Thursday, August 2, 2012

Allan Bevere on the Dustup over Chick-Fil-A

I have watched, but not participated in the most recent furor over what some are calling biblical marriage. I say biblical marriage rather than gay marriage since, as far as I can tell, Dan Cathy never said anything about gay marriage specifically. He said that he supports the "biblical definition of the family unit." A "biblical interpretation" would not only exclude gay marriage, but also divorced people, single parents who were never wed and in some cases the widowed. So in reality, the unintended effects of Cathy's statement are much wider than he or most people probably realize. 


As I said, I have avoided the topic on here and I also didn't eat at a Chick-Fil-A yesterday in support nor will I boycott one. I generally eat at home (healthier and cheaper), and I have no clue where the nearest Chick-Fil-A is located.


But my colleague here Ashland Seminary, Allan Bevere has some good thoughts on the dustup and how Christians should respond.  Here is some of what he has to say.
I am not a fan of boycotts nor am I interested in anti-boycotts. I have not eaten at Chic-fil-A in years only because I am no longer at the age where I can eat anything I want. If I did my doctor would be none-too-happy with the results of my blood work. Having said that, if I ever had a hankering for a fat loaded, sodium laden chicken sandwich, I wouldn't hesitate to stop at Chic-fil-A. But neither did I consider stopping at the restaurant yesterday-- not only because there is no way I would wait in line for two hours for a fat loaded, sodium laden chicken sandwich, but also because I don't like the message Wednesday's anti-boycott sent anymore than the boycott itself.

I refuse to allow people to turn what I eat and drink into a political statement. If I want a Chic-fil-A chicken sandwich, I am going to eat one regardless of the company's views on marriage. If I want a Starbucks coffee, I am going to get one regardless of their views on marriage, which are very different from Dan Cathy's perspective. Anyone who concludes what I think about any issue by what I am shoving in my mouth has an ignorance rate higher than my cholesterol level.

During his ministry Jesus used the table as a way to bring people together, including the marginalized. And he invited to the table those who had never received such an invitation. I find it astounding that unlike Jesus, we Christians have used the table to divide, whether that division comes in the form of insisting that people not eat to make a social/political point, or an insistence on eating at a particular time and place to make a social/political point. One wonders if Jesus could stand before the church today and break the bread again, he might say to his people, "This is my body, broken by you."
You can read his whole post here and please let him know you stopped by. 

4 comments:

  1. Wow! Yes, I've posted and shared things about this whole situation, but as I've been saying, the "church" needs to reshape its attitude. Myself included...

    Somehow I missed Allan's blog post - will go back and read it...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for linking to Allan's blog. I've posted a comment over there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, John. Another great post, echoing my own heart.

    ReplyDelete