A Thoughtful Response to the Chick-Fil-A Debate

Following the extraordinary show of support Wednesday for Chick-Fil-A CEO, Dan Cathy, were you as surprised as I was that bloggers began almost immediately lecturing conservatives and Christians for making homosexuals feel "hated"?  Although I don't live within 50 miles of a Chick-Fil-A restaurant, I would have loved to buy chicken on Wednesday.  In fact, I would have loved to go back yesterday to buy one for the "Kiss Mor Chicks" protesters, too.  If Jesus could eat with sinners, that would make sense.
But what did we do wrong?  How did long lines of cars spell "hate"?  What did Truett Cathy say that was "intolerant"?  And why would Christians protest this?What if  Mr. Cathy had spoken out against vandalism:"I support the right of a business to operate without spray-paint on the side of the building.  I believe that everyone should paint only their own property." What if various cities around the country took offense, and threatened to banish his restaurant from their cities?  And what if large numbers of people around the country wanted to support Cathy's right to speak out against vandalism, and to find a voice for their own concern for what vandalism does to a city, by buying chicken sandwiches?  It wouldn't even be news, and it certainly would not have warranted a lecture to conservatives. So what's the difference?  Why is it fine to speak out against vandalism, stealing, heroin use, public nudity, and even smoking--but it's hateful to support what God has said in the New Testament: "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.  Amen.  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:  for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."  Romans 1:24 - 28. Here is the key:  Most thieves agree that stealing is wrong.  They feel entitled to steal, but they don't want to be stolen from.  They might even agree that it violates the 8th commandment.   Most vandals are the same way. They love spray-painting signs and overpasses, but they would likely press charges if I threw rocks into their car windows.  It's wrong--fun maybe, but still wrong.  But homosexuals, as a political group, do not agree that their behavior is a sin.  While there are some homosexuals who personally reject the lifestyle and have sought healing from the temptations that plague them (and desperately need to be supported and loved by Christians), the homosexuals who are loudly pushing a political agenda have long-defended it as an alternative lifestyle-- something that God gave them.  As a result, they have even pushed legislation through to force the rest of the country not only to accept them, but to embrace them.  The legal issues for pastors are growing, as homosexuals gain the right to be employed by Christian schools and to attend churches without feeling "penalized" for choosing a lifestyle that runs against God's Word.
What is our response as Christians?   Is it hateful to support Chick-Fil-A?  Do we deserve the hand-slapping lectures that have cropped up across the internet? Our first obligation is to God.  The truth of His Word is clear that it is sin in His eys to engage in any sexual behavior outside of Biblical marriage--homosexual, heterosexual, etc.  Although the New Testament does not obligate us to stone each other according to Mosaic law, God's truth is not a "society secret" that the church must hide in order to make sinners feel comfortable.  Speaking the truth in love does not mean to hide the truth, but rather to filter it through the reality of nail prints on an innocent God-Man.  The powerful conviction of the Holy Spirit comes through Spirit-filled preaching of the Truth, as well as the faithful "wounds of a friend".  When Nathan confronted David in adultery and murder with those chilling words, "Thou art the man," he was not judging.  He was being used as an instrument of truth, and it yielded conviction and repentance in the heart of King David.  Ironically, the internet and social media are avalanched with moral mandates reminding us to discipline our children, eat nutritious food, buy "green", and not to collect welfare if we have money for tattoos.  But homosexuality is so politicized that the church has begun to view it in a class of its own, an untouchable issue that cannot be spoken against. Because of Jesus Christ, our next obligation is to those who the Bible says "oppose themselves."  The plan of God for their lives is better than this, and it is the "love of Christ that constraineth us" to reach out to them lovingly with the truth.  This is not a defense of  "lazy evangelism" that avoids personal relationships and relies too heavily on internet posters with rude clichés.  We owe our homosexual friends the love that Christ offered us.  If Paul was the chiefest of sinners--I don't want to see where I belong on that list.
Eat more chicken--and buy a sandwich for a kissing protester.  Jesus died for homosexuals because Jesus died to set us free.