Bigotry
The Duck Commander and Bigot
StandardYou are most likely aware of A&E’s wildly popular show “Duck Dynasty”. Even if you don’t watch it, you are probably aware that the show follows the redneck antics of the Lovable, laid back, and pretty obviously conservative Christian, Robertson family. Led by patriarch Phil, Phil and his sons raise their families with a certain redneck charm while Phil’s son Willie runs the family owned and operated multi-million dollar duck call business.
All this you probably know, what you’re hearing right now may be new. Phil is coming under fire for some excerpts from a recent GQ magazine interview that are allegedly anti-gay.
Foxs News Article on the controversy of the interview.
I honestly doubt the full interview will sway those who oppose Phil and others like him that hold to a traditional view of marriage as most Christians have biblically understood it. I’ve read the full article and the complaints and I’m sure smarter and better equipped men and women will comment or blog, however there are a few thoughts & observations I want to share.
HE GETS IT RIGHT
I am not saying he IS right, I’m saying that he expresses the traditional view correctly. The only possible flaw is a lack of tact or technique in expressing his view. I can see how it may seem crass, and I actually do think it is crass.
“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” he said. “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?
One of the many things I think both sides of the argument lacks, is the ability to see past controversial statements, and the emotions that they stir up, to look at the intent of what is being said. Admittedly this is hard for everyone, even when I read the above quote I raise an eyebrow and think “what!?”.
This is largely a throwaway statement. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be held accountable for it, but it really has nothing to do with the much larger cultural discussion. It’s like someone saying. “I think women deserve the vote, just because a woman’s place is in the kitchen doesn’t mean she can’t have a say in who should be president”. Is that an outrageously dumb statement about a woman’s place in the kitchen? Yes, but its absurdity has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the position.
He, in response to the article, clarifies…
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.”
You may not like the content of what Phil is saying here, but you would be hard pressed to find something wrong with its intent. Part of the push back is that in his brief mention of homosexuality he also mentions bestiality.
Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine,” he said. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men
The opposition makes the false assumption that Phil is saying that homosexuality is the same as bestiality. The same has been said about pedophilia comparisons. He is not saying they are the same, as in terms of damage or harm, but morally the same. Essentially he is saying a sin is a sin. The bible mentions liars and murders together, it is not saying that lying is as bad as murder, but it is saying, that God holds both the liar and murder accountable for their sin. He also includes heterosexual fornication in his condemnation, but no one really bats an eye at that.
Remove all the dross from around the interview and we see that Phil holds the traditional biblical view. That all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is a sin. And to that I would say “Well, wha did you expect him to say?”
HIS OPPOSITION GETS IT WRONG
Again I’m not saying they ARE wrong, I’m saying they characterize the position wrong. Read this quote from GLAAD.
Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” said GLAAD rep Wilson Cruz. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans – who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.
This response makes me grit my teeth. It shows, like I said before, an inability to look pass the emotion of an issue and at what is actually being said.
The quote starts off “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.” Uh, yeah, but no.
A lot of claims made in this statement that just aren’t true. They “claim to be Christian”, are they not Christian, and if not, how are they not? “Lies about an entire community”, okay what were those lies exactly? “Fly in the face of what true Christians believe”, what is it they believe exactly, and how does this contradict? I think this first statement is similar to Phil’s crass statement, a gut reaction with no deeper understanding of what’s actually going on.
The statement goes on pretty much in the same fasion. Anger, and probably justified anger are the result. However, justified anger does not justify missing the point.
UNDERSTANDING SHOULD BE THE GOAL
Either side of the issues is guilty of misscharacterization. Extreme examples are made of the opposing side that are easy to attack, and when similarities present themselves we immediately condemn the whole. Its really just childish and it misses the point. It promotes further separation and gives no room for mutual understanding.
If you want someone to change their beliefs or position, then getting your legislation passed, or a court to rule in your favor isn’t going to do it. They will feel and believe the same regardless, and where there was actually no hate to begin with, it will probably start to grow.
The first step is always listening and understanding. Think of how tormented a child might be if he is just always told what he is doing is wrong, but never explained why. They walk around scared and paralyzed because they are too afraid that they might do something wrong. They are left unable to navigate life because they can’t understand what makes certain things right or certain things wrong. Essentially, they can’t make sense of it because no one sat down and calmly explained it.
There are persons on both sides of this debate that are thoughtfully, and respectfully trying to promote mutual understanding by tackling the “why” aspect. The “why” components helps us to understand by addressing both the motives, and intents of each position. These few people never get much attention because two people having a sensible and peaceful discourse doesn’t get as many views as two people spouting off and yelling at each other. Both sides take advantage of the negative aspects of their opponents and the media spotlight to their mutual shame.
Recently, the state of Hawaii passed its own legislation on Gay Marriage. One of its repesentatives, who just so happened to be a publicly out and about lesbian, said she could not vote for the amendment because she had a duty to vote for legislation that protected all of Hawaii’s people. She wanted gay marriage and at the same time, more protection for religious objectors.
She felt the law was one-sided and in her attempt to be fair and understanding was rejected by her LGBT community. Here’s her statement. The response from her LGBT community? To denounce her as a betrayer.
VIOLATIONS OF CONSCIOUS
One thing that is becoming more and more evident is this sort of “If you’re not with us then you’re against us” mentality. This is evident when advocats demand that a corporation should take a stance on a political or moral issue, and that sponsers should reconsider their ties to dissenting opinions. Its even more evident in the story of Hawaii’s gay marriage opposing lesbian representative that we’ve already discussed.
Similarly, when it comes to Phil no one is saying. “Oh that poor misguided old man, someone needs to have a chat with him.” They are calling for his removal, they don’t want to educate and inform, they want to hurt and they want it to sting. At this point any action or in-action that doesn’t align properly is immediately anti-gay, homophobic, or bigoted.
The demand is “get inline or shut up about it.” Maybe Chirstians deserve this. Its reflective of the approach that the church at large has taken in handling the LGBT community. “You have same-sex attractions? Well don’t tell anyone or do anything about it, just be quiet and play along and maybe it’ll go away.” The church has handled a lot of sin issues this way, and it is wrong. Please note that I said the church at large, I’m sure there are many examples of churches loving the community well and still holding to their beliefs. Either way, in some ways, we are being given a taste of our own medicine.
When this approach is taken both sides then become guilty of asking, or demanding, that the other violate it’s conscious. I think that it is detrimental to ask anyone to violate any deeply held conviction or belief, Christian or otherwise.
If people are successful at this type of suppression then eventually we will have a society of sociopaths. What needs to happen is lots of open and honest discussion that may eventually sway hearts and beliefs.
Where the church has been guilty of this heavy handed, guilt and shame manipulation of the LGBTs in its pews, it should simply confess and repent and then start the work toward reconciliation.
CHOMPING AT THE BIT
Phil’s fall seems inevitable. It was no secret of his beliefs, all that was needed was for him to publicly state them so we could string him up for all to see. Again, both sides shoulder the blame for this kind of useless tactic.
This is a short point, but a good one. At least I think it is, but I’m the guy writting the blog. It seems that we are to eager to wage war, and less eager to strive for peace. Each side lying in wait, one misstep and we can’t wait to devour each other.
IM BORN THIS WAY
This arguement never made much sense to me, but I understand it. The reason that it doesn’t make sense is because a particular genetic predisposition is no grounds for permission or denial of any moral behavior.
That is, you can’t say that something is good and acceptable simply because something deep inside of you compels you to do it. I am completely fine with the notion that being gay is not a choice, but a result of nature, in fact I think that is most likely true. I understand this better then most through the lens of my faith.
You see, I too struggle with a compulsion, a feeling and conviction that I can not shake. I can’t suppress it, to do so would be untrue to myself, to who I am at my core. To cave to societal pressure would be an injustice to everthing I feel inside. I feel as if I can’t help it, no matter what I do, I am a Christian. You may say, “no, its a choice”, but I’m telling you that I’ve tried to do things different but I always come back. I’m always looking for a way out, but it seems I simply can’t undo it by any force of will.
Christians have the most to say to the LGBT community.The fight against what nature compells us to do is shared in our communities. The apostle Paul understands it when he says
Romans 7:19-24 ESV
For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Paul says the war is not external but internal. Sin is in us from birth, we only confirm it through our choices. Jesus understands the inner struggle for all of us who have fallen short. And he offers us the remedy.
We all have godless desires, he offers us godly desires. We all have a fallen nature, he offers a new nature. We have sinful hearts, he offers us sinless hearts. We have reprobate minds, he offers us renewed minds.
It is a complete and fundamental change within a human being. When I say I can’t help being a Christian its because this change has taken a hold of me. You could say “I’m born-again this way.”
The bible makes clear that we are the problem, all of us, and we need to be saved from oursleves and remade anew. Fortunately, that is exactly what Jesus came to do. Phil makes a simple statement to this effect
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.
He, at least here, is right.
I am not pro-gay or anti-gay. I am however anti-sin and pro-repentance. Is it possible for our culture to begin to talk about that? God is Holy, we aren’t, only Jesus makes up the difference.
Grace & Peace
Theist the Bearded 