Thursday, December 19, 2013

Phil

Okey dokey.  Well...  hmmm....

First, I am not at all surprised.  I am not surprised at the massive success of Duck Dynasty.  There are plenty of people who enjoy relating to a family who loves each other and jokes a lot and has a real faith.

I am not surprised that in our entertainment and Christian sub-culture we have idolized the Robertsons, put them on a pedestal, and bought all their stuff.  I am not a cynic, and I don't think that they were only ever in it for the money, but their faces and beards are on everything!  They have taken over Wal-Mart!  The market is saturated with them.

I am not surprised that Phil said the things he said.  He said them a little graphically, but he also stated what a lot of people actually believe.  Phil is pretty squarely evangelical, and though many denominations wiggle their way around the Bible's definition of sin, he seems to be taking the Scripture as much as possible at face value, and he doesn't care if this offends.  A little like a woolly-looking John the Baptist coming out of the woods, preaching repentance, and calling out people (like Herod) for their sexual sins.

I am not surprised at the backlash.  It is completely not okay within our modern day to say that homosexuality is wrong.  It is not okay to say the things that the Bible says.  (Whether it's true or false is rendered irrelevant, as the focus is wholly on how offensive it is.)  But Christians should hardly be surprised that this is the case.  The Bible clearly teaches that adherence to a Christian morality based on the plain words of the Bible will put us out of step with the cultural consensus at different points.

I am not surprised at the Christian backlash to the backlash.  This hearkens back to the day when all the good Christians went out to eat at Chick-fil-a to show their support.  I anticipate that this sort of thing will go on back and forth for a while at different points.  People on different sides, instead of talking to one another, wear their favorite cultural icons like a badge and go out and fight for their causes, boycotting and patronizing and face-booking.

But dear Christians, let us keep perspective.  There are real actual Christian martyrs around the world.  A lot of them.  I do not think we ought to feel sad for millionaire Phil Robertson.  Speaking his mind got him into the spotlight and earned the affection of millions, and speaking his mind has gotten him into hot water with his show's producers and the cultural gatekeepers.  He will continue speaking his mind, and I think he is wise enough to know that their moment in the spotlight wasn't going to last forever.

We live in a democracy.  And one that is primarily capitalistic at that.  Things will balance out.  If you've got to have more Robertsons, I am sure there will be a way to find them, even if they really do get the boot from their current spot.

As a Christian I think...

1) God is in control.  There is no need to be panicky or anxious.
2) we should get to know people to have real conversations.
3) we should recognize the real disagreement behind our disagreement - which is that God determines what is right and wrong, not shifting public opinion.

As a note on tolerance... nobody would say they are against tolerance.  But the idea is, what kind of tolerance are we talking about?  I think it is a loss and not a gain to step into a tolerance that would flatten everyone's opinions into a gray equal mush.  No one has a corner on the truth... how dare you think you're actually right... everyone should just believe what works for them...  But what about what's true?  If two people really disagree, it is possible that one of them is wrong (or maybe both of them), but how can they both be right if they are talking clearly to each other about the same thing?

I say abortion is morally impermissible.  You say it is morally permissible.  We are in disagreement.  Now we can't both be right.  Maybe we're both wrong if it turns out that there is no such thing as morality and we are forcing some foreign scheme onto the question.  (I don't believe that.)  Or maybe we want to say that it is not all black and white, that there are certain circumstances under which it would be morally permissible or morally impermissible.  But really that is just a sort of narrowing function, so that we can just re-ask the question in regards to that particular circumstance.  Under circumstances X, would abortion be morally permissible?  And maybe we find agreement, but likely we would find disagreement.  And once we have gotten it down to those particular circumstances, I am saying that it defies logic for the action to be both morally permissible and morally impermissible in the same sense, at the same time...  I find all this to be common sense, but our modern world has a knack for doing double-talk to evade what would otherwise be obvious.

So basically I am pleading for some intellectual honesty.  Let us be honest that we hold our opinion because we think it's right.  We do not hold our neighbor's opinion if we think it's wrong.  If we thought he was right, well I guess we'd be holding that opinion, too, by definition.  Why would you hold an opinion if you didn't think it was right or true?  (Again, to some this will seem incredibly like just basic common sense.)

So let's get down to Phil's issue.  Some people believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a departure from God's good design for sexuality, and to engage in it is wrong.  And other people believe strongly that to hold such a view of sexuality is close-minded, bigoted, and wrong.  Those upset with Robertson disagree with him with a vehemence that clearly shows they don't simply have a difference of opinion such that they are all just holding different equally valid opinions.  They think he is dead wrong.  And not wrong as in... oh I just hold a wrong opinion about the answer to a math question.  Wrong, as in morally wrong, morally repugnant, must be stopped.

Both groups of people are appealing to some standard of morality.  They appeal to it and say the other is in transgression of this real standard.  How will a democracy, society judge between them?  I want the consideration of this to press on us the issue of where morality comes from in the first place.  Everyone, by virtue of the simple act of disagreeing or disapproving, operates on some standard.  But where does it come from?

I think that a real objective standard is best grounded in some absolute, like God.  How then do we know the standard?  We are obviously not great at keeping it because we violate even our own consciences all the time.  Our conscience evidences this natural law, but our consciences are malleable and not omniscient.  If God really is the source of the standard - which makes the best explanatory sense to me - then we will be in the dark if he does not teach us his standard and keep it somewhere so that it stands forth firm and unwavering despite our individual or societal wanderings.  And that is what I think the Bible does.  It is a testament that does many things and one of these is to teach us what God requires of us so that we are not in the dark.

And quite understandably a lot people are wary of such an explanation.  But what would you substitute as the source of the standard and how will I know?  Should I take my standard from society?  If we hold an idea of society progressing and getting better, better as judged by what?  And what is to keep me from getting stuck in this particular generation's morality if this is really just a step on the way to the next and improved generation?  Should I just follow my heart?  That seems completely subjective and a recipe for running off the rails.  Should I just listen to you?  Ehh...

Well...  I am on Christmas break and have time to write this sort of thing.  During the semester, I will be swamped with reading.  So I hope that this has been at least thought provoking to those of you who have taken the time to read.  And maybe I'll get in another post or two before Spring gets rolling.


No comments:

Post a Comment