Have the men of our time still a feeling of the meaning of sin? Do they, and do we, still realize that sin does not mean an immoral act, that “sin” should never be used in the plural, and that not our sins, but rather our sin is the great, all-pervading problem of our life? Do we still know that it is arrogant and erroneous to divide men by calling some “sinners” and others “righteous”? For by way of such a division, we can usually discover that we ourselves do not quite belong to the “sinners”, since we have avoided heavy sins, have made some progress in the control of this or that sin, and have been even humble enough not to call ourselves “righteous”. Are we still able to realize that this kind of thinking and feeling about sin is far removed from what the great religious tradition, both within and outside the Bible, has meant when it speaks of sin?
-Paul Tillich, from “Chapter 19: You Are Accepted” in The Shaking of the Foundations
Dear Mr. Robertson,
I hope you had a great Christmas season with your family. Though I don’t DVR your show, I have watched it a couple of times and one thing that I’ve noticed is that your family seems to be really important to you. For the record, that’s something I value highly myself. Not many families are able to both live/work together in a way that is successful in both areas, and though no one is perfect, I think you really do try to love your family in the best way you know how.
Actually that’s why I’m writing you. I know I’m a little late in addressing all of this, but I read your comments about a month ago in GQ and elsewhere regarding homosexuality and I guess I’m wondering how someone who cares so much about his blood family, could speak about members of his human family in such an insensitive way. Now we could get into a very, very long discussion about the veracity of your statements in light of scripture, and I’d love to have that conversation, if you want to. But I guess, what I’m more upset about in this letter is the way you said what you said.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for the “freedom of speech”. You should technically have a right say what’s on your mind. But as I’ve said before, with rights, come responsibilities. The way in which you said what you said presumed that the issue of homosexuality and Christian faith is an open and shut case. It is not and the fact that you spoke as though it is was in my opinion, irresponsible.
In fact, if what you’re saying is clearly the “truth”, then its the same kind of “truth” that was obviously true when pro-slavery advocates used the “truth” they found in the Bible to defend the institution of slavery in 19th century America (pretty convincingly I might add, if you’re reading from a biblical literalist’s point of view) and anti-women’s suffrage advocates used to argue against giving women the right to own land, vote, speak in front of churches. Essentially my point is that if the “truth” you’re preaching is just a screen for protecting traditional cultural conceptions of gender and sexuality, than it really isn’t “truth”. It’s convention. Those are two totally different things. Truth simply is. Convention, on the other hand, needs vigorous and aggressive defending that leads to the type of demeaning rhetoric you’ve been using the past couple of months.
The conversation on homosexuality is a lot more complicated than you give it credit for with your various sermons/statements (see Preston Sprinkle’s 20 article project for an example of a conservative that actually explores the issue with the depth and seriousness that it deserves) and it really needs a long, open conversation to be able to actually make statements that have weight. Some might say that Sprinkle is an intellectual and of course he’s going to do the “deep research” on the subject, as opposed to you, someone who has become a pop culture phenomenon for something other than academic study. Frankly, I think this is a cop out. You’re a public figure who speaks to people who listen to you and buy your books. Therefore, if you’re going to talk, it’s your responsibility to a) do your homework(as we all should, technically) and b) acknowledge the fact that you’re joining an ongoing conversation that has been going on long before you and your sons broke onto the public scene.
I know you probably have to deal with a lot of crap from people who frame you as a “stupid redneck” who doesn’t know anything outside of duck calls and crossbows. I think this is offensive. I also know that there’s so much more to you than the things you’ve said about homosexuality. You’re a real person, not a straw man. Your views matter, in fact. You’re voice is important. In truth, I would be just as incensed at people who called you a redneck (especially those of us in the progressive/liberal Christian community) as I am now with you because at the end of the day, if they call you a redneck, then they’re doing the same thing that you did.
I guess the bottom line is that as Christians, we can’t keep doing what you did. We can’t keep saying things in that way, no matter what our belief systems are. We may slip into “talking head rhetoric” of our age from time to time, but we can’t defend this kind of behavior and we definitely can’t suggest that others act the same. This isn’t “standing up for the gospel”. It’s being smug and self-righteous, and frankly it’s unbecoming.
As the public figure you’ve come to be, I personally think you should be more concerned with being a proponent of civil conversations (like the ones put on by Krista Tippit, here), because at the end of the day, not everyone agrees with you, and there’s always the chance that you could be wrong (when I say you here I mean it universally, not singularly).
Alright, Phil. That’s it. I’ve said my two cents. I apologize if I was in any way overly harsh or judgmental. I’m not perfect. It’s my hope that through this ideological dust up, we can all change our rhetoric a bit and consider the way in which we speak issues that are bigger than us. You never know who could be listening.
All the best,
Justin
In the light of…grace we perceive the power of grace in our relation to others and to ourselves. We experience the grace of being able to look frankly into the eyes of another, the miraculous grace of reunion of life with life. We experience the grace of understanding each other’s words. We understand not merely the literal meaning of the words, but also that which lies behind them, even when they are harsh or angry. For even then there is a longing to break through the walls of separation. We experience the grace of being able to accept the life of another, even if it be hostile and harmful to us, for, through grace, we know that it belongs to the same Ground to which we belong, and by which we have been accepted. We experience the grace which is able to overcome the tragic separation of the sexes, of the generations, of the nations, of the races, and even the utter strangeness between man and nature. Sometimes grace appears in all these separations to reunite us with those to whom we belong. For life belongs to life.
-Paul Tillich, from “Chapter 19: You Are Accepted” in The Shaking of the Foundations
Leave a Reply to Justin Campbell Cancel reply