“Robertson
... offered some comments that were rather crude and graphically anatomical in
making the ... point.” (Mohler)
“Phil Robertson would have served the cause of Christ more faithfully if
some of those comments had not rushed out. This is not because what he said was
wrong; he was making the argument that homosexual acts are against nature. The
Apostle Paul makes the very same argument in Romans 1:26. The problem is the
graphic nature of Robertson’s language and the context of his statements.” (Mohler)
Robertson’s choice of words were neither
crude nor inappropriate.
In fact they were surprisingly anatomically correct. I’m sure there were lots of other colorful
and downright crude words that he could have used instead of “vagina,” or
“anus.” Words he probably used many
times in his early, wild days - words that might have been much more familiar to
the interviewer. But God changed
Phil. He is a genuinely godly family man and I doubt that he talks like that anymore.
As for the “context” this was an interview for GQ Magazine;
a publication targeted specifically to the metro-sexual community and known for
its provocative, sexually oriented, and sometimes soft porn content. It is highly unlikely that he even had time
to “word-craft” a politically correct response nor should he. The “cause of Christ is well-served when we
are direct and strong in the face of sin.
Similarly, Jesus used strong language like when he called people
“hypocrites,” “white-washed tombs,” and “serpents.” GQ asked questions; Phil answered with
honesty and transparency. And he did it
in a way that distinguished his personal thoughts from God’s Word. In other words, his answers followed the
format of, “this is what I think but here is what God says.” In so doing, he upheld the honor of God to a
sinful world.
From what I read though, it seems that very few of Phil’s
critics have a problem with his preference for a woman over a man. And Phil’s
words were not offensive regardless of what they claim. Their problem is that
they hate Phil, not for what he says, but for what he believes and they don't want him (or anyone else) to articulate his beliefs. But
more importantly, they hate God.
“The
Apostle Paul made the same arguments, but worshipers in the congregations of
Rome and Corinth did not have to put hands over the ears of their children when
Paul’s letter was read to their church.” (Mohler)
The Apostle Paul was NOT answering questions for a GQ
interview. He was writing letters to the
church which is those whom God has redeemed.
The context is different.
Furthermore, his words were guided by divine inspiration; they were the
exact Words that God gave to communicate to His people. And sometimes those
Words were necessarily, very strong rebukes because “whom He loves, He chastens.”
In his commentary, Al Mohler warns that Christians should
think long and hard about the publicity that comes from these kinds of
interviews with the world because they can be devastating. But we Christians are called by God to be His
ambassadors and oracles of His Truth regardless of how the world feels. And for our
obedience, He does not promise us popularity, agreement, or ease. In fact, to the contrary, His promises are certain:
“If the world hates
you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.” John 15:18
Phil Robertson demonstrated more dedication, obedience, and courage than
most Christians I know.
