[Note: if you need some context, a quick scan of any major news website should get you there. Or you can read this NY Post link that provides a representative "take". In short, a reporter asked Robertson what kind of behavior he found sinful. Robertson started with homosexuality and went from there. The press went apoplectic. As of this morning, A&E has suspended him indefinitely.]
Here are my random thoughts on this whole thing...
1. A&E has the right to suspend him. After all, it's their network, they're producing the show, etc. But it would be nice if they had the courage to state their own policy upfront: "You must agree with OUR take on... [insert list of social issues], or we will fire you and refuse to work with you."
Not quite so open and affirming and tolerant when you put it that way, is it?
2. It's interesting to look at the actual charge: “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz."
So Richardson is lying, he is misrepresenting true Christianity. That is a very big charge, and it raises a question: Since when is GLAAD an expert on Christianity? Why doesn't anyone in the media ask that question? Why aren't any of the articles saying, "Um guys, this is actually a hotly debated issue right now. The current mainstream American 'consensus' is actually less than 30 years old. Most of the people on the planet still don't agree with us on this. What makes us right and them wrong?" That would be a much more helpful discussion. But it's not on the table. And any thoughtful person reading the press ought to ask: Why?
In fact, every one of us ought to be asking the same basic question of ourselves: what's MY basis for my understanding of right and wrong? My culture? My own preferences? Old-fashioned Christianity has always had a decent answer to these things (humble, albeit challenging: true Christians have always believed the Scriptures are authored by God, and that in spite of all the complexity he managed to get it right).
3. The desire to salvage Christianity. Isn't it interesting how many people want to castigate Robertson but save Christianity (even though Robertson is the one quoting the Christian Scriptures). Why is that? Why doesn't the media just lambast Christianity - "See, here's a typical Christian: this is what the Bible actually says, this is what most Christians throughout history have believed, this is why we should just reject Christianity outright." Why is no one making that case?
And why do most of us feel the same way - we desperately want to be considered "Christian" (regardless of our behaviour). Why do we crave that? I suspect that most people still think "Christian" is roughly synonymous with "being a good person."
And that's a massive misunderstanding of historic, biblical Christianity.
4. Our understanding of sin. Where Robertson went wrong, in my opinion, is NOT that he said homosexuality is a sin (the Bible is quite clear on this matter - in fact it has much to say about our sexuality in general, and even more on money). The problem is that Robertson didn't go far enough.
The Bible in general (and Jesus in particular, and Paul especially!) does not view sin as simply behavioral (these actions are good, those actions are bad). No, it's much more nuanced than that. Real Christianity has always viewed sin as primarily motivational (what's the motive behind my actions?). This is why Jesus hammered on some really "good" people, the Pharisees, who were very, very moral, but they were using their morality to try justify themselves to God and to make themselves feel better than others.
Fundamentally, a truly Christian view of sin = any action that flows from self-interest (what do I want? what pleases ME?) rather than self-sacrifice and love of God (what does HE want? what pleases JESUS?).
So what Robertson should have said is, Yes, the Bible talks about sin - "bad things" like homosexuality and sex outside of marriage - but even worse, the Bible also condemns even the "good things" that I do for self-serving reasons. So if I feel like I'm ok simply because I'm NOT having sex with men, if I feel superior to homosexuals because I am straight ("Thank you Lord, that I'm not like those sinners!"), if I think that somehow merits favor with the Father... I don't understand the gospel, that we are ALL sinners in his eyes, that I am just as unworthy as the most vile person you can think of, that I can only be saved by sheer grace of Jesus dying for me...
And that's the REAL scandal of the gospel. It's not that homosexuality is BAD (most people in the world right now agree on that, btw) - it's that even our GOODNESS can keep us from God (when it's done to try and "earn" his favor, when we use it to "feel better" about ourselves in comparison with others).
That's what I wish he would have said. One more thought...
5. This is a sign of what's coming. We are rapidly transitioning to a post-Christian culture whose ethics are massively out of kilter with what the Bible teaches on sexuality. I don't think this is really a new shift - I suspect it's just finally become culturally acceptable enough that most of us are finally willing to act on the desires that have been there all along.
But here's what's really going to kill us. Most of us crave the approval of others, and will do just about anything to avoid disapproval. Yet Jesus told his followers: if they hated me, they'll hate you too. And we're finally getting to the point where Christianity is no longer the "favored" cultural position. So it's going to get costly to be a Christian again. To be a true follower of Christ, we're going to start to experience disapproval.
For many of us, our real struggle with the Bible's teaching on homosexuality is not the content (eg. homosexual behavior is wrong), but the cost of that teaching - our friends, the people we want to like us, are going to mock, scorn, disdain, and possibly even punish us. That's what's happening to Robertson to some extent (and to his credit, he doesn't seem to be complaining about it). But I wonder about the rest of us: are we willing to embrace Jesus even on the points that challenge our culture? Are we willing to lose the respect of friends and family? Are we willing to suffer in our careers? To be vilified in the press?
I think this is just the beginning. But cheer up! Jesus insists it goes with the territory, and it's not nearly as bad as we fear, and we've got some great company along the way - this has been the way of Christian pilgrims throughout the ages, and it's the way of Jesus too. When we start to walk this path, he promises to meet us along the way. I think it's time to start getting used to it.
