Friday, August 03, 2012

"The primary problem with the Chick-Fil-A battle was that there were very few words used."

In response to his post that I linked to yesterday, Stephen Altrogge writes:
Am I too worried about offending people? I don’t think so. I’m more than willing to offend people for the sake of the gospel. The gospel is an inherently offensive message, and I’ll proclaim the offensive gospel of grace and repentance until my dying breath. But I don’t want to offend unnecessarily. In 1 Corinthians 10:31-33 Paul said:
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
Paul sought to avoid offense in order that people might be saved! As Christians, we must keep that goal before us - the salvation of many. Paul was willing to lay down his rights to eat whatever he wanted in order that people might be saved.

The primary problem with the Chick-Fil-A battle was that there were very few words used. The watching world did not hear our love for the lost, our love for Christ, and our desire to see them know the truth. It didn’t feel our compassion. It simply saw a bunch of fired up Christians eating chicken sandwiches. To me that doesn’t seem like the best way to defend the First Amendment in the name of Christ.
Read the rest.


Phil said...

Maybe some are elevating God's love over God's holiness. The LGBT community is not like the woman at the well, as if they were out of power and socially despised.

Vitamin Z said...

To use your analogy... Do you think Jesus would have condoned marching through Samaria? We all know the disciples would have done in a heartbeat. Sons of thunder? Seems like Jesus had a different idea.

HC said...

Wow, talk about taking a verse out of context! Again it had to do with supporting Mr Cathy, not offending homosexuals. Stephen wants us to "build a platform" to speak without speaking and then chastises us for not speaking in eating our sandwiches... oy! He's on the wrong track. "Blazing Center"... an oxymoron, i think.

Anonymous said...

And no Zach, Jesus wouldn't have condoned marching through Samaria, but he would have condoned his disciples standing at his Cross. And i'm sure Paul would've appreciated the support at his first defense. (2 Tim 4:16)

Vitamin Z said...


If you are married, have you even gotten in a fight with your wife over what you intended to mean, but it was received in a completely different way? I know I have. I think the point is the same here. Your intention isn't really the point. It's how it is heard is the point.

DaddyG said...

A different perspective... Who or what are you defending/supporting? Who are you alienating?

You're defending a guy you don't know and will never meet. A guy who doesn't need someone to defend him. Further, doing so has not helped the cause of anything as it relates God's picture of marriage in the Bible. If anything, it's made it worse.

On the flip side, you're alienating those you live near. Your neighbors, those who you work with, your family, etc., etc. These are your target mission field, and you may have lost the opportunity to speak into their lives. No one looks at your going to Chick Fil-A as a support for it's CEO except those with the same view. Those with the opposing view see it strictly as attack. Whether that was your intention or not, it doesn't matter. It's pretty easy to see by all that has unfolded that "attack" was the message that was received; not support for the Biblical definition of marriage or even for the company and its CEO. I love Zach's analogy of getting in a fight with your wife in this regard (the previous comment).

Instead of all this, why not invite your homosexual friends into your home? Talk about Jesus. Talk about the Gospel. Tell them face-to-face why you think homosexuality is a sin, and do so in a loving way because you are just as much a sinner whose only grace lies in Jesus. If they feel offended at this point, that is fine. They've been offended because of the Gospel as opposed to the reason they feel offended now - strictly because they feel attacked.

Your mission, Christian - make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and teaching them to observe all His commands. Did eating at Chick Fil-A further this mission, or hurt it? And I say again (third or so time now?), in cases like these, it's the perception that matters, not your intent.

Another reference from 1 Corinthians - take a look at 9:21. "To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law." We have to see the heart of those we are trying to reach before we will have any effect. I am afraid this whole things just shows that we are more concerned about a statement than the person who is lost.

TK said...

Let's remember that the thing that started all of this was Mr. Cathy being interviewed by the Baptist Press on the family values and traditional marriage. In said interview Mr. Cathy NEVER said "I hate homosexuals and I make sure my company NEVER employs or serves them." Again anything like this was NEVER said. He did say that He supports the traditional family structure and noted that he is still married to his wife.

The homosexual activist community determined that them thar are fightin words! And began the "campaign" to bully Mr. Cathy and his business. Then GOVERNMENT officials (specifically mayors and aldermen of Boston, Chicago, San Fran, DC, etc) go on to say well I'm not going to let Mr. Cathy's company open up another store in my town! Why? Well because he hates the gays! He's intolerant! Well, again, he said no such thing, but that's what the homosexual activists were saying. So, now we have the government saying you cannot open up a business because you don't have the correct thought life. Hmmm a little 1984, anyone?

The support on Wednesday wasn't for "anti-gay" messaging (AGAIN nothing anti-gay was ever said by Mr. Cathy unless you equate Jesus's view of marriage in Matthew 19 as "anti-gay" because that's basically what Mr. Cathy said he supported). The support on Wednesday for standing against the government when it tells us you can't do this because you don't think the right way. First amendment stuff.

All the reports (not that the MSM covered the event) say the crowds were well behaved, patient, kind, respectful. There WAS'NT chants like "Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The gays have got to go!" None of that happened. People instead talked about the right of the individual to hold their own opinion and NOT be punished or threatened by the gov't for it. Again, lots of first amendment stuff. Support for traditional marriage. If you think supporting the traditional view of marriage is an attack upon your person then that's your fault not ours.

With that background the main point is some are going to be offended no matter what. (Again, see what started all of this in the first place.) If we obsess over perceptions of our actions by others all the time we'll never say anything that needs to be said. Oddly enough Jesus didn't worry about that did he?

TK said...

We can't control how it will be heard only what we intend to say.

Some people will be offended no matter how you say it or try as inoffensively as possible to present it. Some will misconstrew what you say because that is what they want to do.

Let's remember what started all of this ok? Mr. Cathy was interviewed by the Baptist press on marriage. He simply states he supports traditional marriage and family structure. He even notes he's still married to his first wife. (Maybe the context was in relation to divorce otherwise why mention I'm still married to my first wife?) Anyway, the homosexual activist community gets hold of this and determines he's "anti-gay". Not just anti-gay marriage, but anti-gay! Nothing (I repeat), ever was mentioned like that, but that's what they accuse him of and then his company. Then various mayors and aldermen chime in say well we're not going to allow new Chick-fil-as in our cities because Mr. Cathy doesn't think the right thoughts (or have the right values a.k.a he's anti-gay).

So now we have the gov't threatening a citizen (you're not going to open said business here) because the gov't doesn't like your opinions. First amendment anyone?

The support for Chick-fil-a wasn't because Mr. Cathy is anti-gay (again look up what he actually said) it was because the gov't decided to threaten a citizen because he didn't think the way they want him to think. Again, ironically, Mr. Cathy never expressed anti-gay sentiments. UNLESS, you think Jesus' view of marriage express in Matthew 19 is "anti-gay" because that's what Mr Cathy said he supported. What we went to support was the right to your own opinion and the right NOT to be punished or threatened by the gov't for holding an opinion they don't agree with.

If the homosexual community cannot see that for what it is then there is little we can do about it. Imagine the shoe on the other foot here, imagine gov't officials telling a homosexual that he or she couldn't open up a business in their town because they don't share the same "values" as the mayor? Would there be an outcry then? I think so.

If we obsess over how people are going to interpret what we say and do all the time we'll never say or do anything.

Is supporting traditional marriage as Jesus stated in Mat. 19 anti-gay? Was Jesus a hater? Apparently, in 2012 it is or I should say it's percieved to be.