Ten reasons why a restaurant is a bad place for a theological showdown

During the first week of August, Chick-fil-A became ground zero for one of the hottest controversies of the day. The fast food giant took center stage in the debate about same-sex marriage, largely due to owner Dan Cathy’s comments about his company’s support of a “biblical definition” of marriage as a traditional partnership between a man and a woman. As a result, August 1 became the day that those in support of Cathy flooded the chain, in many cases waiting hours in line for a chicken sandwich. The event was promoted by many Christian groups, and Chick-fil-A reported unprecedented sales for the day. In response, those in support of same-sex marriage protested on August 3 at Chick-fil-A restaurants throughout the nation.

The comments that follow have less to do with my personal views on same-sex marriage and rather focus on the question, “Is a restaurant really the place for such a theological showdown?” Disclaimer: I am an active Evangelical, though I’m also heavily influenced by my Anabaptist heritage. To some I look conservative. To some I seem liberal. As is usually with these kinds of labels, it depends where you stand. Nonetheless, now that the controversy has died down a bit, here are ten reasons why I think a Chick-fil-A restaurant is a very inappropriate place for this whole discussion (whether you’re Christian, non-Christian, straight, GLBT, health conscious or a junk food junkie).

1. The word “biblical” is greatly overused by Christians. A lot of people are throwing this word around in an attempt to support their own preconceived convictions. It’s classic “prooftexting” – we have a conviction about an issue or doctrine, so we search the Bible with the goal of finding verses that support what we already believe. Hence, our opinions shape our understanding of the Bible rather than letting Scripture influence our beliefs. Another example: Pastors (especially church planters) often refer to their congregations as a “biblical church” or a “first-century church.” The problem is that there is no such thing. There were many biblical churches in the first century. There was one in Thessalonica, one in Galatia, one in Colossae, etc. Each of these churches had very distinct features and was given unique instructions from Paul. This is why the apostle tells women to be quiet in Corinth, but commends them for their leadership in Philippi. We need to be careful that we don’t use the word “biblical” manipulatively. Many cult leaders have done so and have successfully learned to control those who follow them.

2. The Bible is, essentially, a book for believers. The prescriptions of the Old and New Testaments are almost always given to the community of God’s people. As such, there isn’t a sense that the instructions given are for nonbelievers. Paul never lectured to a secular audience. His letters were written for the encouragement, edification and correction of small congregations that huddled together quietly in members’ homes. God’s Word is written to his followers in order to help them be a sign, witness and foretaste of his kingdom. Whatever our conviction might be about marriage, the public arena is not the place for aggressive conflict and argumentation. Such debate between Christians is good and necessary, but should take place in church gatherings, elders meetings and denominational study conferences.

3. Morality and spirituality cannot be legislated. Laws will not change the human heart. Many Christians believe that we must pass laws reflecting our Christian values. This sounds good, but what effect will it have? Forcing someone to live by my moral convictions is nothing more than coercion. If I believe that I am counseled by Scripture to follow a specific moral code, then I ought to be concerned with living out that conviction in the context of the Christian community. The church, then, becomes a testimony to God’s plan for his creation, not the coercive enforcers of doctrine. It’s a mistake to think that non-Christians will ever live like Christians just because they are mandated to do so. When will we learn that coercing people to believe something they don’t will only drive them away from Christ? Examples abound.

4. This isn’t Christian versus anti-Christian. Like it or not, there are Christians on both sides of the same-sex marriage controversy. I have gay and lesbian friends who are committed followers of Christ. It doesn’t matter if I agree or disagree with their lifestyle, they love Jesus. Unfortunately, many of them will never be comfortable in a church because of the way they have been treated by the church. Many people have cast the recent Chick-fil-A debate as an us-against-them scenario (this could be said of both sides). Rather than in a parking lot, wouldn’t it be better for us to come together and discuss the issues in courteous, honoring and private ways? I saw enough bad behavior through this conflict to seriously doubt some people’s faith on both sides of the debate. Thank God for grace. Thank God for mercy. Without that, none of us would be saved.

5. We just read the parts of Scripture we like. Why do we ignore the passages that condemn those who steal, those who lie and are dishonest, those who are unfaithful to their spouses, those who gossip, those who are greedy and those who are gluttons (yes, that means “eat too much”). These are all concerns Paul mentions with equal force alongside the issue of homosexuality. When will we stage an anti-gluttony event at a local eatery? Obviously, it’s not going to happen. Enough said. (See 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 for context.)

6. We judge people guilty by association. This works two ways. First, if I support opposite-sex marriage, I risk being labeled as a conservative right wing fanatic. But, if I’d come out and support same-sex marriage, I’d probably be branded as a godless progressive liberal. Either way, I’m likely to be stereotyped because of my association with a particular group of people. The problem: stereotypes are weak, shallow and simplistic ways of judging people’s true character. Second, there is a strong pressure in the Christian community to favor and associate with anything that’s labeled “Christian.” The subtle message is this: keep the money in the Christian family, don’t give your money to those pagans. Thus, we think we are better Christians if we use the services of those who have an ichthus (fish) on their business cards. Stated negatively, I’m a bad Christian if I don’t buy the Christian chicken sandwich.

7. Christian consumerism isn’t the way forward. Does buying stuff, especially from other Christians, really fulfill us and the mission of God’s kingdom? One of the greatest ironies of the Chick-fill-A controversy is that many people think they were doing something righteous and noble by patronizing a Christian business.  Why do we keep thinking that buying things (food, possessions, health, security, power, etc.) will make us, or society, any better? Furthermore, is it really godly to stuff ourselves with a sandwich that has 56 different ingredients including a host of industrial substances like monosodium glutamate (MSG), whole powdered egg, dimethylpolysiloxane, fully refined peanut oil, calcium peroxide, artificial flavor and color, etc. The website caloriecount.com gives the sandwich a nutrition grade of D+. Add a shake and fries to that holy meal and you’ll take in a whopping 1410 calories and 54 grams of fat.

8. Time, money and resources could be used in much more productive ways. Here in Fresno, people stood in line for an hour or two to buy a sandwich. I saw traffic on a major street in gridlock with people waiting to get into the parking lot. That’s an amazing amount of money and human resources at stake. I recently received a plea from a Christian organization asking for money because they used up their budget of ten million dollars in the fight against same-sex marriage. I know ten million dollars isn’t a lot when it comes to political initiatives, but I could only dream of ways my community could use that money to effect positive change. If we poured that kind of resource into every elementary school in Fresno, we could see dramatic transformation in the city.

9. Initiatives that work against any group of people—even “Christian” ones—do more harm than good. Back in 2000, Proposition 22 was placed on the California ballot and called for a heterosexual definition of marriage. It was wildly popular among conservative Christians. I remember the strong pressure to put a sign up in my yard in support of Prop 22. But I chose not to. Why? Because my next-door neighbor was a lesbian. I’d already had numerous conversations with her, and had learned of the pain and hurt in her life, much of it caused by several bad church experiences. I knew she and her partner were watching me, and I knew they were watching my lawn. Long story short—about a year later, after numerous conversations and Bible studies, (yes, Bible studies!), I baptized my neighbor. Now I look for every opportunity to build healthy, positive relationships with ALL of my neighbors.

10. Evangelical correctness can be as dangerous as political correctness. PC is chic these days. But there is also a new EC—“evangelical correctness.” It’s a belief that anything a liberal says is suspect or wrong or evil. It’s the subtle pressure to support a whole array of issues, politicians and causes that are deemed acceptable. And, as a self-identified Evangelical, if I don’t support the same exact agenda as the majority of Evangelicals, I’ll be watched, questioned and marginalized. Here’s the strange irony: The Bible contains the story of God’s people, a minority people on the fringes of society without power or prestige attempting to be faithful in the face of oppression and persecution, but our modern Christian subculture seeks power, champions the strong voice and disregards minority opinions of dissent. In the end, the Chick-fil-A debacle was an exercise in evangelical correctness on one side and political correctness on the other. Sadly, it’s just another fad that will actually change very little in the discussion.

That’s my set of reasons for thinking that a restaurant is a bad place to enforce theological beliefs. I have ten points—there could be more, maybe there should be less. I’m still forming my thoughts around the issue. I’d love to hear yours.

Comments

[Alex]

I don't know if it is media or just our culture but every time there is a debate, the extremes are the only views presented and we are forced to pick a side and be railed on by the other because of it. And if you don't pick, you're apathetic or spineless. Then because of all that, it comes true like a self-fulfilling prophecy. We become more extreme in order to fight the other side, more spineless because we're trying to not offend people, or more apathetic because we realize we're going to get yelled at no matter what. I loved your article, I just don't know if this kind of thoughtful discussion can exist in the mainstream. We're too busy being entertained.

[Tim]

Thanks, Alex. You're so right about our desire for entertainment. That could easily be point #11: This was just a circus driven by the media's need for a news story. Thanks again for reading the post. -Tim

[Wayne Steffen]

Amen, Brother Alex! And you, Tim--though I don't know where we'd be without Point 5. We might have to...change.

[mike groft]

While I agree with much (most?) of what was said, I do have a couple of questions/comments, for some for which there is no definitive answer.
(1) A society (any group, really) lives by (exists according to) someone's (singularly or collectively) mores. Who gets to decide what these are? And if decisions are made by consensus, who determines when they change. And what is done to those who choose to not to follow the 'group's' decision? (2) Some people (both sides of the marriage debate) want to make every lifestyle issue political and divisive. Genuine dialogue (polite change of ideas) seems to be passé. I am completely in favor of 'market place' idea discussion. Some (both sides) however because of whatever reason (feeling threatened?) want to 'shout down' anyone with an opposing viewpoint. (3) Yes, there was a huge expenditure of time, money and human resource of the 'The Forever Line' day. Is there ever a time to labor in favor of a particular viewpoint? How much does one give of themselves to protest or support an idea (Ghandi, M L King, doing w/o meals and sending the resulting $ to another country, etc.) Is there a prescribed way of disagreeing (or agreeing) with societal issues? Is there a worthwhile cause that would require the ultimate price? Who gets to count calories to determine if anyone (a Christian) should have a meal? Does eating a meal, one that someone has deemed unhealthy, after praying over it make it 'holy', or is the prayer negated at a certain calorie count level? (4) If I read my bible simply asking for God to reveal Himself to me, and what I discover is in conflict with someone else, at what level of disagreement am I supposed to go in attempting to persuade that someone, desiring for that person more freedom within.

Changing focus: Any secular society is not necessarily righteous, as determined by the bible. Jesus' comment Mt. 22:21; Paul Rom. 13. I think that maybe Jesus purposefully made the issue 'unsettled'. 'Morality cannot be legislated' is correct ... but (see previous morals comment). There are without a doubt Christian brothers and sisters in the homosexual community, just as there are Christians who lie, cheat on taxes, gossip, etc. God does not have a chart rating sins. I think that most Christians in the 'western' world DO NOT have a true concept of wealth, its accruement and distribution. as determined by the scriptures. I think that "The Christian Right" is an impediment to the spreading of the good news of Jesus to all people.

[Julie Gerbrandt Rey]

Tim, I do not normally comment on any blog, but I so appreciate your afterthoughts. Thank you for taking the time to summarize...

[Warkd]

Thoughtful, articulate, and challenging - thanks Tim!

I particularly appreciate how you place these discussions within the context of the Christian community. While some may disagree with these Anabaptist-leanings (I don't!), your reflections rightly wrestles with what it means for us to live as "aliens and strangers" (1 Pt. 2:11) in whatever social or political situation we find ourselves.

[Dustin Heiner]

I agree and disagree with your parts of your post. It would be too lengthy for me to discuss all 10 adequately so I will stick to your premise and point #4.

"10 reasons why a restaurant is a bad place for a theological showdown."

Some may have used this event "debacle" as such but you need to remember why this all started. The founder of Chick-Fil-A was asked about what he believed. He responded honestly and did not deny Christ. Because of his answer, he was attacked by the GLBT community. Elected Officials from cities were banning the company from their city because of his beliefs. Imagine if a Mayor of a city said, "No homosexual business are allowed in this city. They better stay away." Such as the Mayor of the City of Chicago and San Francisco said about Chick-fil-A.

This blatant attack on Free Speech and Freedom of Religion in this country is being attacked.

Because of the attacks against Chick-fil-A, I stood in line for 2 hours to get my food. This "debacle" was not about a theological showdown but about standing against hate. Standing against the attack on free speech and freedom of religion.

On point #4.

If you look at your two points, 4 and 5, put them together. Would you be able to say this statement?

"I have thief and adulterer friends who are committed followers of Christ. It doesn’t matter if I agree or disagree with their lifestyle, they love Jesus."

Would you be able to say:
"I have murderer and blasphemer friends who are committed followers of Christ. It doesn’t matter if I agree or disagree with their lifestyle, they love Jesus."

If a person does not repent and TURN from their sin's, then they are not a follower of Christ. The Holy Spirit will come upon the believer and lead them to repentance if they are truly saved.

If you do not believe that homosexuality is a sin, adultery, and fornication in God's eyes, then you have implicated yourself of your point #5.

[Pastor Tom Sims]

Tim - You hit several nails on the head for me. Thanks for thoughtfully articulating what has been floating around in my heart and mind.

[Kimberly Quinn]

I have a lot of problems with applying this post to the given situation. First of all Mr. Cathy isn't the one who decided to turn this into a debate. He simply stated his belief. I think a restaurant is as good a place as any to start the talk about these issues. The problem is only one side is interested in talking, and it isn't the gay community.
1. In general Christians do misuse this phrase, along with a plethora of others. However, what was said was that he supports the Biblical definition of marriage being one man and one woman. Seems like a correct use of the term to me.
2. The Bible is written to Christians, but that doesn't mean that truth isn't truth. My belief or disbelief of a principle or truth doesn't change it's validity. I could easily say the Old Testament doesn't apply to me because I'm not Jewish or under the covenent of the law. But God never threw out the law. Also if you claim that the epistles were only written for the churches they were written to, how then do you apply them to today?
3. I don't see how this is even relevant to Chick-fil-a, in fact it is the communities that often are trying to legislate his values. He believes in the sabbath and many communities will not let him expand into their communities because he chooses not to open on Sunday.
4. It seems to me that the gay community, at least the militant portion of that community, are the ones who started this "battle". Mr. Cathy simply expressed his belief. He did not ask the gay community to stage protests, he did not say they would not serve gay's or anything that directly showed discrimination against the gay community. He simply expressed a belief. Should he have not expressed that belief because it might offend? If that is the standard then we might as well close our churches.
5. Yes Christians are very good at picking and choosing scriptures that we like. Here again what does this have to do with Mr. Cathy? He wasn't asked about other area of scripture. Do you expect him to give a speech on all sin? Besides the fact that we are all in the process of becoming more Godly. I will be the first to say I am no where near where I need to be. I am a sinner just as much as anyone. But there is a huge difference between those who are striving to live godly lives and those who have chosen to live a life style that is directly in conflict with God's word and deny the truth of God's word willfully.
6. If I am understanding this point you are saying that Mr. Cathy should not have said what he said and christians should not have responded to it as they did because those who disagree would lable all Christians as haters. If we stop speaking truth and supporting those who do because we will offend some, we might as well not have any values. The fact is anytime any group says something is wrong it will offend someone and someone will start labliing a group as haters.
O.k. my computer is about to freeze but I think those are my most heartfelt objections to this post.