© 2013 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
The Duck Dynasty show has made no secret of Robertson's Christian faith and that of his family. Responding to the GQ interviewer's question "What, in your mind, is sinful?" Robertson 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." He then paraphrased 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, saying, "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."
In the same interview, Robertson also made the following statement about black people living in pre-civil-rights-era Louisiana: "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." (Editor's note: The ellipses, which were present in the GQ article, indicate that we may not have the full statement.)
Both statements have drawn criticism from several quarters, including from groups promoting gay rights, human rights and civil rights.
For example, GLAAD, a media-monitoring organization which promotes the image of LGBT people in the media, slammed Robertson's comments, calling them "vile."
The GLAAD statement said: "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 reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."
His suspension came on the heels of a joint letter from the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign to the president of A&E, expressing "outrage and deep concern about the recent racist, homophobic and ill-informed remarks made by Phil Robertson."
In suspending Robertson, A&E Networks released a statement saying: "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."
After the suspension, however, many people and ad hoc groups criticized the network for its decision, some because they agree with some or all of what Robertson said, and some because they uphold his right to state his opinion without being subject to political correctness "policing."
Robertson's supporters quickly rallied in his defense and created a petition at Change.org -- already signed by some 20,000 people -- demanding his reinstatement to the show. The petition states: "Homosexuals have their convictions and Christians respect them. There is a difference between respecting someone's rights to exercise free will and imposing on others what we believe. Phil has done nothing more than state what he believes in. Just because homosexuals do not agree does not mean Mr. Robertson needs to be suspended."
Brian Doherty, a libertarian blogger, wrote, "There may have been a good reason why classical tolerance of expression was summed up in the epigram: 'I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!' That has a different feel than: 'I disagree with what you say, I think you are evil for having said it, I think no one should associate with you and you ought to lose your livelihood, and anyone who doesn't agree with me about all that is skating on pretty thin ice as well, but hey, I don't think you should be arrested for it.'"
Long-time lesbian activist Camille Paglia also supported Robertson's freedom of expression (although not his beliefs) and spoke out against his suspension, calling the network's actions "utterly fascist and utterly Stalinist."
Shortly after the GQ article was released, the Cracker Barrel company, whose restaurants carry some Duck Dynasty items, announced that it would pull those items from its stores. After hearing a strong backlash from its customers, however, Cracker Barrel reversed its decision.
Some Christians argue that Robertson was just expressing a sincere, Christian view that homosexuality is sinful -- even if he did so crudely -- and that to condemn him amounts to condemning Christian beliefs.
Other Christians, however, view his remarks as showing a lack of understanding of both homosexuality and racism, and say that they do not demonstrate the love for neighbor that is central to the Christian faith.
In fairness to Robertson, we should mention that one of his sons adopted a bi-racial child, and that elsewhere in the article he is quoted as declaring, "We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven [or] 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 ...."
More on this story can be found at these links:
What the Duck? GQ (This is the article that led to Robertson's suspension. Although it includes some expletives and coarse language, and has a suggestive title, we felt it important for you to see the whole article.)
'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Suspended by A&E. FoxNews
Why Phil Robertson Got Suspended From Duck Dynasty. TIME
The Big Questions
1. At what point does stating a sincerely held belief or opinion become an expression of bigotry? How might someone conclude that it applies to Robertson? that it applies to the leadership of GLAAD?
2. Does the fact that Robertson has experienced an unwanted consequence (his suspension from the show) of his comments mean that this affair is a freedom of speech issue? Why or why not?
3. Do you consider it helpful to the Christian cause to have Phil Robertson as one of its most popular examples? Does he reach some people others can't? Does he alienate some people? Explain your answer.
4. To what degree do you think A&E's decision to suspend Robertson and Cracker Barrel's flip-flop on withdrawing Duck Dynasty items from its stores were primarily business decisions, with an eye on the bottom line? To what degree do you think they are moral decisions (whether you agree with them or not)? Why? What do you make of the fact that A&E is suspending Robertson but still planning to air the upcoming season featuring him?
5. Respond to this, from a TWW editorial team member: "Any suggestion that blacks were happy under the oppressive regime of the pre-civil-rights south, and that it was welfare and outside agitators that made them less godly and less happy, is mistaken. Robertson says he never heard a black person say anything bad about a white person. Of course not. That could be a death sentence in the south. In case you forgot, they would hang black people by their necks ...."
6. Robertson's comments about homosexuality came in response to the interviewer's question "What, in your mind, is sinful?" There are many possible things he could have named -- and does name in his autobiography -- such as drugs and sexual promiscuity. Why do you suppose he picked as an example something that he himself presumably does not practice? Why didn't he talk about something he himself does that he considers wrong? Does Matthew 7:3 -- "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?" -- apply here? Why or why not?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Mark 11:18
And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him ... (For context, read 11:15-18.)
Here is a good example of consequences for one's actions. This verse occurs immediately following Mark's account of Jesus cleansing the temple. Jesus took an action, and as a consequence, the religious officials began plotting against him -- and, of course, finally succeeded when they persuaded Pilate to have him crucified.
In this case, Jesus no doubt knew full well that as a result of his action and his teachings, there would be painful consequences. In retrospect, the consequence to Jesus becomes a badge of honor. Such is not always the case. Some consequences make the person receiving them look silly, shameful, malevolent or just wasteful because nothing useful is accomplished.
Questions: What, if anything, has been accomplished by the remarks that led to Robertson's consequences? What might have been some different uses of his opportunity to have some of his thoughts published? In this age of quick responses through email and social media, do people seem to respond to questions without using some sort of mental filter? Should we have to apologize for our opinions, even if they hurt another?
Matthew 18:15-17 (NIV)
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that "every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church ... (For context, read 18:15-20.)
Here, Jesus shows how disputes and the sin of one against another within the church should be handled. As for applying it to the current news, insofar as Christians disagree with Robertson, it might be good to find a way to engage him firsthand, rather than through the media.
Perhaps that would even work on the corporate level. This issue might have played out differently if the network had called Robertson in for a meeting and said, "Your comments in the interview do not reflect the values of our network. We need to maintain consistency in our brand. Are you with us, or do you want to withdraw from the show and go your own way?" Such an approach would have honored Phil's right to free speech but also made clear that he, and all of us, need to bear the consequences of our actions, economic and otherwise.
Alternatively, we might imagine Robertson calling in the A&E executives and saying, "You asked me and my family to be the subject of your series knowing well our beliefs and attitudes. We have not changed, but now you want us to conform to your beliefs. Are you going to allow diversity in your network, or will you drop our show since we -- and many of your viewers -- have different beliefs than you do?"
Both possibilities make clear the need for all -- the Robertsons and the A&E management -- to bear the consequences of their actions, economic and otherwise.
Questions: When you decide to confront someone whom you consider to be doing wrong, how do you avoid being vindictive or hurtful? When discussing Matthew 18, many people tend to focus on the wrong committed by the other person who they think needs to be corrected. Many don't seem to consider that they might be the one in the wrong. How have you responded when someone or some people approached you with concerns about what you have said or done that offended them? Were you open to listening to criticism?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (For context, read 6:1-11.)
These are the verses from 1 Corinthians that Robertson was loosely quoting from memory in his answer to the GQ interviewer. Read them in context, and it's clear that the apostle Paul was addressing church people, chastising them not only for sexual and other immorality, but also for taking one another to court instead of settling their disputes within the church, and thus making themselves wrongdoers, like those in the list above. Paul goes on to say, "And this is what some of you used to be," but adds that they are now "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (v. 11).
Questions: In what arena(s) today should Christians settle their disputes? Considering that Paul's statement seems to be directed at fellow believers, is it appropriate to criticize or attempt to change the behavior of those who are not part of our faith?
James 3:5-6
How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. (For context, read 3:2-12.)
Notice that James does not here talk about what people are talking about, but simply about the damage they can do by talking. In fact, in verse 2, he comments, "For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle."
Questions: When has your decision to speak been a mistake? Given that Robertson's decision to speak was not in the context of his family or his church, but in an interview with a secular magazine that was not looking for Sunday school material, should he have been more wary? Was he being a credit to the church? Why or why not?
Under what circumstances are you more wary in your responses? Have there been occasions when something you said in social media or electronic communication has come back to haunt you?
James 4:17
Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin. (No context needed.)
Questions: The GQ interviewer asked Robertson, "What, in your mind, is sinful?" Asked that way, the question seems to imply that the locus of authority for defining sin is in the individual. But who determines what is a sin? How do you think the sponsors and the public would have reacted if Robertson had quoted this verse in his answer to the question asking for a definition of sin? As Christians, are we required to answer every question someone asks?
For Further Discussion
1. Comment on this, from a TWW team member: "I think the real issue [regarding this news] is how people do not exercise their filters. Tweets, texts, emails and social media postings are often sent out without a person reflecting."
2. Should we take the age of the person expressing a personal opinion that seems bigoted into account? To what degree do you think people's opinions are shaped by the era in which they grew up?
3. Respond to this, from another TWW team member: "Corporations get nervous, because they rightly believe that we Americans have become the most thin-skinned, sensitive, litigious crybabies in the world. We will get 'offended' and 'outraged' at anything. If the business community thought that gays and African Americans would just shrug their shoulders and say, 'Ah, what an idiot' and move on, Phil would still have his job."
4. Discuss this, from Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Bear in mind that he essentially agrees with Robertson regarding homosexuality: "To be fair, Robertson also offered some comments that were rather crude and graphically anatomical in making the same point [about homosexuality]. As Magary [the GQ interviewer] explained, 'Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He's got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there's no stopping them from rushing out.' Phil Robertson would have served the cause of Christ more faithfully if some of those comments had not rushed out. This is not because what he said was wrong; ... The problem is the graphic nature of Robertson's language and the context of his statements."
5. Respond to this: Over 18,000 people who define themselves as Christians have signed a petition from Faithful America encouraging the A&E cable network to stand its ground because "there's nothing Christian about racism or anti-gay bigotry."
6. Stereotyping and misinformation in discussions about race are not helpful. Consider the following, from a TWW team who is Hispanic: "I rarely write letters to the editor, but a woman wrote a letter to the editor [of our newspaper] saying that Obama had promised all Hispanics and other minorities free health care so they would vote for him, and that all Hispanics wanted were freebies. I was a little stunned, but let the letter alone for week. I then wrote out a dripplingly ironic letter, tore it up, and wrote a letter describing the freebies my family favored -- my second-cousin Vince who survived the Bataan Death March, my father's twenty years in the service, my great-uncle's sacrifices against prejudice to earn a PhD and spend his life as a high school principal serving children, and so on. My point was that all newcomers to the United States make tremendous sacrifices and that generalizations are harmful, and my concern is that we finally have a small Hispanic community working as entrepreneurs and opening a Mexican restaurant. These people become targets of violence when people are allowed to spread mistaken or misinformed ideas."
Responding to the News
Whether you actually send it or not, compose a message of response to Phil Robertson that reflects your church's theology, your Christian spirit and your concern to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Should you decide to send your message, it can be emailed to fanmail@duckcommander.com.
In the same manner, compose a message of response to GLAAD that also reflects these three things. We were unable to find a published email address for GLAAD, but should you decide to send them your message, you can use their contact form at www.glaad.org/contact.
Closing Prayer
No comments:
Post a Comment