed one for each brings that which other cannot.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.