Wading Into the Chic-Fil-A Battle

I've been watching our friends to the South go into convulsions over Chic-Fil-A and their stance on marriage. I figured I'd give it a little while to cool down before I weighed in. The media have had a field day declaring their indignation that Dan Cathy would dare oppose same sex marriage, and various organizations - even politicians - have been taking turns blasting the company. A couple of weeks ago, friends of Chic-Fil-A helped them set a one day sales record as a show of support. So, what's the story?

First of all, Chic-Fil-A has always been known as a Christian company - their long-standing refusal to open on Sundays is evidence of strongly held convictions. Here's what actually happened just before President Dan Cathy set off a firestorm of media attention. Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit..."

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “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.” The subject of same sex marriage was never addressed in the original interview. He did not "condemn same-sex marriage" as has been claimed. He simply reaffirmed their support of "the biblical definition of the family unit."

I've been observing the debate and collecting articles from various writers coming from different angles of the debate. It makes for some interesting reading and leads to some good questions. For example, should company presidents be allowed to state their opinions and should their private companies be allowed to support what they choose? should the mayors of Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, etc... be able to block new Chic-Fil-A restaurants from being built simply because they disagree with their position on marriage? What are the other issues that company presidents are not allowed to comment on? Is there a list? Should we divide our cities along political lines? What about the church's response? What is your definition of tolerance? How do you engage someone in conversation when you disagree on a sensitive topic?

I'm going to give the links to a few different articles for your reading pleasure. Think about it, recognizing that very few issues are as simple as the media make them out to be.

This first article is a blog post by Perry Noble calling out the activists on both sides of the political spectrum. It's called "Ben & Jerry’s, Chick-fil-A & Political Correctness"

The second one is by Mark Hemingway looking at the origins of the story. His title makes it clear about his views: "Media Invents Story That Chick-fil-A President Condemned Gay Marriage"

This next one includes a video. It shows how passionate this debate is becoming. The title says it all:  "Exec Bullies Chick-fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It"

I have good friends on both sides of this debate. I think we can - and should - differ and still like each other. I think that there's still a place for reasoned debate in our culture, though we have lost the stomach for it and, seemingly, would rather yell at and boycott each other. Take a step back, breath, and talk.

I do like what Rick Warren (who's had his own share of criticism) said: "Our culture has accepted two huge lies: The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Related Articles:
Election Rambling... Arggghhhh!
No Justice in Canada for the Unborn
Heads In The Sand
Why I Still Believe in Marriage
Defending Marriage

 

 

Aren't All Religions Equally Valid?

This is a guest blog by Dr. Andy Bannister, the Canadian Director and Lead Apologist for RZIM Canada. Andy holds a PhD in Islamic studies. He has spoken and taught at universities across Canada, the USA, the UK and further afield on both Islam and philosophy and is a Visiting Lecturer for the London School of Theology. This article was originally published in the RZIM newsletter "A Slice of Infinity."


One of the most common accusations flung at Christians is that they are arrogant. "How can you believe that you're right and Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims—all the thousands of other religions—are wrong?" Isn't it the height of arrogance to claim that Jesus is the way to God? A way, possibly. But the way?

This issue haunts many Christians and makes us reluctant to talk about our faith. We don't want to appear arrogant, bigoted, or intolerant. This pluralistic view of religions thrives very easily in places like Canada or Europe where tolerance is valued above everything else. It's very easy to slip from the true claim—"all people have equal value"—to the false claim that "all ideas have equal merit." But those are two very different ideas indeed.

Let's take a brief look at the "all religions are essentially the same" idea. Suppose I say that I've just gotten into literature in a big way. This last year, I've read William Shakespeare, Virginia Woolf and Tolkien, but also Harry Potter and The Very Hungry Caterpillar—and I've concluded that every author is identical. Would you conclude that: (a) this is the most profound statement on literature you've ever heard? Or would you conclude (b) that I don't have the first clue what I'm talking about? I suggest that you'd probably choose (b). Now, what about the statement "all religions are the same"? Doesn’t it likewise suggest that the person making it hasn't actually looked into any of them? Because once you do, you realize it's not that most religions are fundamentally the same with superficial differences but the reverse is the case: most religions have superficial similarities with fundamental differences.

A further problem with the idea that all religions are essentially the same is that it ignores a fundamental truth about reality: ideas have consequences. What you believe matters, because it will effect what you do. To claim that all religions are essentially the same is to say that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're sincere—and this neglects the fact that you can believe something sincerely and be sincerely wrong. Hitler held his beliefs with sincerity—that doesn't make them true.

However, truth, by its very nature, is exclusive. If it is true, as Christianity claims, that Jesus was crucified, died, and rose from the dead, then it is not true, as Islam claims, that Jesus never died in the first place and that somebody else was killed in his place. Both claims cannot be true. Truth is exclusive.

But just because truth is exclusive, that doesn't make truth cold and uncaring. Truth for the Christian is personal. The Jesus who said "I am the only way" also said "I am the truth." In other words, ultimate truth is not a set of propositions but a person. As the Bible says in 2 Timothy 2:12, "I know whom I have believed." Not what I have believed or experienced but whom. Jesus Christ.

To ask why we think that Jesus Christ is the only way is to miss the point entirely. Jesus does not compete with anybody. Nobody else in history made the claims he did; nobody else in history claimed to be able to deal with the problems of the human heart like he did. Nobody else in history claimed, as he did, to be God with us. To say that we believe Jesus is the only way should have nothing to do with arrogance and everything to do with introducing people to him.

Andy Bannister is a member of the speaking team at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Toronto, Canada. 

Related Articles:
Thoughts on Suffering and Hope
"Truth" - by Ravi Zacharias
Book Review: "Why Jesus?"
Does Your Life Make Sense?
If God Is Good, How Could This Happen?