Robertson, and what he represents, is not real Christianity. There is no love, no humility, no thankfulness for the grace of God that comes out of what they have been doing. All that Johnny Robertson has ever demonstrated that he is capable of producing is hate, and spite, and division, and... dare I say it? Yeah, I will: evil.
But... why should you have to take my word for that?
During his show tonight I recorded what Robertson was saying. I'm going to post some of the more notable comments that he made, and let you, Dear Reader, decide for yourself what to make of this. If you are like most people, I would guess that you would ascertain that what you are about to read is a disturbing glimpse into a very dark soul, indeed.
Remember: I didn't have to make anything up for this post. Everything you are about to read are Johnny Robertson's own words, spoken during his What Does The Bible Say? broadcast tonight, January 25th 2009, out of WGSR Star 39 in Reidsville, North Carolina...
"I would wrap that stuff around their necks!"
"Why are we so strong in this area?!?"
"We are the most morally well-behaved people in this area!"
(Editors note: does "morally well-behaved" mean confronting people in their homes, having dissidents followed by fellow cult members, and outright lying about another church in the area by accusing it of child pornography?)"I will tie that around their necks and they will never say it again!"
"I will make him look so bad...!"
"Sir you've never seen me mad!"
"He is all mouth! That is what all of them are!"
"I spend THOUSANDS of dollars to open the phone lines up!"
(Editor's note: earlier Robertson boasted that his self-styled "Church of Christ" takes up no offering... but he didn't care to mention that he gets practically all of his funding from wealthy cult members in Texas and other places far west of this area.)"Because what you believe is not in the Bible!" (talking about Baptists)
"There is not a preacher in this town that knows as much Bible as I do!"
"They are all afraid of me!"
"I'm presenting myself just like Jesus did! Nobody could answer Him. That's what I'm doing. These guys can't answer me!"
"I believe the way I demonstrate that is the case is by answering all of these people that their doctrines are all too weak to shut me up!"
"There's no such thing as a Baptist!"
"THIS (referring to his cult) is the church that Paul was in!"
"There is a church that is determined to preach the truth and only the truth and that is the church that I represent, and that is why everyone is afraid of me!"
As Rod Serling might put it...
"Submitted for your approval."
It certainly does seem like something out of The Twilight Zone, does it not?
If anyone can tell me how Robertson is reflecting the love of Christ, the mind of Christ, or the grace of Christ with his words and his actions - and then daring to insinuate that only he comes with the truth of God - then I would certainly welcome such exposition in the comments for this blog entry.
And if you are a member of the Martinsville Church of Christ: are you really that proud to be represented by such a man who brags of being your minister?
Would any congregation be proud, for that matter?
47 comments:
1 John 2:18, King James Version
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."
There is no doubt any more. Johnny Robertson is of the spirit of Antichrist. If what you report is accurate then he has put himself equal to Jesus Christ. Yes that is evil.
The amazing thing is that WSGR puts this guy on the air. Even with all the talk that they get on the internet with the blogs and all, I would still guess that statistically speaking NOBODY watches these people - and those who do don't take them seriously.
The people who give the money in Texas should just cut out the middle man and send Roark a check, and then he could run old episodes of Gilligan's Island and it would be received just as well. Actually, probably better.
Doesn't sound like a man of God at all. More like a manic adolescent!
"They are all afraid of me!"
"...and that is why everyone is afraid of me!"
Robertson used some variation of "be afraid of me" at least twice during this broadcast. Possibly more times than that. He has certainly used such phrasing on a constant basis during his televised "ministry".
So tonight while doing some personal Bible study, I came across this...
"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."
-- 1st John 4:18
And earlier in the New Testament, we find that Paul wrote...
"For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.'"
-- Romans 8:15
So maybe others will understand why I am colored perplexed, when I attempt to find reconciliation between the "gospel of fear" that Johnny Robertson is preaching, and the Word of God.
Indeed, Christ came to free us from fear! He set us free from fear of death, and from fear of the law. In Him, there is no fear. We are persuaded to seek after Him out of love, not out of fear!
And do you want to know what our Lord and Savior had to say about people like Johnny Robertson?
"But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him."
-- Luke 12:5
Robertson can't sent anyone to Hell, as much as that fact likely galls him to no end. He cannot possibly declare that others are lost, at all.
And if he can produce scripture that says otherwise, I'd like to see that too.
This report is accurate in each and every word.
The Twilight Zone is my thought exactly and this is broadcast accepted in Reidsville the All America City. The city where the mayor has been questioned has he ever been arrested for embezzling. The city where you have heard the words from one city official if you don't like it get out.
I think all that is missing is that little tune they use to play when Twilight Zone was shown.
Can you people enjoy the irony that Johnny Robertson said that he refuses to debate Chris Knight,
BECAUSE IN HIS WORDS CHRIS DOES NOT HAVE A STRONG ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLE???????????
Chris you show more understanding of the Bible with your above comment than Johnny has ever shown on his program. I think everyone can figure out who is the better student of God's Word and it is not Johnny Robertson.
Anthony A: and there is more serious and ethical journalism on Knight's blog than there is at Star News.
Let's put it to a vote. Who do you think has more integrity. Chris Knight or Charles Roark?
"The city where the mayor has been questioned has he ever been arrested for embezzling."
Actually it was the City Manager, not the Mayor, but facts and accuracy don't seem matter much on this blog, such as above and below:
"televise their harassment on WGSR... which is now widely acknowledged, Robertson is the de facto owner of."
I stand corrected it was the city manager.
Facts and accuracy does matter and should be corrected.
Not that the mayor has not been discussed in a negative way before. A lot of which was televised on WGSR.
Well, it's true.
Johnny Robertson DOES call the shots at that station enough, that it's practically his own.
He is their biggest client. And when he tells Charles Roark to jump, Roark asks "how high?"
And Roark does not have the guts enough to stand up to Robertson and tell him "no". He sure didn't object when Robertson blamed that church for child pornography, did he?
In my opinion, that was the low point. And it showed that Charles Roark does NOT care about responsible broadcasting ethics. He only gives mind to what Robertson wants, because he has sold out completely.
It's like broadcast prostitution, when you think about it...
No Charles did not object to Johnny's reporting of the under-aged girls dancing at that church.
Charles R. phoned Johnny R. to discuss it. During the time they were talking there was a huge sign behind them which said "BREAKING NEWS".
Well, I've seen the original video from that church.
And there was NOTHING inappropriate going on.
Johnny Robertson has a VERY perverted mind, to suggest such a thing.
Absolutely there was nothing inappropriate going on.
Innocent girls and innocent dancing.
Something for them to be proud of.
Since Mr. Roberton has falsely portrayed other churches I believe he has left himself and those responsible for his funding open to litigation over defamation of character.
Since Mr. Oldfield has made it clear that they are not anyone's brother the rules that would prevent such court actions do not apply as they would to another brother.
Thus the Church who was accused of Child pornography should file both against Mr. Robertson, his funding sources, and the TV station itself. Also those churches who have been shown on TV with Jerry Lee Lewis songs superimposed over the real music would also have a case. I clearly heard a woman call up who thought that was the real music they were playing. How many others saw and turned it off assuming the same thing?
There were no disclaimers etc. thus he is liable for damages. It is only a question if they will seek them.
I personally hope they do!
Do you really think it's the responsibilty of a broadcaster to verify the accuracy and beliefs of it advertisers, especially a religious advertiser?
Do you honestly want a broadcaster to censor the statements made by a religious advertiser?
How about statements made by politicians? Should the broadcaster censor a politician to make sure his comments conform to your personal standards?
Have you people totally lost your minds and all understanding of freedom of speech?
You don't like what Johnny says and Charles makes money off Johnny, so you want to burn both of the witches.
Sick, sick, sick.
I don't know of any sane person who wouldn't draw the line at accusing innocent girls of obscene behavior.
Would YOU defend that as "free speech"?
If you would, then you've got some significant problems, friend.
Look, the Robertson guy is a fruitcake and WGSR is one of the most jack-leg outfits passing for a TV station in existence. Both are a source of derision in the community. Why are you people so obsessed with them? Why don't you just make fun of them like everyone else and let it go?
"I don't know of any sane person who wouldn't draw the line at accusing innocent girls of obscene behavior."
The guarantee of free speech is not to protect people who say the warm and fuzzy things that you we all like. It is to protect people who say the most vile and repulsive things.
You certainly have the right to bash Johnny's religious beliefs even though you do not extend him to same right to bash Baptists.
Where you lose the argument is when you demand a TV broadcaster censor a preacher who doesn't conform to your religious beliefs.
Who decides where the line is drawn, Chris? You? Charles Roark? Johnny Robertson? Your cult members on this blog? The government?
Because its Charles' TV station, I guess he should get to decide where the line is drawn. You and your cult members want to be the deciders but in a free society you are not allowed to be the deciders, Chris.
Get over it, Chris. Stick to bashing Johnny and leave the station out of the equation. The station is practicing capitalism while rightfully not allowing kooks to silence someone who doesn't conform to their religious ideals.
It's called freedom, Chris. You of all people should understand that.
"Where you lose the argument is when you demand a TV broadcaster censor a preacher who doesn't conform to your religious beliefs."
Promoting a video as obscene when it is not is not free speech and it is not about agreement with doctrine, it is defamation of character. Assuming what Chris says is true about the video as I have not seen the original.
If it is in fact not obscene and was portrayed as such by Mr. Robertson then he has opened himself up for litigation.
The station itself may also by in trouble with the FCC and other controlling powers of the airwaves if in fact this is true and they have not done anything to address the situation and they appear to have known about the issue.
Those who back Mr. Robertson with his funds would also be in danger of suit I would think considering they are the ones who make the program possible.
Free speech is also responsible speech. I can not cry fire in the middle of a theater without Cesar rendering a judgment against me.
"Promoting a video as obscene when it is not is not free speech and it is not about agreement with doctrine, it is defamation of character"
So all this noise about Johnny and WGSR is about slander? Has Johnny slandered you? If he has, why haven't you sued him? Why hasn't someone sued Johnny and WGSR if they have slandered another church or religion?
Have you and Chris contacted the FCC about the slander? Do you think the government should be involved in civil litigation involving a preacher and a TV viewer who believes he has been slandered by the preacher?
Call or write the FCC and let me know what they say. File a formal complaint. I doubt the FCC reads this blog.
Do you really think a small family owned business should boot a major client because that client's religious speech offends you?
So Johnny's religious speech is akin to crying fire in a crowded theater and he should be criminally prosecuted. Do you really believe what you are saying? Are you listening to yourself? Where did you learn civics? Where you go to school, grasshopper?
Anon wrote: "The guarantee of free speech is not to protect people who say the warm and fuzzy things that you we all like. It is to protect people who say the most vile and repulsive things."
Would you feel this way if it was your daughter in that video - or your church accused of being involved in something like child porn? It's one thing for JR to say that the church is being unbiblical by having dancing, but to accuse them, baselessly, of doing something illegal? You defend JR's right to do this? Interesting.
Anon wrot: "You certainly have the right to bash Johnny's religious beliefs even though you do not extend him to same right to bash Baptists."
Sir, JR has been doing this in a public forum for the past ten years in this area. It's only in the last year or so that people have begun to fight back against his brand of bigotry by talking about it.
Anon: "Where you lose the argument is when you demand a TV broadcaster censor a preacher who doesn't conform to your religious beliefs."
Actually, my wish would be that the fools shipping money this way would see the damage that is being done to their denomination/religion by people like Robertson and Oldsfield, and thus relieve Roark of the burden of having to be a responsible broadcaster. That's the way capitalism works (unless you are a bank or the auto industry).
Anon wrote: "Who decides where the line is drawn, Chris? You? Charles Roark? Johnny Robertson? Your cult members on this blog? The government?"
Actually, the way it is now, it must be Johnny Robertson, because as Chris said - he can do what he likes without fear on WSGR.
"Would you feel this way if it was your daughter in that video - or your church accused of being involved in something like child porn"
Whatever my personal feelings are should not overrule anyone's Constitutional rights. Was it your daughter in the video? If it was, why don't you sue somebody?
"he can do what he likes without fear on WSGR"
Are you suggesting Johnny should be afraid for his life because of what he says on WGSR? Should Charles fear for his life? How about the other employees at the station? Do you plan to do them harm or do you know someone who is planning to hurt them?
You really don't understand the First Amendment, do you? Are you an elected official? You sure should sound like one.
By the way, I don't have any affiliation with WGSR or Johnny. I just recognize a cult when I see one and I see one forming on this blog.
"I just recognize a cult when I see one and I see one forming on this blog."
If there is to be a cult of Chris Knight, then I must become its first apostate and commit blasphemy by refusing to believe in myself (adding further insecurity to my life). And for good measure I would probably nail a whole bunch of theses to the front door on the way out...
Like it or not, Chris, you are the leader of this cult.
"Why don't you sue somebody"
This is the easy answer isn't it? Someone bothers you, you sue. Sir, I'm not sure why you support Mr. Robertson's right to accuse a church of being involved in a morally reprehensible activity but for some reason you deny the rights of the people on this blog to exercise free speech in criticizing Mr. Robertson, and his broadcaster.
As to Mr. Robertson fearing for his life... please. Hyperbole much? The sentence was said in the context of his being allowed to do/say what he likes on Roark's station without fear (of Roark's being a responsible broadcaster to his community).
As to a cult forming on this blog - is that even possible? Is there a Cult of Drudge? Sir, it is a blog where ideas are discussed freely, as opposed to what happens in the Assembly every Sunday on Starling Avenue or for three hours each week on WSGR. There's a BIG difference.
Criticize them all you want. It's the suggestion that the government or a broadcaster should step in to solve this to your satisfaction that creeps me out.
Bash Johnny to your heart's content, but don't expect WGSR or the FCC to kick him off the air because you don't like Johnny.
And, yes, this blog is as much a cult as Robertson and Oldfield. One man's religion is another's cult.
It's funny: all I did with this post, was report Johnny Robertson's exact words.
If he didn't want them to be on permanent record, for anyone to find at his or her discretion, then he shouldn't have uttered them on live television.
Nobody has to seek to "shut down" Johnny Robertson's broadcasting. By his own words, he condemns himself. This blog gets many visits a day from people searching for the terms "johnny robertson church of christ"
What are they likely to conclude about him, after finding this post and others about him?
Ya see, this is where outlets like this blog, and what Johnny Robertson and James Oldfield are doing, have their most fundamental difference in basic nature. Robertson and Oldfield, and Charles Roark, play on people's emotions to get them "riled up". And it's not long before most people forget about that.
What I and other bloggers are doing, is appealing to raw intellect. And in that arena of ideas, Robertson and his ilk have thus far demonstrated that they are ill-prepared to do battle.
Remember the Fox News motto, "We report, you decide"? That's what's going on here. I just reported what Robertson said last night. And I'm content to let others take from that what they will.
In all likelihood, they will take from it that he is an uncouth, illiterate individual who doesn't engage his mind when he speaks (or when he writes either, for that matter...)
If he wants to hang himself with that rope, well... who am I or anyone else to stop him?
Actually, I just reread the original article and the comments that followed. The first time the idea of government intervention came up was when "walkinginlove" suggested that the churches being harassed by Robertson sue Robertson for defamation. Before that, Chris hadn't mentioned it, neither had anyone else that I can find.
Anon, it seems you are turning a molehill into a mountain, especially when you make comments that make it sound like Chris and other regular posters here are advocating government intervention. It's just not the case. If I'm wrong, demonstrate it and I'll admit my error.
As far as Roark is concerned, he most certainly should be held accountable for what he allows to go out over the airwaves from his facility. If he broadcast a group of terrorists threatening to blow something up, he'd be held accountable. If he broadcast a bunch of white people dancing around to Uncle Tom music in blackface saying black people are bad he'd be held accountable. As much as you seem to loathe the idea, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed for broadcasters.
Personally, I think that a person making accusations against a church that are baseless and untrue crosses that line. However, I demonstrate this, not by threats or wishes of government intervention, but by refusing to shop with the companies that advertise on Roark's station, which I have already done.
It's a small thing, but I feel satisfied with it.
"The station itself may also by in trouble with the FCC and other controlling powers of the airwaves if in fact this is true and they have not done anything to address the situation and they appear to have known about the issue."
Is there any possible way to justify or defend the above statement?
How many members of this blog/cult agree with the above statement?
Let me see a show of hands. Go ahead, put up your hands if you agree the FCC needs to step in to deal with Johnny Roberton's slander and Charles Roark's complicity.
The City of Reidsville buys ad time on WGSR as does DCC and the City of Eden.
Do you boycott these entire towns and the community college?
If so, how do you boycott the towns? Maybe you refuse to pay your taxes so none of your money ends up in the evil Roark's pocket.
I'm glad you don't get to draw the line for everybody, just yourself. This is how it should be. Thank you.
MUCH more than I want to see discussion about the FCC in the comments, I want to see someone attempt to address what I said in the post:
"If anyone can tell me how Robertson is reflecting the love of Christ, the mind of Christ, or the grace of Christ with his words and his actions - and then daring to insinuate that only he comes with the truth of God - then I would certainly welcome such exposition in the comments for this blog entry."
So far, nobody has been able to do that.
So I'll reiterate again: how is what Robertson and Oldfield are doing, in keeping with what it means to demonstrate Christ, as we are shown throughout the New Testament?
Actually, I've never visited Reidsville or Eden, although I have passed through. Nor do I attend the community college. I'm also not a citizen of North Carolina, so my taxes wouldn't go to those towns anyway. Next?
I'm also glad that you don't get to not draw the line for everybody, just yourself. That is how it should be as well.
Chris, those are not the words of a Christian or anyone of sound mind. And some of what Mr. Robertson has said could be interpreted as making threats to others.
The comment about not buying from advertisers is the sanest thing I've read here. You might follow up by telling them you're not patronizing and why. I live in neither Eden nor Reidsville, but if I did I would call a politician. Not because of Johnny Robertson but because the towns are enough like Hooterville already. Advertising on WGSR certainly doesn't enhance your image to potential businesses.
"Why hasn't someone sued Johnny and WGSR if they have slandered another church or religion?"
Go read the Bible you'll find the answer to this question in there, let me know what you find!
walkinginlove
I don't know if this is the correct answer or not. One preacher told me they did not believe in lawsuits. Yet another preacher said he felt under certain circumstances it may be necessary.
My concern is not for the preachers or the grownups. It is for the girls.
No one defied Johnny Robertson and his followers until Chris Knight dared to do it. Now other people are standing up to Johnny and he is running scared.
Eventually Johnny Robertson or his dimwitted kid or James Oldfield are going to harrass a church and they will be arrested for trespassing or a similar charge. That is if they are lucky. People here are wise to them now. And I doubt that Johnny Robertson is going to have the balls to try that at Community Baptist or Covington Wesleyan in Reidsville or Osborne Baptist in Eden.
...sounds like a gauntlet has been thrown down...
We all know Robertson visits Chris's blog, how will he respond to this challenge?
Response to:
"Do you really think it's the responsibilty of a broadcaster to verify the accuracy and beliefs of it advertisers, especially a religious advertiser"?
When you consider the host is Charles Roark at his family-owned TV station and the many conversations he has on the phone with Johnny Robertson broadcasting on the air, and he did add comments while discussing the girls I do think that should be his responsibility as to the accuracy of it.
And how does one verify the accuracy of relgious-based opinions?
When Johnny Robertson was talking about the girls did anyone ever hear him say it was his opinion? I didn't.
After receiving a coupld of calls Robertson said the community had weighed in on it and he read the obscenity law. I don't consider a couple of calls the community.
Religious based opinions should not include portraying children that way.
A caller to Charles Roark's show suggested Chris Knight has a Messiah complex. I don't agree with the caller, I'm just the messenger. Please don't shoot me.
If you knew Chris Knight as much as I do you would know that is the most ridiculous thing that anyone has ever said about him.
hey chris if your so sure of your views lets just have a debate or study i would love to talk to you maybe you should just talk to johny and get your facts strait
To quote a friend who also said this of your cult leader...
I will gladly do a study with Johnny Robertson, so long as I have a Bible in one hand and a .38 in the other.
Post a Comment