Calling Fowl, or Why Are We Still Behind the Blind?

When I first started hearing about a show called Duck Dynasty, and then realized how popular it had become, I was very surprised. Outspoken Christians from the Deep South known for their “folksiness” have the most-watched reality show on cable TV? Their pictures are emblazoned on everything from mugs and calendars to boxer shorts and Chia pets? How interesting, I thought, that people so embrace a family that embodies so much of what they often deride as “those conservative Christians.”

And then it all fell apart, as anyone familiar with the traditional views the family holds and the media climate we live in might have guessed it would. Yesterday GQ published a profile of the Robertson family in which the family patriarch, Phil Robertson, made some comments that got him in trouble. And now I get it. It wasn’t until yesterday that, as TIME magazine put it, the subtext became text.

Now the world knows what, exactly, Phil Robertson thinks about homosexuality and black people. And many people do not like it–including the network executives at A&E, who put him on indefinite hiatus from the show.

Now many Christians are taking to the internet to protest this restriction of free speech. As a refresher, here is what the First Amendment actually says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That’s it. As Rachel Held Evans so aptly reminded me yesterday:

As far as I can tell, Congress made no laws yesterday. Phil Robertson was not thrown in jail for his words. He was not tortured for them. The FCC has never censored his professions of faith on the show. And if he feels his rights have been violated, he has every right to try to sue A&E for discrimination. But A&E is a business. They depend on ad revenue generated by the popularity of their TV shows. Companies generally don’t want their ads to run alongside a show they find offensive. (Would a Christian company air an ad during South Park?) He absolutely has a right to say exactly what he thinks about gay people and black people. And he also has a right to bear the consequences of his words.

I pray that those who rush to defend Phil Robertson’s words haven’t actually read them.

Here is what he thinks about gay people:

It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

And on growing up in the pre-Civil-Rights era South:

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field. … They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’ — not a word!

Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

This is a man who told GQ he voted for Romney in 2012 because, “If I’m lost at three o’clock in a major metropolitan area…I ask myself: Where would I rather be trying to walk with my wife and children? One of the guys who’s running for president is out of Chicago, Illinois, and the other one is from Salt Lake City, Utah. [Editor’s note: Romney is from Boston, not Salt Lake City.] Where would I rather be turned around at three o’clock in the morning? I opted for Salt Lake City. I think it would be safer.” This is the kind of speech that made him famous, and it’s exactly what people want from him.

So, not knowing him and not having seen the show, I don’t much care what Phil Robertson thinks about gay people, or black people. I do care what other Christians, especially people I know and love, say about his words, and more importantly, how they use his example to talk about God and what it means to be a faithful Christian.

This is not about persecuting Christians. This is the number one cable reality TV show, in a schedule overstuffed with Real Housewives and Pawn Stars and I know not what else. People are okay with Christians, even Christians who hold these views.  Pope Francis just got named Person of the Year not just by Time magazine but also by The Advocate, an LGBTQ magazine. It’s the way Robertson communicated those views that got him removed from his own show. There are ways to respect the dignity of others while holding different opinions about what is and is not sin. Telling gay men they are illogical because they just can’t see the beauty of a woman’s vagina is not one of them. Telling black people they were happier before they won their Civil Rights is not one of them.

Would Robertson have faced the same backlash if he had communicated his opinions in a more respectful way? Maybe.We can never know, though, because he didn’t. His outspoken, “folksy” charm is part of his brand, and when that brand no longer sells, A&E has every right to put an end to it.

But there’s a bigger problem: we’re so focused on protesting the perceived infringements on our right to express our beliefs that we make the gospel all about us. We forget that there are people on the other side, people who read these words and are hurt by them, not because they are being convicted by their sin but because they see people who claim to love Jesus but seem much more concerned about their right to say whatever they want without any concern of how these words demonstrate Jesus’ love and extend it to others.

To use the “yuck factor” in the way Robertson has is offensive to gay people. Full stop. And it should be offensive to us. It does not in any way embody the gospel. I have spent hours and hours hearing gay friends describe years of agony spent fervently praying God would make them straight and receiving no such relief. These kinds of comments belittle their struggles, their lives, their realities. This is not what it means to love a person, as Christ loves them. It makes it almost impossible for any other message we might have to be taken seriously.

And Christians seem to have completely buried, or even ignored, what Robertson said about black people, and how happy he feels they were when they spent their days working the cotton fields for their white bosses without legal equality. This, too, is counter to the gospel we preach. This one should be a no-brainer. But we have made homosexuality Public Enemy Number One–when the interviewer asked Robertson the question “What do you think is sin?” his first response was to single out homosexuality–to the point that the only thing that seems to matter anymore is the right to voice this opinion, as loudly and as often as possible. And in exercising the right to voice it, we lose sight of everything but the sound of our own voices. We forget there are people who are hearing these words, people who are looking for Jesus and, I fear, not finding Him. Jesus did not walk around telling anyone who would listen that they were sinning. He loved sinners, and ate with them, and only after this did he tell them to “go and sin no more.”

Love doesn’t mean not having an opinion, and it doesn’t mean ignoring sin. But it does mean thinking, acting, and speaking with the interests of others before our own. So please, before you rush to defend Phil Robertson or protest the persecution of Christians in America, think about how your words communicate Jesus’ love to those who are listening. Because people are listening, and how someone they know and love responds to their pain is much more important to them than the words of a long-bearded, free-speaking Louisiana Bayou millionaire.


12 thoughts on “Calling Fowl, or Why Are We Still Behind the Blind?

  1. Here’s the problem with the issue at hand. The only culturally acceptable way to deal with the pain of homosexual sin is to say it is not a sin, remove any stigma of shame attached with it, rewrite the Scriptures, and embrace the behavior. Could Phil Robertson said it better? Sure. But do we honestly think he could have expressed a biblical view on homosexuality in any kind of way that would have not caused ire? There is no way to even speak directly about the issue that would not have been considered hateful to those who support the behavior. If our options are to remain silent or risk offending someone, I’m going err on the side of speaking the truth. We’ve become so afraid of offending people that we’re not offending them straight to hell. Of course, the doctrine of hell seems to, along with homosexuality being a sin, have become a passing fad in the western church.

    In addition, people are going to hear what they want to hear. For example, the author of this article seems to have the uncanny ability to know exactly what Phil Robertson REALLY meant by his words instead of simply taking them at face value. This is particularly true of Robertson’s comments about his interaction with black people, but is also present in describing Robertson’s explanation of why he can’t make sense of homosexuality as employing the “yuck factor.” Given that this is a follower of Jesus who is seemingly putting words into Robertson’s mouth, can any of us who wish to be true to God’s Word ever expect the culture around us to embrace what we have to say, no matter how we say it?

    The issue is bigger than A&E’s treatment of Phil Robertson. The bigger concern is that the western church has increasingly become an ape of the consumer-driven culture in which it find itself, and noncomformists like Phil Robertson are quickly cast aside by the new generation of churchgoers as outdated, irrelevant, and harmful to the brand.

    • Pope Francis has very traditional views on sexuality and both Time magazine and The Advocate made him their Person of the Year. There are ways to disagree and still love, and have the message received by those who need to hear it. But is “we think you are sinful” the first and loudest message people outside the church really need to hear? That’s not how Jesus did it–except sometimes with the religious hypocrites.

      I’m the author of this article and I’m not clear how I failed to take Phil Robertson’s words at face value. (That’s actually something I value very much and just wrote a post on a few weeks ago.) The idea that gay men could just try a little harder and be straight is disrespectful to the experiences of people who are attracted to the same gender. And regarding his comments about black people, I didn’t add anything. It’s all right there. I don’t doubt he described his childhood memories as he experienced them–but his words are also very ignorant to the black experience in America. Suggesting that segregation was a happier time is not okay and definitely not reflective of the love God has for all people.

      I don’t doubt that Phil genuinely does love people and love God. But that doesn’t mean he’s immune from saying hurtful things, and I think these comments were hurtful and as Christians it’s important how we respond. There are a lot of people who were very hurt by his words, and are listening to our response. And we are so caught up in being right and being heard that we forget to love.

  2. I understand what you are saying, but you and everyone else are forgetting the entire statements of what Phil Robertson said, and choose to use bits and pieces. Here is his finishing statement.

    • I don’t know Phil Robertson but everyone I know who watches the show talks about how he seems like a genuinely good guy who takes his faith seriously. I believe this is true. That final statement doesn’t negate what he previously said. Those things are still offensive, and I don’t think they reflect the gospel well.

  3. I disagree with the liberals who are cheering his firing – not because of his views – but because folks are cheering that a major corporation has the right to fire someone for saying something (anything) at a time when they are NOT on the job. Giving the corporation that amount of power is a very scary thing. I said the same thing when Alec Baldwin was fired for saying something – not on the air – but on his own time.

    I don’t watch the show, but I also happen to agree with this guy on blacks (for which he has a black adopted grandchild by the way). I also believe that blacks were happier in the 60’s than now – when they were not out killing each other over drugs and such (that was what his real point was by the way). On gays – I am sick and tired of them talking about how they want to have sex. I don’t go around talking about how I want to have sex. If you want to be treated equally – just shut up. geezzz… All their time and attention is focused below the belt for goodness sake.

    • But…major corporations DO have “the right to fire you for saying something (anything) at a time when you are NOT on the job.” No one needs to “give” them that power, they have it. I agree with you that’s nothing to cheer about, but it’s nothing new. And it has nothing to do with the first amendment.

  4. I guess you overlooked the part where he said “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists.” Furthermore, I have yet to see anywhere in the article where he tells anyone anything. Phil Robertson isn’t God. He doesn’t tell someone what they are doing is wrong and he didn’t here; he expressed his opinion just as you are expressing yours. The only real difference is that he didn’t overlook half of the interview when he voiced his opinion. Read the entire article and don’t write your article on the sensationalized headlines.

  5. Fantastic piece…very well written, and an interesting perspective.

    While I was offended by what Robertson said…..I am far more offended by some of the responses. A&E was fully within their rights to take the stance that they have (and I applaud them for doing so!), just as it was his right to say the things he said.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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