If you have been under a rock for the last week or so, you didn't hear about the ruckus raised by Phil Robertson of the TV phenomenon, Duck Dynasty, when he expressed his belief that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I blogged on it a few days ago, but I cannot resist another shot at the subject. Every pundit and his self-righteous brother is talking or writing about it. The ignorance on display spans several spheres of thinking. One of those in particular bothers me most.
It is no concern (or surprise) that several commercial entities are joining A&E in their own versions of chastising Robertson. Nor is it any less expected that spokespersons for the GLBT lobby are mouthing their outrage. Even some detractors who point out Robertson's First Amendment right to say what he wishes are on pretty safe territory. Although I have been surprised that few are calling for criminal charges under "hate speech" guidelines. What bothers me is the level of biblical ignorance displayed by some of Robertson's supporters.
Those of you who read me at all regularly know I often mention Fox News' Bill O'Reilly in a positive light. I appreciate his self-described culture warrior status. He is usually on what I consider the right side of most cultural battles. He was more or less right about Robertson. What I found appalling was his level of ineptitude at applying a popular Scriptural principle. In his "Talking Points" monologue on Friday he specifically mentioned Luke 6:37, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged." He chided Robertson and anyone else who similarly "judged" sinners.
It doesn't seem to me like you need to be a Bible scholar to see what's wrong with that position. If you take the time to read the entire interview of Robertson in GQ (which I did), you will notice that Robertson never "judged" anyone. He simply stated his opinion that the Bible calls some things sin. Repeating a clear biblical position regarding human behavior and divine judgment is not, in itself, human judgment; it is merely a profession of belief in what the Scripture says on the subject.
On a more theological note, there is another level of ignorance in O'Reilly's misapplication. The behavior Jesus was condemning in the Luke passage was not simple discernment; rather he was proscribing judgment in the sense of condemnation. No human (except the one perfect Jesus) can sentence another person to hell. That is God's prerogative, and his alone. Christians are commanded to "judge" in the discerning sense in several Bible passages. Some people call it being "fruit inspectors."
If you want a fuller understanding of how I think Christians should relate to homosexuals, I recommend "The Uncomfortable Subject", a post of mine from several weeks ago. If you have an hour or two there is a good sermon series on the topic "The Gospel and Sexuality" at the Calvary Church, Muskegon web site. It will suffice to say here that the rule is always love the sinner; hate the sin. Furthermore, having a desire is not a sin; acting on it is. It is wrong to "judge" a sinner if that means condemning him to hell. But please, Mr. O'Reilly, we must "judge" whether certain behavior is righteous by biblical standards; it's part of what being Christian means.
I know I cannot count on any celebrity, or anyone for that matter, to perfectly reflect the truth as I see it. But it makes me wince when an otherwise respectable spokesman for Christian views misapprehends a clear Scriptural teaching. I have always known that O'Reilly's connection to the Word is tenuous, like so many people with Roman Catholic backgrounds. It really hurts when "the most watched cable show" presents such a misguided view of the truth. Perhaps I should just be happy that the Bible got prime time "air". Now if I had a TV show...
No comments:
Post a Comment