Chick-fil-A to End Donations to Christian Charities after LGBT Backlash

[TylerR]

I beg of you all to realize how silly this is….

Sincerely,

Tyler (he/him)

On the contrary, Tyler, its part and parcel of the same thing.

Even the way you signed your name… is that a joke? Its not that funny. We shouldn’t give in to the moral madhouse in any way.

[WallyMorris]

The aggressive secular culture’s “serious threat to Christian orthodoxy” is not in eliminating Biblical belief (that won’t happen) but in intimidating people from openly supporting Biblical belief. CFA, or any other business, cannot “make a great product for the glory of God” if they are caving to an ungodly culture’s pressure on social/moral issues. Donating to a LQBTQ cause is probably not that far away, although perhaps in a backhanded way. It’s never a good business decision to cave to secular culture on moral issues. Again: The issue isn’t the chicken. It’s what CFA used to financially support and what they are refusing to financially support. More “Christian” business will follow.

Wally, I think the basic issue of disagreement between us is the role of a business run by professing believers. I certainly see the threat you are concerned about and appreciate the interaction.

[TylerR]

I beg of you all to realize how silly this is. I just returned from a meeting of every manager at my State agency. The agency is trying to figure out how to regulate INSURANCE while at the same time accomodate the idea that gender is a social construct. How should insurance companies rate a man who claims to be a woman … without using biological gender as the rating factor for life insurance? And, the agency is about to require people to specify their preferred pronouns on all correspondence!

Good point. It’s actually quite a bit worse. My brother and sister-in-law have a good friend who is male/female post-op, and one of the things he/she had to deal with in the transition process is the fact that this process is a life shortening condition. Not only (McHugh et al) do post-op transgenders retain the propensity for suicide that characterizes gender dysphoria, but they also have shortened lives because substituting estrogen/etc.. for testosterone really messes up the male body, and I’d presume vice versa.

Now notice; this is a way to address the issue that shows a great degree of concern for those involved. “Hey, I understand that people do have this gender dysphoria condition, but let’s treat it with great respect to the very real consequences of reassignment surgery—it’s not like selling a car, where you can buy a similar one back if you think you’ve made a bad decision. It’s permanent and can be harmful.”

Back to Chik-Fil-A,it strikes me that the takeaway is that if the chain ever really felt a distinctly Christian approach to service was their key to success, that may be eroding. The bad is that it’s not as public an example of how this can work. The good is that it gives other Christian entrepreneurs a chance to show the world how it’s done.

Silly? Not at all. The examples Tyler and Bert gave are certainly serious and part of what a culture faces which has abandoned an objective basis for right and wrong. The CFA situation is simply another example. But silly? Hardly. If we won’t see the seriousness of what CFA has done, then we won’t see the problem in other areas either. Curious to know how those who work in businesses/government such as Tyler’s will handle the requirements to address people in language which contradicts Biblical teaching. How far can you accomodate work requirements before violating Biblical principle?

Wally’s question is valid - and I’m sure the people in our congregations need some substantive direction on this point. Are we really going to tell them to resist and get fired? If you’re a pastor who doesn’t work in a white-collar environment and you’re employed fulltime by the church, it’s easy to suggest that or something like it - because you largely live in a Christian echo-chamber. Your congregation needs better than that!

My stop-gap at this point is to try my best to use first name instead of a pronoun, if I’m dealing with a transgender individual. However, it’s virtually impossible to avoid pronouns all the time.

Pastors need to read Ryan Anderson’s When Harry Became Sally. Very helpful book.

Although I have been a full-time pastor for over 25 yrs (at the same church), I previously worked in retail sales for 13 years (and other jobs before that). That’s why I raised the issue.

Wally asked:

How far can you accomodate work requirements before violating Biblical principle?

This brings up what is in my mind a related question. How far can you accommodate moral expectations before violating Biblical principle in the voting booth? Many of those who are upset here about CFA’s decision have vocally defended their votes for President Trump, dismissing the concerns over his immoral behavior and positions. It seems ironic that they will defend the President, whose immorality is legendary, yet see CFA’s decision as indicative of the negative moral trajectory of our society.

[pvawter]

This brings up what is in my mind a related question. How far can you accommodate moral expectations before violating Biblical principle in the voting booth? Many of those who are upset here about CFA’s decision have vocally defended their votes for President Trump, dismissing the concerns over his immoral behavior and positions. It seems ironic that they will defend the President, whose immorality is legendary, yet see CFA’s decision as indicative of the negative moral trajectory of our society.

That’s a good point. Consistency in applying Biblical principles is always a challenge since Gen 3. I voted for President Trump reluctantly, mainly using the lesser of two evils argument. To not vote at all, for anyone, only increased the possibility of someone worse becoming President. Despite his past personal moral problems, some of his efforts have been good, which I doubt I could say about another candidate at this point if she were in office. One difference, however, is that CFA clearly and fairly convincingly identified as a “Christian business”, therefore establishing higher expectations. Although Trump tried to identify with Christianity during his campaign, I’m not sure if he convinced many people, except perhaps for a few in Texas. Therefore, the expectations were not quite the same as CFA. Yet someone who, for conscience reasons, could not vote for Trump should not vote for Trump. Biblical teaching on that is very clear. If you thought the 2016 Presidential election was interesting, wait until next year.

Reality is that you’ve got some level of compromise wherever you work. For example, if a pastor inculcates a spirit of harshness in his congregation to the point that the working men (women) of the congregation tell their employers “it’s my way or I’m not working here anymore” (or worse), the boss will respond “don’t let the door hit ya where the Lord split ya”, and the pastor will, transitively find himself out of a job. Every employer I’ve ever had has had policies with which I disagreed, and which I felt would generate some harm. Most places I shop have some degree of problems, too.

Question, really, is that will the problems with where I work and shop (etc..) override the good I can do there. My favorite grocery store carries Cosmopolitan magazines, and I’d guess if I looked hard, probably a few things I’d find even more repulsive. On the flip side, it’s got the best produce, bakery, meats, and baking supplies aisle in town, and every other store save Aldi carries the same magazines. So I shop there.

For the CFA employee wondering what’s next, you’ve got the question I’ve got at work; can I do good with a Christlike attitude there? Management may do their best to torpedo their own business—I’ve worked for a few places where that was the case—but if I can provide for my family without total moral degradation while serving other people, isn’t that a good thing?

Just my rambling. :^)

“Doing good where you work” is certainly a valid point to consider but not nearly all we should consider. A Christian can justify working almost anywhere because of “doing good” at that particular employer. The point I am raising about CFA or any other employer is not just policies with which we “disagree” or stores we patronize which carry objectionable products but policies which clearly contradict Biblical moral and ethical principles, policies which we are forced to follow if we choose to work there. Nazi soldiers often defended their actions by the “just following orders” excuse. Some may have even thought they were “doing some good” by having some limited influence on the evil around them. Of course a soldier under orders is different than our employment situation. The ethical examples in the book of Daniel are helpful. Sacred Obedience instead of Civil Disobedience. Not interested in extended discussion on this particular thread, just something to think about: How far can you accommodate work requirements before violating Biblical principle and therefore must leave that employer? We can always find excuses/reasons for continuing to work at such places, but at what point are our reasons beginning to become disobedience to God? Again, Daniel is a good example, especially chapter one. Daniel worked effectively in an ungodly situation for many years, but he also refused to obey what was wrong. And was willing to accept the consequences for that choice.

You wrote:

We can always find excuses/reasons for continuing to work at such places, but at what point are our reasons beginning to become disobedience to God?

The fact is that, if you aren’t willing to work alongside a transgender individual, you won’t work today. I say this to emphasize that this is not a theoretical scenario. It is fact. It is reality. It’s a reality for people in the congregation. So, we should be very, very careful when we give guidance along these lines.

I’d like to ask Wally for advice about two men. The first works for a company that openly promotes the LGBT agenda along with its charitable financial for support for groups like UNICEF. The company proudly announced that they would pay for sex change operations for its employees and makes sure that it health insurance covers abortions. Add to that that it’s retail and employees are expected to work on Sunday. The second works in an atmosphere laced with profanity where many of their co-workers are known for their off duty partying, drunkeness, and immorality. What should they do?

Good Examples.

Never said that we shouldn’t work in the same company/environment as LGBT, etc. My interest is the company itself, not the people who work at the company.

More & more businesses, mainly for practical, financial reasons & not due to deep convictions (businesses follow the crowd just like the crowd follows the crowd), give various support to immoral causes. Not a surprise given 2 Timothy 3:1ff. One helpful principle: Does the business require the employee to give support (financial & otherwise) to immoral organizations/people? This seems to be a line Daniel would not cross.

As far as Sunday work: Depends on how strongly & to what extent you believe the “day of rest” principle applies to today. An obvious problem: The employer requires work EVERY Sunday, so that practically you can’t go to church at all. That contradicts Hb 10:24-25.

Profane work environment? Yes, it’s everywhere. Good opportunties for wise, careful gospel witness. If the language is continually offensive, perhaps a discussion with human resources (although they probably won’t care). Many Christians struggle with their thoughts & the impact our culture has on our thoughts. If the work environment is having a unhealthy effect on us, and little possibility of the work environment changing, then for his own spiritual health he may have to find other work. Easier said than done, but nevertheless that must be one of the options.

We are good at making excuses to rationalize our situation. The answers are not easy. But that is part of the personal growth in Christ. The discipline of ethics is well-known for its infinite ability to find difficult examples. Are we using examples to clarify the principles, or are we using examples to justify ourselves?

It’s hard to avoid a work environment these days where sin is not obviously present.

I have what I think is a very good job. It’s not an industry that’s considered sinful in itself, I don’t have to violate my conscience to do my job, I’ve never been required to do anything unethical, and it’s not a job where I’m surrounded by immodesty. Still, my co-workers swear (not to excess, though at one point the next cube over had a former Navy XO who could turn the air blue at times), they talk some about activities after work that I could never be a part of, there are some who are gay (no obvious TGs, but maybe there’s one I’d never know about), but all in all, it’s nowhere near the worst work situation one could have.

As a typical job goes, it’s not bad. I get to more or less set my own hours, I only very rarely have to be out on Sundays, and it pays pretty well to support my family. They are an “equal opportunity” (as defined these days) employer, but I don’t have to contribute to any of the causes they may give to (and I don’t even know which, if any they support), or even express support for typical “woke” causes, though I do have to do “diversity” training every year. It’s mostly a bunch of bunk, but the idea of being kind to those around you, no matter who they are is definitely biblical. It’s certainly not the environment I’d have working for a Christian organization, but I wouldn’t be able to do much better outside of that.

I think if you think working for CFA is a conscience issue, you’d have to be taken out of the world, as Paul would put it, to avoid what you would see just about anywhere else.

I’ve never said working for CFA is a conscience issue - at the present time. But eventually a Christian who is a manager of a local CFA and is asked to donate money/food to one of the varieties of homosexual organizations (and that scenario is coming) will be faced with a moral issue which cannot be brushed aside or rationalized away.