Duck Dynasty responds...
http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement
This troubles me. I admire and respect the Robertson Clan. But the Duck Commander was wrong.
The tell-tale comment, for me (in the family statement), was "While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse..." coarse indeed; the remarks were "unfiltered" because Phil failed to season his freedom to speak with loving, godly restraint. The "but" that follows does NOT mitigate the inappropriateness of the way Phil described his objection to Homosexuality.
If a pastor used the same language with a congregation, it would scandalize the saints--I realize that's not difficult to do, but in this case, it would be an appropriate response.
I share Phil's faith and his values. I don't share his decision to go "on the record" to put his EARTHY spin on those values and in the process distort God's mission to save people--he may have thought it clever, perhaps instructive, but those were not words that honored God.
As difficult as it is to embrace (who can fully understand the depth and breadth of Grace?), God loves all of us, REGARDLESS of our sin--and desires that "none should perish." So intense is His love for humankind that He gave His beloved Son to remove the taint and penalty of sin. Phil's remarks did not reflect that love...and that was an unfortunate error--another reminder that we are all flawed and in need of God's grace.
Phil simply needed to allow the Scriptures, the full discourse on sin and God's resolution of that gash on His crowning creation (because of His unfailing love), to speak for him and for people of faith--period. God's Word, His narrative, does not need help.
Done. bN
http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement
This troubles me. I admire and respect the Robertson Clan. But the Duck Commander was wrong.
The tell-tale comment, for me (in the family statement), was "While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse..." coarse indeed; the remarks were "unfiltered" because Phil failed to season his freedom to speak with loving, godly restraint. The "but" that follows does NOT mitigate the inappropriateness of the way Phil described his objection to Homosexuality.
If a pastor used the same language with a congregation, it would scandalize the saints--I realize that's not difficult to do, but in this case, it would be an appropriate response.
I share Phil's faith and his values. I don't share his decision to go "on the record" to put his EARTHY spin on those values and in the process distort God's mission to save people--he may have thought it clever, perhaps instructive, but those were not words that honored God.
As difficult as it is to embrace (who can fully understand the depth and breadth of Grace?), God loves all of us, REGARDLESS of our sin--and desires that "none should perish." So intense is His love for humankind that He gave His beloved Son to remove the taint and penalty of sin. Phil's remarks did not reflect that love...and that was an unfortunate error--another reminder that we are all flawed and in need of God's grace.
Phil simply needed to allow the Scriptures, the full discourse on sin and God's resolution of that gash on His crowning creation (because of His unfailing love), to speak for him and for people of faith--period. God's Word, His narrative, does not need help.
Done. bN
No comments:
Post a Comment