Unfortunately, neither of us were able to get out to a Chick-Fil-A franchise last week in support of "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day," but it's probably safe to say that we would both work much harder to set aside our daily work routines to witness the (improbable) introduction of Jirom, a native of Eritrea, to Thomas Menino and Rahm Emanuel.
Featured in a recent article by Katelyn Beaty, editorial director of the "This Is Our City" series for Christianity Today, Jirom (along with many others) has benefited enormously from the Christian ethics that undergird the Chick-Fil-A organization and very often inspire its owner/operators.
While Menino and Emanuel have sought to use their considerable influence as mayors in two major American cities to wreak economic damage on the Chick-fil-A organization as a result of its CEO's stance on gay marriage (however humbly verbalized), both Jirom and franchise owner Erik Devriendt breathe a huge sigh of relief that neither of these political figures is able to exert any influence in their hometown of Richmond, Va. As we read the overwhelmingly positive and life-affirming story coming out of Richmond, we both have to pause and wonder how long it might be before it becomes commonplace for a publicly-stated opinion to bring about serious legal and financial backlash, simply because those opinions are not in keeping with the latest boundary-pushing social change going on in our country?
Whether you affirm the viability of gay marriage or take the more traditional view against legalizing same-sex unions, the larger issue here should trouble all of us. A businessman has stood up and indicated he holds an opinion regarding gay marriage. We don't see that he's purposefully making business decisions that marginalize or persecute those who don't agree with his opinion, and yet the result is that he is being threatened by elected officials simply for holding that opinion.
Can we all just pause and think more deeply about this for a minute? Are we all in favor of having one group's agenda – whatever the issue – so forcefully pressed upon our culture so as to redefine what is OK for us to even believe and speak openly about?
The New York Times' opinion writer Ross Douthat pointed out in his July 31 article "Chick-Fil-A and Social Change" that "the very language of the movement (to legalize gay marriage) is explicitly designed to exert this kind of pressure: By redefining yesterday's consensus view of marriage as 'bigotry,' and expanding the term 'homophobia' to cover support for that older consensus as well as personal discomfort with/animus toward gays, the gay marriage movement isn't just arguing with its opponents; its pathologizing them, raising the personal and professional costs of being associated with traditional views on marriage."
As Christians, we hold the culturally-unpopular belief that truth is singular and exclusive (John 14:6); this belief can often provide cause for relational strife. We get it. How much more unpopular does the Christian worldview become when it collides with the modern god of our American era, namely an unrestrained sexuality in all its forms? But until quite recently – say, the past 20 years – we have all had the ability to recognize points of exclusion and division and yet affirm every individual's right to maintain their own belief system.
For us, it seems the height of irony that those pressing for a "more inclusive" worldview are no longer satisfied with the simple freedom to live within our social structure and make choices for themselves about what they believe and value. Rather, there is a growing desire to establish a belief system that will unapologetically label competing worldviews as "wrong," "bigoted" and "homophobic," along with a willingness to enact legislation against the free-market entrepreneurship that has contributed so much to what makes this country great.
Are we, as American citizens, really prepared to have our views "pathologized" by any special interest group and our freedom to live out our own beliefs threatened with punitive legal and financial sanctions if we don't support the agenda of said group?
For our part, we are encouraged to read story after story of faithful believers who are relentlessly seeking after the good of the city, as Christians have been commanded (Jeremiah 29:4-7). We applaud the efforts of businessmen, such as Erik Devriendt, who quietly work for the good of the city in which God has placed them. And we mourn the loss of civilized discussion and debate that was once a point of pride for being an American. It would seem that the twilight of everyone's right to politely disagree is very much at hand.
roy | Aug 8, 2012 | 2:08pm
Actually, I would take it further. From Romans 1, those who fail to acknowledge God “invent ways of doing evil.” The Godless never rest because the Prince of this world never rests. He is defeated already, it is finished, but he does not have to like it.
“We wrestle not with flesh and blood, but powers and principalities.”
And as such, it is not ONLY being called bigot by bigots when we merely state a belief the cannot abide, they also seek to whelm all conversation. MSM would love nothing better than not only presiding over decisions, but controlling the “menu board” for discussion.
Posted on my FB page this last Sunday, I think it was.
“Limiting access to my mind since 1961.”
Kris Katarian | Aug 10, 2012 | 6:59pm
I know this is a faith-based website, but I am always ready to give the “devil’s (haha) advocate” point of view, especially when people cry foul that Christianity is under attack. The most powerful entity in America is the religion of Christianity. If you don’t believe that, consider these examples of how this one religion has increasingly imposed it’s moral code on this country. In public education, the following Christian-agenda laws have been recently proposed/passed: The state of Louisiana will now teach a rather bizarre form of creationism rather than science; the state of Texas is working to eliminate studies in “critical thinking”; and of course, Missouri just recently passed a silly law that allows students to refuse a class assignment if it conflicts with their religion. The FEDERAL law know as Roe v Wade, which gives a woman the right to choose what to do with her own body, is being eroded as states pass laws that create barriers to the legal right to an abortion. These are just a few examples of how the Christian religion increasingly extends its reach into public policy. So when Christians question “of having one group’s agenda - whatever the issue -are being forcefully pressed upon our culture” (as stated in the column), they are really describing themselves pushing their dogma in areas not wanted nor needed. This is exactly the situation described by Thomas Jefferson when considering the wording of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Having experienced the oppression of the Church of England, he wanted stronger language with regard to separating religion and legislation. We know this first-hand from letters he wrote during that period of American history.
As to the Chik-Fil-A matter, of course Dan Cathy is free to say whatever he wants on any subject whatsoever. Freedom of speech is also allowed by the First Amendment. It does not, however, protect anyone from the consequences of what they say or write. Those who are offended by his public statements may choose not to eat at his restaurants, while those who agree may eat there more often. If you choose to make a public statement, especially on a social hot-button issue, then you should be prepared for what may happen as a result.
Today’s conservative Christians seem to have a remarkable ability to see the world backwards. As written in the column, they are worried about having their views “pathologized” by any special interest group and losing the freedom to live out their beliefs without threatened with punitive legal and financial sanctions. This from the single most powerful and wealthiest nonprofit organization in America?
Christians, you are not being bullied. You are the bully.
Kellie Kotraba | Aug 14, 2012 | 4:38pm
Kris,
Thanks for taking the time not only to read this column, but to share your thoughts. As editor of ColumbiaFAVS, I want to let you know that your thoughts are welcome – we are a site ABOUT faith/values, but we don’t represent any certain perspective. One of the many goals of the site is to bring people together for conversations about issues such as this one, and I’m glad to see more than one viewpoint represented. As long as it’s done with all due respect, know that you’re welcome to give the “devil’s advocate” (as you said, haha) perspective. I don’t want to see differing sides shooting flaming arrows – or chicken sandwiches, as the case may be – at each other, but I do want to see discussions that help people think with a viewpoint outside their own, and perhaps understand each other a little better.
– Kellie Kotraba, Editor and Community Manager
Kris Katarian | Aug 14, 2012 | 6:32pm
To Kellie and anyone else who read my post regarding ChiFilA (and some other stuff):
My post may have come off as a rant - rightfully so - but I stand by my opinions. The article was written from a Christian point of view, and the first poster (Roy?) responded with a politically conservative Christian-perspective Bible verse. I sometimes get oversensitive when Christianity, in it’s frequent unattractive forms, intrudes into every area of our collective lives. It’s a fine religion - just not everybody’s.
As I said, I stand by my opinions. But please accept this apology for being heavy-handed about them. It’s dinnertime - would love a chicken sandwich right now!
Steve Swope | Aug 15, 2012 | 2:36pm
I sympathize with the Mayers as they feel their values under attack; many others have occupied the same real estate at one time or another. And it’s true that interjecting the language of “justice” and “rights” into a conflict has the effect of demeaning the opinions of the other side without addressing them.
But pace the bard, methinks they doth protest too much. Or perhaps, they’ve just listened to too many radio commentators. Christianity isn’t in any danger in this culture - at least, not in the way they fear. No one’s going to break down their door in the middle of the night and cart them away.
Yes, there are idiots and over-reactors in every group. I’m sure the Mayers would not want to be characterized by the excesses of their theological compatriots. So it seems less than fair to suggest that Emanuel and Menino represent the majority of those who support full rights for lgbt persons.
The Mayers and others who share their beliefs have and will always have the freedom to live and speak as they see fit. But the problem they refuse to acknowledge is that others - liberal Christians like myself, and Christians of any stripe who happen also to be gay or lesbian - don’t have the same freedom. And folks like Dan Cathy at Chick-Fil-A are working actively to keep it that way.
The situation the Mayers fear is actually happening - just not to them. So I ask them, in the spirit of their article, are they willing to stand up for the rights of lgbt Americans not to have their views “pathologized” in the cultural marketplace? Are they ready to support the freedom of lgbt persons to “live out their own beliefs”?
In other words, are they prepared to truly level the playing field, so that all of us can “work for the good of the city where God has placed us”?
Warren and Michele Mayer | Aug 19, 2012 | 10:15pm
Hello, Steve, and thanks for your response. Yes, these are admittedly tough topics to tackle - same-sex marriage (and whether it should be legalized everywhere in the United States), the rights of LGBT citizens, etc. - no matter which side of the fence you fall on.
However, our original post did not attempt to tackle those thornier issues; we were merely bemoaning the loss of civilized dialogue wherever articles of faith collide with differing views on human sexuality, and hoping to encourage others to give voice to a collective desire to preserve healthy debate and the freedom to disagree. In that spirit, we absolutely affirm the idea that everyone should have a right to voice their opinions and to be treated with respect, no matter which side of the issue they find themselves on. We agree that one’s beliefs should not be “pathologized,” demonized or otherwise used as a means of persecution against them.
But it seems we’ll have to agree to disagree as to whether traditional Christians will always have the freedom to live and speak as we see fit, without concern for retribution. The situation in question and the backlash it has engendered seems to indicate otherwise.
Steve Swope | Aug 20, 2012 | 11:29am
Warren and Michele, I appreciate your continued willingness to dialogue. Agreed: some things we’ll sit on different sides of the table for. But I also agree with you that our current national debates get way too hot, too quickly, and genuine understanding is a casualty.
I’m reminded of the Public Conversations Project that occurred in Boston a number of years ago. Two groups of women - one pro-choice, the other pro-life - began to meet and talk together, simply getting acquainted personally and sharing honestly but without an expectation of changing minds. The opportunity to discover “the other” as equally human and hurting (if in different ways) generated unexpected relationships and the hope there might be other, more constructive styles of debating divisive issues. It also helped the participants recognize the possibility of multiple points of view, all having validity.
wrdickson | Sep 17, 2012 | 10:25am
I considered commenting on this piece a while back. This whole story was not just about a man expressing his opinion; he actively donates millions to organizations that work to deny people their civil rights. It is his right to do so, but he has no right to immunity from criticism for his actions and words.
But there’s a bigger issue here that I wasn’t able to sum up briefly: the question of privilege, Christian privilege in this particular case, and the way those who enjoy privilege react when that status is threatened. Today, I read a blog post that I think sums up what I was trying to say pretty well:
http://weeklysift.com/2012/09/10/the-distress-of-the-privileged/
Add Your Comment