A `Duck Call` for All
A “Duck Call” for All
By J. Randall O’Brien
The moral outrage surrounding Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson’s remarks published in a recent issue of GQ Magazine, and his suspension and subsequent reinstatement from the popular television show produced by A&E Network, has long since subsided. Perhaps some modest theological reflection on the matter is still in season.
In his interview with GQ, Robertson expressed graphic intolerance of homosexuals and appalling insensitivity to the plight of African-Americans during the Jim Crow Era. Accusations of intolerance, and cries for tolerance, were aggressively leveled at both Robertson and the television network, depending on the side taken by the crier. Despite the hostile verbiage directed at the two central parties in the drama, prevailing reason concluded the following: The first amendment protected Robertson’s right to free speech, but not his right to a television show. In other words, both parties were within their legal rights. Was there not, however, another critical issue involved, one worthy of our attention?
Beyond the particular and obvious issues raised in the interview lies a larger Christian debate over tolerance in moral matters. For many, tolerance for liberal speech and behavior equates to political correctness, widely considered a modern virtue by the political and religious Left, but often a vice by the Right. For others, tolerance of a cultural shift away from traditional Christian values is considered betrayal of the conservative cause and evidence of the baptism of an apostate church by secular society. Or, as the lament goes, the world is winning the Church; the Church is not winning the world.
Is tolerance a virtue or a vice? The easy answer is that it depends upon the issue, and to whom one speaks. As a rule, one might anticipate conservatives like Phil Robertson to be intolerant of any real or perceived erosion of traditional values. One might also expect liberals to be more comfortable with evolving cultural values, perhaps proving impatient, even agitated, with conservative condemnation of cultural change.
Although millions were jolted by Robertson’s words and A&E’s response, each position represented a major segment of American society. Each party was intolerant, but for different reasons due to competing worldviews.
Since intolerance implies judgment, or suppression of freedom, Christians may disagree on its practice. On one hand, Jesus admonishes believers saying, “Judge not lest you be judged.” Also, in America, the land of the free, who are we to take freedom away from others while God and the Constitution grant freedom to them? On the other hand, Jesus judged the Pharisees and Sadducees, as well as his own culture. Doesn’t the Good Book encourage believers to “contend for the faith,” a difficult assignment to complete without judging when a battle should be joined?
The people of God are called to “do justice.” However, justice is impossible apart from judgment. The Hebrew word translated as both justice and judgment is one and the same. Even forgiveness depends upon judgment. Forgiveness says, “I judge you guilty; and I forgive you.”
So how are we to think? To tolerate or not, judge or not, that is the question. The answer is “yes, of course.” We judge all things, meaning sometimes we inevitably practice tolerance, while other times we do not. Jesus judged the money-changers in the Temple, turning over their tables, but understood when two sisters blamed Him for the death of their brother.
Paul judged the sinful; Daniel judged the Babylonians. The prophets judged kings and screamed “No!” to their society. Without judgment there can be no justice, no repentance, no right or wrong, no morality nor immorality, no law and order, no fairness, no hope, and no conversion.
Perhaps what Jesus meant by His “judge not” admonition was that we should not set ourselves above others, arrogantly counting ourselves better than them. Once He asked, “Why look for the speck in your neighbor’s eye when you have a beam in yours?” Then when some wanted to stone a woman caught in adultery, He responded, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Then, by equating lust with adultery and sustained anger with murder in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made it clear that we are all adulterers and murderers.
Therefore, “we” not “you” have a sin problem. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” “There is none righteous, no not one.” It is true that the Bible knows nothing of tolerance for sin, willful living contrary to the will and Spirit of God. However, and this is the rub, all of us are guilty. Not “you” but “we.” Not “them” but “us.” And all of us are eligible for forgiveness. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sin he is faithful and just to forgive our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Tolerance, on the other hand, leaves sin unaddressed. The Good News is Christ came to address our sin problem, not to condemn the world, but to save it, that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Radical Good News, indeed! As Brennan Manning puts it, “The Good News means we can stop lying to ourselves.”
If we lose the doctrine of sin, we lose the doctrine of salvation. Simply put, no sin no Savior. Bonhoeffer surely had it right. The last word with Christ, when He gets His way is grace; but you cannot speak the last word, he noted until you speak the next-to-last word. And that word is “guilty.”
So, in the Duck Dynasty skirmish in the culture war, who is the sinner — Phil Robertson’s targets or Phil Robertson, A&E executives or you or me or all of us? The answer is all.
Our mistake is not in addressing the sin problem of the human race, whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head. Our mistake is in failing to understand we are all part of the problem, and that a solution awaits.
J. Randall O’Brien is President of Carson Newman University.
(continued on page 26)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
