What 1 Intend Phil Robertson Was Trying To Say

Radar.com

I’ve been writing professionally for vii years, the final several of which I spent as a gender activity editor at a national magazine. I’m also a Christian, which puts me inward the minority inward the liberal media the world (especially with gender activity editors).

Writing nearly sex, patch yet existence deeply devoted to my faith, has been hard to reconcile (although God did create sex, together with he did blueprint it to last pleasurable. But that’s some other article). Many editors receive got told me I’m likewise traditional or conservative over the years (and I’ve fifty-fifty lost out on operate opportunities because of this, although no ane would ever acknowledge it). At the same time, I’ve been the champaign of study of Dominicus schoolhouse chagrin because my vanquish doesn’t sync with what a Christian author is supposed to cover.

I’ve also been inward the seat I imagine Phil Robertson believed he was in: existence offered a rare chance to spread the message of my faith, through an outlet built on an alone dissimilar (if non opposing) prepare of beliefs.

In my case, it didn’t work. I’ll fifty-fifty locomote out on a limb together with say that trying to occupation liberal media as a platform for a conservative message rarely works. 

I’ve had an editor take an unobtrusive reference to God (that was, past times the way, totally appropriate to the story). I’ve also had views counter to my ain injected into articles with my holler attached to them. I’ve seen editors emphasize atheism, patch watering downwards Christianity to vague, but widely palatable, “spirituality.”

As long as at that topographic point is someone editing my work, my beliefs volition last diluted, skewed, or only disregarded. That’s the way it goes.

Journalists receive got a storey to tell. And a storey is ultimately an argument: The linguistic communication isn’t ever incendiary, accusatory, or divisive, but the journalist’s project is to persuade you lot to believe (or to the lowest degree consider) what he’s proverb as truth. This requires carefully selecting quotes—bits together with pieces of often-lengthy conversations—to back upwards the storey existence told. Quotes that farther the argument, whether through content, tone, or only through an unfortunate lack of context, volition last used; quotes that don’t bring the message volition last ignored.

Which makes a liberal publication a unsafe house for an outspoken Christian similar Phil Robertson. In his interview with GQ, I’m guessing—although I receive got no way to attempt out this—that Robertson made statements nearly his religious belief that the masses would receive got easily swallowed. But, then, what form of storey would that be? Would GQ.com receive got gotten as many clicks? I uncertainty it.

Let me clarify: I don’t fault GQ for cherry-picking quotes. That’s journalism. But I do holler upwards this is a cautionary tale for Christians: Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 secular journalist is NOT going to last sympathetic to your message. Which agency he’s non going to say, “Well, I know what he meant” together with opt to leave of absence out an easy-to-misconstrue quote that would undoubtedly heighten a ruckus. (Not commenting specifically on Phil here, past times the way.)

He doesn’t attention if you lot meant “We’re all equal inward the eyes of God” but it didn’t quite come upwards out that way. He’s going to pose out exactly what you lot said, regardless of the intention behind it, specially if it adds to the declaration he’s making. Which I believe, inward the illustration of GQ, was that Robertson is a backwoods Bible thumper, whose views are therefore off-color that readers should peradventure last amused fifty-fifty to a greater extent than than they should last offended. The Bible thumper purpose is past times Phil’s ain admission; the minute purpose is the writer’s addition.

There’s an oft-repeated phrase inward journalism school: Know your audience. In other words, residual what you want to say with what your audience wants to hear. In the illustration of GQ, much of the audience is, inward fact, gay. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 few years back, Gawker.com reported that GQ was “the gayest magazine” on newsstands (of course, excluding magazines similar Out that are written specifically for a homosexual audience), with 10.35 part of virile someone readers identifying as gay or bisexual.

Now let’s rewind to the declaration I believe the author was trying to make—that Robertson is everything a GQ reader is not—which agency the Duck Dynasty patriarch’s opinions nearly homosexuality would, of course, last emphasized. (I also holler upwards the author consciously tried to distance himself from Robertson’s beliefs—lest the readers mistakenly assume he, a hubby together with father, was siding with his subject—by inserting curse words, similar G-D, into the story. His only concession to Phil was that living on a farm actually does appear nice.)

I holler upwards that what Robertson said was jarringly blunt, if non crude. But I don’t holler upwards he intended to spread a message of hate.

The Internet has been ablaze with stories claiming that Robertson equated homosexuality with bestiality. Let’s review what he said nearly his definition of sin: “Start with homosexual behaviour together with only morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping approximately with this adult woman together with that adult woman together with that adult woman together with those men. Don’t last deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the virile someone prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards the slanders, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.”

Nowhere does Robertson say that bestiality together with homosexuality are ane inward the same. Yes, he mentioned them inside a breath of each other, but he wasn’t equating the two. What he was saying: According to Christian beliefs, both are sinful acts. And patch we, as humans, may categorize sin past times varying degrees of wrong, God does not.

Why? Because Christian teachings say that whatsoever sin makes us unholy—it doesn’t affair how “wrong” or “acceptable” the the world tells us it is. And Christians don’t determine what falls nether the umbrella of sin. God does. (He also decided to post his boy to redeem us.)

Here’s the purpose of the message that people miss: Just as God doesn’t receive got a hierarchy  of  sins (barring blasphemy), he also doesn’t categorize humans. He loves us all equally, no affair our sexual preference, our color, our gender, our trace of work. That doesn’t hateful he’s non grieved past times our sins. Our sins only don’t brand him dearest us whatsoever less.

And tolerance is non to last confused with love. You tin spend upwards to tolerate, say, your teenager’s habit of getting drunk, but that doesn’t hateful you lot dearest your shaver whatsoever less. Likewise, the Christian religious belief doesn’t condone homosexuality, but it also doesn’t condemn the people who do it. I holler upwards that’s what Phil meant.