WWJB - Who Would Jesus Boycott?

My dear, self-serving, delusional Trevin Wax:

After reading your article, entitled “Why the Chick-fil-A Boycott is really about Jesus”, I felt a need to educate you on a few things.

It seems that you, and many others, have missed the point entirely. The boycotting of Chick-fil-A is not due to Dan Cathy’s expression of faith, nor running his business based on his Christian beliefs. It is due to the fact that the company’s charitable arm has given millions of dollars to groups opposing gay marriage.

Obviously, there are those of us who choose not to contribute, through our patronage, to profits that will find their way into the hands of political groups seeking to deny equal rights to our gay/lesbian citizens. Much in the same way, I would imagine, that Christians such as yourself would choose not to patronize companies that contribute to groups whose activities you find to be not in keeping with your beliefs.

“I believe this Chick-fil-A boycott has revealed some fault lines in our culture that will lead to increasing pressure upon Christians who uphold the sexual ethic described in the New Testament.”

Can you point me to where in the New Testament Jesus said anything about homosexuality? Let me save you the research – He didn’t. One would think that if The Nazarene found homosexuality to be an abomination before God, He would have said a few words on the topic. Perhaps He was forgetful – or perhaps He just left it to people like you to put those clearly unspoken words in His mouth two thousand years after the fact.

 “… it’s clear to me that – political posturing aside – this discussion may not be about the alleged homophobia of Chick-fil-A’s president but the actual Christophobia of the leaders of the cultural elite.”

Christophobia? Seriously, dude, the alleged persecution of Christians in the US is non-existent – and when asked for examples of same, it invariably amounts to someone selling Xmas trees in December.  For people who claim to follow a man who was beaten, tortured, and ultimately nailed to a cross, their definition of persecution seems a bit off point, to say the least.

“We’ve got to go beyond boycotts and political statements and feigned offense at perceived persecution.”

Exactly. The next time someone slams a crown of thorns into your skull, let me know – I’ll be there for you. Until then, stop equating being wished “Happy Holidays” at Christmastime with dragging a cross to Golgotha.

“Though Chick-fil-A hires homosexuals and serves homosexuals … the company and its president were suddenly labeled ‘homophobic’ and ‘anti-gay’ for articulating the traditional vision for marriage that has been the norm for thousands of years.”

Again you have missed the point by miles, and frame your argument in terms of what Cathy said, as opposed to what he does. It is one thing to uphold one’s vision of traditional marriage. It is quite another to contribute millions of dollars in the hopes of preventing others from upholding their vision of marriage: the union of two people who love each other, and have every right to be treated equally under the law.

And that’s the law of the United States, not the law of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, et al. There is such a thing as separation of Church and State – or Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s – something you might want to take into consideration when declaring that your religious beliefs somehow supersede the Constitution.

In addition, you might want to do some research into what “traditional marriage” has been about over the centuries. It’s been about the consolidation of wealth, and the solidification of political power. When royal families betrothed their infant children to each other in order to form political alliances, I assure you that Jesus had nothing to do with it.

“What we are seeing today is a massive cultural shift that permits leaders to label Christians as intolerant and bigoted simply for expressing their views about how society should function.”

You are free to express your views as to how society should function. That doesn’t mean society has to function in accordance with those views, or necessarily should. And exactly who are the “leaders” who are labeling Christians as intolerant and bigoted? It would seem that the loud-mouthed so-called Christians we hear from on a regular basis require no assistance in being labelled as such – being more than adept at labeling themselves.

“That’s why, at the end of the day, this conversation isn’t really about marriage, gay rights, or restaurant permits … it’s about Jesus. It’s about the radical sexual ethic He put forth in His teaching – a moral zealousness that hits our current culture’s sexual permissiveness head-on. And it’s about His forgiveness offered to all sexual sinners, so long as we agree with Jesus about our sin and embrace Him instead.”

No, it isn’t about Jesus at all. It’s about recognizing that equality under the law is a matter of ensuring the rights of all citizens, and not a matter of you, or anyone else, deciding which citizens are more equal than others. Your simpering diatribe about “sexual sinners” and “agreeing with Jesus” would be appropriate in a come-to-Christ moment in a Sunday morning sermon. It has no place in a country where no religion – Christianity or any other – dictates the way in which American citizens conduct themselves, or the way in which its laws should be interpreted or upheld.

“As weary as we may be of the culture wars, the Chick-fil-A controversy is a harbinger of further ostracism to come.”

Again, the ostracism is a result of Chick-fil-A contributing millions of dollars to those who would deny the rights of our fellow citizens. And if that ostracism results in lesser profits – i.e. less money to be spent in an attempt to deny those rights – so be it. The consumers have spoken – and will continue to speak, whether it insults your alleged Christian sensibilities or not.

“The world tells homosexuals, ‘It gets better.’ The church tells homosexuals, ‘Jesus is better.’ And that is why this boycott is really about Him.”

If this boycott was about Him, you could rely on His words on the topic of homosexuality – which, as we all know, are non-existent. Instead you proffer your own version of  “what He really meant was …” as though Jesus would rely on you, or those of your ilk, to speak for him. Jesus had ample opportunity to condemn homosexuality. He didn’t, not even once.

So get over it, and for Christ’s sake – meant literally – stop attributing your own bigotry to He who admonished mankind to love one another, and never uttered a single word about who was deserving of that love, or how it was to be expressed.

— Nance Greggs