Thursday, August 09, 2012

Post-Chick-fil-A reflections

Now that everyone's done eating their Chick-fil-A sandwiches . . .

I remember election day in November 1994. All of us Republicans were convinced that Bill and Hillary Clinton had been driving our country into the moral sewer for the last two years, so we showed up at the voting booths in droves. I came home from work, grabbed my coat and went out in the rain to the local polling place where I blindly punched every chad next to every Republican name I saw. The result was that Republicans won control of both houses of Congress that year. At the time it felt good, it felt empowering, like we had a voice and made ourselves heard. So there!

At the moment it also felt very "Christian," as if I and others were standing up for God's righteousness against the Clintons' liberal agenda. But now, in retrospect, I don't view that moment as being a proud highlight of my Christian life at all. I didn't grow from it, I didn't become more Christ-like from it, I didn't benefit spiritually from it. Rather I look back and wonder at my anger and impulsiveness, that I would rush out and vote for candidates about whom I knew absolutely nothing. And what was the long-term outcome of our collective impulsive action in 1994? Newt Gingrich.

Ten, twenty years from now, many of the people who stood in line at their local Chick-fil-A restaurant last Wednesday will feel a similar emptiness about it. It will be a forgotten or forgettable moment.

Why? Because there is nothing particularly Christian about turning out in droves to make a statement of self-interest about a piece of civil legislation. Any group can do it, and just about every group does. Sure, you can argue that these sorts of demonstrations aren't necessarily wrong in themselves. But in the case of Chick-fil-A--even if we could convince ourselves that the whole circus wasn't hurtful to the gay and lesbian community, damaging to the gospel message, and embarrassing for Christians in general--neither was there anything wonderfully Christ-like about it either. There was no revelation of the Jesus who ate with tax collectors and sinners, who stood next to the adulterous woman and dared anyone to cast the first stone, who hung parched and suffocating on a cross while praying for God to forgive his enemies.

But, you say, we are perfectly justified in opposing the gay agenda. They're the ones who are always organizing and protesting. They're the ones pushing for their legislation and their rights. And what about those liberal politicians trying to ban Chick-fil-A restaurants from their cities?

The call to follow Christ is not about meeting the status quo with the status quo: "They're pushing their agenda so we're pushing ours." "I have a right to support my cause." "When Christians speak up we always get slapped down. Well, I've had enough!" This is exactly the sort of mediocre thinking that ensures there will always be so many Christians who make so little difference.

The apostle Paul asks, "Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?" Jesus says, "If you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers to the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?" Peter says, "When [Jesus] was reviled he did not revile in return, when he suffered he did not threaten but committed himself to him who judges righteously." John says, "By this we know love, because he laid down his life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."

Our sins have been wiped away. Glory will someday be ours. We have riches beyond measure in the heavenly places. We are heirs of the world to come. God is our Father, Christ is our brother, the Holy Spirit is our Comforter. Surely we can afford to let go of some of our rights and privileges in this passing world. Surely we can afford to let some of the love and grace we have received overflow in our lives to others. Surely we can afford to be more generous and less petty, more confident and less victimized, more humble and less resentful.

Talk to someone who's gay. They were right outside the restaurant picketing while you were standing in line at Chick-fil-A. You could have skipped the chicken sandwich and taken someone to lunch on neutral ground at Burger King. But don't just talk, listen and learn. Because when it comes down to it being gay is not a political agenda or a religious doctrine, it is a human experience. And once you find the courage to connect with another human being on that basic level, you will know that God loves them, because you will feel his love for them in your own heart.

17 comments:

Jarred said...

Misty: For the past few days, I've intentionally refused to read anything about Chick-Fil-A. When I saw your blog post, I decided to make an exception. I'm glad I did.

Thank you for that last paragraph.

john said...

How about listening to the experiences of these people too?

1.http://www.firststone.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=328:he-sent-his-word-to-heal-us&catid=23:men-a-homosexuality&Itemid=35

2. Note the posts by ccchhhrrriiisss:

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=13551&forum=35

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7565&forum=36&start=10&viewmode=flat&order=0

Jarred said...

Hi John. I read the first link you posted to. It struck me as the typical ex-gay narrative of past decades (molestation, distant fathers, etc) mixed in which all the talking points usually promoted by people by Jack Chick (I was not surprised when he mentioned receiving the Chick tract "The Gay Blade").

To be honest, I find some portions of his narrative unbelievable. For example, he claims that he got a book about witchcraft -- complete with chants -- from his parochial school. I know of no parochial school that would hand such a thing out. Little details like that leave me to wonder how much of his story is authentic and how much has been tossed in to make his "journey to see the light" all the more impressive.

Of course, then there's the stuff he glosses over. For example, he talks about being molested, being mocked for being gay, and being depressed all in the same or adjacent paragraphs, yet never considers how these things might be interrelated. There's the assumption (without backing up) that his depression is due to being gay rather than the fact that he's being bullied or has been molested. Again, this is a common problem with such narratives: All the horrible things are not horrible things to be addressed in their own right, but assumed to be an inherent part of being gay.

And then there's the insistence that his story is universal to all gay men, which again dovetails just a little too nicely into the claims of men like Joseph Nicolosi who insist that all gay men are gay because they've been molested or had distant or otherwise horrible fathers, despite the fact that many of gay men such as myself have told them that we have had and continue to have great relationships with our fathers and abuse-free childhoods. But no, they'll just insist that they know our histories, experiences, and lives better than we do.

As you might notice, I have listened to the stories you're trying to promote here. I've listened to them for years. Now it's your turn to do the listening.

daemon said...

Thank you, Misty.

Jonathan Bryden said...

I mostly agree with what you are bringing up in these articles and I do really value that one-on-one relationship where Christ's love can be expressed (It's something we really do need to encourage each other to do more), however I do have a question.

I feel there is a difference between loving individuals and sharing Christ with them and standing up for truth in a public setting (I believe both are important to do as Christians) and I don't believe we can accomplish both in the same moment.

For instance, I serve the homeless community of my city by handing out socks and praying for them. This is the one-on-one relationship where we don't judge, but love and share Christ. Many are addicted to drugs and alcohol, but we ignore those things to meet with the people. Rarely do I make a stand against drugs and alcohol in this setting.

On the flip side though, I make a very public stand against drugs specifically, in the groups I support whether through prayer or financial support or even going to events that would oppose drugs and fight to get rid of them by the improvement of laws or by other legal legislation.

My question is this... How do you think a Christian should stand up for truth in a public setting surrounding the issue of homosexuality?

You disagree with how it was done with Chick-fil-A and I'm interested to hear how you think it could be done right.

I loved your example of taking one of the members of the gay community out for lunch and spending time to love and listen to them, but how else do we honor marriage publicly when the world is moving to change it? I don't think staying silent as to not offend is appropriate

I'd love to hear your thoughts =)

A fellow follower of Jesus,
Jonathan Bryden

Jack said...

Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ and His immediate disciples faced evil by silence, fasting, and suffering.

His 21st century followers (especially American ones) try to face it by making noise, eating, and comfort.

Think about it.

Misty Irons said...

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for your question. I like how you value one-on-one relationships and conversations as the way that Christians should share Jesus' love. One other benefit of conversation is that you start to understand for yourself where people are coming from, which can be a lot different from stereotypes, media presentation, or even how the church typically views them. For instance, I'm sure you have a different understanding of the homeless from getting to know people personally than someone who doesn't have those relationships and only views homeless people from a distance.

I think the desire of most Christians to take a public stand against homosexuality is based upon misunderstandings about what homosexuality is, largely because those conversations aren't happening. I've come to the conclusion that being gay isn't an addiction, or a lifestyle, or the result of family dysfunction. For that reason it's not something you can take a stand against in the public arena.

If you talk to enough gay and lesbian people, you start to realize that the best way to understand homosexuality is if you imagine your own life as a heterosexual, except that you find yourself involuntarily attracted to people of the same sex for reasons beyond your control or understanding. If that were your experience, how would you relate to people? How would you date? How would dream about your future? Just as a straight person simply experiences heterosexual attraction, a gay person also simply experiences homosexual attraction without having made a choice about it. And because sexual orientation affects every relationship you have, it becomes a part of your identity and a part of the secondary choices you make for your life. Heterosexual people fall in love with opposite sex partners and seek to have their love recognized in the eyes of society through the institution of civil marriage. Homosexual people have the same goals and desires for themselves except that their desired marriages will be to same sex partners.

And so, I don't see the point in taking a public stand against gay civil marriage, which I see as a movement to create space in society for people of a certain identity by legally protecting them and their relationships. The fact of their existence simply needs to be accepted and acknowledged. That's why when I hear Christians speak of homosexuality as if it were a "plague" in society that needs to be stopped or protested against, I can only conclude that they haven't actually understood what it means to be gay or lesbian.

In my view, Christians should either stop agitating against gay rights altogether, or positively support them. A humane and civilized society should allow gay and lesbian people to enter into civil marriages, find their place in society, and continue to make the positive contributions they make to our work force and military and in the raising of children. We'd all be better off if we just let them have their space.

If in the church we want to ban gay marriages for our own religious reasons, that's our right under the First Amendment. And I think people in society would be a lot more sympathetic of our right to hold to our religious beliefs if we weren't perceived as trying to push those beliefs into the civil arena.

In short, I think every "issue" needs to be examined up close and rationally, and then treated according to what it is. Homosexuality is entirely unique, in my view, and can't be compared with any other category of what the church acknowledges to be "sin." I guess that's why I never tire of thinking about these things and blogging on them.

Misty

Jonathan Bryden said...

Thanks Misty for such a detailed response. It has helped me understand how you view the gay community and your passion to empathize with someone who struggles with homosexual attractions in our society. Your empathy is impressive and shows a true desire to love. I do admire that.

I suppose the struggle I am having surrounds the message of the gospel and how it relates to the gay community. I want, above all else for people to see Jesus as He truly is, give their lives to Him and find new life in Him no matter who you are or where you come from. The gospel or the 'good news' is that Jesus has made a way to restore our broken relationship with God by sacrificing his perfect life, becoming sin for us, dying on a cross and raising back to life to completely remove our sins. Amazing news!

My fear is that we would hinder the gay community from being able to experience the 'good news' about Jesus, by downplaying the bad news. The bad news is we are all horrible sinners. Every last one of us. Everyone who comes to God has to acknowledge this and not just generally in their life, but specifically. We all have specific sins that we are each prone too. I know what mine are. I'm sure they are different from yours, but regardless I have to acknowledge them and turn from them. If I refuse to turn from my sins and instead pursue them, I also at the same time refuse Jesus and how He's trying to save me from that sin.

I don't want to downplay at all the weight of the choice to follow Jesus instead of a homosexual lifestyle. You are very right when you describe the cost. The cost is high and that should not be disregarded.

However, the cost is higher for those who knowingly or unknowingly choose to pursue what God deems as sin instead of His Son. Much much higher and this is really the message we as Christians must share. Its a hard one to take because its costly if accepted, but if we really love the gay community, whether one-on-one or in a wise and well thought out public setting, we have to loving share the 'good news' and affirm the bad news that homosexuality is sin and if pursued, will ruin our relationship with God.

Again, I know the cost is great and unless you go through the homosexual experience you cant understand the cost, but each of us has to count the cost of following Christ and for each of us its different. Some have to give up loved ones, jobs, homes, dreams... some face horrible persecution, torture and even death.

Yes the cost is high, but I believe God will be very angry with us if we start calling sin anything less than what it is.

Do you understand where I'm coming from? I'm wrestling with this because its such a sensitive issue and so paramount in our day and age and because I know we will have to stand and take an account before God on how we shared His gospel, His truth and His love. What are your thoughts surrounding what I've shared?

Jarred said...

Jonathan:

My fear is that we would hinder the gay community from being able to experience the 'good news' about Jesus, by downplaying the bad news. The bad news is we are all horrible sinners.

I"m reminded of Nietzsche, who once commented that religion lifts up a man, but only after thoroughly tearing him down first.

I question your premise, to be honest. I think there are plenty of ways to present the gospel. Jesus himself didn't seem to be all that interested in impressing on people "what horrible sinners they were." Yes, he might have mentioned sin and said things like "go and sin no more." But then he moved on. He didn't give grand sermons against the tax collectors. He didn't spend an hour explaining to the woman at the well exactly what is wrong with the fact that she's been married multiple times and is currently living with an unmarried partner. Quite frankly, I think many modern evangelicals like telling people "what horrible sinners they are" a little (okay, more than a little) too much.

Plus, quite frankly, the idea that the rest of the world needs to be told this strikes me as silly. Trust me, the rest of the world (not to mention gay people in particular) already knows "what horrible sinners" evangelicals think we are. We've been hearing it for years. It's why recent research has shown that most people have a much better identifying what evangelical Christianity is against rather than what it is for, and perceive evangelical Christianity almost entirely defined by being opposed to things.

But even if we accept -- and I don't -- your premise that you need to impress upon the world in general and gay people in particular that they're sinners, I'd argue that still not a good reason to go on about homosexuality so much. Gay people commit plenty of things that you'd call sins that have nothing to do with who they're sleeping with. Gay are just as prone to lie, cheat, speak hurtful words, fail to care for "the least of these," and commit all those other sins as their heterosexual counterparts.

Which brings us to this statement:

We all have specific sins that we are each prone too.

So what are your sins and how many groups are set up to specifically speak out against them (and you) with a microphone? Comparatively, how many fiery sermons have you heard your pastor give on the sinfulness of gossip? How many times a week do you have some fellow Christian come up to you and remind you of your sins and tell you that you need to work on them (only to completely ignore you on all other matters, no less)?

No, it seems pretty clear to that many evangelical Christians worry about "specific sins" and making sure they get confessed for certain values of "sin." I don't find this a compelling argument for what I tend to see more accurately described as singling out LGBT people for harassment, either individually or as a group.

My suggestion to you is to let God work out what specific things He wants gay people to see as sin in their lives and convict them of it Himself. He's God, He can do that without your help.

Dave said...

Note to Jonathan and your latest post .. ..

Just what is a homosexual life style ?.. and just what is homosexuality? I don’t think you heard Misty. Moral choices and who people are .. are two distinct things. Are you equally opposed to the heterosexual life style? Are you opposed to a divorce rate in the church that equals that of the world? Are you equally opposed to the sex outside of marriage heterosexual life style that permeates our culture, our movies our advertising, and our TV programs? Are you pushing to make sure such a lifestyle becomes illegal in this country? Are you as passionate about being against the heterosexual lifestyle as you are against the alleged homosexual life style? I don’t know what your answer is to these questions but the answer from the church world is pretty clear. There is a clearly different attitude toward what we perceive to be straight sin and what we perceive to be gay sin. Scripture gives no cause for this discrepancy. But beyond that .. the stereotyping language here of calling something a heterosexual life style or homosexual life style needs to come to an end. Otherwise the church being opposed to homosexuality sounds like the church is opposed to homosexual people.


I am also a bit puzzled here of how being like Jesus .. meeting people where they are in life and talking to them about the kingdom has now been transformed into promoting certain laws in the public square. When did this happen? And how did this become the Christian’s main method of sharing the gospel? This was never the way of Christ .. nor was it the way of the Apostles. I would add that we live in a diverse country … a country that openly allows people of different faith traditions to hold down a job and rent and own property. An employer or landlord cannot discriminate against someone due to their faith tradition even if that tradition includes worshiping the devil or some other god. Likewise cohabiting heterosexuals or divorced heterosexuals or remarried heterosexuals are not denied employment or rent or property ownership due to the moral choices they have made. Neither can they be put in jail or denied rights because of their faith tradition or moral choices. This country was founded with the ideals of protecting people from this sort of government intrusion into their lives. It provides a fertile soil from which we as Christians can witness to others without fear of (real) persecution and without the people we are witnessing to feeling coerced by (worldly) forces beyond their control.

We cannot badger people in the public square and proudly oppose their moral view and then turn around and offer mercy and grace all in the name of Jesus. It isn’t going to work. And .. as I said before .. it is a bit puzzling why there are only certain things we Christians get up in arms about but let other things slide. There is probably not a gay or lesbian person in the world that doesn’t know what the church at large thinks about gay sex or gay marriage. But I would not be surprised if there are many Christians sitting in the pews who have no idea about the church’s heterosexual church ethic.

I apologize if this comes off as a bit heavy .. your questions are not untypical and its good you are asking them. But I fear Christianity has become caught up in a way of thinking that not only fails to advance the gospel but is actually a hindrance to its advancement. And this needs to change if we are to obey what Christ calls us to.

Peace and God bless,

Dave

Jack said...

What is this homosexual lifestyle that nobody but heterosexual talk about?

Jim is single, 30 something, goes to a mediumsized Methodist church where he sings in the choir and doesn't miss a service. He teaches senior English in the suburban high school, and lives in that same neighborhood. He exercises in the local gym.

Bob is single, 30 something, teaches Sunday School in the local independent evangelical church. He also teaches history at a community college, where he uses his faculty privileges for the college's exercise equipment. Oddly enough, he lives in the same zip code as Jim.

Neither smoke, neither drink, neither has ever been married.

But there are two differences. One is sexually active (yea promiscuous), the other is virginal.

Please tell me on the basis of their nearly identical life styles which one is straight and which one is gay.

Misty said...

Hi Jonathan,

Sure, I understand what you're struggling with. Here are some conclusions I've come to regarding those concerns.

1. There is no need to worry when you are talking to someone who is gay or lesbian that you aren't being clear about your belief that homosexual sexual relations is sinful. Because as one reader has already mentioned, the church has already gone overkill on that point. In fact, depressingly enough, the only thing the average non-Christian seems to know about Christians is that we are "anti-gay." So if you want to make an impact on a gay/lesbian friend, be kind and caring and say nothing about their sexuality unless they bring it up. Soon enough, they will be the one asking YOU to share more about your faith, out of sheer astonishment that some evangelical out there actually managed to keep his mouth shut.

2. It is not our place to decide for people what sins they should want Jesus to save them from. Getting into all that risks putting a condition on the gospel beyond what Jesus actually demands. If someone simply knows that he/she is a sinner, however weak and shallow that understanding is, and they reach out to Jesus with sincere faith, Jesus will save them. (Zacchaeus and the woman at the well are good examples of this.) The process of dealing with specific sins is a part of the lifelong journey of sanctification, after one becomes a Christian, and even then it is not our place to dictate how Jesus wants to lead someone along that path.

3. So when it comes to sharing the gospel, think of it like this: dealing with homosexuality is one of the most advanced-level, complex, and emotionally-charged issues of all. Even the most mature gay Christians who believe their homosexuality is sinful don't have easy solutions about how to deal with it after walking with Jesus for 40+ years. If those guys don't have the answers, it's not exactly fair the press the point with the gay non-Christian seeker. Start with where the seeker is at, what sins he/she feels bad about, and share with them the promises of God's forgiveness in Christ. Let them embrace Christ from where they are at, and allow the Spirit to take over and lead them from there. God will not be angry at you for having the humility to realize that He is wiser than you when it comes to dealing with someone else's homosexuality.

Misty

Jack said...

\\He is wiser than you when it comes to dealing with someone else's homosexuality.
\\

Or heterosexuality, for that matter--or any other sexual issue.

Ursh said...

@ Jarred....

I just wanted to say that I loved This in your comments:

My suggestion to you is to let God work out what specific things He wants gay people to see as sin in their lives and convict them of it Himself. He's God, He can do that without your help.

Oh wow...I couldn't say it better myself!

Steven said...

Hmmm, if someone had come up to me outside Chick-fil-A and offered to buy me a Burger King, I might have accepted. Given the average girth of the people in the line I saw, we'd have had no lack of subjects for conversation. They could have told me all about my sin of homosexuality and I could have told them all about their sin of gluttony. Only something tells me they wouldn't have liked that...

John said...

You kind of set up a straw man when you say they showed up because of "self-interest about a piece of civil legislation". The Chick-fil-A thing wasn't about attacking homosexuals or getting involved in politics. Wasn't it more about supporting a christian business owner who was threatened with persecuted for his beliefs? As this article points out, politicians across the country were talking about kicking Chick-fil-A out of their cities and denying them permits because the owner is a christian. We should expect to receive plenty of persecution but, even the apostle Paul avoided harm when possible. You're bashing christians and calling them unloving because they showed up to eat Chick-fil-A one day? This article seems very quick to judge people's hearts.

The Colorful One said...

Wasn't it more about supporting a christian business owner who was threatened with persecuted for his beliefs?

No, John. And furthermore, the fact that so many people still try to frame that issue that way is what many in the LGBT community (and its allies) find so infuriating.

This wasn't about a Christian business owner and his beliefs. This was about a man who funneled money to organizations that not only fight against LGBT equality, but often defame, dehumanize, and demonize LGBT people. We're talking organizations who still will try to compare LGBT people to pedophiles and other sexual predators when it suits them.

I would encourage you to look into the organizations that Chick-Fil-A has funded in the past through their non-profit program and what those organizations actually say and do. If memory serves, the Family Research Council ended up on that list. Just search the sites of organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and GLAAD to see what kind of damaging garbage the FRC spews out.