I ate at Chick-fil-A today.
I went in mid-afternoon after my seminary class got out, and the wait
was about 45 minutes. This was my second
time eating there this past week, and my second time eating at Chick-fil-A
ever. I only discovered there was one in
the area after the controversy was ignited last week. As far as the chicken sandwich goes... you
know, it's a chicken sandwich. It's
really not that big of a deal. For fast
food, I prefer Subway and Taco Bell.
The present controversy over the religious views of Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-fil-A, and the statements by mayors of various cities in the United States interacts with several areas of Christian faith and practice. Over the past week, I've been thinking about how best to think about and understand this controversy in light of what the Bible teaches and what the Bible calls us to do in situations such as this. I'm temporarily not taking a break from the blog in order to write all this up before I resume my regular break from the blog for seminary.
First of all, let's be clear that this is a religious issue. Dan Cathy expressed the view that society should keep the definition of marriage as between a man and woman, a view that was no different than the one that the president of the United States publicly held until just a few months ago. Why did the same people love President Obama from 2008 to 2011 and then vilify Dan Cathy for having the same view in 2012? It's quite simple - President Obama is not a Christian (see http://cathleenfalsani.com/obama-on-faith-the-exclusive-interview/ for more than sufficient evidence that he is in fact a liberal Christian, and to understand the difference between that and real Christianity, see J. Gresham Machen's book, Christianity and Liberalism), but Dan Cathy is a Christian.
The present controversy over the religious views of Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-fil-A, and the statements by mayors of various cities in the United States interacts with several areas of Christian faith and practice. Over the past week, I've been thinking about how best to think about and understand this controversy in light of what the Bible teaches and what the Bible calls us to do in situations such as this. I'm temporarily not taking a break from the blog in order to write all this up before I resume my regular break from the blog for seminary.
First of all, let's be clear that this is a religious issue. Dan Cathy expressed the view that society should keep the definition of marriage as between a man and woman, a view that was no different than the one that the president of the United States publicly held until just a few months ago. Why did the same people love President Obama from 2008 to 2011 and then vilify Dan Cathy for having the same view in 2012? It's quite simple - President Obama is not a Christian (see http://cathleenfalsani.com/obama-on-faith-the-exclusive-interview/ for more than sufficient evidence that he is in fact a liberal Christian, and to understand the difference between that and real Christianity, see J. Gresham Machen's book, Christianity and Liberalism), but Dan Cathy is a Christian.
The mayors did not present the argument that they did not
want Dan Cathy's company to operate in their cities because he was a
Christian. Rather, they presented the
argument that they did not want his company around because of his views on
marriage. They'd be fine with him
operating his company in their cities if he held an unbiblical view on marriage
- in other words, if he were disobedient to Christ, then that would be fine,
but an obedient Christian? No, that's
not permitted, in their view. In
expressing his view on marriage, Dan Cathy was being obedient to Christ. In objecting to his views, the mayors were
opposing a Christian's obedience to Christ.
They may not have called it as such, but they were essentially saying
that Dan Cathy's company was not welcome in their cities because his views on
marriage are in obedience to Christ rather than in rebellion against Christ.
More than what Dan Cathy said, the objection is against what the Bible teaches. What he said about marriage was far less than what 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says. When the world calls Christians intolerant bigots for refusing to morally approve of homosexuality, they mean that the God of the Bible is an intolerant bigot and they refuse to acknowledge him as Lord and Judge (or, in the case of the aforementioned liberal Christians, they say that Paul was an ignorant intolerant bigot, but the all-loving impotent God couldn't stop Paul from writing all that intolerant bigotry into the Bible). The protests against Chick-fil-A aren't about Dan Cathy and his views on marriage, they're about God's views on homosexuality and opposition to the moral authority of the Bible.
Next, think Biblically about this concept: the civil government expressed an intention to prevent a Christian from conducting business because his Lord is Christ. What passage should that remind you of? It's Revelation 13:16-18, classic first-century economic persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire under Domitian. This type of economic persecution happened to Christians in the Roman Empire, and it's happened throughout church history. (Eschatology notes: 1) This comes from an idealist/historicist view of Revelation. 2) I agree with the preterists that what John wrote applied to his immediate audience. 3) I agree with the futurists that this type of persecution will happen in the future before the second coming of Christ.) To put it bluntly in Biblical terms, the mayors that were voicing opposition to Chick-fil-A were attempting to act like the beast of Revelation 13 and are being pawns of Satan. Who would have guessed that in 2012 the mark of the beast would be the moral approval of homosexuality?
Next, recognizing this as it is, an unsuccessful attempt at persecution of Christians by the civil government, what are our responsibilities in this situation? There are more, but the first I want to mention is our responsibility to other believers. If a member of your church loses his job because he is a Christian, what do you do? If the government throws a Christian in jail for preaching the gospel, what do you do? If the government attempts to stop a person from conducting business because he is a Christian, what do you do?
Hebrews 13:3 Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body.
I'm not a big fan of the chicken sandwich, but eating at Chick-fil-A is an excellent application of Hebrews 13:3 in view of the attempted economic persecution of Dan Cathy by the mayors.
Next, I have a couple quick thoughts about how to think about this as someone who is a Christian first and an American second (and also a Canadian third, but that's not relevant here). How do I glorify God as an American citizen? I hold the view that we are called by God not only to be obedient to the government, but also to be good citizens, and to the extent that our form of government allows us to participate in the creation of laws and the selection of rulers, we are called by God to rule justly. Paul instructs us to pray for those who govern, "that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Timothy 2:2). The peace and well-being of Christians and our legal freedom to live godly lives is a worthy goal to both pray for and pursue through our calling as American citizens (this goal is one reason that I think the cult member will be a far better choice for president, but that's another discussion for another time). As an American, I think the mayors who have spoken out against Chick-fil-A should be removed from office, and I think it's a godly goal for those who live in those cities to work to remove them from office in the name of defending freedom of religion.
One topic that comes up in controversies like this is the idea that government can't legislate morality. That's a joke. Civil government always legislates some kind of moral standards for its citizens in order for a society to function together. The only question is which moral standards will a civil government enforce and whose morals will the government reflect. Some object that those who derive their morals from religion shouldn't have any voice in what morality the government enforces, but that's un-American as well. The way that our government is set up, every voting citizen gets to contribute, whether they get their morals from true religion, false religion, lack of religion, their own imagination, or anywhere else.
In response to the idea that Christians shouldn't try to have laws reflect Christian morality because unbelievers are just going to act like unbelievers anyway, I would refer you to writings on what is called the second use of the law - God uses the law to restrain wickedness in the world through civil government. It's part of common grace. A society where people are killing each other left and right is worse than a society where people hate each other but rarely kill each other because of the penalty for the crime. Christians living in the second society there benefit from the law restraining the wickedness in the world through civil government.
Lastly, some wonder where the gospel is in all this. It's right there in 1 Corinthians 6:11, in fact, but in addition some wonders what societal moral standards have to do with the gospel. This is the relevant point for discussions about evangelism: Romans 3:19-20. People need to know that God gives people a moral standard and that by our works, we're all damned without Christ. When you don't believe that you're in bad shape, you don't think you need a Savior. When you know that you're in a hopeless state apart from Christ, you then can understand your need for a Savior, why Christ had to come and die in place of sinners, and the necessity of salvation through faith in Christ. When unbelievers attempt to silence Christians' preaching of the law, it's an indirect attack on the gospel. The solution isn't to compromise with the world and be quiet about the sins the world currently approves of, the solution is to preach both the law and the gospel in their fullness. I've heard some people suggest that everybody knows they're sinners, so we don't need to speak about sin, but my experience with evangelism ministries over the past ten years leads me to the conclusion that few unbelievers recognize the severity of their sin. 1 Timothy 1:8-11 was given to the church for a reason, people.
More than what Dan Cathy said, the objection is against what the Bible teaches. What he said about marriage was far less than what 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says. When the world calls Christians intolerant bigots for refusing to morally approve of homosexuality, they mean that the God of the Bible is an intolerant bigot and they refuse to acknowledge him as Lord and Judge (or, in the case of the aforementioned liberal Christians, they say that Paul was an ignorant intolerant bigot, but the all-loving impotent God couldn't stop Paul from writing all that intolerant bigotry into the Bible). The protests against Chick-fil-A aren't about Dan Cathy and his views on marriage, they're about God's views on homosexuality and opposition to the moral authority of the Bible.
Next, think Biblically about this concept: the civil government expressed an intention to prevent a Christian from conducting business because his Lord is Christ. What passage should that remind you of? It's Revelation 13:16-18, classic first-century economic persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire under Domitian. This type of economic persecution happened to Christians in the Roman Empire, and it's happened throughout church history. (Eschatology notes: 1) This comes from an idealist/historicist view of Revelation. 2) I agree with the preterists that what John wrote applied to his immediate audience. 3) I agree with the futurists that this type of persecution will happen in the future before the second coming of Christ.) To put it bluntly in Biblical terms, the mayors that were voicing opposition to Chick-fil-A were attempting to act like the beast of Revelation 13 and are being pawns of Satan. Who would have guessed that in 2012 the mark of the beast would be the moral approval of homosexuality?
Next, recognizing this as it is, an unsuccessful attempt at persecution of Christians by the civil government, what are our responsibilities in this situation? There are more, but the first I want to mention is our responsibility to other believers. If a member of your church loses his job because he is a Christian, what do you do? If the government throws a Christian in jail for preaching the gospel, what do you do? If the government attempts to stop a person from conducting business because he is a Christian, what do you do?
Hebrews 13:3 Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body.
I'm not a big fan of the chicken sandwich, but eating at Chick-fil-A is an excellent application of Hebrews 13:3 in view of the attempted economic persecution of Dan Cathy by the mayors.
Next, I have a couple quick thoughts about how to think about this as someone who is a Christian first and an American second (and also a Canadian third, but that's not relevant here). How do I glorify God as an American citizen? I hold the view that we are called by God not only to be obedient to the government, but also to be good citizens, and to the extent that our form of government allows us to participate in the creation of laws and the selection of rulers, we are called by God to rule justly. Paul instructs us to pray for those who govern, "that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Timothy 2:2). The peace and well-being of Christians and our legal freedom to live godly lives is a worthy goal to both pray for and pursue through our calling as American citizens (this goal is one reason that I think the cult member will be a far better choice for president, but that's another discussion for another time). As an American, I think the mayors who have spoken out against Chick-fil-A should be removed from office, and I think it's a godly goal for those who live in those cities to work to remove them from office in the name of defending freedom of religion.
One topic that comes up in controversies like this is the idea that government can't legislate morality. That's a joke. Civil government always legislates some kind of moral standards for its citizens in order for a society to function together. The only question is which moral standards will a civil government enforce and whose morals will the government reflect. Some object that those who derive their morals from religion shouldn't have any voice in what morality the government enforces, but that's un-American as well. The way that our government is set up, every voting citizen gets to contribute, whether they get their morals from true religion, false religion, lack of religion, their own imagination, or anywhere else.
In response to the idea that Christians shouldn't try to have laws reflect Christian morality because unbelievers are just going to act like unbelievers anyway, I would refer you to writings on what is called the second use of the law - God uses the law to restrain wickedness in the world through civil government. It's part of common grace. A society where people are killing each other left and right is worse than a society where people hate each other but rarely kill each other because of the penalty for the crime. Christians living in the second society there benefit from the law restraining the wickedness in the world through civil government.
Lastly, some wonder where the gospel is in all this. It's right there in 1 Corinthians 6:11, in fact, but in addition some wonders what societal moral standards have to do with the gospel. This is the relevant point for discussions about evangelism: Romans 3:19-20. People need to know that God gives people a moral standard and that by our works, we're all damned without Christ. When you don't believe that you're in bad shape, you don't think you need a Savior. When you know that you're in a hopeless state apart from Christ, you then can understand your need for a Savior, why Christ had to come and die in place of sinners, and the necessity of salvation through faith in Christ. When unbelievers attempt to silence Christians' preaching of the law, it's an indirect attack on the gospel. The solution isn't to compromise with the world and be quiet about the sins the world currently approves of, the solution is to preach both the law and the gospel in their fullness. I've heard some people suggest that everybody knows they're sinners, so we don't need to speak about sin, but my experience with evangelism ministries over the past ten years leads me to the conclusion that few unbelievers recognize the severity of their sin. 1 Timothy 1:8-11 was given to the church for a reason, people.
No comments:
Post a Comment