Chick-fil-A: It's No Longer Safe To Be A Christian In America

BULLETIN: Never has something so accurately encapsulated the culture war that is being waged right now against Christians and the teachings of the Bible as the furor surrounding the personal comments made by Dan Cathy, who happens to be the head of Chick-fil-A in support of traditional marriage.

For the record, here are the ACTUAL COMMENTS that have outraged the militant gay community and their willing accomplices in mainstream media and politics. When asked about his company's support for the traditional family he replied:

"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 a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. 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." (from an interview with Baptist Press)

Did you hear the anti-homosexual hatred in that statement? Neither did I. But apparently the pro-gay militants heard it - and they've issued a fatwa against Chick-fil-A. Look at some of the vitriol that is being spewed at Cathy and Chick-fil-A.

A Chicago politician, Alderman Joe Moreno, who represents Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood, said he will use his aldermanic privilege to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in his ward.

"I don't believe a company that speaks out against gay rights in our country today...should have the opportunity to operate in the city of Boston." - Thomas Menino, Democrat Mayor of Boston

Commenting on alderman Moreno's plan to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city, Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel offered his support: "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values," the mayor said in a statement when asked about Moreno's decision. "They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty."

Then on Friday, on Fox News' Bill O'Reily show, Laura Ingraham interviewed Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, a gay rights group. I encourage you to watch the video of this interview because it's hard to believe what is being said.  Here's a link to the video

Here are some highlights:

"They have given millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations and I find it incredibly hypocritical that they would complain about not being able to open up a store. One of the groups they gave money to, the Family Research Council said it's the government's moral duty to legislate morality, and now they're complaining that morality's being legislated in the way they don't like."

REALITY CHECK: What these government officials are proposing to do is NOT legislating (writing laws), they are are threatening to illegally misuse their position of power to oppress a private company because they hate the fact that the company's leader believes the Bible is true.

Besen calls Cathy's statements in support of traditional marriage, "horrible", "bigoted", "nasty", "horrible" (again), "nasty" (again), and "controversial".

REALITY CHECK: Well, I'll give him the last one, but let's remember that what he's calling "horrible", "bigoted", and "nasty" is God's clear teaching in Scripture that homosexuality is an evil perversion.

Laura then asks a BRILLIANT QUESTION. She says, "Can you be a practicing traditional Christian in the United States today and speak your mind and not be branded a hater? Can you be - and not be ostracized?"

The answer to that question is, for the first time since this country's inception, in question. In case any of you were paying attention, this is STEP 5 of 6 in the homosexual militant's manifesto of how to defeat the taboos against itself and gain protected status as a minority. STEP 5 says: Make the Victimizers (people who don't believe homosexuality is acceptable) look bad.

Do you think they are succeeding?

What this means on more of a spiritual level is that "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."  (2 Timothy 4:3-4 ESV)

Why Did The King Throw A Party?

Do you ever hear something that you've heard many times before, but for some reason you hear something in it that you hadn't heard before?  That happened to me the other day when I was reading in the Gospel of Matthew.  In chapter 22 Jesus is telling a story in which he compares God the Father to a king who throws a feast in his son's honor.  The nation of Israel is compared to people the king invited to the feast, but who refused to come (caring instead for their own concerns).  We Gentiles, in this story, are the rag tag bunch who end up attending the feast.

Now, one of the rules of proper biblical interpretation I learned early on was that parables typically have one or two main ideas, and that one shouldn't try to allegorize each element of the parable too closely.  I've always understood the main point of this parable to be the story of how God first chose Israel to be his people, but that when they rejected him he rejected them as well and chose for himself a different people from all the peoples of the world - and I think that this is the right way to read this passage.


However when I re-read this passage the other day it was something else that struck me.  It wasn't so much the main text of the story, but the context of the story.  It hit me hard that there is something that is assumed by this story that we cannot assume in our day.  


What I'm talking about is the theme of this party.  Why did the king throw a feast for his son?  What was his purpose, his motivation?  Why was he so angry with those who ignored his invitation that "he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city"?  Why was it so important to have the feast full of celebrants that he had his servants go out and gather anyone and everyone they could find from the highways and the byways to come to the feast?  Why, when the king found one hapless fellow at the feast without proper wedding attire did he have his servants "'bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness.’"


You see, we hardly know how to answer these questions today.  Because we've been taught - and we love hearing it - that the feast was for us!  That God went out looking for us because he wanted us at his party.  That those mean old ungrateful Jews weren't worthy to be God's people, but we were.  That there was no way God could enjoy a party without his favorite peeps (you guessed it) - US.


And THAT'S what hit me right between the eyes.  The passionate purpose behind the party was that the King was deadly earnest about seeing his SON honored!  This was so important to the king that those who thumbed their noses at the invitation were rewarded with the death penalty.  When the king sent his servants out to gather anyone they could find to attend the feast, it was because it would have been a travesty for the son of the king to show up to his own feast and find no one there to celebrate him.


What's sad about this, to me, is that many in the church today are like the guy at the feast in his swimming trunks and Hawaiian shirt thinking the party is for him because the king thinks he's a great guy and is just so pleased that he would honor his majesty by showing up and gracing him with his presence.  You remember what happened to that guy, right?

Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’(Matthew 22:13 ESV)