via A and E
Here are my two cents regarding the Duck Dynasty situation. Specifically, how can this whole fiasco be approached from a missional perspective?
Appetizer
First of all, there are some things I like about Phil Robertson, the patriarch of Duck Dynasty. In no particular order:
- He played football back in the day. In fact, he was the starter in front of Terry Bradshaw in college!
- The man loves his family! This can be seen in the way that family forms a part of his life and his Duck Dynasty business. Kudos!
- Phil loves Jesus. And his family does too. Here’s proof: the Duck Dynasty appearance on I Am Second.
- And, as pictured here, Phil has an amazing beard and so do all the other Duck Dynasty dudes! Ever since my dad introduced me to ZZ Top, I’ve been obsessed with beards. That’s why I love having one myself!
Main Dish
Despite all that I like about Phil, I wasn’t too keen on his comments in a recent interview with the magazine GQ. Just to be clear, I believe that homosexual acts are not within the parameters set by God in the Bible. The clearest place to see this, in my opinion, is Romans 1.18-31. There Paul says that because of our rebelliousness, God gave us over to our lusts. And we have pursued them like crazy! But none of that was what God wanted; it was us giving into our own lusts. So, don’t get anything twisted — I think the Bible states that homosexual acts are outside of God’s design for human behavior.
But the Bible is even clearer about something else. Click here and read 1 Corinthians 5.9-13. Actually click that link and read the text for yourself before continuing. I can wait.
I want to present a few comments below.
v.9 — I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people–
- Alright! So right from the get-go Paul is giving me carte blanche to distance myself from people who engage in sex acts that are outside of God’s original design. Got it.
v.10 — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
- Hold on Paul! So you are saying that you aren’t telling us not to associate with people who are sinners? Why not? You imply that if we want to associate only with “holy” people then we’d have to leave this world. Well, isn’t that the goal anyway…”I’ll Fly Away”?
v.11 — But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
- Paul, I’m confused. Why would you not want us associating with a follower of Jesus (i.e., a brother or sister) who persists in behavior that doesn’t bring God glory? You go so far as to say that we should break fellowship with them! Are you crazy? They’re family. Shouldn’t we break fellowship with all those unsaved sinners and eat with the saved ones instead?
vv.12-13 — What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
- I think I understand you now Paul. You’re saying that we shouldn’t judge those on the outside by our standards of behavior because they have yet to submit to them, right? Why would folks who don’t follow Jesus give a rip about how best to follow him? I think I’m getting it now Paul. We followers of Jesus are to hold one another accountable, always with grace and always in love, and we’re to leave all the judgment of those who don’t follow Jesus yet to God. Cool! You convinced me!
Back to reality now — I’m not sure how, but Christians, myself included, have missed this passage for centuries. Paul really couldn’t be clearer here. It’s not our duty as followers of Jesus to go around pointing out bad behavior everywhere we see it. Let’s get real simple here: That’s not what Jesus did, that’s not what Paul wrote about, so why are we doing it?
To make matters worse, this judgmental attitude is killing our ability to be a witness in our world. We must develop the habits of Jesus, you know, the guy who was known as “friend of sinners.” Why is this important?
- It’s not natural. Apparently human nature dictates that we group ourselves together according to beliefs, external features, etc. and then judge those with different beliefs, different external features, etc. This is the world of the flesh, to use biblical language. However, if we’re to be people who are born of the Spirit, then we need to live counter to our flesh, since what the Spirit desires is almost always contrary to what the flesh desires (Galatians 5.17). So we’ve got to stop judging those on the outside!
- It’s not fair. Like I mentioned briefly already, it’s not fair to judge someone according to a standard that they haven’t submitted to. Of course people who make movies are going to violate Christian morals. Of course people are going to be dishonest with their money. Of course people are going to fill their sexual dance card in the way that pleases them the most. Now if these same people follow Jesus, then we can have a different conversation, in grace and love, of course. But until then, we need to take Paul’s advice and leave their judgment to God alone!
- It’s not missional. Here’s the real kicker: judging people who don’t follow Jesus yet is not helping us fulfill the Great Commission (Matthew 28.19-20) at all. In fact, it’s doing just the opposite. Want proof? A 2007 survey found that 87% of young, non-Christians found followers of Jesus to be judgmental. Wanna guess what their top descriptor of us was? You got it — judgmental. How are we going to reach the mission field called America if almost everyone out there thinks that we’re judgmental? I’m not sure, but I know this: It’s going to be hard. Friends, we must stop judging people who don’t follow Jesus if we want to see them come to the life-giving salvation that we’ve experienced.
Dessert
So I think that Phil Robertson was wrong for judging the behavior of those who do not follow Jesus yet. Phil has every right to say what he wants, that’s free speech. But A&E has every right to suspend him too, that’s their right as an employer.
I recently heard someone whom I greatly respect say the following: “I will flippantly refer to the sin of hatred and bigotry toward gay people; but I will never be flippant about the sin of homosexual acts.” You can see in the way this man thinks that he has a missional heart. He longs to see the love of Jesus invade everyone’s life and wants to remove unnecessary walls in order to do so.
The largest “unnecessary wall” that we must remove is our judgment on those who do not yet follow Jesus. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
What do you think? Am I way off base? Let me know in the comments below (but keep it civil)!
No your not. It is that judgmental self righteous attitude that drives me away from “Christians”. My whole childhood in church was spent being taught that Jesus was above such petty acts, so we should be also. I get angry when people use Jesus as a weapon against other people. I find it ugly actually.
Agreed! I’m tired of getting black eyes from other people’s fights!
how about believers who practice homosexuality? just wondering where they fall in line with all this, because you clearly pointed it to nonbelievers practicing homosexuality, am I correct on that?
I’ve never watched duck dynasty and don’t care to get too drawn into all the debate, but I DO find it ironic that sex and vulgar language, nudity, all that, are not considered “offensive” in the eyes of TV…….yet his comment was offensive………..anyway, that’s all!
Thanks for the comment Heidi! It seems to me that the Bible is calling all of us toward a standard of holiness that is hard. Part of that involves sexual acts being within certain parameters, namely between a man and woman in a marriage. Thus, with a ton of grace and love, all of us who follow Jesus need to be encouraged to live within those standards.
I am not trying to start a fight here, but your question is based on a flaw. Gay people don’t practice homosexuality. You can practice Christianity and other religions because those are choices. Gays don’t choose, they just are. The continued Misstatement by people trying to paint homosexuality as a choice makes the conversation impossible to have. There must be an acceptance of the biological fact that homosexuality is real.
I certain circles “practice homosexuality” means “have sex with someone of the same gender.” Nothing more or less.
Personally I meant it as engaging in the sexual lifestyle. James, I have to disagree as for it being a choice. When they engage in a sexual act it is still a choice, whether it be with same or opposite sex.
I’ve witnessed firsthand how my little boy is wired so differently from my 3 girls. I mean, his first words were “vroom vroom” and he has eyes only for trucks and machines, whereas my girls never have. He is so different from my daughters. I’ve also worked with a few little boys who if anyone was ever going to be labeled as “gay”, well, they would be in that category. So I understand where you are coming from James. But is that any different than those who struggle with gluttony or alcoholism? Those are also lifelong temptations that people can struggle with. Or how about porn and other awful things in life??? I don’t know. I think we are all geared toward certain sinful tendencies, but engaging in our desires doesn’t make it right, whether homosexuality, porn, violence……Matt what are your thoughts?
I’m convinced that the actual sex acts are choices. Being born with a proclivity (or only knowing one way of feeling for as long as you can remember) may be a different thing.
I, for instance, have an addictive personality. I was born that way. I can choose to give into it or not. Sometimes I don’t FEEL like I have a choice, but, in the end, I do.
So, is their a choice in acts? Sure. In orientation? I doubt it…I mean who would choose a life of bullying and bigotry?
well said Matt. you said what I mean. 🙂
I don’t think you read what he said. It sounds similar to what you have written, “Just to be clear, I believe that homosexual acts are not within the parameters set by God in the Bible,” just more detailed. He was simply asked what he thinks sin is, and then answered. He also clarified that he isn’t trying to judge anyone, but believes sin is sin, no matter what the sin is. It is still the wage of death and he can’t change that no matter what he believes. That is not a judgmental statement, just a statement of fact if you believe the bible as Truth. If you’re saying in your third to last paragraph that what Robertson said was flippant, then I have to disagree. He might have been a tad too graphic, but not once spoke inappropriately, rudely, or violently about anyone. In fact, later on in the interview he shares the gospel with the interviewer. If that isn’t missional, then I’m not sure what is.
I think you have pointed some very interesting things out and have some great points about the passage in Romans you shared and agree with that portion very much. However I think Robertson’s comments were restrained, respectful , honest, and convicted. You can’t ask for anymore from someone being interviewed by a major publication. I’d hope all Christians could do the same. There have been many more worse things said and done by Christians regarding this issue.
I certainly can’t agree that he was respectful in his comments. I can’t name a single gay friend that I have who would be happy being flippantly connected to terrorists, polygamists, and beastiality. Also, the graphic nature in which he discussed this wasn’t respectful either. If we are going to reach out to the LGBT community with the gospel, we can’t use the language that Phil used – and that’s a fact! There’s are many ways not to water down the gospel while also being respectful. A million ways! Thanks for your comments!
Thanks for the response!
You’re exactly right, the overly graphic way he described his sexual preference was unnecessary and disrespectful to the general public, but I don’t think it was disrespect specific to the LGBT community. The point I’m trying to make is that when he was asked what he thinks sin is, he gave his honest answer. I understood him to mean that the sin of homosexuality is sin just like drunkenness, violence, adultery, etc., which is the truth. It isn’t any different and has no worse punishment assigned to it. He didn’t call out any specific gay man or woman and curse them to hell, nor did he use a derogatory term for a homosexual person.
I understand where you’re coming from and can see why a gay man would not want to be connected with those other sinful acts, but I don’t think there is a choice (the problem with that statement, though, is that the conversation ends there if a person doesn’t believe it is actually sin.). I wouldn’t want to be associated with a drunkard, polygamist, terrorist, or homosexual when discussing my sin of heterosexual lust. But I don’t get to choose what is called sin just because it is associated with me. Just because a person isn’t happy about comments made about them, doesn’t mean the comments were disrespectful.
Thanks for the conversation! I have been involved in many discussions about the appropriate response to this issue and your post is one of the better ones I’ve seen because you seek to take the perspective of both sides.
Thanks! My real problem with what Phil said was that it will now make it that much harder for me to make the kingdom tangible among my friends in the LGBT community. Whether we want him to or not, Phil speaks on behalf of us all…and we have to mop up this missional mess he’s made.
Pingback: Racism, Phil Robertson, and the Church | New Wine | J. Matthew BarnesNew Wine | J. Matthew Barnes
Just the other day I was thinking we had gone an unusually long period of time without a big controversial story over homosexuality in the news. Looks like I’m not the only one who noticed. Not to throw aside what you’ve written here, but I smell an agenda fueled by folks who are deliberately blind to the distinctions you make. You either support and celebrate the gay lifestyle or you are vile, that’s the tenor. By no means does that invalidate your approach, but we need to be aware that this is out there. I think this is one of those situations where we need to be gentle as doves but shrewd as serpents. Being “bold and courageous” can easily turn into “taking the bait” on controversial issues rooted in emotion that make for good tv. Personally, I don’t think Robertson should have taken the interview. It sounds to me like he stayed true to his character, he’s not a polished speaker, he is a low context communicator and doesn’t make a distinction between a formal interview and a chat with friends (a perfect target!). Anyone could be put in the spotlight for saying something to the general public that can only be properly interpreted by those who have the context of really knowing the person. To agree with your main point though, the Bible does instruct us to know how to communicate with the culture we live in. Mass media makes this difficult for some though because it spans so many different cultures. It’s entirely possible that Robertson’s coarse style is very effective missionally in the “white trash” culture he says he grew up in. And to bring it home, your style could be too nuanced, which could come across as untrustworthy in that culture. Well written blog. I’m less inclined to be as critical of Robertson, but I’d say the best takeaway is to always be cognizant, as best we can, of the audience we communicate to.
Nick, love the perspective here! Thanks for sharing!