Robertsons, Fox News, Youth: It's all there in one place

I was the leader during a youth group discussion last night. I led with what I thought had been a really interesting if not outright funny national discussion last week when a Fox news person made the statement that Jesus and Santa were white.

I thought I could lead our mixed group of youth into a discussions about that topic, leading to whether images have ever been important to them, while the color of Jesus and Santa were less than important on one hand and yet have been used to make some feel less than worthy. I wanted it all to lead to an image I had captured off the Internet of a study of CSI types of facial reconstruction of what a male from the time of Jesus might have looked like.

Mostly, it crashed. They had not heard of the topic, didn't know anything about Fox news or some woman who said it. And they wouldn't let me take them past the notion that they feel everyone is created equal so none of this matters. Even the African-American kids, who said Santa was always white in their house and they figure Jesus is, too, had little to say about the images they had grown up with.

The only reaction I got from the final photo of the day was "man, that guys is scary."

My reactions are these: 1) the youth don't watch or listen to much news, Fox or otherwise; 2) they truly don't care about color of skin; 3) they don't want to say anything in front of the group.

All three could be true, and probably to some extent. I suspect they knew little about the top topic yesterday, not even on facebook. Their world is a closed one for the most part.

This leads me, in a round-about way to today's real topic. Phil Robertson.

The Robertson family, Duck-Dynasty and all, are attractive to enough of America for what they do, say, believe, that theirs is the top-rated reality show on television. Their massive appeal has led to major deals with tons of companies with their images placed on everything from tee-shirts to slippers to cups and more. Their recent Christmas Special hauled in a 37-percent increase in ratings over last year.

Willie Robertson, the son and CEO of the firm and I strongly suspect the genius who has gotten them everywhere you turn, has been on about every sideline of every sporting event I've seen recently. Other son Jase, same thing. They love baseball, they love golf, they love the Lord.

But I suspect in some ways that the major reason they are so loved, and numbers don't lie folks, is they don't mind saying whatever they say on whatever they feel in whatever atmosphere they want to say it.

And that's something I feel we've lost, even on these social media things. Phil Robertson, the father of the clan, was suspended yesterday from the program for an undetermined about of time, for saying what he believes the Bible teaches about homosexuality.

He did so in a magazine interview. He did so because he believes he has a pulpit that most don't have in which to say what he feels about what he feels.

No, it wasn't a question of freedom of speech, as most said in remarks I read yesterday on blogs announcing the suspension. A&E has ever right to do this. They own the show. They own the network. I question the sanity of doing it, but not their right. Phil had every right to say what he said, wrong or right, and he invoked that right by saying it. I do not doubt his sincerity or his honesty. His remarks, we'll get to.

No, the question I have today is was it the right thing to say, and ultimately because he is a passionate lover of the Lord, does he believe Jesus would have said it?

I won't repeat the remarks simply for space reasons, but suffice to say Phil seemed to be equating homosexuality with bestiality and with adultery -- I think.

And he had some remarks about human sexuality that I don't think were needed in polite conversation.

Finally it seems, he then paraphrased 1 Corinthians 5. He said "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

Now, I'm not at all certain what translation Robertson uses normally, but I would gather it's close to this one, the NRSV, which says "Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God." Seems he did a pretty decent job of quoting, to me.

I read one story, in trying hard to find his remarks by the way, that said he equated gay persons with drunks and terrorists.

Well ...

Two observances: If the conservative side of Christianity, the evangelical side of Christianity, had picked a more unlikely spokesperson to serve as its own, Phil wouldn't have been the choice probably. But then I noticed Sara Palin was voicing her freedom of speech for freedom of speech. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal said that much of what he sees and reads in TV and magazines is offensive, and he linked Miley Cyrus with Phil Robertson, something I certainly never saw coming.

Second, who actually is the spokesperson for the conservative side of Christianity, and can there be a spokesperson for the moderate-conservative? But that's not the point here.

The point is this: For those who love the Robertson's show, and there are obviously millions, nothing Phil said comes as a surprise. For those who can't stand them and the family, and there are more millions that love it I would say simply because it is one show against hundreds and hundreds and if you add all those who love retched shows like virtually anything by Chuck Lorre (my opinion), you have more millions on that side, they were probably shocked that there are still folks who feel the way Roberson does.

Is there? And if there is, do they speak their mind as openly as does Phil and the boys?

We get back to the original questions:

Was it the right thing to say, and ultimately because he is a passionate lover of the Lord, does he believe Jesus would have said it?

There are many ways to read and interpret the Bible. If the quote by Robertson was taken out of context, that would be one way.

For example: In the second letter Paul wrote to the church in Corinth (which had some great difficulties), he said in the NLT, "Don't team up with those who are unbelievers. How can righteousness be a partner with wickedness."

Taken out of context, that sentence might lead Christians to believe we are not to do things with unbelievers. Granted that would make life for those of us who have pledged to complete the Great Commission, but I don't believe it is what Paul or Jesus was saying.

The problem the church has to argue and get around is there are many on both sides, good competent thinkers and theologians (which I believe is everyone who things about God), who believe the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. It just does, or seems to. The ones who are on the left are normally the ones who have doctor of theology beside their name, but I'm not sure schooling is the deciding factor here.

What Phil said, I wouldn't and maybe couldn't have said. On about the same day in this country, the United Methodist church had one bishop say she wouldn't have church trials any longer and the United Methodist church defrocked a pastor for officiating at a wedding of his gay son. We are not united any longer.

But what I'm arguing for is what I believe Jesus would have said, not Phil, not Adam Hamilton so much, not those who say the United Methodist Book of Discipline is outdated and has language in it that must be changed or even those who would argue that the Bible read through the eyes of its culture and its language really doesn't say what it certainly seems to say.

I'm arguing that it is still okay to say what you believe without being condemned or called stupid or whatever. It is.

Would Jesus have said it? I certainly don't know. But I believe if he believed it necessary, he would have for he feared no man. And here's the rub: He never did. Not once. He didn't condemn homosexuality. He never even talked about it. He did, however mention that log in our eye thing a couple times.

I believe what the Roberson's ultimately represent are someone who believes in the Lord and is or was saying it. I believe what we need is many more like that, but I also believe we need to be very careful in what we say.

So what now?

I have yet to see a statement from Willie. I'm not sure that a family that says what it feels can accept that apparently there are certain things you can't say. Phil's apology certainly wasn't sufficient to me. How can the Dynasty continue without the one who began the Dynasty. Do you as a family believe what he said was truth. If so, why are you continuing?

These are questions I can't answer nor will I try.

I will ask this one question to the Robertsons, though.

Would those statements bring one person to the Lord? I'm sorry to say, no, I don't believe they would. And that's what the bully pulpit lost yesterday. I'm sorrowed that the opportunities to show a family that prays together (as does the Reagans on Blue Bloods by the way) could be compromised.

There isn't enough of that on TV or in life. We need it desperately now. We just can't brow beat the "opposition" in the way the "opposition" brow beats Christians.  We're trying to love, not order. It's a hard business, especially without real details on how to touch others.

I'm reminded that a woman in Houston died in the doorways of a church, a United Methodist Church, on a cold, cold night.

And we're worried about everything else.