Post Tenebras Lux: Marriage

Over the last couple of weeks, the president and COO of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, has taken considerable flack from liberals regarding a statement he made during a radio interview, namely that legalizing same-sex marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”

To be sure, Cathy does support traditional marriage as the biblical definition of the family unit, and Chick-fil-A’s charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation, does donate to organizations promoting traditional family units (see Alan Noble's detailed post about “the Chick-fi-Asco”).

And yet, regardless of where you fall within the spectrum of same-sex marriage approval (or disapproval); regardless of where you fall within the spectrum of considering active homosexual behavior to be sinful (or not); what is bothersome is inconsistent behavior.

Specifically, not a few liberal biblical scholars have announced that they will no longer eat at Chick-fil-A because of their “intolerance” towards marriage equality.

Have they forgotten the Oreo cookie?

If they have, or, if you have, the rainbow-colored Oreo cookie made an appearance several weeks ago supporting gay pride, and liberal biblical scholars applauded.

But why is it acceptable for Kraft (the parent company of Nabisco who makes Oreo cookies) to express their convictions with a rainbow-colored cookie, and yet unacceptable for Dan Cathy, or Chick-fil-A, to express their convictions during a radio interview?

Inconsistency ad abundantiam.

Why is one form of expression appropriate and the other inappropriate? Because one is being “intolerant?” Which side is being “intolerant?”

This torrent of disdain that has swirled around a fast-food chain using their freedom to express their convictions (which is, in fact, the same type of freedom that the self-proclaimed “champions of equality and tolerance” wish to preserve for pro-homosexual convictions), this raging against the “theologically conservative propaganda machine”, is nothing more than a demonstration of liberal intolerance.

James White tweeted earlier this week that being inclusive really “means exclusively the liberal left’s views. If you are inclusive, you exclude everyone else!”

He could not be more right.

Is it not inconsistent for these “champions of equality and tolerance” to applaud the “coming out” of the Oreo cookie, but frown upon the statements made by Dan Cathy supporting traditional marriage?

Where is the equality in that?

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Take a Moment...

Rob Bell's new video on "rediscovering wonder"

Gay is not the new Black

Should baptism be spontaneous?

How should we respond to Old Testament Polygamy?

The faithfulness of Jesus Christ: Part One and Part Two

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Take a Moment...

A marriage quickie...

How to pray for your pastor

How do we know the earth is old?

God as a tattoo artist (or thoughts on permanency)

You're created with a purpose

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Take a Moment...

10 Reasons to attend seminary...

4 common misconceptions about egalitarianism...

Let's get our theological priorities straight...

The role of an exegete...

The seduction of pornography and the integrity of Christian marriage: Part One and Part Two

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Take a Moment...

Some various thoughts on the recent homosexuality blitz: Mine, Collin Hansen, Trevin Wax, Michael J. Kimpan, and Albert Mohler

4 Reasons to Preach Through Whole Books of the Bible...

Does Prayer Actually Do Anything?

How Jeremy Lin Deals with Temptation in the NBA...

Jonathan Edwards's "Religious Affections" online reader...

What is the Role of the Christian Within the Same-Sex Debate?

The news media, the blogosphere, Facebook, and Twitter have all been buzzing the last 48 hours with Amendment One passing in North Carolina and now President Obama’s statement that he supports gay marriage.

So, I ask again, what is the role of the Christian within the same-sex debate?

Is it our responsibility, as Christians, to legislate morality?

I am a heterosexual, married Christian. I believe in the sanctity of marriage as defined biblically (i.e., one man and one woman within the context of the Jewish and subsequent Christian religions).

However, if we want to legislate morality against those we believe are “defiling” this biblical concept of marriage, should we not also then legislate against adulterers, or those claiming the word “marriage” within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheistic civil union?

The point, I think, for Christians to understand is that we live in a secular nation, not a theocracy, and we are never going to change a culture through legislation. We change culture through changing people, which is ultimately done through the power of God.

What do you think?