Monthly Archives: August 2012

The Antioch Incident (Two Views) part 2

Posted on by
Reply

This is part 2 of a series of posts recreating the debate between Jerome and Augustine over the passage in Galatians 2:11-14. Think of it as the “cliff notes” to a series of letters written between them as a series of blog comments. I added some interaction with more recent debates to highlight how the issues we face today are not much different than those faced in the early centuries of Christianity. The comments are based on how I thought the theologians might respond to modern theological issues based on the point of view they expressed in their letters. You might want to start with part 1 and read Jerome’s blog post and the earlier comments.

Comment Section for the Antioch Incident

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo

Jerome, the high esteem that others hold you in is well deserved. Here in northern Africa we eagerly await your next set of translations of the Scriptures and ancient commentaries into the Latin. Thanks for updating everyone of your progress in your blog.I do hope you saw my comments regarding the use of the LXX that I left.

Regarding the events that took place in Antioch, you have appealed to the writings of those in the past and have asked if anyone holds to my opinion.The path you are taking us down is one well traveled. Like you Rob Bell, a popular writer, claims his views are orthodox appealing to the pool of diverse opinions that can be found among the ancient writers. He can even find many of the opinions he holds in Origen, yet that does not end the debate on “the fate of every person who ever lived”. Nor will it be the end to our debate.

I know that you hold Origen in high regard and where he holds to the truth we should accept him, but even you have had problems with some of his opinions on other matters. I only wish that you would apply your great learning and knowledge of this man and catalog his heresies for all to plainly see.

I, however, am not without support in the ancient writers. A hard working and well-read scholar like yourself is certainly familiar with the works of those great men who have labored for the gospel in ages past. Ambrose and Cyprian both share opinions that would agree with my own regarding the Antioch Incident.

As to the 7 names of men that share your view only 3 of them are credible as the rest have either left the church or had their writings and opinions censured.That leaves us with a score of 3-2 in your favor.

Not being as well read as you, I will be content to appeal to the Apostle Paul himself as my third supporter. Of course he is actually the only support that I really need because I place the Scriptures and the Apostle Paul above the opinions that are held by ancient writers no matter how wise and well educated they may be. I accept his testimony as true when he plainly said what Peter did was wrong. I do not accept that Paul presented as true that which he knew was false.

Jerome

Augustine, when time permits I will provide a more capable defense of this view, so that you do not accuse me of resting my opinion solely on the views of others. I am diligently working on translating the Scriptures as you well know, and hope to complete the Latin Vulgate soon.

I must point out to you that you ignore the task that I gave all who disagree with the opinion I expressed. If you wish to refute me then the burden lies with you to show how Paul was correct in condemning Peter for actions that he both condoned and practiced.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo

When ever you present me with the gift of a response, I accept your words as sincere representing what you both think and affirm. I do not assume that you are deceiving me by saying things that you don’t actually mean.

Why would I not give Paul the same benefit of the doubt?

You are correct, we must examine the case by which Paul is accused of hypocrisy for condemning what he knew was right. But we must also examine whether Paul merely pretended to observe the law as you contend or consider the possibility that he actually performed Jewish rites without hypocrisy. For I cannot see how any case of hypocrisy is much better than the other. Are we really to choose between these options of 1) Paul condemned an action he knew to be right 2) Paul and Peter pretended to follow the Law and 3) Paul and Peter staged a rebuke. None of these seem worthy of these great men.

But my question still stands. Do the sacred books record falsehoods that the author presents as truth?

If this is the case we have no ground to stand on. How are we to seriously contend with a scholar like Peter Enns. He has adopted the view that Paul wrote falsely (even if Paul did not know it was a falsehood) when he wrote in Romans of the first Adam and the introduction of sin into this world?

Do you know how hard it would have been to deal with Pelagius and his notions of sin and the nature of man if these passages were not true. If he, as you do, could relegate as false any verse that demonstrated the folly of his ideas how would we be able to affirm anything as true. He could supply any meaning to a passage that suits his own opinions and call that the intended meaning. It would lead to chaos! I urge you to reconsider what you have written and write a rebuttal.

History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new. (Eccles 1:9 NLT)

[click here for more comments]

The Antioch Incident (Two Views)

Posted on by
2

There are many blogs that examine passages in Scripture that have what might be called a “folk theology” interpretation. These posts then try to set the record straight explaining what is a more probable interpretation. Some examples are Jeremiah 29:11, Matthew 18:20, 2 Tim 2:13, and the notion “all sins are equal in God’s eyes” or “one little lie will send you to Hell”.

A passage that is not considered very controversial today or likely to get a closer look is the description of the Antioch Incident. But for the early church the event was pondered over and hotly debated.

This event is recounted in the letter to the Galatians (2:11-14) and went something like this: Peter is visiting Antioch, perhaps to see first-hand how the gospel is spreading to the Gentiles (Acts 11:19-26). While he is there, Peter sits down to some bacon, lettuce, tomato sandwiches with some Gentile believers. While they are enjoying their meal some Jewish believers sent by James arrive in Antioch. Peter sees them, excuses himself from the table, and leaves the room. Returning with a kosher fish sandwich, he joins the new group of Jewish believers and enjoys catching up on the latest Jerusalem news. Soon the other Jewish believers are getting up from the Gentile table – even Barnabas – and sit down with Peter and the new arrivals. The Gentiles are wondering what is going on and whether they must follow the Mosaic Law too. Overhearing this Paul, who has been eating alone in the corner, stands up marches across the room and has some words with Peter. He calls him out for his hypocritical behavior, which is encouraging the Gentiles to observe the Law and distorts the gospel.

We may stop for a moment and wonder why Paul chose to include this event as part of his defense of the Gospel? Or why Peter was afraid of the “circumcision party”? We are prudent to walk away from the event humble and alert to how our actions can impact the gospel since ‘even Barnabas’ was compelled to follow actions that contradicted the truth of the gospel. But what was it that sparked debate in the early church?

In this post we will look at how Jerome and Augustine wrestled with this passage as if they were writing and commenting in the blog-o-sphere. The source material will be several letters that were exchanged between these two theologians who have left a dramatic impact on Christianity.

The Antioch Incident

By Jerome (sometime in the 4th century)

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. … when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal 2:11,14)

What are we to make of this strange account given to us by Paul in his letter to the Galatians?

Porphyry, that noted philosopher and logician of old, does not consider Christians worthy of much attention. He has written against us calling us irrational and inconsistent. As an example he points out Paul as having wrongly rebuked Peter in Antioch. His claim is that Paul should not have corrected Peter, in front of a great many people no less, for engaging in the same behavior that he was in the habit of doing himself. What was this activity that Peter and Paul are both guilty of committing? Both were found observing Jewish precepts in order to win over Jewish people to Christ. Instead of remaining silent, Paul chose to humiliate Peter because he was envious of his position among those who are called Christians.

This philosopher has long been refuted by many, including the world renowned and widely published theologian, Origen. Who, if I may say so, was the mentor to my own teacher Didymus. This most distinguished teacher clearly shows the mistakes that are made in the conclusions drawn by Porphyry.

Porphyry rightly states that Paul adopted the practice that he accuses Peter of committing, becoming a Jew to the Jews so that he might win some (1 Cor 9:20). Therefore it can be concluded that Paul approved of Peter’s actions because he often imitated them.

But it must be noted that Peter and Paul were pretending to follow the Mosaic Law and did not do it out of sincerity as if they were actually doing them. For Peter and Paul both knew that the Mosaic Law was not in force now that the gospel was given. They only acted the part so that they might not offend the Jewish believers who were weaker in faith and had not understood that the Mosaic Law was obsolete and no longer to be followed. We must remember that this transition from Law to grace was still very new and was becoming accepted only with great difficulty. Hence neither Peter nor Paul sinned in regards to acting like Jews so that they might win them over.

Origen reminds us that things are not always as they seem. Paul did not foolishly choose to rebuke Peter for actions he actually condoned and practiced. Peter was guarding the weaker Jewish believers and Paul was guarding the weaker Gentile believers, so they chose to stage a rebuke of Peter with the purpose of reminding everyone that the way of salvation was not by the “works of the law” but through faith in Christ.

As for the reader, it must be left for you to decide if this interpretation is correct. However, if one chooses to reject this view then he must show how Paul could have rightly rebuked Peter for doing those actions which he used throughout his own ministry.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo

Jerome, big fan of all your work. You are very diligent in your studies of the Scriptures and I always am eager to read your latest thoughts and insights. I regret that we can not engage in discussion sitting down together as friends. Anyone who reads your works will be mightily blessed.

I, however, find your latest entry to be indefensible. The very authority of Scripture is at stake if one is to adopt the view you propose. Can we accept that the authors of Scripture intended to write deceptive statements in the writings given to us for wisdom and edification?

For if Peter was acting correctly when he chose to leave the table of the Gentiles and to sit with the Jews, then what Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians is false. Paul very clearly and plainly states for all to read that Peter was in the wrong and acted in a manner that contradicts the gospel (Gal 2:11,14). Now, if Paul wrote these statements which are not true why did he give no indication that they should not to be taken as fact? Instead, he wrote clearly that “in these writings I do not lie” (Gal 1:20). If Paul claims he did not lie then why should we assume that his statements are false? If I adopt your opinion then how can I have any confidence in even a single sentence in the Scriptures.

Only disaster can come from adopting your view as I hope you can now see. I must remain firm in this opinion unless I am refuted as to how the Scriptures can both contain false statements and be held with the highest authority.

Jerome

You pour out many kind words before you censure and publicly correct an old man, who finds joy in writing in the solitude that my retirement affords me. I am worn out from the race I have run and the battles I have fought, so I will skip with these pleasantries and get to the heart of the matter.

Were you to attack me alone for teaching falsehood that would be no small matter. But, in your rebuke you censure not my opinions, though I do hold to what I wrote, but the opinions of many illustrious men who exceed me in wisdom and spiritual insight.

For many hold to this view first put forth by Origen, including my very own mentor Didymus the blind. Others who hold to this view, whom you have undertaken to criticize are John who governs over the church of Constantinople, along with the bishop of Laodicea, Alexander, Eusebius of Emesa, and Theodorus of Heraclea.

Does anyone hold your view?

[click here for more comments]


The following letters were used as source material, with asterisks marking those letters that deal primarily with the Antioch Incident:
Augustine to Jerome letter 28 (*) , Augustine to Jerome letter 40 (*), Jerome to Augustine letter 68, Augustine to Jerome letter 71, Jerome to Augustine letter 72, Augustine to Jerome letter 73, Jerome to Augustine letter 75 (*), Augustine to Jerome letter 82 (*)

Social Justice and the Grasshopper

Posted on by
2

Originally posted on August 18 ,2010

You probably know the fable about the ant and the grasshopper. The ant goes out and works all summer preparing for the future winter while the grasshopper enjoys being “fun-employed” and goes about playing all day.  When winter comes the grasshopper finds himself poor and starving.

Source: Fir0002/Flagstaffotos

So what should the ant do to help the grasshopper?

How about the church the ant attends, what should they do? Should the national government where the ant lives do anything?

The answer to these questions depend on how you define social justice? Verses like Deut 15:7-8 and Isaiah 58:6-7 are used to teach us to help the poor. Rightly so but sometimes solving social needs is given greater emphasis than sharing the gospel and even leads to some Christians advocating government re-distribution of resources to provide “justice and fairness”. But does the Bible require all people to have the same resources in order for there to be social justice?  Many think that this is so, but I am not sure what they should do with passages like the parable of the talents where we see that each is given according to ability (Matt 25:15) and is rewarded according to how they used what they were given (Luke 19:16-19). Even God distributes resources differently.

So what should the ant do?

Some thoughts from Paul:

Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one. (1 Thess 4:9-12 ESV)

In teaching the Thessalonians about brotherly love Paul urges them to continue to show this love adding among other things the need to work with your own hands and to be dependent on no one. The point seems to be that able bodied people should work so that they can care for themselves and not be dependent on others.  Paul made the same point to the Ephesians:

Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. (Eph 4:28 ESV)

The point seems to be that able bodied people should work so that they can care for themselves and the needy.  
So who are the needy? Let’s let Paul answer that one too.

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.  (2 Thess 3:6-12)

Here the idle (and able) are commanded to “get to work”. If they are unwilling to work then they should not eat. Those who can work and do not are called a burden. Having nothing better to do they become gossips. Paul – who argues that as a minister of the gospel had a right to be cared for – surrendered this right to make this point. Able bodied people should work so that they can care for themselves and the needy. 

So who are the needy?
The orphans and widows (James 1:27) which are those who are truly in need and can not care for themselves. Paul gives guidelines for those who are truly widows in 1 Tim 5:3-16. From the context the true widows are not just those who have lost a spouse but those who have no resources and no one else to care for them.

Who should help the needy?
Apparently from God’s point of view the resources used to help the needy should come from family first (1 Tim 5:8) and should not be given out of compulsion but rather as each has chosen (2 Cor 9:7).

So what should the ant do to help the grasshopper?
That is up to the “ant” to decide. Living in the age of grace we should aim to be generous in our giving for we have a great Savior who has freely offered us salvation. In fact Paul tells us in 2 Cor 9:11 that we should be generous in every way so that God will get the thanks, having quoted Psalm 112 in verse 9:

It is well with the man who deals generously and lends;
who conducts his affairs with justice.
He has distributed freely; he has given to the poor;
his righteousness endures forever;
his horn is exalted in honor.

(Psalm 112:5,9)

We are certainly not supposed to be selfish and hoard what God has allowed us to earn, but to live quiet, sensible lives making sure that we are able to care for the needy and wisely discern who they are.

For more ideas on how to answer the dilemma that the ant faces read all of Psalm 112, 1 Tim 6:17-19 and check out Kevin DeYoung’s series on social justice that include posts on Luke 4:16-21, Micah 6:8; Amos 5; Matthew 25:31-46; Jeremiah 22; Isaiah 58; and Isaiah 1.

[be sure to also read: God, the Jobs Bill, and Helping Others]

How the Church can show love to the LGBT?

Posted on by
Reply

The recent events surrounding Chick-fil-A have given me a chance to read and think a lot about the church and its relationship to the LGBT community. Having written about how Jesus showed love without condoning sin, I wanted to explore the more practical side of what that might look like in the church.

One of the bloggers I have come across is Justin Lee who serves the gay Christian community and works to open up dialogue between what he calls “Side A” and “Side B”.

Some (“Side A”) believe God blesses monogamous same-sex relationships, and others (“Side B”) believes the Bible strongly condemns such relationships.

I would be someone who lands on Side B. And having that view is seen by many as promoting hate. Certainly groups like Westboro do nothing to help the situation. But I want to represent Jesus well. We are called to be His ambassadors to the world. I want to show love to others and I certainly don’t want to turn people off to Jesus who don’t know Him. But I do not want to endorse behavior that God says is a sin. The issue is big and complicated.

So what can a Side B church do to show love to the LGBT community?

Jon Acuff shared this church welcome sign:

We extend a special welcome to those who are single, married, divorced, gay, filthy rich, dirt poor, yo no habla Ingles. We extend a special welcome to those who are crying new-borns, skinny as a rail or could afford to lose a few pounds.  …   We welcome those who are inked, pierced or both. We offer a special welcome to those who could use a prayer right now, had religion shoved down your throat as a kid or got lost in traffic and wound up here by mistake. We welcome tourists, seekers and doubters, bleeding hearts … and you!

So how do we help the gay individual feel welcome and invited in the Side B church?

Justin Lee of GCN, during an interview talked about being welcome at a “Side B” church. He admits that is tough and what makes one person welcome may not be true for all.

Personally, I would not feel welcome in a church that teaches that I chose to be gay (I didn’t!) or that condemns me simply for admitting I’m attracted to guys. However, I have felt welcomed in so-called “Side B” churches that condemn gay relationships but still welcome gay people and encourage them to remain celibate. Many gay people would not feel welcome there.

Here are my thoughts on how a Side B church can show the love of Christ to a gay individual without compromising:

  • we need to remember that all people are created in God’s image, are of infinite value, and are worthy of respect.
  • we have to remember that Jesus came to save the lost which means the church should operate more like a “hospital” for the sick, not a “club” for the healthy (Mark 2:17). We are to be inviting to those seeking rest from the heavy burden of sin and guilt.
  • we should understand there is big difference between someone who is attracted to people of the same sex and someone who is engaged in same-sex relationships and activity. The attraction is a temptation and not necessarily a choice. It may be part of the passions and desires of the flesh that they will have to fight with as long as they live (Gal 5:16).
  • If there was no attraction or desire for things that are wrong then there would be no such thing as temptation. But we are all tempted in various ways. We should not label one set of temptations as worse than another.
  • Temptation is not a sin. We should live in light of the fact that Jesus was tempted so that He could sympathize with our weaknesses and show mercy, therefore we should show compassion for those who struggle with attraction to the other sex (Heb 2:18; 4:15).
  • It is possible for individuals who are struggling with attractions to the same sex to be saved and live a life as a disciple of Jesus Christ.
  • Individuals who are struggling with attractions to the same sex should be treated like any other individual in the church. They should be offered an opportunity to participate and serve as full members of the community.
  • Acting on the attraction is a choice, and it is the homosexual activity that is a sin (1 Cor 6:9-10). We should deal with the individual seeking restoration in accordance with the guidelines that Jesus gave us (Matt 18:15-20).
  • We should not show partiality but treat members of our church community that are engaging in homosexual activity as we would any other individual committing sexual sins (fornication, adultery).
  • We should accept the reality that as long we are calling same-sex relationships morally wrong there will always be some division between the church and the LGBT community. Some will always see this as being judgmental and hateful. However we are still responsible for speaking the truth in love and not condoning sin (Isa 5:20; Eph 4:15).

How else can a Side B church show love to the LGBT community?

How did Jesus show love?

Posted on by
1

Even though Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was a couple of days ago there are still lots of people talking about it. In Christian circles there are many voicing concern that we made a “bold mistake” that widens the divide between Christians and the LGBT community.

Matthew Paul Turner says that Christians failed to ‘love our neighbors’ when we went to Chick0-fil-A and lists among his 5 reasons that we caused a large group of people to feel hated. Rachel Held Evans feels disconnected from the Christian community who ate chicken sandwiches to prove a point. Kimberly Knight gives a personal voice to the pain that the event caused her, concluding that her Christian foundation is always shocked by hate.

For some “putting skin” on Jesus’ words means we should show love to our neighbor and not judge them. What that translates to for many is that love is only shown when we accept the person and the choices a person makes. When we explain that their actions are sinful and say that we don’t agree with them then we are failing to show love. Scripture says love is patient and kind. For many that means avoiding any morale judgment on another. Love is not glad about wrongdoing is reduced to meaning we must be being willing to overlook it to avoid conflict and discomfort.

So is that the kind of love that Jesus wants from us? Or can we love someone without endorsing their choices?

Does Jesus hate sin while also loving people?

Jesus was a friend of sinners but he never condoned their sin.

An event is recorded in John 7:53-8:11 where Jesus was tested by the Pharisees. They brought before Him a woman caught in adultery. The issue of the moment was not whether she  had committed this offense but what to do with her now? The challenge to Jesus was will you obey the Mosaic Law and call for her to be stoned (Lev 20:10; Exodus 20:14; Deut 5:18; 22:22-24).

Jesus first deals with the Pharisees. Their motives are improper and they lack any mercy and grace. They did not seek restoration for the woman but only desired to humiliate her and hurt Jesus (Gal 6:1-2; James 5:19-20). They clearly misunderstood their own sin problem and their need for forgiveness.

Once they left, Jesus turned to the woman and said:

I do not condemn you either. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.

The idea that we need to accept the actions of another person to show love is contrary to how Jesus acted here.  He dealt with her graciously and extended forgiveness to her. Then He told her she was free to go. But Jesus did not accept her actions. He made it clear that her actions were wrong and that her adultery was not an acceptable lifestyle.

Jesus knew that if He had just told her to go without addressing her conduct that would have shown hate for her as Leviticus 19:17 tells us:

You must not hate your brother in your heart. You must surely reprove your fellow citizen so that you do not incur sin on account of him.

We show hate – not love – when we fail to correct someone. Jesus knew that being a true friend to this woman meant saying something that would sting but was what she needed to hear:

Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy. (Proverbs 27:6)

Does Jesus hate sin while also loving people?

We can learn much from this event recorded in John. Both the Pharisees and Jesus told the woman she was a sinner. But there goals were different. One did it out of hate the other out of love. One did it to prove a point the other to restore a lost soul. Our motives and how we communicate matters a great deal.

For some they will only see Pharisees in line at Chick-fil-A proving a point and creating division. But that division was not created by people standing in line at Chick-fil-A. The division was already there. And it is caused because any action by the Christian community short of complete acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is going to be considered hate.

But let’s not lose sight of the fact that Jesus did not accept the actions of the woman. He called then wrong and then offered forgiveness. Yet we know that He loved her. When Jesus said “don’t judge” he did not mean we should not evaluate the actions of others, but wanted us to understand that we should do it with humility. The standards we use to judge others should be equally applied to our own lives (Matt 7:1-5). We need to remember we are all sinners. We all need forgiveness. That is what the Pharisees forgot.

Jesus showed us how to lovingly deal with sin, and also gave us a helpful guide when sin does occur (Matt 18:15-20). Showing another person love does not mean we say that action is good when God does not. The goal is to help the person who has sinned learn and grow, experience forgiveness,  and go and sin no more.

I am still a work in progress, but I know I would not be the person I am today without people willing to call me out on the many times I have made a mess of things. I have grown because of you! Thank you!

[For the record I ate at Chick-fil-A today too]

[Some of my thoughts on Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day]

Some thoughts on Chick-fil-A day

Posted on by
2

Today is the day you have to decide if you are going to Eat Mor Chikin or pass on standing in the long lines. Everyone has expressed an opinion about Chick-fil-A as they become the symbol of frustration over the battle for homosexual rights. Many Christians are wondering if supporting the business today is the right thing to do.

Barnabas Piper asks:  How is the Kingdom of God served by this? Is Jesus represented well to the gay community and the politicians pandering to them?

Good questions. Something we should reflect on as we decide where to eat today. Piper goes on to say:

Convictions, especially biblical ones, will divide people. That is inevitable, but not desirable. The separation of believers and unbelievers, when it happens, must be a last resort or an unavoidable result. Actions to the contrary, those that clearly promote an “us versus them” mentality, are most often unhelpful. There is a time for Christians to engage in boycotting, such as when a business deals in obviously immoral areas or is clearly unethical in its methods. But for a mass of Christians to descend upon Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country tomorrow to support the leadership’s view on this issue is, I believe, a bold mistake.

Michael Kimpan at Relevant Magazine also explores how we should think about this issue:

This begs the question—if Jesus were leading us down the mountain today, where would he be leading humanity?  Probably not into the ring to fight each other over this issue. The seeming inability of many Christians to appropriately engage the LGBT community is merely symptomatic of a much deeper issue—how we view “the Other.”

The issue is not homosexuality. … The real issue is us. 

We struggle to “put skin” on the words and message of Christ with anyone who thinks differently than us.

I agree. The issue for today is not homosexuality. Today it is about more than whether we boycott a restaurant or not because they support our particular point of view.Today the issue is whether someone has the right to voice a dissenting opinion.

As it stands today, one of the owners of Chick-fil-A has voiced his personal view regarding the family. Despite his statements being largely reported out of context, the views held by the owner of the company was not breaking news. Nor has Chick-fil-A actually discriminated against anyone. So why all the furor? How is Chick-fil-A any different than Starbucks, Amazon, and other companies that have expressed their opinion earlier this year on the same topic? Why are so many so quick to jump on Cathy for exercising his  freedom of speech?

Well he had the courage to stand up for the traditional family and marriage when most are willing to redefine it. This will always draw attention. But even with these comment this would probably not have become such a major issue if several elected officials had not jumped into the fray. Sure we would have had some calls for boycotts as has been done in the past but then it would be over. Unfortunately several leaders threatened the company stating that they intended to prevent them from doing business because of the views their owner holds.  Of course all of this was going to be done in the name of diversity and freedom of expression.

  • I’ll always protect people’s rights … I get elected to make my opinions known – Boston Mayor Thomas Menino
  • Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values … If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the First Ward – Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel
  • We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anything and anyone that runs counter to that. – NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn

These leaders claim that they want to be inclusive of everyone. But only everyone that agrees with them. Sadly, these leaders likely miss the hypocritical nature of their statements. These leaders have a right to express their opinions. But the don’t have any more of a right to voice an opinion on this issue than Dan Cathy or anyone else. And many are finding out, they do not have the right to prevent Chick-fil-A from opening stores either.

We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles. – Dan Cathy, COO of Chick-fil-A

I plan on continuing to buy from Chick-fil-A, Amazon, and Starbucks regardless of their views. Why? Because I enjoy the products and value all of these stores offer. However I went to Chick-fil-A today, not because the waffle fries are so good (and they are), and not to take a stand on the issue of gay-marriage (some of my views on this can be found here), but to take a stand for  freedom of speech and religion. That is what why this day was started in the first place. So that the owners of Chick-fil-A, and Amazon and Starbucks could all share their different points of view. And so that all of us can as well. May we all use that freedom wisely.