The issue isn't what he said...it's what HE said.

It’s not often I get political here in my blog. In fact if you were to read it I suspect you’d find me to be pretty self-absorbed. I do that because to me sometimes…blogging is a form of therapy and a way to get my thoughts out for me to read later…publicly…ok…maybe I need to rethink this.

Anyway…I’m led now to wax political. This post could offend some, not offend others and make others WISH that I was offended. What follows is my 100% opinion. I will say that publishing it could cause me to lose my standing in any organization I belong to and I do it knowingly. I write this because…frankly…I’m annoyed at the backlash and hand wringing going on around something that BOTH parties manipulated into being.

I’ve followed the trials and tribulations of the latest public Christian to be ‘crucified’ by the media ‘elite’ of this country with some interest. Phil Robertson is an honest, no holds barred Christian man with (in my opinion) an incredibly sound doctrinal belief in the Holy Bible. I’m also a sometimes ‘fan’, or at least viewer of his show “Duck Dynasty” on A&E. The parts with him are funny yet I’ve always been fascinated with how incredibly intense he was. His faith was always there and is evident throughout the show.

Other than the killing of animals (which some would find to be ‘violence’)…the show is one of the more PURE and WHOLESOME examples of entertainment for the family I’ve watched. Yes…there’s flatulence jokes, and fat jokes occasionally…but they are always made with an incredible tenderness and honesty that comes from being allowed to see through a microscope into the ‘inner’ workings of a family.

YES it’s SCRIPTED! There are writers. Of course there are writers. Ever since this ‘hidden camera’/’pseudo-reality’/’celeb-umentary’ format began (most famous and earliest I can recall is the Osbourne’s of the early 00’s) there have been writers to help things along. Of course they’re not credited and instead are either called ‘Producers’ or work for the ‘Production Company’…but they are there. They will concoct the ‘scenarios’…try to direct the ‘action’ as much as possible…and then are solely responsible for HOW the show is edited and packaged (which could be writing in and of itself). They may not ‘script’ the participants…but they have a big hand in HOW what those participants do is shown and shared with the public.

With that…this show has made sure to show that the Robertson's are a CHRISTIAN family…and they’ve done it in such a way as to NOT poke fun at it. It’s been a ‘given’ for them…because (again IMHO)…to try and tell an ‘honest’ portrayal of this family while leaving ‘God at the door’…would be IMPOSSIBLE and result in about 4 minutes of footage. The family shows a love for and a penchant for witnessing for God from everywhere. Yet it does it in such a way so as to not ‘be in your face about it’…which caters to the secular community at large. It’s one of the first shows I’ve ever seen that I would call “Christian Entertainment” without feeling like it’s either ‘too cheesy’ or ‘too worldly’. It strikes a balance in a way that others before haven’t been able to do.

I believe because of that; this show and family have been embraced by the society as a whole and have become this generation’s version of ‘The Brady’s’…that family ideal. I believe it’s an example of a working family unit with Moms and Dads raising kids together alongside their brothers and sisters as a family. It’s a multi-generational family unit that functions. Of course there are off-camera problems…I’m sure these marriages have the same issues others do…but I also get the feeling that those issues would come through if they were big enough (like they did the last season of the ‘Hogan Knows Best’…the tension between Hulk and Mrs. Hogan was PALPABLE!)…and it doesn’t look it here. That authentic family bond has resonated with America in some ways…and resulted in this little show about zany hunters becoming one of cable’s biggest hits.

I think it’s that embracing of the traditional message by America as a whole that led to the GQ article being proposed.  In addition I do believe wholeheartedly after reading the article…that GQ had an agenda all along.  While it wasn't what can be called a 'take-down' piece...there was almost assuredly an agenda.

I read the piece by Mr. Drew Magory at GQ’s website. I was actually awestruck at the tone of the article from the beginning to end. I’ve pasted a link below. Be advised…there’s some foul language (but curiously…only written in the prose of the article by the ‘reporter’.) and frankly that only led me to believe even more in GQ's culpability in this.  If someone who believes in God were to search for an article about Mr. Robertson...they'd have to read the reporters use of the s and other bombs throughout.  Read for yourself however below.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson

The article is written not with (in my opinion) the detachment and integrity of a journalist for one of the ‘premier’ magazines about men’s fashion out there. Instead it seems that going in (because I also read some of Mr. Magory’s other works) Mr. Magory can conceivably had formed a few opinions regarding the lifestyles that the family leads and was looking for this piece to only cement his previous ideas.  I say this not based solely on his previous works...but also what questions he chose to include in the piece and how he asked them.

A lot of the quotes most spoken about however do not serve the story in the slightest. They’re taken out of context as an example of things Phil isn’t allowed to ‘say on the show’…or (and this is most galling to me) are put in as a ‘blurb’ that has no setup or resolution around it. It sits in the middle of the page. It’s presence there making ME personally feel that it’s only reason for print is to incite JUST the reaction they got from A&E. The racial and health care ones particularly seemed to be there for no reason than to just incite something.

I’m not saying that a magazine should have the journalistic detachment of a newspaper. That isn’t why you read magazines…they’re meant to be lighter and so by definition…should have MORE of the author in them. I understand that. However the veiled distaste for the entire Robertson clan that the reporter feels is palpable. It’s obvious to me that he doesn’t respect Phil…or his family.
His descriptions of them are from a vantage point of being above them. It seems that the reporter when speaking of them, he believes that they are in some way beneath him…while at the same time…he’s trying to understand them. In the later part of the article he describes going to Phil’s place and sets the scene. Then he goes on to describe Phil as someone who gives a ‘sermon’ most of the time. The only interactions we see with other family members except Phil are when the reporter is basically trying to see if the younger generation could ‘have his back’…sort of ‘kingdom building’.

I think too that this whole article was a setup. Lets face it…Phil Robertson does NOT belong in GQ. The author states that his clothes are covered in mud and dirt. This is not a GQ man. I think the whole idea for the story was to see if they could get the guy on record saying something bad about the gays, which represent a significant portion of their readership” It’s a sure bet he will say SOMETHING inflammatory…which can only sell magazines AND take down another ‘homophobe’.

The fact is this…if you interview ANY Christian who identifies themself as a ‘Bible-Thumper’…and ask them about homosexuality as it’s described in the bible. What you’re going to get is what the bible says. The bible says that SEX (Not just homosexual mind you) is reserved only for marriage. Marriage in the bible is described as the union of a man and a woman in the eyes of God becoming one flesh (yes a paraphrase). Homosexuality is considered to be an abomination unto the Lord, the same way (and this is missed by a LOT of people) as heterosexual sex OUTSIDE the bounds of marriage are an abomination. That is what the BIBLE says. Any Christian who claims the Bible to be the Word of God and the source of their faith will then recite those words.

I myself have recited those words. That doesn't make me a homophobe. It makes me someone who read the bible and answered the question. Just as reading a cookbook doesn't make you a chef...but it means you may be able to repeat a recipe for Chicken French.

Here’s the thing that gets missed though…

At no point does it say in the Bible ‘so hate Homosexuals’. In fact if you look at the biblical teaching on homosexuality and lump it in with any other sexual sin…then the times where Jesus reached out to the sexually immoral people (Mary, the woman at the well etc…) then you see that while he never ‘accepted their lifestyle’…he did minister to them with love and allowed them to keep their self-respect.

I have gay friends and family members and I love each of them dearly. My life would be so drastically different without them. Personally I don't approve of some of their actions...but I also don't approve of some of my most 'straight' friends actions either. I don't have to. It isn't for me to approve or not. I love them. I love their partners...and I won't back down from that.

What this article seemed to want to do though…was lump Phil in with the ‘God hates fags’ people.

I believe thats GQ's agenda there.

At no point in Mr. Robertson’s interview does he say that. In fact he goes out of his WAY to say the opposite is needed by everyone. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off.”

Of course…this is not one of the blurbs that are focused on in the article. Nope…middle of a paragraph.

I think GQ wanted to ‘light a fire’…and of course sell some magazines. I think they wanted to see what could happen.

In retaliation A&E has suspended Phil. They have EVERY SINGLE right to do that. Freedom of speech is meant to be about freedom to say what you want without GOVERNMENT reprisal. Ok…I’m all about that. Good. That means that a company privately owned by a corporation is allowed to discipline someone for what they say if it misrepresents their brand or harms their company in some way. I think that’s fine. With that in mind then…let me ask you…if say Trinity or EWTN wanted to suspend someone who said that God is OK with homosexuality now…that his word isn’t important…would you be ok with that…or would that be considered hate and bigotry? There is MOST CERTAINLY a double standard.

To say that this is an infringement on Phil’s first amendment rights is silly. It isn’t.

However Phil isn’t blameless.

I’m curious how a man surrounded by such smart individuals let himself be interviewed by such a publication in the first place. How did he NOT see this coming? What could POSSIBLY have led him to say ‘YES’.

I’ll tell you why I think he did the interview.

It’s ALL over the article.

Phil Robertson is an EVANGELIST. This little show…about Duck Calls, farts, family making fun of each other, women being smarter than everyone and all that good stuff. It serves one purpose. To get the viewer to stay and hear the prayer at the end of the show and the times where they get to share Christ through the stories.

This whole show is ONE BIG GOD COMMERCIAL! (and apparently…he wants you to shop at Wal-Mart) :) .

If you have that mindset then maybe you see why he allowed this ‘yuppie’ to come in, ride with him, shoot with him and learn about him.  It's why I think he even allowed him to attempt to malign him in the public zeitgeist.

He did it all just for that moment at the end of the article. If you read it you'll see that at the end Phil gave the reporter a chance to repent. He asked him if he and his wife were bible people…and in the words after the reporter responds in the negative, you can see the love and hope in Phil’s heart for this man’s eternal soul.

Penn Gillette once said in a YouTube video that the worst thing for a believing Christian to do is to NOT evangelize.  He said "How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and NOT tell them that?" This is from an avowed atheist.  

(See here: Some foul language again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-tkQ_Q2w)

Phil I think knew what this guy was doing. He knew that his words taken out of context could and probably would be used against him.  He knew what he was doing the whole time.

But he got to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a larger population of unchurched people than almost anyone in our time.  The perception of GQ is that most of its readership is probably metro or homosexual.  Not exactly the 'bible thumping' type.  He’s managed to go and try to reach someone who doesn’t have what he knows is truth and salvation and gone to where THEY go to do it.  That to me is simply amazing. It’s an accomplishment. It’s a victory.

He said it himself…this show will be done in 3-5 years (and he’s right…it will. We Americans are fickle)…but the Gospel will continue and he’ll go to that judgment seat with God smiling at him knowing that in Phil Robertson…many millions of people will have heard His name spoken of in a way that may have allowed THEM to have salvation. That’s amazing to me.

Phil Robertson doesn’t care one bit about his silly little TV show…because he knows that if just ONE person found the path to Christ…that all the millions spent and earned and lost as a result of his suspension is NOTHING.

I for one respect him more now than I ever did…

Thanks for Reading.