The Scandal!
If you haven't been on the internet in a week, I'll try to catch you up quickly.If you have been following this mess, skip to the next headline.
Earlier this week, GQ published an interview with Phil Robertson (of Duck Dynasty) where he made highly controversial comments about homosexuals. The gay activist group GLAAD was quick to condemn his remarks, and started to target the show's advertisers, and the show's network. Instantly, the news media offered their opinion. He was promptly labeled "vile," "homophobic," "hate-filled," "ignorant," "anti-homosexual," and a "bigot." In the wake of the brewing scandal, A&E chose to suspend him from the show.
Then, the internet went ballistic. Fans of the show, largely Christians, instantly jumped to his defense, and Facebook exploded with re-posts of blogs, memes, and most importantly, comment section debates. A group in support of Phil Robertson received over 1 million likes in less than 48 hours. The comment section of a reposting of my blog on the controversy had over 120 comments on it.
Everyone has an opinion, and they're all intense.
Why is This the Scandal to Unite Christians in Umbrage?
: a feeling of being offended by what someone has said or done
It's not difficult to see why GLAAD, the gay community, and supporters of the LGBT community would take offense. His comments were blunt and crass. Many interpreted his comments as comparing homosexuality to bestiality and claiming all homosexuals will go to Hell. I would argue that that is not a fair reading of his comments, but I can see how they would interpret it that way.
Naturally, such comments from a TV personality will be a lightning rod for supporters of the LGBT community.
But why on earth are Christians uniting to defend him? Why am I writing a 2nd blog on the subject?
If we step back and think about it, even if you support Phil, you almost certainly don't approve of the way in which he made the comments. Best case scenario, you would admit it was unwise to make such comments in GQ. If, a week ago, someone told me that an interview with Phil Robertson was going to be published in GQ, I would have thought to myself, "That's not going to go well."
Naturally, such comments from a TV personality will be a lightning rod for supporters of the LGBT community.
But why on earth are Christians uniting to defend him? Why am I writing a 2nd blog on the subject?
If we step back and think about it, even if you support Phil, you almost certainly don't approve of the way in which he made the comments. Best case scenario, you would admit it was unwise to make such comments in GQ. If, a week ago, someone told me that an interview with Phil Robertson was going to be published in GQ, I would have thought to myself, "That's not going to go well."
- A public figure being dragged over the coals for making anti-homosexual comments...not news
- GLAAD demanding someone being fired for their words...not news
- The media being extremely intolerant to intolerant words...not news
None of this is new. None of this is truly shocking.
Why did this predictable set of events stir up such an emotion that they united in action?
The Piece Everyone Seems to Be Missing
As I mentioned before, my Facebook feed has been a non-stop stream of Phil Robertson debate the last two days. Buried deep in one of the many battles over Phil, a friend of mine from church made a comment which I think exposes the emotion behind the action:
My problem with this is that it is easy to take extreme positions against a celebrity you do not know without having to face up to the implications of them. But the positions you take against Phil Robertson have implications for a great many of the people around you -- including me -- and reveal things about your attitude toward them.
Do you regard me as hateful? Bigoted? Discriminatory? - Scott Purcell
For the millions of Christians, like myself, we read Phil's words and, while we didn't agree with HOW he communicated his message, we agreed with the belief(s) he was trying to communicate.
We didn't agree with the HOW, but we did agree with the WHAT
However, the discussion in the media and online hasn't been, "Phil Robertson is a creepy, blunt jerk." If it had been, the debate would have been over the HOW he stated his beliefs. There certainly has been some discussion on the matter, but it's hardly the primary topic of conversation.
Instead, Phil was labeled: bigot, discriminatory, anti-homosexual, hate-filled, and vile (This one could apply to the how). All of those apply to WHAT he said.
So, if I agree with WHAT Phil was communicating:
- Does that make me a bigot?
- Do you think I'm hate-filled?
- Am I anti-homosexual?
- Am I discriminatory?
- Am I vile?
By all accounts, Phil seems to be a friendly, kind, and loving man who believes that homosexuality (along with drunkenness, adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, divorce, sexual immorality, etc.) is a sin. He hasn't said he hates gay people. He hasn't recommended locking them up. He hasn't acted against them. For stating his beliefs, some very strong labels were thrown at him. For holding a common belief in evangelical circles, extreme labels were put on him.
If I believe what Phil believes (or something similar), you're calling me all of those terms.
By defending Phil, I'm defending myself.
If I believe what Phil believes (or something similar), you're calling me all of those terms.
By defending Phil, I'm defending myself.
I want to be able to state my beliefs without my character being attacked.
I want to be able to state my religious beliefs without being suspended from my job.
I want people to understand my beliefs and not just see a caricature of what I believe.
The reason Phil was the person we rallied behind was because he comes off as a down to earth (maybe too down to earth). He wasn't reciting talking points or rehearsed words. He was just talking and stated somethings in an ill-conceived manner in an ill-conceived interview. Sometimes I do that too.
I don't want Phil being attacked for stating his beliefs foolishly because I don't want to be attacked for stating my beliefs foolishly
BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR WORDS!
When talking on a subject which is deeply personal and highly controversial, we must be extremely careful with HOW we say things. Likewise, when disagreeing with someone, when you use inflammatory language, not surprisingly, you start a fire.
It's easy to speak in extremes about celebrities, but we must stop and consider their beliefs are held by people we know. An assault on their character has huge implications for what we're saying about the people around us.
I want to be able to state my religious beliefs without being suspended from my job.
I want people to understand my beliefs and not just see a caricature of what I believe.
The reason Phil was the person we rallied behind was because he comes off as a down to earth (maybe too down to earth). He wasn't reciting talking points or rehearsed words. He was just talking and stated somethings in an ill-conceived manner in an ill-conceived interview. Sometimes I do that too.
I don't want Phil being attacked for stating his beliefs foolishly because I don't want to be attacked for stating my beliefs foolishly
Last Thoughts
The lesson in all of this, regardless of your position:BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR WORDS!
- Phil was careless with his words, and the pro-LGBT community went ballistic.
- LGBT supporters were careless with their words, and the Evangelical community went ballistic.
When talking on a subject which is deeply personal and highly controversial, we must be extremely careful with HOW we say things. Likewise, when disagreeing with someone, when you use inflammatory language, not surprisingly, you start a fire.
It's easy to speak in extremes about celebrities, but we must stop and consider their beliefs are held by people we know. An assault on their character has huge implications for what we're saying about the people around us.
Proverbs
The tongue has the power of life and death,
If you liked this post, here is my previous post on the controversy.
No comments:
Post a Comment