Duck Disaster

My online life has been invaded this past two weeks by the Phil Roberts/Duck Dynasty controversy. For those who don't know, Phil Roberts is a star on the 'reality' show Duck Dynasty, which in turn, is about the company by the same name and the family who runs it. They are conservative Christians who are all about "guns and God." Recently, the father was interviewed by a magazine and gave a short, firm anti-gay statement. He was then pulled from the show and now everyone is up in arms saying his right to religion and free speech was taken away. But was it?

Well, does he have the right to make anti-gay comments? Yes, and he did. He is allowed to, but seeing as his show is owned by a liberal gay-friendly company, they do not agree with him. They do not have to either. So they run into an impasse. He will not back down so they fire him. This is not an attack on religion or free speech, but instead, they do not want to be associated with such ideas as 'gay is wrong'. They did not say Phil couldn't say that, they just said he couldn't work for them then. If a conservative church had an employee, like a pastor, who suddenly said something that was against the grain of the church, like Jesus is just another of many gods, then the church would have the right to fire him, on the grounds that he was misrepresenting their beliefs.

Phil Roberts does not represent what A&E wants to represent. Therefore, they are allowed to let him go. He was not persecuted, nor was he threatened. Phil is allowed to preach all the time on his off time, in other words when he does not represent A&E. But as their spokesperson, they do not want him to be 'anti-gay'.

Personally, I think that A&E are fully in their rights to fire/suspend Phil. Not that I agree with A&E, but I believe they have the right to choose who represents them, just as Christians have the right to choose who represents us as well.

Here's another question: Is Phil being an accurate representation of Christ? This is not one I will try to answer with a simple yes or no. But we need to realize this: being gay is not the sin that condemns people, being a sinner is what condemns them. (see this post for more on our Christian reaction to gay people) What I mean is this, if all the gay people in the world were suddenly "not gay" (if that is possible) tomorrow, it would not grant them all salvation. Salvation is through Jesus, not through being straight. I believe some well-meaning Christians have the idea that being gay is somehow more wrong than being unfaithful as a straight person, married or not. But I do not believe that God views it that way. God tells us that He views lust as adultery and anger as murder. If we draw an imaginary line of 'bad sin' and say that being gay is the 'bad sin' all we are doing is condemning without helping. That is the most unChristlike thing we can do. In the end, pray for your enemy, and love them. That is what we are called to do.