Friday, December 20, 2013

How to put this nicely to the perpetually sensitive Left?

When a Christian calls the behavior of a homosexual a sin, it makes the homosexual nothing special.  You see, in the Christian cosmology, we are all sinners.  Each of us has a spiritual rap sheet and only the particulars differ from one person to the next.  To Christians, therefore, homosexuals are just fellow human beings.

For a believer like Robertson, it's also a sin to think of himself as better, with fewer or lesser sins, than others.  When he calls the homosexual act a sin, he also believes that the homosexual is no worse a sinner - and quite possibly a better man - than he.  As a Christian, Robertson is a bearer of the good news that we are all equal in the eyes of a forgiving Lord.  So all you outraged lefties need to get over yourselves -- to sin is human, nothing more and nothing less.   

That gets us back to Robertson's suspension from Duck Dynasty. The GQ reporter who asked him to define sinful behavior was asking Robertson to express his faith.  The outrage is that when he spoke his faith, the Left tried to shut him up and put him in the back of the bus.  This kind of thing has got to stop.

While Phil Robertson's comments were less than articulate and certainly some called his anatomical description crude. No argument here.

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.

Links, Sources & Resources


  1. It's true that the GQ reporter was asking him to express his faith, but his expression was, at best equivocal, at worst it was unacceptable, even from the perspective of a conservative Christian. This is the lesson that conservative evangelicals need to learn. So, while its true that when the Christian calls the homosexual a sinner, it's nothing special - in an abstract sense, but, in a practical sense the *way* in which the Christian says that can have the net effect of making the homosexual feel singled out in a way other sinners are not, because Christians these days do, in fact, have a nasty habit of approaching homosexual sin as if its a special category of sin over and above all others, as if it supercedes it. *That* is what Phil did in the first part of his response.

  2. His statements about the equality of sinners seem to be salvaging the remarks he made previously. While what he said in the second part is true enough, it's also that part of his remarks that make his remarks equivocal. That shouldn't be allowed to stand by Christians. This is why people need ecclesiastical supervision. This is why Presbyterians, for example have presbyteries, Baptists have associations, and the biblical model of church government is a plurality of elders. Those mechanisms are supposed to serve as means to keep unguarded speech like this from happening, and, if does, correcting it and making peace between the offended parties. Instead of that, what we've seen mostly is the Right rise up and talk about "free speech," and discuss is remarks as if he was just talking about the equality of sinners and trying to share the Gospel. Has anybody actually read the article? I have.

    Let's look at those first comments He was asked "What is sinful?" Then he chose homosexuality as his go-to example and it all morphs out into bestiality and adultery, etc. (to paraphrase).

    He was not asked "What is sin?" He was not asked a question about homosexuality or any lifestyle he doesn't agree with. He was asked "What is sinful?" That question and the question, "Is homosexuality sinful?" or "What is your opinion on homosexuality?" are not convertible questions.

    It's also worth noting that he said this in the context of telling readers what's wrong with America. Apparently, greed, idolatry, economic oppression, and even pride, strife, jealousy, lying lips (which Proverbs 12 says are an abomination to the Lord - which is ironic considering the number of times people like him trot out Leviticus 18:22 on abominations and gays), covetousness, and so on aren't the go-to problem from which all else morphs. Rather, it's homosexuality, and the rest sort of comes from that somehow.

    Do you see, now, why that's wrong? He's not talking about the equality of sinners. Really, he did even share the Gospel - because just registering your disapproval is not sharing the Gospel. In context, he's talking about what ails America. His answer began correct enough (sin), but then somehow he went straight to homosexuality as his go-to sin of sins, and then proceeded to connect the dots to bestiality (and elsewhere to terrorism). *In context* he didn't talk about the equality of sinners until the end, as if he's trying salvage his earlier comments, rather, he chose a specific sin, then "it all morphs from there." Huh? That's not in the Bible. That doesn't even make sense even on the most conservative reading of the relevant Scriptures.

    He then compounded this by making strange remarks about black people in the Jim Crow era. He never saw a black person mistreated. Huh? You know what, if he ever once saw a "Whites Only" sign when he grew up, that puts either the lie to that (Proverbs 12:22 rears its ugly head again), or his terribly racist or he's just naive. Take your pick. Not only that, he raises the image of the black minstrel, the "happy darkie" sharecropper working in the field and singing all the live long day. I'm a white Southerner of a younger generation, but I do recognize these images from the past quickly, because of the culture in which I live. One wonders of the Christian Right is the one that is concentrating on his words about homosexuality and focusing on the second portion of what he said and not the first part of what he said in that regard, because they're trying to cover up what he said about blacks - and we know that God is not a big fan of racism. Racism, in fact, is one of the big things that the Church itself is supposed to rid from His people, according to Paul.