Would Jesus eat at Chick-fil-A?

Two years ago today Christians came out in droves to eat at Chick-fil-A in support of owner Dan Cathy.  After Cathy told a magazine interviewer that he believed in the biblical definition of marriage, the homofascists came after him, even proclaiming that Chick-fil-A was not welcome in certain cities.  (So much for "tolerance".)  I was glad to support Chick-fil-A, and it's the only fast food restaurant we frequent to this day.

Anyway, that set the stage for one my Facebook debates...

August 3, 2012
I did not go to Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday, and I haven’t been since 2004. To be quite honest, I’m not sure what my stance is on gay marriage. I don’t think that gay marriage is the SAME as heterosexual marriage, but at the same time I do not think that it’s fair if two people are in a committed and loving relationship to not be granted the same rights as married couples. I am not someone to judge whether it’s right or not, I love people regardless of sexual orientation, and I think the Chick-Fil-A “event” was blown out of proportion. I do think it is sad that as “Christians”, those who were demonstrating their stance have hurt so many wonderful people, and I don’t think that Jesus would have gone to Chick-Fil-A to order a chicken sandwich on Wednesday either. God calls us to love one another and that’s exactly what I plan on doing.
25 others like this

  • Monica I agree, this Chick Fila thing was CRAZY! Way to spread even more hostile/ unfavorable opinions against Christianity, now that we are seen as fast food endorsing publicly anti-gay people. Geez. Christ certainly would not have eaten there with that crowd. He would have sought out and eaten with the shunned "gays" that day, WITHOUT condemnation in His Heart.

  • Annie Jenny your comments were well thought out! Thank you for reminding us all that we are called to live our lives as Jesus would- not judging or condemning bug LOVING!

  • Ryan Jenny, I appreciate your willingness to initiate a sensitive FB conversation with some substance. A few things, in response. First, Wednesday's Chick-fil-A event was to support not only the owner's biblical views on marriage, but also his First Amendment rights to express those views without being bullied by politicians threatening to deny his right to do business. The shocking admission of fascist philosophies by the mayors of Boston, Chicago, etc. should frighten and anger all Americans (regardless of their views on marriage), and hordes of supporters on Wednesday spoke loudly for religious freedom and freedom of speech.
  • Second, why are you "not someone to judge whether [SSM] is right or not"? Are you consistent in your application of this theory of moral relativism?
    I suspect you judge the actions of James Holmes in the Aurora theater to be wrong, just as you judged the actions of Chick-fil-A supporters (like me) to be wrong. It is true that judging souls is left for God alone, but as Christians, not only CAN we judge actions, we MUST. And we base this moral judgment on the code God has revealed through both divine and natural law (not to mention - as Catholics - through the Church established by His Son... whose consistent, infallible teachings on human sexuality are so beautifully expressed, ranging from the succinct simplicity of the Catechism to the rich depths of JP2's Theology of the Body... teachings practicing Catholics cannot reject, but I realize that is a whole other conversation!). Bride and groom complementarity/nuptial imagery is the central reality of all of revelation. And it is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. Christian justification for a re-definition of marriage is a long road, to put it mildly.

    Nobody knows if Jesus likes chicken, but we certainly do know he supports Dan Cathy's views on marriage, since He affirmed His Father's plan and design since the beginning of creation. Would Jesus also dine with our brothers and sisters living a homosexual lifestyle? Absolutely! And he would call them to conversion. "Now go and sin no more." The same way he sits down with me, a sinner, and invites me to overcome my disordered desires and follow HIm on a path to fulfillment/holiness.

    Finally, regarding your comments about "loving all people"... You insinuate that I (and all other marriage defenders, including the Pope and the Saints like Mother Teresa!) do/did not love all people, especially not those with homosexual inclinations. To answer this question, we must determine an authentic definition of "love." You correctly turn to Jesus, of course, since God IS love. But you seem to reduce Jesus to some sort of anything-goes hippie who just wants a good time had by all, rather than acknowledge the reality - the Jesus who raised (not lowered) the moral bar of the Ten Commandments... the Jesus who warned of "wailing and gnashing of teeth" if we reject this code. The sacrificial love modeled by Jesus Christ "wills the good of another for the sake of the other" (Aquinas). And the evidence (whether theological or scientific) does not point to the homosexual lifestyle as a path to a person's true good.

    So-called "love," in the absence of truth, is not love at all. It is mere sentimentality or, worse yet, a unique form of cruelty.

    I love my good friend, but to engage in a sexual act with him would have nothing to do with love, since it would lead to his spiritual, physical, and emotional destruction. And while I don't struggle with this particular disordered desire, I struggle with many others. And those who truly love me will not support my giving in to them, but rather challenge me to overcome these desires through Jesus Christ and become the best version of myself. So who is truly "loving" and "hurting" those with same-sex attraction? Those who challenge them to live chastely in the freedom of self-mastery or those who encourage their enslavement to these desires? Might your admirable compassion be misguided?
  • James Where else in the world....... This is why this country is without comparison 2nd to none other! Keep your free thinking strong Jenny. And keep your beliefs sacred and non negotiable!

  • Alicia Hm.

    Seth We as members of the church are to hold others within the church to the high standards represented in scripture (we should strive to understand the context in which those standards were given). For those outside of the church, we are to display compassion regardless of the condition in which we find our neighbors. That simply is how Jesus lived. He judged harshly the religious, and spent quality time with the dregs of society.
  • Ryan Agree with the comment Seth, with one clarification and one footnote: "He judged harshly the [hypocrite] religious." And let's not forget... during this "quality time," He called the "dregs of society" to conversion.

    Seth Often He did, not always.
  • James Great dialogue folks! Pridefull!!!

    Ryan Not following, Seth. Are you suggesting that Jesus came to call some but not all of humanity to conversion?
  • Seth All I am saying is He didn't hammer the issue when He was actually interracting. Often He just expressed compassion without using His compassion as a gimick to win a conversion. And sometimes He even rejected people like the woman who just wanted scraps from the table (not actual rejection, but intent to not convert). Actually, if my memory serves correctly, (I am stuck in a remote location with only my phone so I can't look it up right now) that pericope is telling because Jesus specifically talks about not being here for the gentiles, as in, He wasn't trying to convert her at all but did end up showing her compassion. Sometimes He just partied with sinners... The water to wine incident where He flatly states that his time had not yet arrived, but acquiesced to make the best wine for them.

    Ryan I don't see the connection between the Wedding at Cana story and the conversion of sinners. The woman looking for scraps had already converted ("have mercy on me"). Yes, Jesus points out that the New Covenant is for the Israelites first, but delivered her daughter from the demon anyway, as a precursor to his post-Resurrection call to conversion of Gentiles as well. He told the woman caught in adultery "now go and sin no more," He called out the woman at the well for her five husbands, explained that he was eating with tax collectors and sinners because they were "sick" and needed a "physician," etc. When did he not "hammer the issue"? ...And back to the topic at hand, how would/does Jesus treat those living a homosexual lifestyle? With compassion, of course! But does His compassion include approval or a call to conversion?
  • Jenny Wow - didn't know this post would get so many comments and such a discussion...thanks for everyone's input. Ryan, I agree with you on standing for the First Amendment, but I think the way that it happened ended up offending people and we could have found a more effective way of communicating that.

    As to judging others, I feel that I am not the one to make the call. See John 8:7 - "Let whoever is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her." 

    In regards to insinuating that you don't love all people, I did not say that and did not intend for you to take that away from my post - just simply stating what I plan to do.

  • Ryan Yes, Jenny, great discussion! The event communicated a two-fold purpose - stand up for the First Amendment and affirm Dan Cathy's Christian views on marriage. If it was the latter that people found offensive, that's no surprise. The Truth Incarnate, Jesus Christ, offends many people. That's why he was crucified, and that's why He promised we will be persecuted for His sake.

    "Cast the first stone" refers to condemnation, the judgment of souls, which Scripture makes clear is for God alone (e.g, Lk 6:37, Mt 7:1-5). That cannot be confused with judging actions, which we are commanded to do. James 5:19-20: "My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." See also Mt 18:15-17 & Ezk 3:18-21... And again, are you not judging Chick-fil-A supporters to be wrong? Do you make the call on whether James Holmes was wrong?

    We both plan to love those living a homosexual lifestyle, but in opposite ways. Both can't be right. The question remains: is love without truth really love?

  • James No Ryan, "cast the first stone" refers to those who think they are without guilt judging others. Jesus said this as he intervened, i believe, at the outset of a crowd about to stone either a prostitute or adultress.

  • Ryan Exactly, James. We cannot judge people. That's what I said. Condemnation is judging people. We can't even judge/condemn the souls of the 9/11 terrorists; that's for God alone. But objective morality still exists! And it is revealed to us as divine and natural law. So while we can't judge souls, we can (and MUST) judge actions (as evidenced by the passages quoted above). Can we not say that flying planes into buildings is wrong?

No comments:

Post a Comment