In Which Chesterton and Phil Robertson Mix

So much ink has already been spilled about Duck Dynasty and A&E that spilling a drop more could very well result in some kind of cosmic implosion. Besides, by most internet standards, I’m inexcusably late to the party – the guest everyone sniffs at, as they wonder why he bothered showing up at all.

But what the heck. I’m going to show up and spill ink anyway.

Chesterton observed that “when somebody wishes to wage a social war against what all normal people have regarded as a social decency, the very first thing he does is to find some artificial term that shall sound relatively decent.” Hence in the war on marriage, we find ourselves confronted with an ever evolving Lexicon of Politically Correct Newspeak, jam-packed with nice-sounding words and phrases for that which is utterly disgusting.

As a culture, we wolf this sort of thing down. Why? Because the aberrancy of sin is always easier to countenance under a thick layer of psuedonymous goop. Sodomy is no exception. We’d rather not think about what the homosexual act actually involves, so we avoid anything that might remind us of it, even accidentally. We go out of our way to tippytoe. And when everybody tippytoes, the man who puts his foot down is promptly knifed in the back (most often by the purveyors of tolerance).

Phil Robertson put his foot down, and everyone heard the crunch. To hell with the eggshells. To hell with the Keepers Thereof. All our carefully-manicured genteelism – all the euphemisms we put in place to protect ourselves from what is – all of that just took a load of birdshot in the hindquarters, and the shooter was a redneck from Louisiana.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

10 thoughts on “In Which Chesterton and Phil Robertson Mix”

  1. Corey, I see your point, and I”m not really sure where I come down on the issue, other than to think that it’s being discussed entirely too much, but, but… The question I keep coming back to is this, was his comment helpful? If I’m speaking to a gay non-Christian friend, do I want my emphasis to be on sin, or the love of God? I just don’t think that Phil’s comments were loving, and that’s what bothers me. I don’t give a damn about the egg shells he crushed, if that’s all he did, then go for it, but what I do care about are the people who genuinely struggle with homosexuality. I have been unable to persuade myself that his crude mocking of their struggles is an effective method of communicating love. And, it saddens me, because from what I know of Phil, he genuinely is a loving man who truly knows what it is to be a sinner and be saved by grace.

    1. Was it helpful? Yes, I think so. Robertson drew attention to something which few people care to discuss these days – the vileness and illogic of sin (in this case, the sin of sodomy). How could this not be helpful?

      I guess I fail to see where his comments were crude, mocking, or unloving. He was blunt, yes, but not obscene; nor was he cracking jokes about those who struggle with homosexual desire. I would call his comments very loving, because he didn’t attempt to white-wash the sin in question. Sodomy is frankly disgusting, and we – as a culture – are far too talented at sidestepping this simple fact. I think that’s why Robertson’s remarks sound so shocking to our tender ears: we’re just accustomed to the G-rated version.

      I would also say that there must be a clear emphasis on the black and bloody reality of sin before there can be any real talk of a Savior. If what I’m doing isn’t really “that bad,” is this whole Jesus thing really “that serious”?

      All that to say… I think you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. :)

      1. Well, I would say that saying he feels like the vagina has more to offer is an oversimplification of homosexuality and mocking to those who struggle with it. But I do see your points. Since it’s Christmas, this once, I”ll agree to disagree. :)

  2. I came here from your mom’s blog too and I agree with what you said. I too tip my hat off to Phil. You see, I have a gay brother. He’s an actively, ‘married,’ Vice President for a large Manhattan Graphic Design company. He and his people are who get paid to design logo’s/labels and such on Dannon, Colgate and a gazillion more companies. He has money. He has talent and he has compassion for everyone in the world except those who don’t agree with his lifestyle. I however, do.

    I admire Phil. I had to take a stand in my own family and I am now the outcast. I cry about it, sure, but I have one God and one God only. This is what I remind myself when my heart aches.

    What makes me so sad about this whole Phil thing is that he should have had more support from famous voices than he did. Where on earth were all the other famous “Christians,” during this? (I say Christians loosely) Where was their voice? Why did only a hand full of famous Christians stand up to back Phil? That’s my question. It’s pitiful if you ask me. What happened to walk the walk and not just talk the talk? What were they afraid to lose in this life that Phil wasn’t?

    Great post. :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s