We have been hearing about the controversy over the suspension of Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty. He was interviewed for GQ and made various comments. But, of course, only two sets of comments have drawn attention. And it was those that had to do with homosexuality and with race relations in Louisiana prior to civil rights. The remarks have been the topic of discussion on every news show imaginable. I get to hear this because I have an hour drive to get to work and another hour home. Since I have Sirius, I often listen to different stations to pass the time. Today, I was listening to the news stations.
The show that interested me the most today was one that had both Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, and either the CEO or the President of Concerned Women for America (sorry I did not catch her name, I was driving). What interested me was the struggle they had in defending him. Both commented that his remarks were crude. They both also agreed that A & E was well within its rights to suspend him. But, they argued that A & E should not have. The reasoning was interesting. Being politically conservative, they were both in the quandary of having to support the rights of a private entertainment company to dismiss an employee simply because they did not like his non-work remarks. Thus, they were forced to argue that it is not a good policy for a company to remove an employee simply for expressing views that are common in much of Evangelical America. But, they again agreed that there was no violation of First Amendment rights, since First Amendment rights do not apply to a private business.
Since I believe in workers’ rights, I have no problem defending Phil Robertson. The guy spoke in a fully inappropriate way. He spoke the typical self-serving cant of the person who argues that blacks were happy in the good old days. His form of addressing sin was unnecessarily crude, as was acknowledged by both Gingrich and the CWA. But, no employee should be able to be dismissed based on what he or she does in a non-work environment, unless it is illegal. If we do not adopt that attitude, it would be all to easy for someone to be dismissed for being an outspoken Christian, or for someone to be dismissed for being an anti-abortion activist. So, I defend Phil Robertson because I do not believe that businesses should have the false rights that they used to have in the 19th century, before the advent of workers’ rights.
But, that is not why I am writing this post. You see, Pope Francis was brought up during the discussion and suddenly the mood changed. You could hear everyone sort of relax and the tone of the conversation changed. And yet, everyone acknowledged that Pope Francis held the view that homosexual relations are not in accord with Holy Tradition. But, they also said that the way in which Pope Francis addressed the issue was incredibly loving and appropriate. Frankly, I suffered mental whiplash while I heard how the previously angry people suddenly turned into an old-fashioned 1960’s hippy love in. But, it did point out something to me.
Pope Francis has been behaving in ways that have the whole world looking at him. I do suspect that eventually he will make a decision that will not be approved by the media. But, here is what he has done correctly. Like Jesus, he has associated with the outcast of society while not condemning them. He has shown his love for all over and over in ways that are undeniable. He has communicated that God so loved the world that he sent His Son, and that therefore we must also love the world in the same way. He has not condoned sin, but neither has he spoken about sin in such a way that makes people committing that sin feel that there is no hope for them. It is true that Jesus spoke about fire and brimstone, but most of the times that he spoke fire and brimstone there was a context of the Pharisees and self-righteousness. In other words, fire and brimstone was almost always addressed to those supposedly within Israel while love was addressed to those who were not self-righteous. Sometimes they were grievous sinners, but sometimes they were believers who needed affirmation.
And I learned something from this exchange that was engineered by those who simply wanted to increase viewership of the program to which I was listening. There is a way to communicate God’s love that is different from the way it is supposedly being communicated by most of the Christian world. There is a way to faithfully hold on to Christian truth without also appearing to say that we tolerate untruth. Pope Francis is teaching me how to speak “the truth in love,” (Ephesians 4:15). And here is what I learned. I am one of those who needs to learn to communicate God’s love in such a way that it opens the door and encourages people to come in. In fact, I realized that I am sometimes more like Phil Robertson than I am like Pope Francis. And, I want to be more like Pope Francis.
Obviously, I am not busy at work today, so I am catching up on your blog-yeah! I have a question that maybe is too deep for a simple answer but I have found myself rolling it about alot lately and I only recently realized how much it is affecting my walk. I will qualify this first by saying that I have done some research on my own and have heard other men of faith with their own take on the 6-7 verses (clobber verses some call them) that speak of homosexuality and I have done alot of historic research on this but I have only asked this question of clergy once…and was told because that’s what God said. A great non answer. So here goes: God has made each and everyone of us to be the way we are (innately) and I, for one, do not ever recall making the decision to like guys. I happen to have a few very close friends who are gay, and they also did not make a choice to like other men…they knew they were gay as children. Also, current scientific research has shown more and more differences in the brains of homosexual oriented individuals. So therefore, if God is infallible, how can He make a person to be gay (like 10% of the population as well as animals) and also call them abominations and hate them? And a followup question: how are the verses refering to homosexuals when that term was not used until last century? I have heard that the original Greek does NOT refer to what we would call homosexuality and that there is even one verse that would indicate that Jesus healed the lover of a Roman centurion (no citations with me).
BTW, my answer to my friends is “I don’t know what that means and there are alot of things I don’t understand about the Bible but I know that Jesus loves you and I love you!”
I would have several quick replies to that. One is that while it is true that there are few verses that address what is called homosexuality today, they are quite strong. Two, I do not find the re-interpretations of the Greek to be convincing because so much of it strikes me as the same type of argumentation that Bill Clinton used when he asked what “is” is. Most of the interpretations play around with meaning of original words (in the same way that many fundamentalists do) to reach conclusions that remind me of the type of reasoning used by either defense lawyers or conspiracy theorists when they wish to reach an interpretation other than the obvious one.
Three, it is very dangerous to use the genetics argument. That is precisely the argument that was used in books such as “Slavery, Ordained of God” by Rev. Frederick Augustus Ross (1857) and by the Aryans in World War II. That is, in their case they argued that genetics is what placed certain people in certain categories, with the “white” man having the genetic position of “caring for” the lesser races. Even some LGBT leaders have cautioned that the genetics argument ought to be soft-pedaled because one obvious solution that could be proposed to the agony suffered by many homosexuals is to either identify them in the womb and abort them or to perfect some type of genetic treatment that will reverse them. That is why many LGBT leaders nowadays speak of civil rights and not of genetic necessity. They realized that there are some serious drawbacks to the genetic argument.
Finally, Pope Francis’ comment is quite wise. Without in any way agreeing with the LGBT position, he says that if someone is gay and seeking God, who is he to judge them. That is, their sin is but one of the sins listed in Saint Paul’s list of those not getting to the Kingdom of God. Notice that adulterers, liars, etc., etc., are also on the same list. It has quite well been pointed out before Pope Francis that the other sins fare quite well in comparison to the treatment given to those who commit homosexual sin. I think there are some pastoral issues that have been handled incorrectly in the American Church, this being but one of them.
Thank you for your answer…it actually makes sense. I had not thought of the aspect of where the genetic issues could lead. The idea that we are all sinners and my sin is different from yours makes very much sense and it also reinforces my probably appropriate response: to just love them.