I actually had a lot of quasi-cynical titles I was debating between. "Christianity with a side of waffle fries" was way up there too, but you can only put so many titles on the title. ;) The topic of this post ought to be blatantly obvious already, unless by some miracle you've managed to avoid the trumped up news (and I'm using that word very loosely) flurry over the last few days.
It boils down to Chick-Fil-A's stance against gay marriage and the scores of Christians (and non-Christians) that turned out to wolf down some heterosexual poultry on "Chick-Fil-A" appreciation day. This post is not about whether it was a meaningful act of the citizenry to proclaim their democratic values and freedom of speech (the link above is a fascinating article on the legal/constitutional implications, btw), or whether it was merely representative of genius marketing and the naive, public belief that we can positively change the world by eating MORE fast food. (really!?) This post is directly aimed at those who saw their patronage of Cathy's chicken empire as an act of spiritual devotion.
Now, I realize that nothing would so quintessentially pigeonhole us as American Christians as to believe that we could actually grow in spiritual depth by gorging ourselves on waffle fries (oh, but they are soooo tasty! WWJDF? What would Jesus deep fry? Answer: waffle fries! :) but I'm afraid there's just no basis for that. To widen the context, there is a growing interest in what is labelled "moral consumerism" or "moral boycotting" on the negative side. The idea is that through our purchases (or refusing to purchase) we can be more or less moral. Now, I'm not saying that it's wrong to think about what we are purchasing or that it has absolutely no value, just that it has no spiritual value. Yep, you heard me. Jesus doesn't care about your chicken sandwich or if you're scarfing Oreos. Allow me to give you the practical reason and then the biblical one.
Practical: The fact is that our global economy is far too interconnected for "moral consumerism" to really mean anything. Some Christian friends of mine lamented the rainbow-stuffed Oreo and how they will no longer be able to enjoy it's wafery-creamy goodness. Fact: Oreo is owned by Nabisco, which is a division of Kraft Foods. Are really you going to stop eating ALL Kraft Foods products? Good luck. What about the fact that (prepare to be shocked...) gay marriage (and/or abortion) is NOT the only moral issue Christians should be concerned about? What about companies who oppress their workers in distant lands? What about those who provide "golden parachutes" to their CEO's while basically screwing over the rest of their employees, not to mention the rest of the world economy? Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't think about these questions or even that we shouldn't take some form of action to ensure that the companies we buy from are more ethical, but to take the practice of "moral consumerism" to its logical end, you will end up naked and starving or living on a kibbutz, weaving your own hemp clothes and eating from the collective garden. If that's your thing, go for it, though even then one of the kibbutzniks might be gay and, by the same logic, you'd have to abstain from eating their vine-ripened tomatoes. Go for it, but don't think it will make you more holy.
Biblical: Fortunately, we are not not stuck with a merely pragmatic argument. The question of purchasing goods as an expression of faith was actually a question that arose with the very first generation of Christians. In God's providence, we have the answer of the Apostle Paul to this quandary in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. The issue of the day was buying meat at the market. Almost all the meat in those days was previously offered to false gods in sacrifice before being sold at the market. What was Paul's answer? Boycott meat? At least go ferret out the kosher butcher (which probably wouldn't have been too hard to do in a church with a good portion of Jews)? Nope. He says, "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions... food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse." So much for "moral consumerism". Paul goes on to argue that if we receive it and praise God for it, we can eat (i.e., consume) whatever we want. It doesn't really make a bit of difference who it was offered to, or what the butcher (or CEO) stands for or against. Eat it and thank God.
I'd like to look at a few results of this idea of "moral consumerism" to see why is has no real spiritual value. First of all, notice that it is a current trend primarily in the western world where there is an over-abundance of material goods. If you are really willing to say that "moral consumerism" is the duty of all mature Christians, tell me this: Are you really saying that if your starving, Christian brother in India can barely get grain to eat, and then only from a Hindu merchant who has offered it to one of his plethora of gods, that he has to continue starving? Or if he does eat it, that he is somehow less "moral" than you are as you waste more money than he will see in his lifetime on your own personal amusement at the mall and on christian t-shirts with witty, little brand rip-offs that make you feel justified in spending more money on yourself than you send to help him? What about the Christian in a Muslim country where EVERYTHING he buys is Halal? The thing about "moral consumerism" as a supposed "spiritual virtue" is that it presupposes a material over-abundance of products to choose from and that the consumer has enough money to be picky. It's not even a viable option for most of the world's population (or in reality for westerners. See practical reason #1). But in our self-centered affluence, we like to think that blowing money on ourselves makes us "moral" as long at the CEO stands for what we do.
And here we come to the next point. The term "moral consumerism" is an appalling, uniquely western term that is really rather oxymoronic. The premise is that I can be a self-centered consumer and feel good about myself at the same time. I have no problem with the term "responsible consumerism". Much like "responsible drinking" it implies that you are careful with this intoxicating practice of blowing money on yourself and do not do it in excess. But "moral consumerism" seems like it should imply something more than just binging on all of my materialistic desires as long as I can attach some superficial moral value to the CEO of said company. "Moral consumerism" ought to imply that we are moral in not spending as much on ourselves, that we consider those other brothers across the world who are starving while we debate between waffle fries and Oreos and instead send the money we would've blown on ourselves to help THEM! Imagine that. Perhaps the real reason we seek moral alleviation in what we buy is because, deep down, we realize we're simply spending too much on ourselves.
And here we get back to the Apostle. He goes on to say in these chapters that though we are free to eat whatever we want, we should put one principle over our freedom: love. If buying meat sacrificed to an idol is a point of offense to the person you're with, then abstain. If you are with a vegan, don't eat a burger in front of him. If you are having lunch with a homosexual friend (yes, Christian, you should actually DO that! ;) don't go Chick-Fil-A. The point of our freedom is to use it to love others. Spiritually speaking, what you eat doesn't matter. Why you eat it does. And the reason in these choices should be because you love others. If we were half as concerned about exercising ourselves in true, self-sacrificial generosity and submitting our taste buds to loving our neighbor as we are about which trans-fat laden tidbit agrees with our values, we'd go a whole lot further in real sanctification and holiness instead of contenting ourselves with a paltry show of self-centered pseudo-spirituality.
El fin. Rant, done. ;) Comments welcome!
