Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

Duck Dynasty wins! GLAAD loses!

The gay lobby’s power is limited. The A&E television network late Friday afternoon, facing a backlash and threatened boycott, reversed its decision to suspend Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson. The Robertson family offered no immediate comment.

A&E’s official statement: “[A]fter discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.” Now it will be fun to see whether the Robertsons agree to another A&E season once the current one is done.

The Hollywood Reporter noted what Robertson said at his West Monroe, La., church last Sunday: “I will not give or back off from my path. … I love all men and women. I am a lover of humanity, not a hater.”

Last week the Robertson family acknowledged that some of its patriarch’s comments were coarse, but “his beliefs are grounded” in the Bible and he “is a Godly man.”

A&E tried to save face by announcing it would “launch a national public service campaign promoting unity, tolerance and acceptance among all people, a message that supports our core values as a company and the values found in Duck Dynasty.”

Robertson had paraphrased 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, where Paul asks, “[D]o you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Robertson had also given a natural law criticism of gay anal sex. Some homosexuals also expressed offense that Robertson referred to them as “sinners”—and some may have been unaware that Christians understand that all of us sin.

Yahoo’s The Wrap quoted Rich Ferraro, GLAAD’s communications vice president, saying, “In the five-and-a-half years I’ve worked at GLAAD, I’ve never received so many violently angry phone calls and social media posts attacking GLAAD.”

GLAAD (original name: “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation”) began in 1985 with the goal of pressuring media organizations to have pro-homosexuality programming. The organization has been wildly successful, but its latest onslaught seems to have been an overreach.

So, a big loss for GLAAD, and the larger debate about freedom of speech concerning homosexuality goes on. Fox Sports executives are scheduled to give depositions next month about why they fired college football analyst Craig James in September because while running for the U.S. Senate in 2012 he had opposed same sex marriage.

In an email to me last week, James wrote, “A&E is discriminating against Phil Robertson because of his religious convictions. I would encourage Phil to join me in fighting this religious discrimination, not only for ourselves, but for every person of faith who faces this kind of daily challenge to their faith at work.”

But this week’s story is: Chick-fil-A and Duck Dynasty, still ticking.

Marvin Olasky

Marvin is editor in chief of WORLD and dean of World Journalism Institute. He joined WORLD in 1992 and has also been a university professor and provost. He has written more than 20 books, including Reforming Journalism.



Please wait while we load the latest comments...


Please register or subscribe to comment on this article.


Phil says he loves the gays and wishes them no harm.  That is gracious.  Yes he could have said it better, but he has shown more tolerance that the gays who try to ruin businesses and careers.  A person can believe what the Bible says without being a homophobe or hater.  Phil and the family should be respected for standing up for what the  Bible says.  Tolerance must include freedom of religion.


Curious. I wonder if there is a non-vulgar way to describe gay sex. Perhaps the light needs to shine into dark places.


Hi Jack Timothy. I had never seen or heard of Duck Dynasty before this "scandal" (that I can remember), so I was a little surprised by all the uproar. After reading your complaint about Mr. Robertson's words and about those on the "religious right", I decided to finally read the article that everybody's going on about. -  I'm surprised that you managed to make it past the author's truly filthy language with enough sensitivity to be offended by Mr. Robertson's vague allusion to confused homosexual preferences (an allusion that he accomplishes by using the same, polite vocabulary that is taught in any high school). He wasn't cracking filthy jokes, he was explaining man-to-man how unnatural homosexuality is, regardless of a person's belief in God. -  The words you use in your comment, i.e., "ignorance, intolerance and hate" can't possibly describe what is written in the GQ interview. Those three words actually describe the response that Mr. Robertson has received for daring to state his beliefs so publicly. -  You might be ashamed of Mr. Robertson and his supporters, but based only on what I have learned about him from this GQ article (written apparently by somebody who does not believe in God), i.e., that Mr. Robertson openly, unashamedly dedicates his loyalty and life to God, to Jesus Christ and to the Scriptures, I would be glad to be seen with him in public and be called his friend. -  I don't think they broadcast Duck Dynasty here in Austria, but I'm interested to check it out. 

Midwest Preacher

What happened to the idea of:  "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  Phil's words may have seemed a little harsh and reality TV does not appeal to me but free speech is a right.  Religious free speech is absolutely a must.  How silly to think the the actions of one particular group cannot be analyzed or criticized in any way.  Anyway they asked him, right?  One might say they baited him.  How would you answer?  


I don't have cable or satellite, but A&E's decision to reinstate Phil will be motivation to get it and watch such interesting people.


Jack,I somewhat agree with you in that we should try to make our comments so that people are offended by the gospel and not the way we present them.  But many people will be offended by the Word no matter what.  I believe these people would have been offended no matter how it was presented and were most offended by the fact that they are sinners and didn't want to be reminded of it.You mentioned that Phil's comments lead to evangelicals being associated with intolerance (among other things.)  I'm assuming you are talking about the 'intolerance that has been ingrained into our younger generations through the public school systems and not true intolerance.  This type of 'intolerance' has led to our young people being very thin skinned and self centered and not being able to accept any frankness or criticism or correction no matter how constructive it is offered.Most people who have  bought into this 'intolerance' agenda can not tolerate a person such as Phil, who is a little rough around the edges, and see through the roughness.  I remember my Dad's best friend who became a grandfather to my boys after by dad died.  He smoked and sometimes swore and was a little rough around the edges in other ways as well.  But I know that he loved Jesus very much and I feel he was a great positive influence to them as they were growing up.I just wonder what you think when you come to the parts of the Bible where Jesus said 'I am the way and noone comes to the Father except through me' or  'Woe to you...' or when he turned over the money tables or when God told the Jews to annihilate their enemies.  Does that not sound like things that would be labeled intolerant by the politically correct crowd and the newer generations?

Marital Bliss

I live in Cincinnati where P& G spends 2 billion dollars a year to market soap and tooth paste. They sell billions of dollars worth of products but never by insuting the customers. Sinners are the customers for salvation by faith through grace. Why try to insult them into recognizing grace, love and truth? 


The idea that we should only preach God's love is VERY old but never stops rearing its ugly head. Yes, God is love, but He is also holy and righteous, He condemns sin, and it will permanently separate people from Him who don't repent. Without that "flip side" (the condemnation) sinners have no reason to repent and what we're left with is universalism: everybody will be allowed into heaven because God's such a nice guy. That kind of thinking has no scriptural basis, but it sure makes life easy because people won't get mad at you as long as you say that they'll get into heaven regardless of what they do or believe.


We should not confuse graphic with vulgar.  For many years our children have been taught to admire homosexuals, without ever knowing what it is that homosexuals do.  Basically what homosexuals do is what is vulgar.  And before we admire them we need to understand that what they do is unhealthy, physically, mentally, morally and spiritually.  Unfortunately, being honest about something vulgar does require some graphic talk.  There is no enemy easier to defeat than one who has his head in the sand.  We are Satan's enemy and we need to get our heads out of the sand if we want to defend our basic freedoms and our children's moral and physical health. Satan is also working right within the church, condemning us for any serious resistance.  A very productive tactic.  He now owns a number of our old denominations.


Thanks, plainsense, for the wonderful description of the battle we face in our culture.  


"Are you suggesting that Jesus was hated because He was hateful?"No. You compared spreading the gospel to selling a product and implied that Phil Robertson was guilty of "insuting [sic] the customers". I suppose you could argue that the gospel is "insulting" but in any case Jesus said to expect that what you apparently consider our "customers" to hate us as they did him."Some of the comments in response to others are pretty hateful . . . and notice that those who slander will be in the same boat as those who commit sexual sins."That's the second time you've made vague, general claims about what others have written here. Specifically which comments do you consider "pretty hateful" or "slander"?


The idea that being a good Christian means being inoffensive is a LIE. Jesus himself said, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.""I've been sad to see many in the Christian community offering such strong support for this man and his vulgar commentary.  Remember Paul's words: 'Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt...'"You didn't read the interview before criticizing those of us who've supported Robertson, did you? Here's a quote that wasn't widely published, probably because it would have weakened the popular narrative that Phil was spreading "hate":"You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let's get on with it, and everything will turn around."Yes, we should temper our speech with grace and salt, but Phil Robertson did do that. As far as those of who've defended him goes, I think it's safe to say that Christ would have done so; as I recall, he protected from a mob a woman accused (apparently legitimately) of adultery, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest he'd have defended someone whose "crime" was reminding people of what God's Word has to say.


Roger,I never really cared for Pat Roberson or his Moral Majority and agree that his influence was probably negative.  But just because his work was ineffectual or improper doesn't mean that all other Christians should abandon the political realm.  And just because our culture has declined doesn't mean that Christians active in politics have not made a positive influence on our culture and Government.  Their influence very likely slowed the decline during this time period.  And Pat Robertson's influence doesn't absolve the rest of us from our responsibility in politics.  That said, I tried to convey that I believe that most Christians should probably spend the bulk of their time and energy on ministry outside the political realm. 


The Gospel isn't selling anything.... there is no way any of us could ever afford what it offers. A person with a congenital heart defect might be 'offended' to hear that he has a broken heart that will invariably lead towards death. But, speaking as one who was once dead, I would rather be 'offended' so that I might recognize the truth and live, than be 'marketed to' as I ignorantly walk towards my grave.

GP Hughes

I've been sad to see many in the Christian community offering such strong support for this man and his vulgar commentary.Jack Timothy, what was his vulgar commentary?  Are you calling his paraphrasing of Scripture vulgar?


To Fuzzyface and others proposing "Christians, we have the responsibility to affect that government".  Your philosophy has been followed now since 1988 when Pat Robertson recruited 5 million "christians' to endorse his candidacy.  Before that from 1970 to 1988 protestants reached out in compassion to the lost and brought in 1.3 million converts per year .  Since then protestants have declined every year and we are now a minority of 48% of the population and dropping, from a steady 62% in 1970 to 1988.   Furthermore since 1988 our country, our government and our faith has become extremely divisive, and now an all time high of 40% of births are out of wedlock .   So we see the disastrous fruits of choosing to ignore Jesus commands and follow our own agendas.   Following Jesus involves being a good Samaritan not an NFL football player.   Again repent.


Christians can and should talk about loving sinners and hating sin.  But when you define yourself by your sexuality, there is no separation between the sin and sinner.  To gays, you are your sexual preference.  


I read the entire interview that was linked through WORLD.  I am a conservative, born again, great grandmother who does not have her head in the sand and I did not find Phil's description of homosexual vs. heterosexual sex coarse.  I found it to be an anatomically correct analysis of the difference between the two.  Does someone have better words to describe what is actually taking place?  The secular terms that are used to describe these parts of the anatomy are course.  How is it that the physically correct description has become what is considered course? The homosexual activists have rephrased everything into something it is not.  The rainbow used to be the sign of a promise from God. Gay used to mean delightful. Now we cannot even use terms that you will find in a dictionary for body parts to describe these acts.  When Christians don't know the difference between speaking truth and conforming to the world we are in sad shape.  Phil wa actually posting a query to the homosexual community about what the attraction was and how it was difficult for him understand it.


Roger, Also, acceptance of our message or actions does not necessarily mean they were wrong or improper.  If you compare the acceptance of the Old Testament prophets vs their contemporary false prophets you would see the opposite was true at many times in history.

Marital Bliss

After being involved in evangelism and missions for decades I have seen the difficulty of overcoming rude, offensive and hateful speech and actions by Christians to get the gospel a fair hearing. Of course we are not "selling" Jesus or the gospel but we are selling ourselves and that is not done by attacking the people who need the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Perhaps it would be helpful for some of us to post the Engle Scale that ranks individuals and groups according to their openness to the message of salvation. They rate two factors as being important: 1. Willingness to trust the messenger and 2. Willingness to trust the message. One reason Christian missions has been successful in some places is due to Medical Treatment that builds trust in the messengers as well as the message.  The Medicine does not save them, Jesus does. But first we must win the right to be heard. Our church won many people with unwanted sexual desires to Christ and to repentance. It did not happen by attacking them first but by presenting hope for eternal life and a life of positive changes. 


World Magazine is handliing the homosexual issue with alot of grace and mercy. Be careful in these forums. Because what you want to say may not come out the way you want it to. "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt.."  Therfore try to take no offense.

Marital Bliss

The big question: "Is homosexual behavior a sin?"The term sin is hamartia or missing the mark. Not hitting the bull's eye as a Christian.Unbelievers are "Dead in sin" and cannot keep from sinning for their condition is sin itself. Thus, an unsaved heterosexual who never lusts or looks at another person wrongly has not committed a sin, he is dead in sin and living a moral, ethical life will not bring salvation. People who do not know Christ as Savior do not commit sins because they are simply doing what unsaved people do. Any person who has a sexual desire for a member of the same sex but refuses to do it is no closer to Christ than any heterosexual that is moral. Morality will not save us or give us eternal life. Unsaved homosexuals are no harder for God to save than unsaved heterosexuals.  All unredeemed persons are in Bondage and cannot redeem themselves. Only God can redeem us regardless of our particular habits, addictions and proclivities. Redeemed persons, or Christians, can "miss the mark". If we have sex outside of marriage we commit a sin. Both saved heterosexuals and saved homosexuals need to confess our sins and repent. As James 5 says to Christian sinners, "Confess your sins to one an other and pray for one another so that you can be healed". I think I said that Phi's comments were "unwise". Read Proverbs 9:7-10 which says it is unwise to"Rebuke foolish people" because they cannot hear it and we who rebuke end up with the "shame". Attacking unsaved people is unwise, IMO.


Wow, a lot of tap-dancing in that response, but not much in the way of a real answer to either question. That's ok, though: I think you did answer the questions without really intending to.