[image: Food Alley, 2012, JA Van Devender]
Location: Beijing, Vicinity of Farmer's Market
Lk 6:37
Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
It was a late night last evening. I didn't leave the office until after 10:45 pm after having arrived at 6:00 am. Long days, filled with intense focus and concentration, can incline a person to grumpiness... shall we say, "less willingness to listen to foolishness." Arriving home to a quiet house with my wife wisely asleep upstairs, I decided to relax and catch up on what's happening. Lo and behold, on the "Factor" rerun from earlier in the day, Bill (I wrote "Killing Jesus" therefore I am an expert on the Bible) O'Reilly was weighing in on the latest remarks by Phil Robertson from "Duck Dynasty." And what is it that Bill flashes on the screen and then proceeds to apply to Mr. Robertson's remarks? Why the quote "Judge not, and you shall not be judged" above. He then proceeds to state, with the full of authority of his recognized exegetical capabilities backing him up, that Mr. Robertson was obviously out of conformity with the Scriptures in that he should not have stated that "sinners, including gay people, will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven." O'Reilly said this with a straight face and then used the "do not judge" quote to "judge" that Mr. Robertson ought not to say such things... out loud... and in public.
Somehow or another it must have escaped Bill's notice that Mr. Robertson was quoting 1 Cor. 6:9, a passage that Laura Ingram in response to him seemed to understand.
I have groaned at O'Reilly's remarks about religion before. He once mispronounced the OT book "Malachi" in such a way as to make it sound like an Italian diner. I've watched him for years, have benefited from some of his stuff, but increasingly his arrogance has made me less inclined to pay attention to him at all. In this instance I wish he had simply left the Scriptures out of it. It's one thing to be ignorant of what they actually teach... it's another to seek to apply them, out of context, to the case of another person, namely Mr. Robertson, who, quite frankly, not only knows the Scriptures far more comprehensively than himself, but can run circles around him while he does it.
When it comes to the Word of God... O'Reilly is a dangerous dilettante and I wish he would shut up.
Now, with regard to Mr. Robertson's remarks. I think Laura Ingram was right. Regardless of where one stands on how Mr. Robertson applied the clear scriptural position on homosexuality, he should not be "fired" for stating them. The real issue is whether or not the Scriptures are going to be suppressed. The practice of homosexuality is a sin... period. Whether a "homosexual" inherits the Kingdom of Heaven will depend on the state of his or her repentance, just as it does to every adulterer, thief, liar or gossip. If one is going to speak on these things in a public forum, one must be careful to clearly state what the Scripture's teach in a concise manner or else, just as it is here, the enemies of Christ will have a field day.
Mr. Robertson also has the right to speak out on his own memories of race relations in the South in the "good ole days." However here, his recollection is clearly understood through quite rosy glasses. I am in the same age group as he, I grew up in the segregated South as did he, and I can categorically state that the average Negro in those days was not as he pictured them. He says "they were godly, they were happy, no one was singing the blues!" This is nonsense. I worked with Negroes (as they preferred to be called in those "pre-Black" days) also. I ate with them and visited their homes. I had respect for them and they for me. But there was ALWAYS the unspoken wall between us. I could ride my bicycle through the neighborhoods in absolute safety... without ever fear of mugging.. which was not always true of some white sections of the area. But, there is no question, the reason for that was understood on both sides. If the black kids had done violence to me there might very well have been a lynching. If the white kids had done it to me, there might be a hand slap or two, or I might even have been told to do unto them what they had done to me. Things were different in those days. But "uncle Tom" was not a happy camper at all.
Mr. Robertson has the right to say what he thinks... in quoting scripture he is essentially correct... in remembering the Segregated South he is far wrong.
The great shame of this present circumstance though, is that it gives occasion for folks like O'Reilly to display their ignorance. We Christians, Mr. Robertson, ought to be cautious about the grounds we give them to do so, but O'Reilly is doing more harm to the Christian image than you, Mr. Robertson, in every respect.
Comments