Phil Robertson speaks: 'I will not give or back off from my path . . .'

Phil Robertson has given an exclusive interview to the UK's Daily Mail, and in the interest of fair use we're not going to excerpt too much of it, as you really should click over there and read the whole thing.

But I do want to point out an important characteristic of Robertson: He is the furthest thing from judgmental, as he is the first to tell you he has been guilty of many things and has been much in need of God's grace. But having received that grace, Robertson can't help but notice the difference between life in rebellion to God and life in harmony with God:

He said: ‘I have been immoral, drunk, high. I ran with the wicked people for 28 years and I have run with the Jesus people since and the contrast is astounding. ‘I tell people, "You are a sinner, we all are. Do you want to hear my story before I give you the bottom line on your story?" ‘We murder each other and we steal from one another, sex and immorality goes ballistic. All the diseases that just so happen to follow sexual mischief… boy there are some microbes running around now. ‘Sexual sins are numerous and many, I have a few myself. So what is your safest course of action? If you’re a man, find yourself a woman, marry them and keep your sex right there.

---

This is where secularists inevitably insist that such advice is "unrealistic" even as they can't deny it works every time it's tried. In other words, sure, maybe that's good advice but we don't care what's right, we only care about what we want to do. Robertson understands the consequences because he has experienced them in his life, so he speaks of them with credibility. It's been said there is no one more annoying than a reformed drunk. Sure. To those determined to remain drunks. Because they don't want to hear it. Whose problem is that? By the way, I want to say a word in defense of not only what Robertson said, but of the way he said it in the original interview with GQ. I'm talking specifically about this:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

People keep saying that statement is the real problem with the interview because it was coarse and over the top. I disagree. You can't ask people what they think about something but forbid them from really getting into the substance of what you're asking them about. What happens in gay sex? A man puts his penis up another man's anus. Don't like to hear about it? Neither do I. But don't demand to know my views on it, with the understanding that the only permissible view is acceptance, while forbidding me to get into the substance of what we're really talking about because it's too gross. If it's that disgusting - and it is - then you're undermining your own position that I'm a backwards, ignorant hater for not wanting to accept it. It's the same thing as when pro-abortion groups become livid when pro-life people show photos of aborted fetuses. They accuse them of attempting to "bias the discussion by playing on people's emotions." In other words, don't show people what we actually do! That's not fair! If you want to ask Christians to comment on sin, be prepared for a substantive answer. If you can't handle that, don't ask. And if you don't want people to comment in detail about what you do, then either don't ask them what they think, or better yet, don't do it.