“”Phil & his gang took advantage of that infrastructure as an opportunity to teach others about Jesus””
I’m waiting for someone - anyone - to show me exactly how that has been accomplished in this TV show. Like I said in an earlier post perhaps I’ve missed those shows OR was it after I turned them off because of Phil’s crudity? For people to say he could have chosen better words to reply to the question, I don’t believe he could have. He wouldn’t have known how.
Truth be told, I watched DD a few times, and it didn’t appeal to me much. I’m not that into reality tv or sitcoms anyway, who has time for that?
Having said that, what I did hear, and this interview with GQ, did not strike me as particularly “smutty.” A bit crude, yes, but nothing even close to sanctioning of unbiblical sexuality.
As for the crudeness, yes, I wouldn’t say what he said the way he said it. I’m a lawyer, after all. Being blunt and obvious is something lawyers need special classes to learn. Seriously. But to some of the finest people I know, plainspoken frankness is as natural as breathing. Even the apostle Paul was “crude” from time to time. Remember that bit about all of the stuff in his life that wasn’t helpful to his relationship with Christ being “dung?” Or the part where he wanted the legalistic circumcisers to injure themselves where it counted (I paraphrase slightly)? If he were a poster here at FR, would he be judged “crude” for such comments? And yet how God used him.
No, I’m not saying Phil is comparable to Paul. I’m just saying one man’s crudeness is another man’s no frills plain talk. As for me, if the message is good, I don’t care too much about the packaging.