Friday, August 3, 2012

On Chick-fil-A

I didn't really want to comment on this, but there's been so much garbage on facebook and in the media that I had to speak my mind. And so dear friends, four reasons why "Chick-fil-A Day" wasn't as holy and important as everyone seems to think.

1) God doesn't care about Chick-fil-A

I've seen lots of facebook posts along the lines of "Praise God! Look how long the line for Chick-fil-A is!" You know what that sounds like to me? "Praise God! Look how long the line for this checkout counter at Wal-Mart is!" or perhaps "Praise God! Look how far traffic is backed up on the interstate!"

Why? Because people buying chicken sandwiches does about as much to advance the kingdom of God as buying cheap crap or sitting in traffic. That is, it does nothing. God's kingdom, is not spread through waffle fries. God is not glorified when Christians eat fast food. So why should God care about these things?

Its not wrong to support a position or a cause you agree with, just don't delude yourself into thinking that your cause somehow advances God's kingdom. Which brings us to number two...

2) No one accepted Christ on Wednesday because of your chicken sandwich

Let me repeat that. No one was saved, born again, repented, whatever, because you bought a 7 dollar chicken sandwich. No one. None. Zilch. In fact, I daresay that instead of plowing the ground on Wednesday, Christians were packing it down with a steamroller.

Look, I know most of us only went there because we love God's definition of marriage, and we love to see a successful person take a stand in favor of that, and we wanted to show our appreciation. I get that, I really do. But the gay community, a community that desperately needs Christ, doesn't. They saw Wednesday as a show of support for a man that hates them. I know Wednesday was not about hate, but it was perceived as being about hate. And I'm not talking about media bias, I'm talking about real flesh and blood human beings who saw Wednesday as a giant neon sign that said "we don't want you!"

No one was saved yesterday. The ground of the gay communities hearts was hardened. And we counted that as a victory?

3) Buying chicken doesn't "defend" marriage.

I'm going to steal a line of reasoning from the Bad Catholic blog. Marriage is between one man and one woman. By definition. Anything that doesn't meet that definition is not marriage. Therefore there can be no such thing as gay marriage. We are literally fighting over legal recognition of a non thing!

Tell me Christian, does the sanctity of marriage depend on the vows between a husband and wife and their God, or does it depend on the secular world powers? Is marriage preserved best when married couples practice it as God has ordained or when a bureaucrat puts a rubber stamp on a piece of paper that says two people are married?

My point is we are fighting the wrong battle. I don't give a damn what the US government thinks marriage is, it can't change the real meaning of that word. Two gay men can claim to be married, but I can also claim to be the president of Russia. Its meaningless. I will go so far as to argue that two unsaved heterosexual people with a marriage license aren't actually married! If we want to preserve "traditional marriage" we need to spread Christ, not pass legislation. We are fighting the wrong battle.

4) Buying chicken didn't defend free speech

You didn't do anything to defend the first amendment on Wednesday. If you want to do that I suggest two things. First, buy a gun. All our rights as Americans hinge on the right to keep and bear arms. An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a slave. Second, don't tolerate politicians who don't respect your rights. The people of Chicago and Boston should be working to fire their mayors right now.

Ok, that's all for now. Carry on.


  1. I partially dissent from points 2-4.

    2) Regardless of whether or not souls were saved through the actions of sandwich-buyers on Wednesday, I object to the argument that Christians "were packing [the ground] down with a steamroller." You rightly note that practicing homosexuals need Christ, but in order to receive Christ and achieve salvation, they must repent from habitually sinful lifestyles. Further, you noted that this community perceives public opposition to their lifestyle as "hate" directed at them. While some so-called Christians may actually hate those with same-sex attraction, many do not, and oppose such lifestyles out of love informed by revelation. If we insist that any and all public displays of opposition to homosexual lifestyles that are perceived as "hateful" cease, we preclude the possibility - apart from private revelation - that active homosexuals will come to realize their sinful lifestyles. Thus we preclude the possibility that they may be saved by the ordinary means of salvation: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the forgiveness of your sins." To generalize: What if a particular group saw any characterization of any of their sins as "hate"?

    3) The government certainly has no power to change the actual nature of marriage, but depending
    upon the nature of the eventual solution to the gay marriage question, government may end up granting an endorsement to sinful behavior, by putting it on the same plane as institutional marriage. While a government may permit evils to be done, a government should not endorse or promote such practices. It is a reasonable question to ask what alternative institutions may be provided, or whether or not the government should recuse itself from the affairs of marriage.

    4) Massive social outpourings of support for businesses wronged by the government are a very helpful defense of liberty. Remember: Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order. This was essentially the soap box with economic activity. Yes, definitely, go arm yourselves, and then *train* with those arms. But this sort of thing *does* defend the First Amendment - and may make use of the latter boxes unnecessary.

    1. 4) I think you are right. My original argument was hastily constructed between waking up and going to work, so I definitely didn't think that one through.

      3) Though I agree that the government shouldn't endorse or promote sin, I am less concerned with the government and more concerned with the actions of Christians in this case. Honestly I'd like to see the government out of marriage entirely. But that's not what Christians are trying to do.

      2) I still hold that the Chick-fil-A Day hardened the hearts of homosexuals simply because they perceived it as an act of hate. Whether or not it actually was is irrelevant. They perceived it as hate, and now they have one more reason not to listen to anything Christians say. If they do not listen to us, then how can we inform them (out of love of course) that their lifestyle is wrong and separates them from God?

      I don't know what the answer is, but there has to be a more loving way to reach out to them than making a huge deal over a fast food restaurant. The Chick-fil-A Day seemed to me to be more about "us versus them" than "let us go and send a loving message to the homosexual community that what they are doing is a danger to their souls!"

      "Us vs Them" is what I'm attempting to speak out against.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.