Now That It Is "Over": My Response to the Duck Dynasty Debacle

Picture from newsbuster.org

Well I guess it is all over now that A&E has restated Phil Robertson to the popular TV Show "Duck Dynasty." At least this chapter is over. If the truth were known (which we can speculate on but never truly know), A&E probably made their decision to reinstate Phil Robertson for self-serving financial reasons rather than because they had any sort of change in heart. The point is, the debacle and hullabaloo is far from over. The next time Phil Robertson or any other conservative, evangelical Christian expresses an opinion that is not considered politically correct - there will be an uproar. When that person is a public figure like Mr. Robertson, there will a cry for blood. Exactly how should a Christian respond to this? How should we have responded to Phil Robertson, the liberal outcry, and ultimately A&E? Did we do the right thing by getting all up-in-arms? Should we have defended him or judged him? Should we have responded in protest to A&E (or Crackle Barrel or anyone else that retaliated against him)? Do we rail against the system in defense of our right to Free Speech? I’ve seen all of these things over the last week or so from friends and foes alike. I, however, have said very little until now. Now that things are settling down, I thought I might put in my two cents worth.

I purposely did not make the mistake that Sarah Palin and millions of others made by jumping to the defense of Phil Robertson without having first read the transcript of his interview with GQ. In truth, I still have not read it nor can I find the full transcript out there in the web-o-sphere so that I can read it. However, I have read excerpts that “both sides” have posted about it. I see things he said that I would fully defend, but I also see things that he said that probably should have been left unsaid. The problem is the inability to see the full picture. So anything I say about the situation must be tempered by the fact that a complete assessment cannot be made without all of the facts. That is the mistake that many on both sides of the isle have made the last few weeks. As a result, my commentary on this subject is not going to be about Mr. Robertson's comments one way or the other. Rather, my commentary will be about the Christian response to the whole uproar.

Let’s begin first with the underlying issue itself. Within the Christian community, there is a growing divide over the issue of homosexuality and whether it is – or is not – a condemnable sin. Personally, I think there is no question that homosexuality is a condemnable sin in scripture, but then again, so is every other sin. Homosexuality is no more or less a condemnable sin than being overweight or being a liar or being a disobedient child (see my blog post regarding the similar Chick-Fil-A debacle from a couple of years ago here: http://surrenderdaily.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-acceptable-sin.html). That means any condemnation or judgment that I may have towards those that choose (yes, I said choose) that lifestyle must fall on me first - I was a condemned sinner first before Christ forgave me. So while I may have no right to judge, I can still hold fast to my own conviction that such a lifestyle is wrong and sinful. On the other hand, I recognize that some do not see scripture the same as I do and while I strongly disagree with their interpretation of scripture, I do not see this as an essential belief over which Christians should break fellowship. If you disagree with me and believe that the Bible allows homosexuality, we may not be able to be a part of the same denominational affiliation or members of the same local faith fellowship, but I see no reason why we cannot be in general Christian fellowship as brothers and sisters in Christ. Our disagreement with each other on this issue should have no impact on how we live our lives and how we approach the world. We should treat all sin equally – acknowledging that God condemns all sin including our own. As such, we should treat all people with equal respect and dignity – recognizing that all are sinners and that God has saved some while others have not yet come to him in repentance of their sin. Since we are not in a position to judge the hearts of man like God, we are not in a position to judge whether someone is – or is not – in a state of grace. All we can do is look to the deeds of their life to see if they bear fruit consistent with repentance and make some semblance of an assessment – not for judgment purposes, but to know how to respond to them on a daily basis… and trust me, there are plenty of people in the church who have less fruit of repentance in their life than people outside the church.

So, whether you believe homosexuality is a sin or not, how should we respond to the Phil Robertson situation? First of all, we should not at all be surprised. We do live in a country where – at least for today – people are free to speak their mind. That may change soon if current trends continue, but at least today we are all free to speak our minds. Why should it surprise us, therefore, that someone would say something controversial? But more importantly for us as Christians, why should it surprise us that the one who did so in the name of Christ is met with such an overwhelming attack by the world? Whether you agree with him or not, Phil Robertson has been a very public, very outspoken defender of his Christian faith. Much like Tim Tebow, someone who makes such a bold stance for Christ is going to be highly monitored and highly criticized by the world for anything that might make Christianity look bad. This is how Satan works and we should not be surprised by it. Based on what I know about the interview (which remember is incomplete because I haven’t read the transcript) Phil stood up for his Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin which made him a public target for those who disagreed with him. If I were asked straight up in an interview, I probably would have said similar things and have become a similar target. What got downplayed was his discussion about how as Christians we are called to treat everyone with respect and dignity – even if we disagree with their lifestyle. It got downplayed because he also said some pretty edgy and crass things in the process that I probably would not have said. Context is everything and without proper context it is hard for me to judge – so I won’t – but obviously the world has judged those words regardless of their context and thus the feeding frenzy that went so viral and made it more difficult for like-minded folk to stand with him. As a result, everything else that Mr. Robertson might have said in the interview has been marginalized. For this also we should not be surprised. Our response, therefore, should be tempered between the holy and the civil.

From the perspective of the sacred and holy, we should not compromise on our beliefs but we must also acknowledge that the world will always be at war with those beliefs. The freedom we enjoy as Americans today is not guaranteed in scripture. Indeed, we may one day lose those freedoms and be persecuted to the death simply for being a Christian. It has been that way for 2000+ years and exists today in other parts of the world. From a sacred perspective, why should we think that as Christians in America we deserve anything different than a Christian in North Korea or Iran? The differences are civil, not sacred. For today, though, we still can worship and believe relatively freely here in the United States. Therefore, stand true to your beliefs, but anticipate resistance – even hatred and possibly retaliation against you for those beliefs. Just don’t respond in a un-Christ-like manner when it does happen. One thing I can say about the Phil Robertson situation is that (at least thus far), the Robertson's have taken the high ground when it comes to their response to the back-lash. For that, I commend them and suggest we all take note. All of the yelling and screaming in the name of Christ does nothing to advance the cause of Christ and I am pretty sure that Jesus would say that you are not speaking on his behalf. We too often confuse civil rights with sacred ones and this has definitely been one of those times. Mr. Robertson's right to free speech and to state his belief that homosexuality is a sin is NOT a sacred right, but a civil one. NO ONE – not the government, not A&E, and certainly not the media – can take away your sacred right to hold fast to your convictions. That is something God has granted you personally - he even granted you the right to disagree with Him, reject Him, or even choose not to believe in Him. Such beliefs are the sole prerogative of your own soul and ultimately the ONLY one who can judge those beliefs is God Almighty himself. Everything else is just civil rights.

So what about those civil rights? From a civil perspective we must certainly defend our right to free speech and our right to believe and state our convictions about sin. However, we cannot make it a holy crusade or a religious war. Marriage is a spiritual covenant governed by God. As my son put it, only God can recognize a marriage - the state may recognize certain legal and civil benefits and even call such legal relationships "marriage", but until God acknowledges your marriage, it is nothing more than a civil union. So if we want to make this a civil issue, then it ought to be about our civil right to believe and state our convictions without fear of retaliation. Sure, if we want to oppose gay marriage from a civil perspective, then by all means let us do so. But when we do make that fight we must do so with Christian charity and within the bounds of legality. We must not be hateful. We must not riot. We must not break civil law – for there is no law yet in our country that exists which prevents us from being a Christian; only laws that discourage it and make it more difficult. When that happens, scripture has commanded us to disobey that law, but that law doesn't yet exist. And if we lose the civil war on marriage (which we probably will), then we acknowledge it and remember who really approves or disapproves marriages - God.

Our constitutional right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech is under attack and there is no mistake about that, but it is a constitutional issue not a religious one per se. Making this a holy war will only result in escalating the persecution against us. Therefore, we should use the system to our benefit – using every legal strategy to the greatest extent the law allows, but we must do so civilly and with grace and love towards all mankind. Ironically, the most civilly minded out there will defend Phil Roberson even if they disagree with him and hate him for his beliefs (for one such example, see here). They will do so because they know any infringement upon Phil Robertson’s right to free speech will ultimately be an infringement upon their own.

Please feel free to comment on this – even to disagree with me – because it still is, after all (at least for today) a free country. Seriously, your thoughts on the matter would be welcomed.