— Posted in Main

Faith vs. “Faith”

I’m going to take a moment to say my piece on the matter of Mr. Robertson:

When Qayin was asked by God what had happened to Hevel, he responded- “I know not; am I my brother’s keeper”?

Subsequently, the proverbial shit hit the fan. When God found what Qayin had done, he was cast out into the wilderness as a fugitive for all time.

It is, however, not the point that he murdered his brother, but that he cared not for him. Qayin absolved himself of his relationship with his brother through his jealousy, and chose to not only murder him, but abandon his familial concern for him.

And that, really, is the point in all of this that too many of these folks speaking about their “faith communities” and what “Christianity” is supposed to be don’t grasp, merely hiding behind “judge not lest ye be judged”, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, or “love thy neighbor as you love yourself”. Especially the latter.

Robertson knows for certain that he is judged, more than all too many care to admit that they themselves are. Further, stating that a wrong is, in fact, wrong, is not the passing of judgement- it’s an admittance of truth. And if Phil Robertson deems to love himself, and abide in such a way that he does his best to do so without sin, he’s going to counsel his neighbor to do the same.

The rule used to be “love the sinner, hate the sin”; it’s not even that anymore- it’s “love the sinner, consider the sin normal”. And that’s not merely on the Biblical matter of homosexuality, but in most every matter- we live in an age when theft from one, in many circumstances, is considered an acceptable practice so long as the proceeds are given to those whom we believe are worthy. Lust and envy are the very names of the game. Damaging one’s temple of self is an acceptable practice so long as you feel “good” about it at the end of the day.

And we can justify jealous and spiteful murder, and even champion the practitioners so long as they fit an idiom with which we are comfortable.

We do this every day; it’s our mode of existence. And so when a man comes out speaking, not only truth, but truth in the name of protecting others, allowing them to rise above what he can point to the Bible as teaching, those whom have no grasp on its contents, or his reasoning, are the first to make excuses. Not really for his failings, mind you, but their own.

“‘True’ Christians do not believe this.” “Homophobe”. “Hate speech”.

Really? And you can justify this in Scripture, where? He can validate his contentions about Christianity from the book- not interpretation, the actual tome. Both Testaments. He cannot toss out the great length of the instruction manual, lest he wish to invalidate it wholesale. It’s designed to be taken in full- all or nothing.

I mean, it’s not like it’s the ACA, the Constitution of the United States, or Federal law we’re talking about here, where we can pick and choose the parts we wish to abide by and enforce.

But I digress. I know a lot of “Christians” who like to pick and choose their spots. Hypocrisy is the human condition. Excuse a little of this, excuse some of that. Make it comfortable. I have my own failings, have no doubt. And while I could count them as being comparatively less than others, I do find, in the balance, it interesting

Ultimately, it boils down to the fact that Phil Robertson acts upon the very nature of his faith, and is choosing to abide by the ramifications of such. At the end of the day, I am certain that he is more than happy to live with his choice, confident that he gave his testament in the correct fashion.

And the best part is that he can back it up- chapter and verse.