In defense of Phil Robertson...sort of
"It seems 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! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin:
It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical." -Phil Robertson, GQ
The outrage over comments made by
Duck Commander’s Phil Robertson in GQ
magazine has me somewhat perplexed. While I understand the anger and hurt the
LGBT community feels when someone of celebrity status uses his platform to say
hateful things about them, I am left wondering why people are shocked at his
remarks. Mr. Robertson is a sexagenarian raised in the deep south of the Louisiana
bayou who has built his fame on the creation of the best duck call in the world.
Though I’m reluctant to box him into stereotypes in a similar manner as he did
with the LGBT community, there are some important parts of the person he claims
to be that leave me entirely unsurprised that he would say the things he said.
And let me be clear, the foe in
this conversation is not Mr. Robertson. It is the false sense of absolute
rightness that southern conservatism, especially of the evangelical sort,
provides him.
What becomes obvious immediately
is that Robertson is working from an understanding of both scripture and homosexuality
that inform one another but neither of which is wholly complete. He has a black
and white understanding of the Bible that centers on a surface-level reading: the
Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. Having grown up with a similar
understanding of how the Bible applies to my life, I fully understand where his
head and his heart are in this. And that is why I cannot hate him or call him
an idiot. He genuinely believes it is his duty to stand up against sin and try
to save sinners from eternal damnation. And while I think that must be a
horrible way to have to view the world, I understand where he is.
I am also frustrated by people in
other communities who are talking about the hatred in Robertson’s heart. Just as
his understanding of them is incomplete and, thus, seemingly out of place in
today’s society, their unwillingness to understand the context of his remarks
is hypocritical. I do not think that it is important to believe his remarks are
correct, or even to allow that he should have said them. But to disregard him
as a horrible person so quickly speaks to our own hubris.
Additionally, Robertson’s
understanding of homosexuality is made evident by his remarks. His view is
marked by a purely sexual-physical concept of homosexuality. To him, a straight
man, the idea of same-gender sexual intercourse is foreign and, apparently, undesirable.
I believe if you asked a gay man his thoughts on having sex with a woman, his
response would not be entirely dissimilar. The important thing here is that to
Robertson, homosexuality is only physical and sexual. To him, there is no
emotional, psychological, and theology component. With that understanding of
homosexuality, it is no wonder he finds it unbelievable that a man would want
to just have anal sex with another man.
And this understanding is deeply
connected to his understanding of the Bible. For him, there is no need to read
more deeply into the Levitican law which condemns a man who lies with another
man. Or into the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in which men cry out for Lot so
they may rape him. Even though, upon further study and by reading in context,
the former is about property rights and the latter about hospitality. There’s
no need for a deeper reading of the first chapter of Romans which lists all
manner of sins and calls out the “unnatural relations” between men. And yet,
there is an unwillingness to dig deeper into the fact that Paul is here talking
about idolatry, sexual interaction between members of the same gender for the
sake of pagan worship only. And more importantly, those who champion this one
chapter out of the 260 in the New Testament, these two verses out of 7956,
forget that immediately following chapter 1 is chapter 2,
“with its emphatic warning against a moral
superiority complex. As the argument goes on its way, Paul’s most damning condemnation
is reserved…for those who adopt a posture of innate moral virtue while
themselves failing in their most basic vocation, to be the light of the world.”
[1]
Robertson’s words, while hurtful,
are deeply connected to his purely physical concept of same-gender sexual
intercourse which is informed by his surface-level understanding of scripture.
Without getting into a debate over interpretation or errancy, Robertson’s
understanding is blighted by his lack of desire to read contextually. His words
on homosexuality are only inflammatory for those who are looking to be
inflamed, for those who refuse to look at his life contextually. He is a
67-year-old southern conservative evangelical. And while I have, thankfully,
had the opportunity to know many in that same category who are affirming of the
LGBT community, I am not surprised that a man such as him made these remarks.
I would like for those, like me,
who disagree with him to show him generosity and kindness. I would like for
those who are so angered by his words to channel their anger into peace and
mercy instead. For us to show him that a homosexual relationship is built on
more than where the penis goes but on love, affection, trust, and respect. To
show him that while we profoundly disagree with his remarks, we understand the
love of Christ enough to walk alongside him to try and help him understand.
THAT is worth more than any lost endorsement or cancelled television show. It
is the grace and love of Jesus Christ. And it doesn’t matter what gender you
are attracted to, you can live in and through that grace and mercy.
May it be so.
Amen.
[1] N.
T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” The
New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, Edited by Harriett
Jane Olson (Nashville : Abingdon Press, 2002) 10:435.
Comments
Post a Comment