[I originally posted this article on Facebook and then decided to repost it on the blog. For anyone who might not be aware of this story at all, Phil Robertson is the patriarch of the Robertson family, who are the stars of an extremely popular reality TV show on A&E called Duck Dynasty. Phil Robertson got himself in big trouble this week as a result of comments he made about homosexuality in an interview with GQ Magazine.]
Last night I took some time to read through a bunch of the comments and links that my friends had posted on Facebook regarding the indefinite suspension of Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty, as well to reread what Phil actually said in the interview with GQ that caused all the controversy. I think it's safe to say that most of the people who commented were strongly in support of Phil Robertson, but there were a vocal few who either said Christians should not get involved in this controversy at all or that A&E was justified in firing Phil because his statement was crude and offensive.
Here are my thoughts on the matter, for anyone who cares. First, certain portions of Phil's comments were crude, as even his family has acknowledged in a statement. But there wasn't anything hateful or nasty about them, unless you think that the Bible's teaching regarding homosexuality is hateful (which many people obviously do). His comments were a response to a question about sin, and he mentioned homosexuality, bestiality, and "sleeping around with this woman and that woman." So he didn't single out homosexuality but mentioned it along with adultery and/or pre-marital sex. He then quoted a passage from Corinthians accurately which lists a large number of sins, including homosexuality, which prevent people from inheriting the kingdom of God. OK so far -- nothing but traditional Christian belief is being expressed. The next comments were the crude part, where Phil says the following: "It seems 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." Yes, it's coarse and graphic and unnecessary. But it's not hateful; it's probably expressing what pretty much every heterosexual guy has thought many times over. And the way it's worded, I strongly suspect he was making an attempt at humor that fell very flat. The wording reminds me very much of the kind of jokes that Phil tells on Duck Dynasty. He's a humorous guy and also not particularly refined or given to nuance -- that's his persona in both the show and in real life I think. The other thing to mention about the comment is that it fails to understand the point that many homosexuals did not make a conscious choice about their sexual orientation and their sexual desires feel completely natural to them -- so Phil telling them that it makes no sense is meaningless to them. It certainly isn't how a Christian psychologist or pastor should talk about homosexuality -- but Phil isn't either of those things. He's a redneck and a outdoorsman who made his fortune off of making duck calls. You can't reasonably expect him to articulate all the nuances of the issue (although it would have been better if he had). He was asked his opinion, and he gave it very honestly.
What Phil said next, in the same interview, got a lot less attention but is extremely important to understand the full context of his opinion on the subject. He went on to say, "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. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?" He went on to add that his family "believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and...everything would turn around." This doesn't sound like an angry hater who wants to condemn all homosexuals to hell. It sounds like a guy who holds strong beliefs on sexual morality but who also thinks we should love everyone without condemning them blanketly to hell and believes that the good news of the Gospel is for everyone, including gays. If he explicitly says that he loves gays rather than hating them, then to conclude that he hates gays is to claim exactly the opposite of what he said in the initial interview. And his subsequent clarification, issued before A&E said anything about the controversy, is even better: "I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty, and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other." Yes, it would have been better if his initial comments had struck exactly that tone, but how many times have all of us said things that did not come out the way we intended?
Is the outrage about Phil's comments really about how he said what he said? I don't think so. I think it's about the fact that he holds to a biblical belief that homosexuality is a sin. When the gay rights group GLAAD issued a statement about Phil's comments, they chose to highlight the issue of same-sex marriage, which indicates that their beef with Phil is that he doesn't tow the politically correct position on gay rights. Would they have been just as outraged and just as convinced he was a gay hater if he had quoted the biblical passage about homosexuality being a sin and stopped there? I think so, and I think they would have still put pressure on A&E to fire him. The offense here is really about Phil's moral beliefs, not the way he expressed them. This is just the latest of a long line of examples of people getting viciously attacked for expressing a traditional Biblical view of homosexuality and/or marriage.
Is this issue really about free speech? Well, yes and no. It is not about free speech, in the sense that A&E is a private company that has the right to fire anyone who is employed by their network for saying something that they feel is detrimental to their organization. They are not violating the 1st Amendment in any direct sense by firing Phil. However, I think there is a deeper free speech issue here because we are starting to see a pattern where the self-appointed tolerance police are trying to deliberately eliminate any dissenting voices regarding homosexuality from the public square. A few years ago, I remember reading the story of Matt Barber, an Allstate manager who wrote a letter or an article for a newspaper or magazine (can't remember the exact circumstances) expressing his support for traditional marriage between one man and one woman. The article was not hateful or extreme in any way. He wrote the article expressing his own private views on his own time and Allstate's name was in no way connected to it. Gay activists researched his name, found out he worked for Allstate, and convinced Allstate to fire him for his hateful views. The same thing happened in California after Proposition 8 passed. Gay activists tracked down the people who offered financial support for Proposition 8 and targeted their homes and businesses. Chick-Fil-A was targeted simply because the founder of the business expressed Christian beliefs about homosexuality. The Boy Scouts have been relentlessly targed. These are just a few examples but the trend is clear. Many people in this country think that people who hold traditional Christian beliefs about homosexuality are hateful, bigoted people who deserve to lose their employment and be driven out of polite society. They want to shout us down, silence us, keep us from expressing our beliefs and opinions. I think that's a threat to free speech, and it could become a much bigger threat down the road. Just look at Canada, where any expression of disapproval against homosexuality is a human rights violation that could subject the offender to heavy fines or worse. Pastors can be prosecuted under Canadian law simply for preaching from the Bible about homosexuality. I assure you, that can happen here too.
So maybe Phil didn't express himself as clearly as he could have on the issue. Maybe he should have been a little more empathetic and nuanced in his comments. But kudos to him for expressing his religious beliefs with boldness and not kowtowing to the speech police who want to silence anyone who holds to traditional biblical morality. Yes, we can learn some lessons about being careful how we express our beliefs as Christians and making sure we say what we say with love and grace. But we should also be aware that there is a cost to being a follower of Jesus, and sometimes speaking the truth and standing for God's Word will cost you no matter how lovingly you say it. I hope if any of us ever have the opportunity to have a national platform, we will be as bold and open about our faith in the Gospel as Phil and the rest of the Robertson clan have been.
