My thoughts on those who rally around Chic Fil-A

My thoughts on those who rally around Chic Fil-A

We live in a world where eating unhealthy junk food is an expression of one’s Christian beliefs. Putting aside that one’s body is one’s temple, I think this sort of expression demonstrates the poverty of popular theology in the U.S. For those who believe that there was something more substantial to the overall message attributed to Jesus as depicted in biblical stories, such as service to those who are less fortunate (e.g., widows, prisoners, and others who live in the lower ranks of society), such demonstrations of piety are simultaneously laughable and pathetic. It is really no wonder that there is an increasing number of religious “nones” (or non-affiliated) in national surveys on religion.

(And don’t even get me started on the reason for this celebration of deep-fried, pink slime … people currently exalting Chic Fil-A are those who revel in throwing the first stone.)

Advertisements

About Jaime Wright

An individual so traumatized by his parents' late-in-life conversion from "life in the fast lane" to born again Christianity that he has been driven to study religion for the rest of his life. His main interest is in religion "outside the box" ... religiosity as it happens in small groups, subcultures, and organizations. View all posts by Jaime Wright

2 responses to “My thoughts on those who rally around Chic Fil-A

  • Robert

    I agree with your statement of poverty of theology. The average American Christian is lacking in theological literacy. But it’s not just the church, it’s also an entire generation of kids who prefer the sensual to the intellectual, so expressions of experience and feeling are elevated above intellectual. As for the Chick-Fil-A support, it’s mainly a response to the boycott. And it’s not just Christians, but also groups that don’t even agree with the Chick-Fil-A president’s beliefs. These people would not be rallying around Chick-Fil-A if it wasn’t for the boycott.

    I don’t agree with your application of the stone throwing. In this case, the stone (i.e. the boycott) was already thrown at Chick-Fil-A for their beliefs. The people supporting Chick-Fil-A are coming to the aid of the person who’s been hit.

    • nodoz99

      I think we could debate upon whether or not “kids these days” are any more sensual than some of the generations immediately preceding them. Oftentimes our moral or emotional reaction might be different from a deliberation upon a particular topic (http://www.stephenvaisey.com/documents/SSA.pdf). But, I get the gist of your point, esp. in that it does resonate with my “poverty of theology” comment–I don’t think it’s just the kids, though.

      And, Ok, fair enough, on your comment that it’s a counter protest and in protection of a person’s right to say anything they want as a matter of free speech. However, for me, in this instance, it’s really about the content of what was said and why it’s being supported. I think that mainstream Christianity has largely lost its way.

      I believe that people should allow their religious beliefs to inform political choices, however, it seems like a majority (or at least an activist minority?) of conservative Christians have allowed the political (i.e., the worldly) to affect their religious beliefs. Really what conservative Christianity is most well-known for today are polarized stances on social issues: primarily gay marriage and abortion (and throw in small government?). These polarized stances involve belittling others based on sexual practices (as if those in more traditionally sanctioned positions are somehow free of sin or imperfection or fallenness or whatever you want to call it–and hence throwing stones or pulling slivers out of others’ eyes); and this belittlement is often justified by pushing a literal translation of particular passages of the Bible–while neglecting taking other passages as literal such as “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor … Then come, follow me.” The main thrust of the teachings attributed to Jesus pertain to helping others and loving one’s enemies (which totally contrast to pointing the finger at others and denying them equal treatment).

      I don’t necessarily think that Christians are the only ones who use consumerism to demonstrate moral positions in our society or even hate their enemies. However, given what I believe to be some of the major tenants of a Jesus-inspired philosophy or approach to others and to living life in service to others, the contradiction just screams a bit more loudly in some cases more than others. I think the case of Chic Fil-A is one of those cases.

      That said, I do, honestly and really, appreciate your thoughtful and measured response. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: