The following post is from Shane Raynor, a content manager for MinistryMatters.com, where this post originally appeared, and an editor of the Converge Bible Studies published by Abingdon Press. He was previously best known as THE founding father of the Methodist Blogosphere.
UMVoices is a forum for different voices within the United Methodist Church on pressing issues of denominational concern. IRD/UMAction does not necessarily endorse every view expressed by UMVoices contributors, nor do UMVoices contributors necessarily endorse every view expressed by IRD.
There are two big stories blowing up on social media right now, both related to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The most widely discussed one involves the star of the popular A&E reality show Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson. In an interview with GQ, Phil made some controversial remarks about homosexuality and was suspended indefinitely by the network after complaints from GLAAD and related groups.
Frank Schaefer, a United Methodist pastor in Pennsylvania, was defrocked [Thursday] morning by his conference Board of Ordained Ministry for performing a same sex marriage ceremony for his son. Schaefer was convicted in a church trial last month and had one month to decide whether he’d surrender his clergy credentials or agree to abide by United Methodist church law in its entirety. Schaeffer refused to do either one, so his credentials were stripped by the board.
Two guys are out of a job today for two totally different reasons. But it all comes back to the intense discussion around human sexuality in this country right now.
I’ve been watching the conversation on social media and on news websites since yesterday evening, and I’d like to offer a few observations:
- Lots of people are defending Phil Robertson with the claim that his First Amendment right to free speech has been violated. That technically isn’t true. As far as we know, the government hasn’t censored him, and that’s what the First Amendment is all about: government suppression of free speech. We don’t know the details of Phil Robertson’s contract with A&E, but he’s considered a face of the network, and if A&E feels he’s damaging their brand with his public remarks, they’re probably within their rights to suspend or terminate him, however ill-advised that may be.
- The essence of what Robertson said about homosexuality is not a fringe viewpoint within Christianity. It is mainstream. Many of us wouldn’t have chosen the words that Phil used, but his view that homosexual practice is unscriptural is not an archaic opinion from somewhere in right field. My own denomination, The United Methodist Church, hardly an ultra-conservative institution, officially teaches that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching” but it also acknowledges that “all persons are of sacred worth.” This is the position of many Christians, not just United Methodists.
- Frank Schaefer performed a same sex marriage ceremony with the clear understanding that this is a chargeable offense in The United Methodist Church, and he knew he could be defrocked because of it. That’s a risk he took. I get that he was following his conscience, and I understand the rationale of those who disagree with the UMC’s position on this issue. But rightly or wrongly, when someone stands up for their beliefs or violates a law or rule in the spirit of civil disobedience, accepting the consequences is part of the package they sign up for. Schaefer could have been defrocked on the spot after the guilty verdict last month, but the jury generously offered him the opportunity to keep his credentials by agreeing not to violate the United Methodist Book of Discipline in the future. Schaefer refused, and now he is no longer an elder in full connection. No one should be outraged or surprised at this development.
- As for Robertson, he had the right to say what he said, and the A&E Network had a right to suspend him for it. And the show’s viewers ultimately have the right to fire A&E if they want. That’s the way America works. It’s sad that so many special interest groups are using bullying tactics to silence opposing viewpoints, but ultimately the consumer decides whether or not to reward or punish companies and individuals who give in to such pressure. Unfortunately, our hypersensitive culture has created an atmosphere where many are afraid to speak freely about anything that might offend someone else. Essentially, the government hasn’t abridged our right to free speech—we have. Shame on us if we keep doing it.
Homosexuality will continue to be a controversial topic, especially within mainline Christianity. But if it’s going to be a real conversation, people who hold to the traditional Christian view of human sexuality are going to have get more involved in the discussion. Whether it’s from a fear of being perceived as mean and intolerant, or from a noble desire to avoid controversy and focus on positive things like spreading the Gospel, many of us have allowed one side of the debate to control the narrative. As a result, the dividing lines between personal identity and sexual practice have become largely nonexistent in many people’s minds.
If the church is going to say that something is wrong, we need to be ready to show people a better way. But if our words aren’t full of love and backed up by the power of God, we’re not offering hope to those who consider themselves part of the gay community, we’re offering condemnation and despair. And that’s not what the Gospel is about.
Comment by Donnie on December 24, 2013 at 9:33 am
I’m thankful for Phil Robertson. He did a good job of expressing a true, Biblical view AND showed loved towards gay people as well. The fact his comments were in any way controversial shows how far we have fallen as a society.
Comment by gary on December 24, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Good points by Shane I believe. But I do wonder if we really need to hvae the conversation regarding human sexuality. It seems to me that it is fruitless to discuss it any further. We are not going to change their minds and they are not going to change our minds. So why waste the energy? There are real issues out there that need all of our attention – the poor and the marginalzied for example. We spend so much time and money debating sexual behavior that we forget there are other issues that need our attention. That is why I am for a split in the UMC so there is no more arguing – let them go their God-less way and do what they want and let us go our God-filled way and take care of the real important issues.
Comment by Steve Bates on December 24, 2013 at 4:12 pm
You are wrong actually….when we do speak the truth to them, we do change them. Oh, not usually immediately, but we still do (we plant the (mustard) seed and God sows it….this is where the numerous EX-homosexuals come from. To stop speaking is not only an offense at God (He was the one that sent us all (Christians) on the Great Commission), but is being unkind and even hateful to all those sinners that might not hear the truth if we do not speak it to them. As to hearing it so many times….who says the 1st time helps them, perhaps it is to be the 2nd, or maybe the 17th?….just make sure that you ARE one of them in there, and you are pleasing God.
Comment by Fred Puttroff on January 12, 2014 at 3:39 pm
Maybe we need to focus on the person who actually does the changing within our hearts if we don’t get in His way; and, that would be the Holy Spirit! We, all of us, are guilty of sexual sin and, as someone who knows God is working at changing me from within; the key is to reach out to our brothers and sisters to help them stay repentant and focused on that which is pleasing to God. We are not going to change anyone; but God and His love working through us; and, by the way, love isn’t acceptance of sin not being sin by calling it good, although sin is our normal state before we submit; but love is forgiveness and helping others to submit to Christ and let God’s Holy Spirit affect change. The problem is that we are trying to be like the godless culture and hope they will accept our God if we just be like them or accept their evil as good; and, that will fail and send many to an eternity separated from the Father of our love. Christ turned no one away; but told them to repent and sin no more.
Comment by Donnie on December 26, 2013 at 9:05 am
My thoughts exactly. Love Prevails (among others) have proven time and time again to be petulant children who throw a tantrum when they do not get their way. Reasonable adults cannot have conversations with such people.
And while 2 Corinthians 6:14 is about marriage, it also perfectly sums up the current problems the UMC is having. It’s time for Christians to split away and allow the progressives to have their own “church.”
Comment by Gil Caldwell on December 25, 2013 at 3:53 pm
I believe that years ago, John Lomperis and I agreed to disagree, agreeably, on my commitment to same sex marriage and the rights of lgbtq persons in church and society. But, I have been concerned that there seems to be little attention given to the words of Phil Robertson about blacks. Robertson begins by saying this; “I never with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of black persons, not once.” He goes on to say that “pre-entitlement, pre-welfare…They were godly, they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
If we substituted women, Latinos, Native Americans, Jews, homosexuals for blacks, would it be possible to understand why Robertson’s comments about blacks were so offensive to many of us?
Regardless of our differences about the justice struggles of persons/groups who have experienced discrimination and less than equal status because of who they are, is it fair to ignore, deny, or revise the slavery and racial segregation history of persons of African descent as Robertson has done?
Comment by Greg Paley on December 25, 2013 at 10:24 pm
Robertson was speaking from his personal experience, not from the standpoint of a college sophomore indoctrinated by his PC professors and PC textbooks. Reality is much more nuanced – and more interesting – than the Manichean melodramas of PC ideologues. It is very sad that we have reached a situation where reminiscing about the past can get a person tagged as “racist.” Memories cannot, by definition, be “racist.” Things happened, they are what they are. I pity the PC ideologue who can’t grasp that, prior to the Civil Rights Acts, blacks did experience joy as well as sadness, that their interactions with whites were not all fraught with danger or hostility.
And, in case anyone hadn’t noticed: the gay side is beating the “racism” drum for all it’s worth. A cynic might accuse them of playing the race card to further their own agenda….
Comment by Marco Bell on December 26, 2013 at 8:07 am
Gil’s analysis is genuine, and accurate in respect to the validity of the equation of prejudice.
However, Greg’s opinion restates the status-quo for a bulk of Americans that still can’t comprehend that bigotry is still apparent in the social sphere. It may not seem rampant to some, but there are many who still live under such treatment.
And sadly, not all Universities are Progressive (or “Politically Correct”). Something that really riles the Conservatives is teaching students to consider all stripes of humanity before passing judgement. …LOL!
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on December 26, 2013 at 12:26 pm
I’m afraid Gil’s “reasoning” gives insight into the magnitude of the problem. He essentially presumes Phil Robertson to be a liar because his recollections differ from the approved, “politically correct” ones. While we’re on the topic of hate, that strikes me as pretty hateful; but, sadly, it’s representative of a disturbingly large segment of individuals in current society who have been conditioned, over many decades, to believe very distorted and unbalanced things about history and the Bible.
Using Gil’s logic, on our current trajectory it won’t be long before “conservative heterosexual males” will be added to his list of aggreived parties needing special protection. He seems to misunderstand that we will never become the cohesive, functional society the founders envisioned if we continue to be balkanized into groups demanding special treatment.
We have a Constitution. And we have a Bible. It’s time people became reacquainted with them. Let’s get real. Robertson’s statements about homosexual practice may have been inartful, even crude, but they do not differ substantially from what Scripture actually says.
Robertson never said that racism didn’t exist, or that blacks (or gays) have not been oppressed, he simply related his own experience. Unfortunately, modern liberals seem incapable of seeing the truth, preferring instead to concentrate on a mythical “larger truth.”
But reality has a way of intruding–eventually–on even the most comfortable of fantasies.
Comment by Greg Paley on January 2, 2014 at 12:18 pm
You’re correct, the left has tagged Robertson as a liar, not because they can prove what he said was a lie (they can’t), but because it does not fit their narrative. When you’re on the left, never NEVER pass up an opportunity to call someone else a “racist” – even if it’s a lie.
Comment by John Lomperis on December 26, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Gil, thanks for your comments. That same concern you raise has also been raised from within the conservative evangelical world.
A couple of things to keep in mind here:
1) I would guesstimate that roughly 92.367% of everyone with an opinion about the Phil Robertson firing has not read the entire GQ article. The most people have probably heard was that he expressed his support for biblical teaching on homosexual practice and made an anatomically blunt quip about why he personally found homosexual practice to be un-enticing.
2) In any case, it is my understanding that he was not suspended/fired for his comments about his memories as they relate to race relations, but rather for his comments related to homosexuality.
3) Given how much has already been said elsewhere about this, I think Shane was trying to urge folk to consider a new angle to the story, especially for a UM audience, particularly as it relates to the defrocking of Frank Schaefer. In such an article, it would be impossible to cover everything there is to say about both Schaefer and Robertson.
All that being said, while I obviously do not know what sorts of things Robertson observed or what sorts of conversations he had with African Americans decades ago, any informed Christian should find any sort of suggestion that African Americans generally thought life was fine and dandy in the Jim Crow South to be very morally offensive. That being said, prudence demands that we not rush to judgment against Robertson based on some selective excerpts from the interview, since we do not know what sort of further relevant remarks he may have made in the parts of the interview that the interviewer did not quote with anything more than “…” ellipses.
Comment by John McAdams on December 30, 2013 at 6:49 pm
I think Phil was wrong in questioning the need for a civil rights movement, but I don’t think he spoke out of ill-will toward black people. Remember, he did hard physical labor alongside black people in the fields.
And his comments about “entitlement” and “welfare” have a lot of truth. What we needed was a civil rights movement without the rapid growth of welfare and entitlements.
And skipping the cultural changes of the 60s as related to sex and drugs would have helped too. Social changes that seemed benign to affluent yuppies have been devastating to the black community.
Comment by Gil Caldwell on December 27, 2013 at 11:20 am
I appreciate the responses to my reply, particularly yours John. In my use of groups other than blacks to point out the offense of Robertson’s statement, I thought also of adding
Conservatives, Tea Party members, white southerners, etc. I was attempting to suggest that our personal experiences of persons different from ourselves, ought not give the impression that we are unaware of the reality of some of the historic and present struggles that they and those like them have known and know.
I as, a black southerner, (North Carolina, Texas and South Carolina) have wrestled with not making negative generalizations about whites, particularly white southerners. if I articulated my many negative experiences with some white persons, giving the impression that they ALL
were like that, it would be unfair and inaccurate just as Robertson’s comments about blacks.
He did not take into consideration the fact that his personal experiences of blacks, should not give the impression that we all were “godly” and “happy”, “pre-entitlement” and “welfare”.
More importantly, we all must wrestle with our generalizations about “the other”. I have lived with these words of my Grandmother Mama Irene as a kind of mantra; “There is so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us, that it doesn’t behoove any of us to talk negatively about the rest of us.”
I know that some who read this blog will dismiss me as being “another liberal”, but just as I seek to read between the lines of what you write, I expect you to do the same with me. All of us are much more than being labeled Liberal
or Conservative. The polarizations of these moments, compels us, I believe, to do that.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on December 27, 2013 at 6:54 pm
As a white southerner who graduated from a predominantly black high school in the late 70’s I became keenly aware that prejudice can go both ways…especially as one of only two whites on the basketball team.
Some looked at us skinny white dudes as an opportunity for payback–yes, they had heard the stories, even they had not personally experienced them. We didn’t last past our sophomore year.
And when it came time to graduate and I saw college scholarships not available to me that were available to black students who had similar (or worse) academic records than I did. Suffice it to say that this lower middle class white boy felt disenfranchised.
But I built a bridge. And I got over it.
Of course, we tend to focus on the negative–most black students and were not hateful to us. But, it should be borne in mind that prejudice is a two-way street.
And if I were black I would find it terribly offensive to equate civil rights for black people to homosexual rights. The former involves prejudice against someone for a characteristic that is clearly immutable (race), whereas the latter involves special protection for someone due to behavior.
Comment by Marco Bell on December 27, 2013 at 8:56 pm
Dear Cleareyedtruthmeister, Homosexuality is not a behavior! Sheesh!
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on December 27, 2013 at 10:16 pm
I said, unlike race, it is mainly defined by behavior. (Think a little more deeply about it, Marco…I’m confident you will understand what I am saying.)
Comment by David Christie on December 30, 2013 at 11:46 pm
Actually, it is a behavior just like heterosexuality. Both people in the relationship decide, for whatever reason, to partake in the act of homosexual behavior. Just because someone has the warmies for someone of the same sex does not mean they “have” to get into a sexual relationship with them. People of both orientations need to think with their brains and not their genitals. Rationalization does not scrub the penalties of the action. And considering this is a faith based site, God determines what is right and wrong, not you,me, or anyone else.
Comment by Karyn on December 31, 2013 at 2:00 am
Amen!
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on January 1, 2014 at 6:51 pm
Absolutely! We are not barnyard animals with no control over how we respond to our urges.