Duck Dynasty

This is where we discuss what's going on in the news and express our opinions about such things. Please begin all threads with a link to a news item.

Moderator: Teachers

Duck Dynasty

Postby ChrisD » Fri May 18, 2012 11:46 am

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty claims to be a member of the Church of Christ, specifically an elder at the White's Ferry Road church in West Monroe, La. Did some research online and it looks like they are liberal. You are probably all better informed than I. What's the history of this congregation?


In Him,
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:26 am

Re: Duck Dynasty

Postby Joe May » Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:04 am

I do know brethren who have worshipped there. I don't know that they have per se left the way in the traditional sense of the word, but there is enough that you and I might feel less than comfortable--and not b/c we would immediately see anything out of line.

The "We Care Ministries" is based out of this congregation. It is the most Scriptural-based evangelism program I know of since it relies simply on a marked version of the Bible to win converts. However, I do know that some of the participants have at times been more charismatic than some of us would feel comfortable around.

That having been said, my problem with the program is that they promote the drinking of wine, use profanity on occasion and pray on the shoes without praying in the Name of the Son. That latter troubles me more than anything--it is a sell-out to the Jews in the television industry.

And I think those guys could use a haircut! :mrgreen: :ugeek:
Joe May
Arkadelphia, Arkansas
User avatar
Joe May
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:33 pm
Location: Amity, Arkansas

Re: Duck Dynasty

Postby Cobb78 » Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:13 pm

I think it is something that almost all members of the church fall into.

It's the "Oh, he's a member of the church" and occasionally it seems Christians brag about who they've got as brethren, without bothering to see if the person is a FAITHFUL Christian according to the Bible's definition.

Lead singer of Diamond Rio went to Lipscomb, is a member of the "church of Christ" but Diamond Rio's latest album is a religious one, complete with instruments.

Dwight Yoakam is a member of the church, but in the movies he's appeared in, he uses profanity after profanity.

Randy Travis is a member of the church, and was recently arrested for having an open bottle of wine in his car (which he'd been drinking out of).

All that to say, it's nice to hear "they're a member of the church," but we should be very careful about endorsing what they do to others. Imagine saying from the pulpit, "this famous person is a member of the Lord's church!" and then a newer or weaker Christian reads about how the man drinks, then he is going to think that the preacher endorses what that famous person is doing.

OK, It seems like I'm rambling now, so I'll be quiet.

Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:27 pm

Re: Duck Dynasty

Postby David Hersey » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:50 pm

S'ok Brad,

Ramble on
Philippians 3:14
I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
User avatar
David Hersey
Posts: 3462
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:06 pm

Re: Duck Dynasty

Postby lisadbrewer » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:44 am

Please read the following taken from an article in The Christian Chronicle:
“The challenges they face deal with compromise,” he said. “For example, does the opportunity to influence a segment of culture in very broad ways as TV personalities outweigh the disappointment they may feel with the producers cutting out ‘in Jesus’ name’ at the end of every televised prayer?”

Equally shocking to the Robertsons: In the first two episodes, the producers bleeped out words said by Willie and Korie to make it appear that they cursed. The family complained. As Al Robertson explained, “We don’t cuss.”

Jase Robertson, slipping his beanie off his head before praying, alluded to the tension as he shared communion thoughts on a recent Sunday.

“It’s a slippery slope when you’re holding Hollywood’s hand and you’re trying to accomplish something,” he told fellow church members, “when deep down all you want to do is proclaim that Jesus is Lord.”

It appears to me that the family is doing the right thing, even though it might not be obvious to others all the time. That's what happens when Christians stand up in the world -- not everything is always in plain view. But we keep trying! :)
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:40 am

Re: Duck Dynasty

Postby why » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:27 pm

Thanks for the research. The Word reminds us that at the witness of 2 or 3 we may make a judgment, and we do not have the final say. Folks, it's what is killing the church. What is considered a "faithful" Christian? James 4 reminds us who the true judge is. If any is without sin let him cast the first stone. Haven't has much to do with WFR for awhile, but do know that they been doing a lot of work over the years. Didn't make it Haiti as they had to leave due to Baby Doc in 1985, bu they had a good clinic I was going to work in. The Good Samaritan would have been considered a liberal in his day. He trusted in God and not the law. Freed him to help others without worrying about big brother. The dead also would any living work as very liberal.

Re: Duck Dynasty

Postby why » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:59 pm

I'm still working on Matt 18:15 as not to do so develops a gossiping spirit and tongue. But has anyone posting been to talk to Randy, Dwight, Brooks....? If not and we don't have the whole story we need to seriously read and pray about James 3 as well as Matt 18:15ff. Gossip is in the same list as drunkards, liars, etc. The Pharisees at least dropped their heads at Christ rebuke at their treatment of the adulteress.

Re: Duck Dynasty

Postby RJG » Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:08 pm

There been a bit question toward the integrety of the prayers made at the end of Duck Dynasty because the lack of the phrase "in Jesus name". I have read that this phrase had been deleted by the filmers...don't know if that is the case or not. But, another thing to consider is that prayers of faithful individuals are petitioned to the Father by Jesus's AUTHORITY....(in Jesus name)....if this is the case is it necessarily sacreligious to NOT use that phrase after every prayer? Or can using that phrase border on "vain repetition" I witnessed one time an elder scold a nervous young boy for mumbling a prayer for a Bible class but forgetting to use those words to end the prayer. I think scolding was extreme in that could have been done privately and in a teaching manner. Is there a verse in the Bible that requires that phrase....or is it understood by the Father that proper prayers ARE done by Jesus's authorization should that phrase be absent for some reason? I DO believe we should offer prayers ending with those words...but wouldn't get TOO excited if an prayer ended without it on OCCASION.
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:51 pm

Re: Duck Dynasty

Postby why » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:24 am

A heart hardened by the "letter of the law" will forget to exhort with meekness and gentleness as there is little to none to do so. Man made rules, in pretense, quench the Spirit and leave the flesh in control. Hence we often devour one another, over disputable things and fall under the condemnation of 1 Tim 3. There are elders who don't have a good grasp of milk, let alone meat. Yet they see what they teach as meat. the blind lead the blind and unless the follower becomes an intense Berean , the pit is found. The sad part is that elder worship is real and those that need rebuke seldom are. RJG, your point is valid. Yet for many it has become a pseudo law by which unrighteous judgment is passed.

Re: Duck Dynasty

Postby Qoheleth » Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:04 pm

RJG wrote:Is there a verse in the Bible that requires that phrase....or is it understood by the Father that proper prayers ARE done by Jesus's authorization should that phrase be absent for some reason? I DO believe we should offer prayers ending with those words...but wouldn't get TOO excited if an prayer ended without it on OCCASION.

No, there is no command and plenty of examples where a prayer does not end with that formula. It's a human tradition which, while not wrong in and of itself, would be wrong to bind on people, as it would be going beyond what is written. Just saying "in Jesus' name" doesn't make it in Jesus' name, and not saying it doesn't mean it's not in Jesus' name.
"As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Prov 27:17
User avatar
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:02 am
Location: Australia


Return to Media News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests