The Shot Heard Round the World

The Shot Heard Round the World

In 1775 at the North Bridge in Concord, volleys were exchanged that ignited a smoldering tension into an open conflagration. In the end there was freedom. Between the first shot and the end a cost was paid.

Another shot is now being heard 'round the world--fired from a duck gun.

It is a crisis of our age and a redneck from the swamp finally has the temerity to tell everyone the emperor has no clothes. Hell has broken loose.

Key definable moments often accompany great controversies: Pearl Harbor, The 95 Theses, a letter written from a jail in Birmingham,  the shots at Concord, or . . . Phil Robertson in GQ. What is this crisis of our age? A crisis of reason, logic, common sense, morality, and sexuality--and specifically how these relate to homosexual behavior. Did the Duck Commander say something new? No. So why is this a "key moment"? First, as Tom Gilson has written in the blog Thinking Christian, 

There may never be one clearly identifiable turning point in our defense of biblical truth against the pressure exerted by advocates of unbridled sexual expression. More likely it will remain more a matter of challenges increasing over time. Still this is a significant symbolic moment; a very sobering moment. The battle has just intensified. . . . 

[as] expressed by King Theoden. . . in The Two Towers, "And so it begins." 

Indeed. Have you ever seen such a media, web, and social media blitz about a bearded "nobody" from the swamps?

Yet there is an additional reason this unfiltered and self confessed "coarse" interview has become so pivotal. Is it because Phil Robertson has espoused hate? No. Not unless you define hate as disagreement. His statement, ". . . I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other," is not hate.

Is it because he's a celebrity? No. While the show is certainly popular, Robertson doesn't think highly of himself, and the popularity of the show derives from that very simple humility. It represents "nobodies," which causes people to feel like the show is about "anybody" (i.e., themselves).  This is something the typical celebrity crowd would have a hard time understanding. 

Is it the fact that homosexuality was referred to as sin? While this does seem to rile those who support homosexuality, this is not new terminology worthy of an eruption. Nor should it have come as a surprise that Phil Robertson should think that way.

Together, though, these factors coalesce into a storm and the real reasons why this event is pivotal begin to emerge. For starters, it takes a lot of courage to answer honestly when all the factors of political correctness, anti-religious fervor, legal momentum, high brow scoffing, and media manipulation converge against a forthright answer. This resonates with people and bravery begets bravery. The response is that much stronger when the one standing alone is perceived as the common man or underdog. People decide enough is enough and they begin to speak out also. Said in modern parlance--courage goes viral.

However, as much courage as it takes to stand against the king and his court, it is a whole other level of audacity to yell,

The king has no clothes!

How rude. How vile! How inconsiderate. When the screaming gets the loudest, though, that's when it's wise to look closely at the content. Who is the emperor, why does he have no clothes, and why are so few willing to say the jig is up? What did Robertson say that so angers some and so resonates with all?

In plain and simple anatomical terms he unmasked the reason everyone (yes, everyone) knows (yes, knows)  that homosexual sex is wrong. It couldn't be more obvious. It's embarrassingly simple. Men are not designed to "be with" men. Men are designed to "be with" women. It's just that a backwoods "duck killer" has the courage to say so. The critical juncture is not the state of the economy. It's not the politics. It's not the rights. It's not bigotry. It's not "love" and marriage. It is. . . anatomy! Why is anatomy so important?  

To illustrate, let's consider abortion. It's all too easy to couch this horror in terms of "every child a wanted child," "safe, legal, and rare," "it's a woman's body," and other such non-sense, but show a picture of a just-aborted 20 week old child and the jig is up. That's why there is such anger when these types of photographs are displayed at universities. It makes us all uncomfortable. When we try extraordinarily hard to justify an obvious ill, the most effective way is to talk in veiled language. This is also why my visit to Yad Vashem left an indelible imprint on me and why such museums are crucial to not only the Jewish story, but to humanity. These displays, more than making us remember, make us see the real. Reality is a teacher. It confronts us at every turn and demands our attention. Our every effort to hide reality with colorful paint and pretty fabric come to nothing when the real is seen without veil. The clothes covering the horror of the holocausts (of Jews and infants) are seen to be non-existent when faced in all their gory realness.

Is this meant to compare homosexuality to the Holocaust? Absolutely not. It is meant to illustrate whytelling it like it is is so important, why every attempt will be made to divert that telling, and why the rage is so great when the real is unveiled. GLAAD thus accuses Robertson of "some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication." What's vile about what he said? His description of male and female anatomy? That's science. Man on man sex? That's what they are promoting. That it's sin? Maybe, but again, that's not a new concept.

Furthermore, GLAAD must demonstrate their bold statements through counter-argument, instead of simple assertion. Robertson gave his argument, though not in a way suitable for young children, nor in a formal syllogism. But he did offer a good reason. One that is often overlooked because it is just too obvious and our appropriate social sensibilities typically steer us away from talking frankly about such things; that is, our proper privatization of sex limits getting at the real in this instance. While we typically keep some things hidden from view, this approach plays to the advantage of those claiming same sex acts are fine. Hearing or seeing the specifics sometimes becomes necessary so that our moral senses can properly perform their function. Say it like it is.

Hey! (as Uncle Si Robertson so commonly quips)  Bums are not for sex! Any assertion to the contrary, as Phil told GQ, "is not logical, my man. It's just not logical."

Trying to deny this fails. It is a first principle of sexual knowledge--man is made for woman in a strong teleological sense. Granted, if we lower ourselves to a reductionist materialist reality where there is no design or purpose then it's open season on eliminating our species through contra-biological activity. While it is far beyond the scope of this article to mount a defense of teleology, final causation in nature, or natural law relating to sexual ethics, suffice it to say that materialism is nonsensical and no one (no one!) actually lives and relates in a materialist manner.[9] As Edward Feser says,

Like liberals who say they support public schools but would never send their own children to one, most people who claim not to believe in teleology cannot bring themselves to put their money where their mouths are when their views threaten to affect them personally (and eliminative materialism, denying as it does that your thoughts, your mind, in effect you, exist at all, cuts pretty close to home). [1]

Setting aside materialism, anyone who wants to keep their sanity by resisting the urge to defy plain reason must admit that our world and everything in it, including morality, has some inherent nature (or essence). Humanity, distinct from other animals, also has reason and will so that we can investigate and understand what these natures are (aka, science and philosophy) and can decide if we wish to accept--or not--the real that we discover. This is moral knowledge.[2] Following the trail of natural knowledge reveals the fact, as any good Darwinist will tell you, that sex only works in a distinct way. To copy Feser, "It is, I dare say, blindingly obvious."[3]  From this knowledge of the real and our willful acceptance or denial of the same, moral knowledge necessarily follows. Specifically, moral knowledge of proper sexuality.[8]

'Grandfather Duck' got it right when he asserted this is based in logic, but it is precisely because it is so commonsensical that it is often overlooked. When someone asserts that homosexual sex is acceptable the answer need not involve a long discourse on rights and marriage and supporting philosophical arguments. Rather, the answer is a prima facie (evident on its face) declaration that 'everyone knows that homosexual sex is quite obviously disordered, which is the very reason why advocates must work so hard to avoid the plain and simple description of the act.' As a first principle you can no more 'prove' that homosexual sex is wrong than you can 'prove' the law of non-contradiction (the prima faciefoundation of all logic and reason). However, when you deny either fundamental the refutation is in the self evident "Huh!?" that follows.[7] Feser bluntly says, 

There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" any more than there are round squares. Indeed, there is really no such thing as "sex" outside the context of intercourse between a man and woman. Sodomy. . . no more counts as "sex than puking up a Quarter Pounder counts as eating; . . . No legislature or opinion poll could possibly change these facts, any more than they could repeal the law of gravity or the Pythagorean theorem. . . . For if "same-sex marriage" is not contrary to nature, then . . . there can be no grounds whatsoever for moral judgment.[4]

Bayou translation? If it's a duck, it's a duck, not a moose. Man's parts only fits woman's parts and saying it ain't so ain't logical.

You can almost hear the collective sigh of relief coming from the general public when television phenom Phil Robertson proclaims that the emperor has no clothes and exposes what the king is doing in his private time. This shot was heard around the world at the speed of social media.

-----------

It needs to be made clear that homosexuality is not the only or most egregious sin. The point here is not to put homosexuality in a class by itself. Rather, it is to declare that homosexuality is a sin like all the others, and like the others it puts us in a culpable position before a holy God. It is clear from nature and from the revealed Word of God that EVERY person is a sinner and rightly subject to justice. Whether you and I are rampant sexual deviants, whether we are so-called "good Americans" who ignore the Creator of the universe for our favorite diversions, or whether we are sniping, proud, and petty church-goers we are acutely aware of our own miserable failings and hiding this "real" does us no good. Here is the good news. With no effort on our part we can avoid the justice we all know we deserve. Even while we were still in rebellion an Advocate was provided for us. Whatever it may take--whatever study, whatever examination, whatever prayer or other form of inquiry and seeking--trust this Advocate and His love for you. Please. It's not complicated. The justice you and I deserve and the control that our passions and petty sins have on us can be forgiven and eliminated.[5]

He who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me haseverlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.[6]

Also read the recent article by Ratio Christi apologist Thomas Davis on the importance of the Gospel.

----------- Notes:

[1] Edward Feser, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (St. Augustine's Press, 2008), p. 231-2.

[2] Ibid., p. 136-7; 143

[3] Ibid., p. 143

[4] Ibid., p. 149-50.

Budziszewski (see [7] below) concurs, "A legislature can no more turn sodomitical unions into marriages than it can turn cats into dogs. . . "

[5] Rom. 1-3; 4:5-8;5:8-10; Eph. 2:8-9

[6] John 5:24

[7] J. Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know, (Spence Publishing, 2003), p. 204-5. Speaking of same sex marriage Budziszewski explains that while a detailed philosophical case can be made against it, on a more fundamental level, "It makes it's own case. . . . One cannot convince people of what they grasp already; one can only draw it out of them." On p. 78 he says, "We can even give a name to the way we have first moral knowledge--the usual name is 'conscience.' Beyond that, however, the investigation is mostly negative. How conscience tells us that we ought to be fair, nobody knows. This we can say: we don't know it just from being told, we don't know it from the five senses, and we don't know it by inference from prior knowledge. We just know it. The knowledge is 'underived.'"

[8] Ibid. p. 86-7. Regarding natures and essences Budziszewski writes, "To make proper use of something that has been designed, we have to know how it works. That means knowing how each feature contributes to the fulfillment of its functions. . . . Every doctor understands this; no sensible surgeon tries to make the heart pump air instead of blood. The simple is simple: when you thwart a thing's design, it no longer does what it is supposed to do. . . Something goes horribly wrong. These things can be observed, and so become another source of moral knowledge. Because every part of us has meaning, our very bodies have a language of their own; they say things by what we do with them. . . . Conjugal sex means self-giving, making one flesh out of two. By contrast, when a man puts the part of himself which represents new life into the cavity of another man which represents decay and expulsion, at the most basic of all possible levels he is saying, 'Life, be swallowed by death.' We cannot overwrite such meanings with different ones just because we want to."

[9] Peter Kreeft, http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/11_moral-theology/square_three-sides.htm, speaking about the implications of natures/essences in the homosexuality issue: "Calling cats dogs does not make them dogs. And calling homosexual friendships marriages does not make them marriages. This does not depend on whether they are good or bad; it depends on what they are; it depends on their nature, their essence.

Unless there are no natures or essences, i.e. unless we are complete nominalists, and therefore skeptics. (If you are one of these people, and if you actually practice the philosophy you preach, then please do not invite me to your house for dinner, for you must believe that it is impossible to draw a real and absolute line between people and animals, in which case you may be either a vegetarian or a cannibal—two tastes I do not share.)"

"The issue is not just psychological, or scientific, or religious, or ethical, but philosophical, in fact metaphysical. The deepest reason why popular opinion has changed in favor of same-sex marriage in industrialized countries (but nowhere else) is that these countries no longer think in terms of what is ‘natural.’ We no longer understand…the old notion of ‘nature,’ which meant the essence of a thing as manifested by its natural activities.…But to the typically modern mind ‘nature’ means simply…whatever we can see. It has become an empirical concept, not a philosophical concept.”

[10] Image credit: gsagi / 123RF Stock Photo

Posted on Dec 21, 2013 by Blake Anderson