Answer: They are some of the entries on Voice of the Martyr’s list of countries where Christians are harassed, fined, beaten, imprisoned, and/or killed because of their faith. You know what country isn’t on the list? The U.S.
American Christians are not persecuted, and it’s time they stopped pretending they are. This time of year it’s bad enough that some people are still claiming there’s a “war on Christmas” and freaking out about the “happy holidays” thing. For my thoughts on that see “Happy Holidays” 11/27/12. But now, I’m being subjected to the Phil Robertson debacle. There are some people claiming that he was suspended (“persecuted”) because he’s a Christian. I have never watched Duck Dynasty, and I have no intention of ever doing so, but one can’t escape all the internet chatter about his interview with GQ, so I looked it up and read it because I know my readers are dying to hear my two cents worth on the subject. Here it is:
Phil Robertson was not suspended from the show because he’s a Christian, and to say so is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, let’s just take control of our emotions for one minute and let reason come to the fore. A&E knew the family was Christian from the very beginning. They pray on every episode. If A&E had a problem with their religion, the Robertsons wouldn’t have gotten a show to begin with, let alone been taped doing and saying religious things. No, Phil was suspended because he said an awful lot of stupid things. And I mean, an awful lot.
The way it played out in the media, the topic of importance was what he said about homosexuality. Regardless of where you stand on that issue, you must admit (as even his family does) that they way he expressed that opinion was tasteless and crude. That’s just the tip of the iceberg in an interview filled with evidence that he is a man with serious disconnects from reality. Take, for instance, his assertion that blacks were happy with life before the civil rights movement. Talk about someone who is absolutely delusional. He even goes so far as to describe blacks of the time as “pre-entitlement” and “pre-welfare.” I’m not sure where he gets his idea that blacks have a sense of entitlement. Maybe he’s confusing them with kids afflicted with “affluenza.” And are there seriously still people in this country who don’t know that the majority of welfare recipients are white? 1980 called, they want their racial stereotypes back.
He goes on to say he voted for Romney because he’d “feel safer” in Salt Lake City than he would in Chicago. (Though Romney is not from SLC). This is why I used to be a monarchist. Because people who use that kind of reasoning in picking a candidate are allowed to vote. Furthermore, if you could reasonably correlate a candidate with a city and those were your options, why, oh why, would you ever pick SLC over Chicago? Sure, SLC is less violent. But it’s also less cultured, less diverse, less influential, and less tasty. (Is this part of the interview offensive? No, but I couldn't resist addressing it because it demonstrates his lack of critical thinking skills and provides some levity for a pretty serious post.)
More horrifying to me, as a Christian, is his statement that cultures without Jesus are necessarily violent and murderous. He conveniently forgets Christianity’s dark past of the Crusades and the Inquisition. (Though, the GQ interviewer does not in his editorial asides.) Now, I would argue that the people involved in those movements also didn’t “have Jesus,” they just used the name as an excuse for their political actions. But many people in our society don’t understand that distinction, (just like they don’t understand that many political acts made in the name of Islam are not representative of that religion). For modern Christians to ignore that past and not address it seems like selective memory or, worse, complicity, and we miss a chance at a teachable moment. I’m not sure which it is for Phil, but that’s not even the worst part of this statement.
The worst is that he’s simply wrong. There are plenty of cultures that don’t “have Jesus” that are peaceful. Among his list of terrible Jesus-less groups are Nazis (okay), Communists (in the twentieth century practice, sure), Islamists (by which, he means Muslims) and Shintos. Shintos! I’m not sure where he got his ideas about Shinto from, but my cousin lived among Shinto people for three years in Japan. Japan is one of the most peaceful countries in the world, actually, ranked #5. Is he just assuming that the Japanese who bombed us in WWII were Shinto because they were Japanese (you know, how every Arab is Muslim and every Irishman is Catholic, and every [insert stereotype here]. I’d be very curious to hear what Phil actually knows about the Shinto religion, and I’d wager he’d be hard pressed to deliver evidence of Shino-related violence from the past five decades. As for Muslims, my readers know that I lived with Muslims for two years who were not only peaceful, but very hospitable. They are the norm, not the exception; you just don’t hear about them in the news. (I’ll try not to get up on my soapbox; you know how I feel about this topic). I know he doesn’t know much about the Muslim faith because in a different interview he actually called them Mohammedans. We just took a time warp back to the ‘60’s. It’s like when your grandpa refers to African Americans as “colored.”
To suggest that you can’t be a good person unless you’re a Christian is theologically dangerous. After all, we aren’t saved by works. That more Christians aren’t upset by Phil Robertson’s inaccurate depiction of our faith, and are actually rallying to his defense, is disturbing if not particularly surprising. The following exchange is very telling of modern American Christian culture.
Interviewer: What, in your mind, is sinful?
Robertson: Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men…
Of all the sins that our culture tolerates, he focuses on sexual sin. The American Christian obsession with sex has become very damaging. It has created a subculture in which the view of sex is incredibly warped. (Just google Mark Driscoll and you’ll see what I mean. That he said he never would have married his wife if he’d known she wasn’t a virgin speaks volumes about the prioritization of virginity above both Christ’s forgiveness and our duty as Christians to forgive others. I think Jesus would have a real problem with that.) Subsequently millions of Americans were raised in the church thinking sex is dirty and if you make a bad decision sexually you’re “damaged goods.” This extends to expressions of sexuality too. To even talk or joke about sex in these circles is taboo, except, of course, in youth group when the leader tells you “don’t ask ‘how far can I go?’ Ask ‘how pure can I remain?’” That’s where you get those creepy dating books that suggested you not even kiss your love until your wedding day. And it also saves the youth leader the embarrassment of having to talk explicitly about things like oral sex (and why there was a big increase in STDs among youth who thought oral sex was safe because it wasn’t going all the way. Oops, you got herpes because your church community advocated for abstinence only sex ed in public schools.) Even looking “sexual” can get you into trouble. Jessica Simpson started out as a Christian singer, but she couldn’t make it in the industry because she didn’t fit the image of innocence. She was too busty. Seriously. Because a double D couldn’t possibly be holy.
The consequence of these attitudes is a backlash that swings to the opposite extreme of sex obsession: saying that all sex is okay. That sex is nothing more than a biological urge and random hookups have no consequences emotionally or physically. That porn is not only okay, but healthy. That it’s okay to talk about sex anywhere. And it’s okay to be overtly sexual anywhere. (See Jessica Simpson’s secular videos) Most Americans tend toward one of the two extremes and it’s really hard to find people with a healthy view of sex that falls in between.
The American obsession with sex above other sins is interesting in light of 1 Corinthians 6:18 which says “he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” With the exception of rape, sexual sin is between a person and God. It largely does not affect society, (well until you bring public health into the picture). At least, not to the extent that sins like greed, violence, and oppressing the disenfranchised do. Yet, we never hear people like Phil decrying our society’s love of money. That, after all, is the root of all evil. But, of course, we as Americans have made capitalism into an idol. (See “Pinkos" 3/5/13)
And this very idol is the reason Phil got booted from his show, because while he has freedom of speech, he doesn’t have immunity from the consequences of that speech. And his employer has the right to deem his actions as harmful to the company’s bottom line. The people who are decrying A&E’s decision are the very same people who support big business and laissez faire attitudes toward those businesses. Let the market decide. Well, for the time being, the market has decided that the ignorant ravings of a theologically confused man are bad for the company image. I understand this. As a teacher, I couldn’t do whatever I wanted on my free time. If I had moonlighted as a stripper or said “those brats gave me the flu” on my facebook, I would have lost my job even though doing those things would have been within my constitutional rights. This is the price you pay as an individual when you work for a company or organization that has an image to maintain and as a society when you extol the virtues of capitalism.
You can find a plethora of disturbing things Phil has said before this particular interview, including that a good woman is "hard to find. Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry 'em. Look, you wait till they get to be about 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're 15 or 16…” I don’t think I need to elaborate on the many problems I have with this statement.
If Phil Robertson accurately represents your beliefs, by all means, rush to his defense. Or, if you don’t particularly agree with him but think our economic and political system should change to allow anyone to say anything at any time in any forum without repercussions, rush to his defense. Just make sure that if you do, you understand the implications of your defense. As for me, he does not represent my beliefs, and Christians who share this view need to be as vocal as the ones who are siding with him. Regardless of where you stand on this "issue," though there are more important things we should be worrying about, if you're a Christian in this country, you should never, ever cry "persecution," because it's insulting to those who really are persecuted world wide.