You knew it would happen sooner or later. An outspoken, wildly popular,
conservative Christian who doesn’t give a hoot—or in this case, a
quack—about political correctness would air his views about
homosexuality, and overnight, Hollywood hell would break loose.
To catch you up on the latest events, earlier this week, the text of
Phil Robertson’s interview with GQ magazine was released online,
containing controversial comments about homosexual practice, among other
things. (For those who have been living under a rock, Phil Robertson is
the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan, and he is a self-proclaimed
“Bible thumper.”)
Shortly after the interview was released, and quite predictably,
GLAAD issued a statement condemning Robertson’s remarks as “some of the
vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a
mainstream publication” and said “his quote was littered with outdated
stereotypes and blatant misinformation.” (Reminder: GLAAD officially
stands for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, but I have
long suggested that a more appropriate name would be the Gay and Lesbian
Alliance Against Disagreement.)
GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz says, “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. 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 re-examine their ties to someone with such
public disdain for LGBT people and families.” (Note to GLAAD: The
majority of Louisianans do not support same-sex marriage.)
This was followed by a clarification and apology of sorts by
Robertson: “I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around
sex, drugs and rock and 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.”
The Human Rights Campaign, the world’s largest gay activist
organization, also condemned Robertson’s remarks and called for A&E,
the cable network that airs Duck Dynasty, to take action: “The A&E
network should take immediate action to condemn Phil Robertson’s remarks
and make clear they don’t support his views.”
Later the same day, A&E issued its own statement: “We are
extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ,
which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the
series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of
A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions
of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from
filming indefinitely.”
In support of Robertson, the Faith Driven Consumer Facebook page
started an “I Stand With Phil" campaign, while another Facebook page,
“Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson Is Put Back on Duck Dynasty,” had
more than 100,000 "likes" in a matter of hours. Talk about a clash of
two cultures!
What did Robertson actually say that was so controversial?
First he remarked, “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.”
Was he accusing all (or most) gays of engaging in bestiality or of
sleeping with multiple women? It appears not, although I can easily see
why his critics would think otherwise, and in that context, he was right
to clarify his comments.
What he was saying, though, was that gay sex should be seen as part
of the “anything goes” mentality of the sexual revolution of the '60s,
and in that regard he was right. In fact, while gay activists emphasize
homosexual identity, placing the gay rights movement in the context of
the civil rights movement of the '60s, Robertson and other conservative
Christians emphasize homosexual behavior, placing gay activism in the
context of the sexual revolution of the same era.
Robertson next quoted from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, a famous passage in
Paul’s letters in which he clearly states that practicing homosexuals,
along with practicing heterosexual sinners of various stripes, will not
inherit God’s kingdom. (For the record, despite frequent objections to
the contrary, the Greek text is quite clear in terms of its overall
sense.)
Was A&E genuinely unaware that Phil Robertson held to these
views? I seriously doubt it. My guess is that they were just glad (not
GLAAD) that he hadn’t aired them publicly.
Finally, Robertson suggested (speaking first for himself) that the
female sexual organ was “more desirable” than a man’s rectum and that a
woman had “more to offer” a man.
And for these comments he was promptly suspended.
The fact is, though, no matter how much two men may love each other,
it remains indisputably clear that men were biologically designed to be
with women, and vice versa. In that regard, no matter how crude
Robertson’s comments may have been, they were correct.
As for his quotation from 1 Corinthians 6,
did anyone really think that Robertson would say, “You know, now that
I’ve become a TV celebrity, I’m going to revise my views on God’s intent
for human sexuality and marriage”?
Personally, I don’t believe for a moment that Robertson will bow down
to A&E and compromise his convictions, although I could see him
offering a further clarification of his statements, explaining, for
example, that he was not accusing homosexuals of practicing bestiality
any more than heterosexuals engage in such perversion.
And I don’t see how A&E can back down from its position
regardless of how popular the show is. The gay lobby is far too
powerful. (I imagine that Alec Baldwin has an opinion on this as well,
although, to be clear, I am not comparing Robertson to Baldwin.)
In fact, I don’t see either of them about to blink, which means the
culture wars are about to hit the fan, and this could very ugly very
quickly.
I suggest that those of us who agree fundamentally with Robertson
make clear that: 1) We are unashamed of our belief in Jesus and in
biblical morality; 2) we stand against the mistreatment of all people,
including gays and lesbians; and 3) we will not support the radical
redefinition of marriage, regardless of the cost involved, nor do we see
cultural capitulation to gay activism as inevitable.
Now would be a perfect time to take a stand, but with grace, precision and wisdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment