Dear A&E,
For several weeks now, the Internet has been abuzz with debate about
Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson's comments on homosexuality. News outlets and public figures of all stripes have spoken out for and against Robertson. The online version of the
GQ interview boasts a whopping 5,567 comments (and counting)! In case you haven't read it, please read it here:
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson - before moving forward. Wielding the First Amendment and the Bible, conservative commentators have waved Phil Robertson like a flag in support of their beliefs, while liberals have proclaimed him the most heinous of villains, the face of political incorrectness and bigotry in the new year.
But is all this really about the Bible or the Constitution? Or is this situation just another example of people seizing upon a moment to 'prove' something or make judgments on the basis of evidence that, when twisted in a particular way, seems - like Baby Bear's porridge - "just right."
At the risk of overextending the metaphor, I'll take a moment to remind you that in the "Goldilocks" tale, one reason the Bears know someone's come calling is that Baby Bear's chair cracks under the weight of Goldilocks' behind; she leaves behind not only an empty bowl, but also a pile of spindles and legs. And come to think of it, this metaphor doesn't seem all that overextended. Because when we look closely at Robertson's comments and A&E's response in both a scriptural and constitutional light, we find just what the bears found: a pile of useless junk that points to deeper problems, to cowardice, calumny, and the theft of what is sacred in the Constitution and the Christian faith alike.
Now, if you've already where decided where I stand and are already ready to dismiss everything I say, I ask you to step back, take a breath, and read carefully. I'm not just going spout off about what I think ancient books and documents say, and I'm not going to paraphrase Robertson. I'm going to look at what was really said. And while I acknowledge up front that my readings are particular interpretations (as are his readings of scripture, for example), we can at least agree to start from what was really said.
From the interview:
"...in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles..."
It's so commonly argued that the United States was founded upon Christian values that for many people, it's a foregone conclusion. But many of the Founding Fathers - including Thomas Jefferson - were Christian Deists. Yes, they embraced Christian values, but Jefferson himself opposed the traditional Christianity of his day, largely because he had trouble with the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Jefferson wrote, "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence..." This last bit is important. For Jefferson, Jesus is a model of perfect human behavior; Jesus is a model of human excellence, but he's not exactly a religious figure, at least not in the sense used in mainstream Christianity.
Some might say that point is debatable, but Jefferson also wrote this: "...it is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."
Jefferson even wrote his own version of the Bible, which excluded all miracles and supernatural occurrences. Jesus was, for Jefferson and for many of his fellow founders, a model human being. Further, Jefferson rejected the idea of angels and did not believe that an immaterial Creator made the universe (he rejected what's known as Creationism, the belief that God created the universe as told in the Bible).
So while Robertson is quite right to say that the United States is founded upon valuesfound in Christianity, it's not quite right to call them Christian values, and it's certainly not right to say that the U.S. is a "Christian" nation. The constitution is clear: the name of the game in the U.S. is nonestablishment - that means there's no official religion, and there never will be. So, values, sure, but any sort of official Christianity? Not ever.
Taking this as his point of departure, Robertson continues:
'Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,' he says. 'Sin becomes fine.'
What, in your mind, is sinful?
'Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,' he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: 'Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.'"
So, Robertson is using the Bible to make his point about homosexuality. Nothing new about that. Without going too far into Corinthians, I want to flag this passage as just plain debatable. To put it simply, what Robertson was taught - that this passage mentions "homosexuals" is in fact a bad reading of the passage. Even Roman Catholic bishops, who we know to be less than accepting of homosexuals, agree. Their footnote on 1 Cor. 6:9 reads, "The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."
Hey, that's pretty specific. It's not homosexuals; it's adult males who had sex with boy prostitutes in temples. Do people still do that? The last time I checked, nope.
But I digress. That's not really what this is about.
If the U.S. were indeed a Christian nation, or if A&E had somehow tried to silence Robertson, firing him would be problematic - a violation of his basic rights as a citizen. But that's not the case. The U.S. is not a theocracy; our nation is founded on a fundamental division between church and state.
And this is where your cowardice becomes apparent, A&E. Because while the Constitution guarantees Robertson the right to say what he said, it also guarantees you the right to respond freely, in your own way, and if the heads of your network choose to fire Robertson because they disagree with him, they have every right to do so. Because what's been overlooked in so much of the back-and-forth lambasting that's gone on in the wake of the GQ interview is that A&E is a private entity with its own rights to free speech and free enterprise. If the U.S. were indeed a Christian nation, we could fault A&E for criticizing the "official" beliefs of the nation. But they did not do that. Not in the slightest.
That's what makes A&E's later retraction and reinstatement of Robertson an act of cowardice. Whether for ratings and the bottom line or for fear of retaliation of the religious right as a result of Robertson's firing, in reinstating Robertson A&E sacrificed its own right to free speech and its own right to act according to its values. And that's just plain cowardly. Aren't we a nation of people with the right to stand up for what we believe in? Does religion now dictate the way in which private corporations function? Have we effectively forgotten the nonestablishment of religion?
Or worse still, have we allowed ourselves to believe that the religious right somehow has a monopoly on truth - or a monopoly on what it means to be American? Whether we are conservative or liberal, these are our rights. And that's why in my opinion, A&E's retraction amounts to nothing more than an affront to what it means to be a citizen of the United States of America.
And what about this, the follow-up to Robertson's now infamous quotation?
"As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
So, Robertson not only acknowledges at length his own sinfulness but clearly states that for him - as a Christian - it's not right to decide where anyone is going. "We just love 'em," he says. "We let God sort 'em out later." This is a key point. Because here, Robertson isn't, at least on the surface, preaching bigotry or exclusion. Whether it turns out that way in practice is another question, but it's important to note here that Jesus always included the outcast. We might even say that that's J.C.'s M.O throughout the Bible. Lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors, sinners of all stripes. Jesus welcomed them all. And by the way, he never mentioned homosexuality. Not once.
Now, all this talk of scripture points to one last point that went largely - and frighteningly - overlooked in discussions of the Robertson interview:
Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
WHAT?! It's fairly common knowledge that there are numerous passages in the Bible that support slavery (try Eph. 6:5 and 1 Tim. 6:1-2), and Robertson's comments here don't seem to stray all that far from what these passages have to say. In any case, it's easy to make the Bible mean what you want it to. Just look at this. Really. Do you really think Jesus would support the abuse and trade of human persons? Really? It's selective reading, cafeteria Christianity, and it's abuse of the truth of the Christian faith.
In fact, all this twists the Christian message of inclusion and forgiveness and goodness and love and grace into a message of exclusion, a war between who's in and who's out, who's right and who's wrong, and most importantly in the United States, what to buy and who to vote for.
When you mix religion with politics, you get politics. Plain and simple.
Jesus was not a republican. In fact, I'd wager he's balk at every political platform that's floating around in the political sphere today. But that's another fight for another day. The point here is that what Robertson said wasn't all that bad, but it does point to the Christian twisting of scripture to fit political, social, and corporate agendas. And that's the calumny of it all.
All in all, this - like Goldilocks' eating of Baby Bear's porridge - amounts to the theft of what's sacred in American politics and in the Christian faith, leaving behind nothing more than a pile of broken wood - spindles and legs that may indeed be beyond repair. Let's recognize this pile of rubble for what it is and rebuild the chair. Let's stop giving in.
Let's give our children a new place to sit, a place that is, indeed, "just right."
Sincerely and respectfully,
Paul J. Schutz
Ph.D. Candidate, Systematic Theology
Fordham University
.jpg)
