Haiti and the devil (part 2)
Is God punishing Haiti? Pat Robertson claims that Haiti is cursed by God because of a pact made by the island’s inhabitants with the devil. This alleged pact supposedly explains the deep poverty in the country as well as the January 12 earthquake which has devastated the nation and left as many as 100,000 dead.
The earthquake was magnitude 7, estimated by the United States Geological Survey to be the equivalent of half a million tons of high explosive, or the energy of several nuclear bombs. Could this disaster be the judgment of God?
It is clear in Scripture that God sometimes brings natural disasters in response to human sin. Noah’s Flood, the Exodus, and the judgments of the Book of Revelation leap immediately to mind. However, there are four reasons why Robertson should not have put the Haiti tragedy in this category.
First, no one knows if the alleged Haitian pact with the devil actually happened. Robertson’s history is a bit fuzzy: he claims that this 1791 event occurred during the reign of Napoleon III, who didn’t come to power until 1848. What about the event itself?
Here’s what we know: on August 14, 1791, slaves in the northern part of Haiti gathered to begin a revolt against their French masters. Led by a voodoo priest named Dutty Boukman, this event has been called the Bois Caiman Ceremony. It spawned a revolution which expelled the French and established the Republic of Haiti in 1804.
Here the story blurs. One tradition claims that Boukman led his slave followers in a voodoo ritual in which they slaughtered a pig and drank its blood. Then they allegedly made their pact with the devil: if he would free their people from the French, they would serve his spirits on the island for the next 200 years. By dedicating their country to Satan, they caused the economic deprivation and natural disasters which have plagued Haiti over the last two centuries.
Since their supposed pledge to the devil was up in 1991, how could it have caused the January 12 disaster? In April of 2003, President Aristide made voodoo an official religion in Haiti; some claim that this act renewed Haiti’s pact with the devil.
There’s another way to tell the story, however. Examine the allegedly Satanic prayer by Boukman at the Bois Caiman Ceremony:
“The god who created the earth; who created the sun that gives us light. The god who holds up the ocean; who makes the thunder roar. Our God who has ears to hear. You who are hidden in the clouds; who watch us from where you are. You see all that the white has made us suffer. The white man’s god asks him to commit crimes. But the god within us wants to do good. Our god, who is so good, so just, He orders us to revenge our wrongs. It’s He who will direct our arms and bring us the victory. It’s He who will assist us. We all should throw away the image of the white men’s god who is so pitiless. Listen to the voice for liberty that speaks in all our hearts.”
White Europeans saw Boukman’s rejection of “the white man’s god” as a rejection of the God of the Bible. When he prayed to a different god, they claimed that he prayed to the devil. In fighting their slaves’ rebellion, such an interpretation obviously served their cause.
But Boukman never prayed specifically to the devil, or pledged himself and his followers to spirits for 200 years. And there is good reason to doubt whether Boukman even prayed the “prayer” attributed to him. His chant is considered inauthentic by some historians; there is no eyewitness account of it.
So what do we know for sure? There was a ceremony on August 14, 1791 which began the rebellion in Haiti. It probably involved the ritual slaughter of a pig and used voodoo traditions. Nothing more can be known with certainty.
What about voodoo on the island? A Christian should have definite concern here. Missionaries in Haiti report that voodoo remains a real obstacle to biblical faith. Disease could spread in Haiti after the earthquake since voodoo followers in Haiti do not allow the dead to be touched until all their rituals are completed. But if we blame the January 12 earthquake on voodoo, we must blame the January 13 earthquakes in Indonesia and the Philippines on Islam and Christianity, respectively.
As we will see, there are three more reasons why Robertson was wrong to blame Haiti for this tragedy. The first is that he called a legend a “true story.” As Jesus warned us (Matthew 7:24-27), it’s never a good idea to build a house on sand.
Share This Commentary:
Related God Issues: Is hell real? How could a loving God send me there?, How can I know the will of God?, Did Jesus go to hell?, How do I defeat temptation and sin?, What about evolution?
at 10:45 AM
First, let me say I respect and agree with most of your response, and that of Franklin Graham.
Respectfully sir, I submit:
“True history”, “selective history”, “revisionists”, “supporters”, “opponents”, “deniers”, heresay, inuendo, denial. All these are abounding, grandly, on both sides here.
My experience finds that complete history is impossible to deliver, as evidenced by the numerous volumes on the US Civil War. No one person can possibly gather and submit all the minutae of the daily/momentary/personal/public/private details and relay them all completely and impartially.
That said, I submit a question: What is the difference between the recorded statements of Boukman and those of Osama bin Laden? I bring this up because you display a video against bin Laden (and, being a mid-western Anglo-American born-again Christian, I am absolutely NOT his supporter) and by reading much of the Wikipedia information referenced. Great orators, be they good or evil (and none would ever admit they are or intend evil), statists or revolutionaries, alway use noble statements to discretionarily promote self, support, or action.
Pastor Denison, for you to state in Haiti..Part 1, “The alleged 1791 Haitian pact with the devil would put our Father on the side of slavery and Satan on the side of those seeking freedom.”, is surely equal to Mr Robertson’s.
And I’m sorry that I needed to tell you.
at 7:13 AM
As a follow-up: As I read the Bible today, of John the Baptist’s proclamations and of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple, the questions come to me,
“What truths must be spoken in today’s world?. Who will speak them?
What public exposure of sins and evils is required before His Return?
What cleansing is needed now, either by “refiner’s fire” or “fuller’s soap”?
Many rejected their messages of acknowledgement of sin and the way of personal cleansing* then, especially the established leadership.(*this is not associated in any way with any ethnic or political “cleansing”)
So I am actually a little more sympathetic towards Mr. Robertson today. He did not condemn men to hell, but reminded the world that sin has consequences and there is an ultimate enemy of God, even today. Robertson may have accomplished something for God by this.
Does imminent His Return require any declarations that might prepare His Bride?
I look forward to your response.
at 8:42 PM
All of these types of ridiculous comments by the Christian right, when these kind of disasters occur make me ashamed to claim the name Christian. God, the one I believe in and pray to, doesn’t not punish in these ways.
at 2:12 PM
A quote from the book, “The Light and the Glory.” by Peter Marshall Jr…Puritans were concerned about the behaviour of fellow citizens, because “individuals may be judged in the next life, but nations in this life.” They feared that their ungodly action could bring about God’s disfavor. Haiti is not excepted from God’s prerogative to judge. It does not mean that we do not redeem this as a teachable moment for the Haitians, or that we do not respond with service and Christian love, but let’s not let the age of grace convince us that no one is liable to judgement, either.
at 4:05 PM
Let’s look at the statement in full context:
Dr. Denison states “The alleged pact with the devil in 1791 would put our Father on the side of slavery and Satan on the side of those seeking freedom,” but the next sentence — “The reverse is actually the case” — sets the proper context for the point, so that Dr. Denison’s statement is not “surely equal to Mr Robertson’s”