I seem to have touched a nerve yesterday, given the fact that I was called a non-Christian and a liberal and supporting the mainstream media! You find out something new about yourself every day!
The main point made in the comments was that the demonstration at Chick-Fil-A was not primarily about homosexuality, it was about defending our First Amendment right to free speech. It was about showing solidarity with a company that stands for traditional marriage. Many people argued that they could go to Chick-Fil-A and still be just as loving and kind toward the gay community as before. Well, maybe.
I don’t think we can separate the issues of free speech and homosexuality as neatly as everyone claims. Regardless of your intent in going to Chick-Fil-A, we as Christians made a collective statement to the world. We said, “We will band together as Christians against your homosexual agenda. We are against your homosexual agenda.” No one may have said this individually, but this was the overall effect of the demonstration. We Christians hunkered down on our side while the rest of the world hunkered down on their side. We circled our wagons against the attacks of the wicked. Disagree all you want, but that’s how it is being interpreted by many people.
Trust me, I’m all for traditional marriage and I believe in free speech. I need free speech so that I can continue to proclaim the gospel boldly. I don’t want restrictions on gospel proclamation. I want to protect those values. But I strongly believe that we need to find more winsome ways to do it. We may have won the Chick-Fil-A battle, but I don’t imagine that we won any unbelievers to Christ.
Am I too worried about offending people? I don’t think so. I’m more than willing to offend people for the sake of the gospel. The gospel is an inherently offensive message, and I’ll proclaim the offensive gospel of grace and repentance until my dying breath. But I don’t want to offend unnecessarily. In 1 Corinthians 10:31-33 Paul said:
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
Paul sought to avoid offense in order that people might be saved! As Christians, we must keep that goal before us - the salvation of many. Paul was willing to lay down his rights to eat whatever he wanted in order that people might be saved.
The primary problem with the Chick-Fil-A battle was that there were very few words used. The watching world did not hear our love for the lost, our love for Christ, and our desire to see them know the truth. It didn’t feel our compassion. It simply saw a bunch of fired up Christians eating chicken sandwiches. To me that doesn’t seem like the best way to defend the First Amendment in the name of Christ.
So yes, let’s defend the First Amendment, but let’s do it in a gracious, winsome, God-centered, Bible-saturated ways. In 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 Paul said:
For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ…
The primary weapon that Paul is talking about is the weapon of the truth! So yeah, let’s fight against the arguments of the world, but let’s do it by graciously speaking the truth, just as Jesus did and Paul did. Let’s work to protect what we value, but let’s do it with the truth, not chicken sandwiches. Write to your paper, engage in public debate, write your representative, blog, have coffee with your homosexual friends, and do it all with grace and truth. I love how John Piper regularly writes in to his local newspaper. Preachers, boldly proclaim the full counsel of God. Let’s proclaim the name of Christ in a way that shows just how glorious, wonderful, and attractive he is.
And when we speak the truth, let’s expect to be persecuted. After all, Jesus said that we would be hated by all men for his name’s sake.
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
Most folks I know on the pro ssm side consider the belief that homosexuality is a sin inherently bigoted, and any opposition to legalizing it as oppressive. It’s not that our point is misunderstood, it’s that it is rejected. Allowing Rahm Emmanuel or other .gov officials to discriminate and harass Christian business owners unopposed fails to strike me as particularly winsome.
Very well said Stephen. I completely agree.
I guess it comes down to this, do we want to win others to our way of thinking and acting or do we want to win them to Christ? Our lives should constantly point to Jesus and allow Him to do the changing and transforming in His perfect timing. Every week I go to a Juvenile DC and I am reminded that I do not have the power to change their hearts or how they act. But at the same time, they need companionship and to hear the gospel message of Christ. My mentality is to want them to hear and immediately change their heart and belief and follow Christ. After all, we do live in a world that no longer has any tolerance for waiting. But each week, I see hearts slowly being transformed as the gospel message is preached and as we stand by them in love, unconditional love.
I realized this the day after I went to Chick-fil-a. What exactly was I saying when I went to Chick-fil-a and bought their food on that one day? In reality, if you really want to fight a boycott on a company, it's not one day that will win, but repeatedly returning to it. And if I'm in support of Freedom of Speech and the Biblical Example of Marriage, I'm sure buying a chicken sandwich didn't help that much. Your ideas are great ones.
It makes me wonder what caption people were filling when they saw the large crowds. And now what will we do from today on to share the love of Christ to others while supporting our Biblical beliefs? It's easy to buy a chicken sandwich.
I posted this on a friend's facebook page yesterday. After thinking about it longer, I have to say I still agree that supporting CFA was the right thing to do. As to being winsome for the lost, absolutely, believers should reach out to them, and stand firm against any attempt to act in hate against homosexuals. But that does not mean we DON'T stand against injustice. Paul's teaching in Romans 1 and 1 Cor. 6 would not have won him any friends in the sexually immoral community, homosexual or not. He stood firm in the truth, and yet GOD brought some of them out of that darkness.
As one who fought the traffic and stood in line at Chick-Fil-A yesterday, I found these posts thought-provokiing. I have spent some time asking myself, why did I do so? Was it to support a business that, clearly, did not need my support? Was it for the cause of religious liberty? Was it from a heart of "we'll show them"? Perhaps, if I am honest with myself, all of the above motivations were part of my decision to go. I could wish that my heart was pure in my intention to support a brother in Christ, but I know myself too well to deny that the "sin that dwells within me" colors so much of what I do, even my well-intentioned actions. But the thing that concerns me most in this issue is the lack of focus on the glory and holiness of God. I have just finished writing a paper on John Calvin's view on government. He recognized that, being fallen sinners, government was necessary and beneficial. The sinfulness of man was also the reason he felt that limited government was best, for "it is safer and more tolerable when several bear rule…should anyone be disposed to go too far…" (Institutes, 4.20.8). In Calvin's view, Christians are Scripturally commanded to obey authorities and respect those in authority; resistance, however, is commanded when those rulers are demanding disobedience to God. "If they command anything against [the Lord] let us not pay the least regard to it…" (As an aside, Calvin believed that one of the purposes of civil government was "that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people…that men may carry on innocent commerce with each other…") When those in positions of power threaten to keep CFA out of their markets or urge that they be expelled from a college campus, they have stepped over the line of their GOD-GIVEN responsibility. In our culture and economy we are blessed to be able to resist tyranny, not with arms, but with our wallets, and that, I think, is what my true motivation was. No Christian who can truly call himself by that wonderful name can harbor a judgmental and hate-filled attitude toward anyone caught in the trap of sin; that would make a mockery of grace. But we can, and should, stand for all that God is, and stand with those who seek to honor Him in all that they do and say.
The difference between the homosexuality conversation with CFA and Romans 1 & 1 Cor 6 is that it is a different audience. Paul was writing to Christians while the CFA protest was adamantly demonstrated to the unsaved world.
Appreciate your thought Stephen.
I really appreciate your heart here Stephen. But surely you see the irony here: “Government officials are abusing their power to harrass Christians? Whoa, I better go have coffee with my gay friends!”
You seen to be creating a false dichotomy where one can either act in protest of .gov attacking the religious for their beliefs, or be winsome (when did that become a buzzword anyway?) And loving to the gay community? I fully agree that Christians need to love and reach out to everyone including the LGBT community. I also think we should resist redefining marriage. And to a lot of folks (many? most?) in those communities, any resistance to that is proof of intolerance and bigotry on par with Jim Crow. There isn’t a way to present our views that they won’t take in the way you seem to assume they will the chic fil a thing.
Do you know that few words were used on Wednesday? Or did the MSM make it seem that way. Perhaps there were many gospel presentations. How do we speak the truth? Were conversations had on Wednesday that might not have taken place otherwise? Christians are called to preach and defend the truth and to be sure, many words and defenses were given over the past couple of weeks.
Stephen,
Thanks for these last two posts…they have been very thought provoking! As I was reading through yesterdays comments, I was thinking about the whole issue of what individual people's intentions were in going to Chick-Fil-A yesterday vs. what the event as a whole seemed to convey and I thought of an analogy that might be helpful to the conversation here. I understand that a lot (maybe even most) of the folks who went yesterday were not trying to convey hatred of homosexuals and were only there to support the first amendment and at first, I didn't see any problem with that. Until I tried to see it from a gay person's perspective. If someone who is homosexual drove by a Chick-Fil-A yesterday, what were their thoughts? What did it convey to them? Did they look and think, "Gee, look at all of that good old American freedom of speech support?" Probably not. Did they feel loved by us as Christians? Probably not. I would imagine that they felt hated…regardless of what each individual person's intentions were who were in those lines.
Anyway, back to my analogy. My husband and I are Civil War buffs and this whole issue made me think of the Confederate flag. To a lot of people in the South during the Civil War, the war wasn't so much about slavery as it was about state's rights. A lot of Confederate soldiers were fighting for their rights, not to keep their slaves. The Confederate flag was a source of pride to many southerners who would not connect it in any way, shape, or form to slavery. But we all know that the Confederate flag has some pretty strong, negative connotations attached to it. So, would it be ok for a Southern Christian to display a Confederate flag outside of their home if their intentions were only to show support for their family's heritage? What if they knew for a fact that they had ancestors who fought in the Civil War for the Confederacy, but were against slavery and weren't even slave owners? I think we would all agree that it would be wrong to fly that flag. Because no matter what that individual's intentions are, that flag has horrible connotations attached to it and it would be an offense not only to African Americans, but to anyone who is grieved by the history of our nation and the fact that slavery existed here. Now, I know this analogy isn't perfect…I am not trying to equate gay rights with civil rights or any of that. But can't you all see (the one's who went yesterday), can't you see what the connotation of that event was? No matter what your individual intentions or motives were (be it first amendment rights or whatever), the meaning behind that event was: "We are standing up against the gay community. We are standing in solidarity with this CEO who spoke out against homosexuality." Even if that wasn't the intention of your heart, if you were there, that is what you were communicating.
Do you know what would really impress me? If we saw as many (if not more) Christians at Chick-Fil-A today to offer to buy a meal for all of those that go to the "kiss-in" today. Go and buy them a meal. Sit and talk with them. Get to know them. Share the gospel with them. Invite them to your church. If you really do love these folks, get out there and show it.
I have found all the opinions on Wednesday's events interesting. I, too, saw the long lines wrapping around the stores and wondered how many of those supportive folks are TAKING the time to actually build a relationship (it can take 5 minutes or years) in order to share the greatest news ever told. The BIG question to me now: How will Christians react to the "kiss-in" being proposed? Maybe I could suggest a few steps (although I do not have a Chick-fil-A nearby, I do have homosexually oriented friends where I can apply this):
1. Go to your C-F-A on the "kiss-in" day, introduce yourself to a couple there, offer to buy lunch.
2. Ask for forgiveness for any sinful thoughts or actions you have ever had toward the LGBTQ community
3. Share that although you don't agree on this topic, you don't hate them either. Tell them why.
4. Ask to meet again, perhaps for civil discussion, open conversation on the why's and why not's
5. Leave peacefully and maybe even order and eat a chicken sandwich on the way out, because you are hungry, not to make a point
6. Repeat
Could we note a difference between (1) LGBT individuals and (2) how LGBT functions as a power structure in American society? If so, then perhaps all would gladly acknowledge our duty to speak of God's love to LGBT individuals, but also of our duty to proclaim the holiness of God to LGBT power. I think Stephen is helping us focus on the former, but not the latter.
Hey Stephen! I knew you about a decade ago. *waves
As a nonbeliever who, along with his wife, stopped eating at CFA a year ago over their political donations, I'd like to comment my experience with this and address a few things commenters have said.
There is indeed a great deal of opposition among pro-gay marriage folks to elected officials coming down against a company for the views of their management. You'll find a great many people who will defend the freedom of speech of Dan Cathy but also the freedom to boycott by those of us who find his views and the causes to which the company donates to be, for lack of better words, gross. I feel the same way about people who make racist statements. I'll stand up for their right to say what they want, but won't then go throwing money at their businesses that donate to organizations with similar views.
As such, Wednesday didn't look like a free-speech event. That could have been accomplished by focusing on the few politicians who have said ridiculous things in the past weeks (as indeed organizations like the ACLU are). Instead it looked like a show of support for the views of Dan Cathy and groups like The Family Foundation. That wasn't the media telling us this- it was the Christians on our facebook walls, on their own blogs, on twitter and in real life. That said, most nonchristians I know don't lump all Christians into the same boat, and understand that this is a specific segment.
There is surely a great deal of thoughtfulness, debate and nuance to the reasoning behind many people's visit to CFA on Wednesday. But apart from reading about it, I'll never know, because I wasn't at CFA on Wednesday. Neither were the people you may have been trying to reach. They were driving by on the highway, watching the lines grow longer.
I understand that my boycotting of CFA looks like supporting gay marriage. That's because it IS. And the converse is true as well. How this looks to those outside the church should be somewhat obvious, and I think Stephen hit it right on the head.
Horray Stephen! I've been pondering on these same thoughts for days now wondering why no other Christ-follower around me shared my views. You more than hit the nail on the head and I want to follow your lead–even if it doesn't replicate the thoughts or feelings of other believers around me. I mean, really, Jesus was the son of God and the other 'believers' around him didn't support his strange ways or odd thought patterns; yet, here we are today attempting to live by his example. But I often wonder if we are truly living in his shadow…
Even Jesus spent the majority of his time with the labeled sinners of his day….the tax collector, the prostitute, the drunkard and, I would imagine, the homosexuals. In that day there was sin, just as there is today and the Devil has no new tricks…he just comes up with new ways to market the same ol' same ol'. Even Peter had anger issues and we know what the Word says about anger.
I have seen and heard several of my friends who are Christians comment, "I have LGBT friends, and they know I love them and am here for them…..BUT I have to support Chic fil a and their willingness to take a stand against sin." I have learned that typically when BUT conjoins two sentences, it negates the first portion of the sentence with the statement in the second half. So wouldn't that mean you can't say you love someone and attend an event that is designed to be (or appears to be) a slap in the face of who they are.
There is no place I have read in the Bible that says Jesus ate with the sinner, but voted/protested publicly against them. In fact, I remember a story where the high priests brought a woman to Him in an instance just as that…what did Jesus do? He showed her ultimate love and compassion all the while, reminding her accusers that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone."
Maybe all Christians should boycot and stand against Liars just as they do homosexuals. Sin is sin after all, and which one of us knows how or if God has chosen to rank them. Are they ranked from least sinful to most sinful?
First of all is it your business to question how citizens of a free country choose to express THEIR first amendment right to free speech?
Am I to take from this article and the preceding one that you find it more palatable to offend those who are trying to honor the Lord and biblical principles than to shame sinners to repentance. By your logic Billy Graham evangelistic meetings ran the risk of offending sinners by gathering a large number of like minded people to stand against evil and bring praise the Lord. Promise Keepers run the risk of offending and alienating fathers who have not been true to their marriage vows. You seem to indicate that while the world can gather thousands in support of a sporting event, for us to do the same in the name of Christ and support of biblical principles it could be perceived as circling the wagons. Would you support a pro-life rally in Washington? Even if pivotal legislation were pending before congress in matters of concern to believers it could be perceived as a negative according to your logic. What if legislation were pending that would make it illegal for your church to discriminate against a gay member of your church from holding a office or playing an instrument or teaching a Sunday School class? This is not a far fetched proposition.
Does this mean that I am to never eat at Chick-Fil-A again because a homosexual seeing me with a Chick-Fil-A bag would decide that I am a bigot and hate gays? Can I go to Sweet Frog until the LGBT folks learn it is a Christian business and then I can't go there anymore? What about LifeWay stores? Can I listen to Focus on the Family? They give money to defense of marriage campaigns. Will all Christian business men go out of business because other Christians are afraid to support them fearful they will be sending "bad vibes" to non-Christians. Certainly the non-Christians won't support them.
The boys and I got Chick-Fil-A today for lunch which we took to the pool to eat. I was happy to buy SOMETHING that I knew wasn't using my money to support Gay Pride, abortion, etc. I don't have many places I can make that choice since so many companies like Disney, Kraft Foods, General Mills, Target, Betty Crocker, Levis, Proctor and Gamble, Microsoft, Apple, Home Depot, Pepsi, and Safeway all support Same Sex Marriage! (For the record, I do buy Kraft, Betty Crocker, and Apple, but nothing could get me to buy a Pepsi – I am a Coke fan)
Stephen,
I think you are well intentioned in your posts and I certainly appreciate your willingness to share them.
However, I think you are also naive to the very real interplay between religious freedom and the homosexual agenda today. For several reasons, it is not a stretch to say that this agenda is the primary threat to religious freedom today. And it is NOT because homosexuality is “worse” than other sins. Rather, it is because this debate has been framed in such a way as to require that the acceptance (or “tolerance”) of homosexual behavior go hand in hand with the prohibition on religious expression. Case in point – read about the CLS v. Hastings Supreme Court case, or more recent events at Vanderbilt University involving their discriminatory non-discrimination policy.
Thus, the demonstration at Chick-fil-A was not so much about free speech as it was about the free exercise of religion (in other words, you got the right Amendment, but the wrong clause).
You stated “Many people argued that they could go to Chick-Fil-A and still be just as loving and kind toward the gay community as before. Well, maybe.”
Considered carefully, this statement can only be understood to call into question the feasibility of demonstrably supporting an entity that supports traditional marriage while simultaneously being loving toward the gay community. That is interesting—and flawed–because the logic that must necessarily accompany your statement could also be applied to say: “Many people argued that they could go to a CHURCH THAT SPEAKS IN SUPPORT OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE and still be just as loving and kind toward the gay community as before. Well, maybe.”
Do you see the problem? I hope so.
Moreover, you again assume that support of something is necessarily obstinate condemnation of the other. As Rick Warren said, “Our culture has accepted two huge lies: The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”
I’m also a bit shocked that you bolded “eat or drink” in the Corinthians passage – as if that was in any way the context in which Paul meant it. As I’m sure you know, he was addressing the ongoing struggle certain believers had pertaining to clean verus unclean foods.
Not mentioning the threats being made by government officials in your description of what occurred is leaving out crucial – perhaps the most crucial – facts. I also think it is not accurate to portray this as some sort of a church event – many others voiced great concern over the threats being made by politicians against people's right to their beliefs and threatening to take away their right to do business because of those beliefs. Even Whoopi Goldberg and Alan Dershowitz called out those trying to bully Mr. Cathy. And others besides Christians and conservatives participated. This was a political event in my view, not a church event – a political response to political attacks on basic rights guaranteed by the constitution. Many of those who participated were Christians and conservatives, but not everyone was. I'm not sure you are arguing this in the proper context…if we were going to be writing letters to the editor about this man's right to engage in commerce, run a business, etc. in response to the threats being made, how would that be done other than using political terms? Are you arguing that Christians should not engage in the political system? Please elaborate. Thanks!
Stephen – you are entitled to your opinion. I respect and defend that right.
As a Christian (and as a pastor) though, are you entitled to your opinion being right and stating it as the only valid opinion, when it is not clearly stated in the Bible?
You state your opinion as fact when you say things like, “this was the overall effect of the demonstration” as if you are the supreme and true evaluator of all things. Do you know all people in the US? Did you hear and see all their thoughts? Do you know best what is right and wrong in every situation? It seems as if you must.
I appreciate your desire to preach the gospel in love and with grace, gentleness and respect.
Unfortunately, your approach to those you disagree with does not appear loving, gracious, gentle or respectful.
What are you modeling as a Christian commentator beyond the content – in how you say what you say? I dare say, it may not be a model of humility.
I wish you the best in Christ and pray for you, your blog and your church. Keep sharing your opinions but please consider your example in how and what you say.
I am just trying to understand your position Stephen–and even with this second rendition it still seems like you are framing it in a way that the media has framed it…and dare I say…it's not necessarily accurate..? To me this, and so many other issues are worth discussing over a coffee at Amadeus…two writers can make hay in a good way…let's do this someday..it would sure be help to me as I am trying to understand …the campus culture…which you seem to have a better grasp..and maybe an old man like me could be of some benefit as well…I will buy if nothing else ;>)
Thoughts on these two posts:
1.) It's the media who has made this restaurant and its owner for his religious beliefs into a mountain out of a mole hill. They (media) do not preach the Christian worldview and rarely frame news in a positive light…would you agree ?. Seems though that you are blaming some "zealot Christians" for possibly alienating same sex attraction folk because of all this attention. Have you bought the story line from the media ? I think their rendering is deceptive in this case..stirring the pot to set up the us vs you scenario. I am concerned for our local Chick on on campus and the students..perhaps there is an opportunity to reach out to those from this place…thoughts…?
Your point about not wanting to put up another roadblock in helping non-Christians hear the Gospel message is a good one if indeed. Its easy to get tripped up by the messenger, I catch myself doing this.
Also I was a bit snarky yesterday.. something your dad has spoken to me about in the past. I apologize.
Hey Bob,
Honestly I haven't paid much attention to the media in this whole episode. My big concern is for what we are saying collectively as Christians to LGBT community. I'm thinking of how my LGBT friends would feel as they drove past Chick-Fil-A. It seems that we as Christians sent a collective message to them that we are against them. I know that many people would say individually that they are not against them, and that's great. But the collective effect of the national demonstration was so much bigger than any one person's actions.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for responding. Yes, if that is all you saw. I am a news junkie and I write on the message of secular news and its effects on both secular culture and its effects on those with in the Christian worldview/church. So probably myself and others who have been more critical were assuming you were feeding off CNN and alike…ok…all is well.
I see Sean on Tuesdays, when I can, one of these times I hope we can chit chat about culture/gospel and the church…I will leave that up to you.
Dear Stephen.
I appreciate your voice, and glad you're courageous enough to think aloud. You and Barnabas Piper have fleshed out an important line of thought in this Chicken/First Amendment/Gospel/Marriage/Culture conversation. There's really no way to completely challenge or disable what you're saying, because from your vantage it's a true and rational perspective. The way we decide to engage in these issues is so much about where we sit in church, who is sitting next to us and who we've invited. This week you saw barbs and sharp edges, not a graceful embrace of a battered Christian brother and his family.
My challenge with what your saying, and seeing, is that it feels like a few million Chick-fil-A fans just got painted with a pretty wide, prickly brush, and we don't think the tint is quite right. Here are a few bullets to help explain why the guy a few pews back is grateful for what happened this week:
#1. As the ringleader of this Hands Across America/Chick-fil-A pageant, Mike Huckabee's language has nearly mirrored your own. It's been full of grace and seasoned with salt. It's been washed in love and compassion. He's been the definition of "winsome." I'm glad he's leading this parade, and not a less than guarded public voice. This discussion is flypaper for our pride and egos, and I think Governor Huck had his in check throughout this process.
#2. The wider media, from the Washington Post to Huffington characterized this as a "protest," as a boiling point in the culture wars. They used the comments of celebrity mayors and politicians to bill and promote this as a pay-for-view Civil Rights food fight. The narrative reads that on one side there's this gang of bigoted southern fried Christians (note how the national news crews seemed to interview in places like Birmingham and Dallas, not Pittsburgh), on the other, a young, fashionable culture of educated city-dwellers. As the purity of the Huckabee message became diluted and polluted with army-of-one activists and camera moths, the die had been cast, trap set.
#3. On Wednesday the "showdown" never happened. A faceoff? Nada. On Friday the counter protests — fizzled. In other words, after the media characterizations was graciously supplanted with viral reports about the servant-like conduct of Chick-fil-A employees and the good manners of their fans, we're back to a simpler, truer story – Mike Huckabee organized a thank you party for Chick-fil-A, and really nice people were served by super nice employees. On Friday sincere protestors were met with gracious hospitality.
I suppose what I'm saying is that this all comes down to heart motive. If bigots piggyback on an amazing national moment like this, or say Christmas or Easter, does it in any way mean that we shouldn't participate? Because the resurrection has been commercialized and scandalized, do we move Easter Sunday to a different day so we don't lump the good news of the Gospel with its unattractive imitators and chocolate bunnies?
You've done so much to change the tone of next-generation Christian thinking, especially on the way we engage the culture. You've helped us think in new, fresh ways about contentment, creativity and the need to canonize Fred Rogers. It's why I thought the Chick-fil-A post, and the graphic you chose to illustrate the point, seemed a bit un-Altrogee.
Your brother in Christ and a grateful beneficiary of your good work.
Jeff Coleman
Hey Jeff,
Thanks for the thoughts. The reason that I painted in broad brush strokes was because this was a massive demonstration on a national scale. Each person had different motives in going to the event, and I can't judge those moments. However, I do believe that collectively, we as Christians sent a message to the homosexual community. We turned it into an us vs. them battle.
I honestly haven't really paid any attention to the media coverage of the event. I'm simply thinking of my homosexual friends and how they would feel as they drove past Chick-Fil-A. Honestly, the graphic I chose didn't have any meaning behind it. It was sort of random.
My big concern in this whole issue is that people aren't seeing that our collective actions as Christians are just as important as our individual actions as Christians. People may say that they went to Chick-Fil-A simply to support the first amendment, and I'm totally fine with that. But the LGBT community will perceive this as a "Christian" / "Conservative" event that is, in many ways against them. I'm not comfortable with being a part of that.
That's why I tried to paint it in broad strokes, because I believe the collective effect of the event was far greater than any one person's individual actions.
Does that make sense?
I think we probably, as with any cultural event or public expression of faith, need to gauge what we think will be the wider perception while weighing our own heart's motive. You're right. In my own life, I've found it takes a good while to scrape away layers of motives to understand my heart. It's not an easy call at all.
In the case of this one, the motives before, during and after the event are all equally important. If any of it is propelled by a 'stick 'em in the eye' motive, we've got to run from that. I thought the motives were clear by the organizers – heap love and thanks on Dan Cathy and the great kids who work for him. I believe the attendees were overwhelmingly kind and loving, especially toward the handful of bullies (on both sides) that attended. There was a kind of self-governing that we rarely see in political or church-fueled protests. I think grace won that day.
I'm a Republican, but I'm often embarrassed by the actions of my party. I'm a Presbyterian, but not always thrilled with individual actions of some pastors or leaders or historical mistakes. I'm a husband and dad who represents institutions that have been abused and inflicted pain on wives and kids. Because my identity doesn't come from these institutions, but Jesus, I do my best to represent Him well in each – knowing that without Him, nothing.
When I meet someone who has been hurt by my political party, my church denomination or a bad marriage, I want to available to allow God to use to melt a hard heart or change perception. Some things that have been miscast because of bad behavior are worth saving and even joining. That's how I viewed this week's event — a chance to join a big grace party and help shape an encouraging message.
I appreciate you brother. Loved your last book. Really helpful. Keep them coming whenever creativity flows!
Jeff
Stephen. I agree wholeheartedly with both of your posts on this topic. At a recent retreat, I felt the Holy Spirit reminding me that Jesus did not come to us the first time to judge us. Rather, He came to show us the Father and His love for us. And when He ascended into heaven, He did not deputize me to do any judging until He returns. I have been commissioned to spread the Gospel, not set the world straight until He comes again. And the Casting Crowns song adds emphasis to this debate. I will end with an excerpt from their lyrics from Jesus Friend of Sinner,s
"Nobody knows what we're for only against when we judge the wounded
What if we put down our signs crossed over the lines and loved like You did".
A) I want to defend the first amendment, and the entirety of the constitution, in any way I can. The constitution is in tatters and all but dead in this republic.
B) I didn't go to Chick-Fil-a to say something to sexual deviants, There's no convincing them of anything, let alone convince them that someone other than them gets to have and express an opinion. I went to say something to the people who own and run Chick-Fil-a. I went to say "let the deviants abandon you, I won't. You have a right to express what you believe".
It's that simple.
So, "sexual deviants"…as if this defines who they are in God's eyes (and yours)? Mick, are you a sexual deviant? Have you ever had sinful thoughts or lust about sexual activity? Your labeling of others shows a strong streak of self-righteousness. "There's no convincing them of anything…"? Sounds like you've given up on the power of the gospel, of a sovereign God to change ANYBODY.
Great post. This article is why I love this blog — I feel refreshed in grace when I read it.
As far as I know the demonstration at CFA was not intended to be an evangelical, Billy Graham style come to Jesus outreach. It was meant to convey to whomever was watching exactly what it did: (To quote the author) "It was about showing solidarity with a company that stands for traditional marriage." “We will band together as Christians against your homosexual agenda. We are against your homosexual agenda.” "We Christians hunkered down on our side while the rest of the world hunkered down on their side. We circled our wagons against the attacks of the wicked." You've nailed it, Stephen.
And I don't apologize – not for a minute. It is past time believers drew a line in the sand and told those who would coarsen our culture even more: "This far and no farther." In fact, I believe we need to confess our sin for allowing the line to be as far back as it is.
This article says it all. Men, sometimes we are called to Show-Up…in my mind and JP's, this Chick deal was one of them. When we break huddle with one another let's make sure we wear the same uniform…+ Peace….ok… now on to the next story
http://www.jpmoreland.com/2012/08/05/royal-confus…
You seem to be the kind of person who wants things done your way only. If Cathy's calling is not for you, then that's fine.
{ 2 trackbacks }