This article has been floating around Facebook in defense of Phil Robertson. This is one of the most poorly reasoned articles I have ever seen. Whether you support Phil Robertson or not, please argue your point with well reasoned facts. Do not take someone else's word and assume it is true. Here are some of the logical fallacies in this article:
1. This article states that Phil Robertson repeated "simple truths that are fundamental to western civilization" in his interview with GQ. When did “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes!" (quote from Phil Robertson in the actual GQ article which I am sure no one has actually read) become a truth that is fundamental to western civilization.
As a side note, western civilization began in Ancient Greece where the norm for a man was to have a female wife that he used for procreation and a younger male companion that he used for recreational sex. So, by definition, casual homosexuality is a fundamental idea for western civilization.
2. The author of the article makes the argument that by telling businesses that they cannot discriminate against homosexual couples, the government is playing God. The government is actually playing government. A baker, photographer, and a hobby store all exchange goods or services for money. Therefore, they are subject to the commerce laws of the region in which they operate. As a result of the Civil Rights Act, people belonging to a protected class cannot be denied services based on their protected class. Sexual orientation is a protected class, and therefore, homosexual consumers cannot be denied services from a business that engages in public commerce. The government is not telling the owners of these businesses what they can and cannot believe. The government is simply saying, if you want to conduct business under our jurisdiction, then you need to follow our laws. The same laws would apply to a gay business owner who tried to refuse service to a christian consumer. Religion is also a protected class. If the owners of these businesses do not agree with these laws, they do not need to change their beliefs, they simply need to stop conducting their business under the jurisdiction of those laws.
Side note: How does taking pictures of a lesbian wedding compromise your beliefs? You are simply providing a service in exchange for cash. If a man, who I know is cheating on his wife, comes into my bar, does serving them a drink mean I condone his adultery? No. It says nothing about whether I approve or disapprove of his behavior. It is simply a business transaction. As the Bible says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." So, if a business owner were to refuse service to every person that is living a lifestyle that is displeasing to God, they would have no income.
3. The last fallacy that I would like to point out in this article is the forced choice between "liberty" and "political correctness". First of all, these are not the only two choices a person has. Second, why can we not have both liberty and political correctness. These ideals are not opposing forces. However, the author assumes they are in opposition to one another without providing proof for this assumption. Here are my assumptions as to what the author actually means by "liberty" and "political correctness". These are based less on the actual article and more so not the situation that the article addresses. Because A&E put Robertson on leave because of his comments on homosexuality, I am assuming that the author is using "liberty" to describe those who oppose gay rights and "political correctness" to describe those who are in favor of gay rights. The author also seems to imply that those who oppose gay rights are Christians who are obedient to the gospel. While Christians who are disobedient to the gospel are either in favor of gay rights, or they abstain from the debate. This makes them "politically correct". The author uses these terms to try to make an emotional proof that his way, the way of liberty, is correct. "Liberty" is a positive word that triggers feelings of patriotism. All "good" Americans believe in liberty! "Political correctness" is a negative term to those in conservative circles. It applies to progressives who want to change the American way of life. By using these two terms and forcing a choice between them, the author is trying to give his argument emotional weight in hopes of swaying the reader. However, the author provides no valid evidence to support his views. This has the feel of a McCarthy communist hunt rather than a well reasoned argument.
I use this article as an illustration. My desire is that people will learn to give a logical explanation for their views. This is the only way to be heard by someone on the other side of your beliefs. Making a shallow, emotionally-driven argument will only yield a more shallow, emotionally-driven response. Take the time to research facts and form a well-informed argument before you post anything. Failing to do so will only add fuel to an already roaring fire.
With that in mind, I would like to give a well-reasoned argument as to why Christians should not be standing behind Phil Robertson.
Let me begin by saying that anyone who has not read the full GQ article should not comment until they have done so. However, be warned that there is profanity in the article. So, if that type of language offends you, you may want to bow out of the argument. The link to the article is here:
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson
I will paraphrase and directly quote this article throughout my argument.
This is not going to be a debate about whether Christians should oppose gay rights. My argument will be that Christians in general, whether they oppose gay rights or not, should not stand behind Phil Robertson. There are several reasons that I feel that standing behind Robertson is a mistake. He does not argue his views biblically, he is crass and offensive, and his television show is not a Christian ministry.
Let me begin with the fact that Duck Dynasty is not a Christian ministry. While the Robertson family may use their wealth and fame to minister to people, the TV show itself is not a ministry. The TV show is a business. This business extends to product endorsements as well (seriously, try walking down one aisle in Bass Pro Shops without seeing their faces). A ministry is something that a person performs to edify the body of Christ without expecting anything in return. If a person does something with the expectation that they will be paid for it, it is an occupation. Phil Robertson worked for A&E. They paid him to put together a television show that would bring in revenue for the network. Robertson made comments in the media that had the potential to damage the company, so A&E took reasonable action to reprimand their employee. Most large companies have similar policies. They have a right to protect their brand any way they see fit. In the same vein, A&E is not a government entity. The federal government had nothing to do with this decision. A&E is a company that operates in the private sector, and it took action that it deemed necessary to try to recuperate from the damage that Robertson's comments caused.
Why were Robertson's comments so damaging? They were dehumanizing and vulgar. Robertson's comments came from a lack of understanding and empathy. Here, I will use the same quote I used earlier, “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes!" This quote implies that a man who finds another man attractive is less of a man. This type of language is degrading and crude. If Robertson's real mission is to bring people to Christ (a claim he makes in the article), then there is no place for this type of language. This type of comment only outrages people and drives them further away from Christ. Based on the reactions by gay activist groups, I can conclude that Robertson's words did not cause a great repentance among the homosexual community. Robertson's ultimate mission, to bring people to Christ, should be the mission of every Christian. We should want every person on the planet whether they are GLBT or not to see Christ's love in us and be drawn to Him. As anyone can see, these comments did more harm toward that mission than they did good. If we are going to have any chance of showing Christ's love to the LGBT community, we will have to do it with empathy and understanding. Too many Christians just repeat what they hear other Christians saying without taking the time to find out the truth. This leads to statements that are so oversimplified they become offensive. Immediately, a person who spouts off these statements sounds ignorant and bigoted. This is what I talked about in the first part of the blog. We need to make well reasoned arguments that come from a place of understanding and empathy.
Phil Robertson did not express his views in a well reasoned way. Which is the final reason Christians should not support him in this issue. His arguments were not biblical. In fact, every time he references the Bible, he misquotes it. First, people were not vegetarians prior to the flood. Abel made a sacrifice to God from his flock. Presumably, one raises a flock of animals so that they may eat them. Next, he paraphrases 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. While his paraphrase is close to what that passage says, the way in which he uses it is does not match the tone of the passage. After Paul lists the types of sinners that will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, he goes on to say, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11, NASB). Paul is using the list in the previous two verses to remind his audience that they were once among those who were not going to inherit the Kingdom of God. Thanks to the grace of God, however, they were washed, sanctified, and justified. Paul is not preaching to sinners and telling them how bad they are. He is reminding the Christians in Corinth that they are no better than those sinners. It is only by the grace of God that they have been saved. So, when Robertson uses that passage to show how "not right" homosexuals are, he is using it in exactly the opposite way it was intended to be used. Finally, Robertson says that if everyone just turned to God, all of our problems would be solved. There are hundreds of passages within scripture that talk about the difficulties that followers of Christ face (just look up "persecution" or "trials" in you concordance). If turning to God solved all problems, then following Him would not require much faith.
Whether you support or oppose gay rights, one thing should be clear. We as Christians need to stop standing up for people who say and do things to further the divide between us and the LGBT community. We need to encourage open dialogue that stems from a genuine desire to understand the other person. It is easy to hide behind Phil Robertson and point fingers. It is easy to regurgitate a soundbite. But when you take the easy way, you do harm and drive people away from Christ. Broad is the path that leads to destruction. It is difficult to listen to and try to understand an opposing viewpoint. It is difficult to have a conversation with a real person who has been hurt by Christian ignorance. But, when we take the difficult path, we meet people where they are, and in that moment, we can show them the love of Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment