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!
14 comments:
Ben, this is an absolutely brilliant article. Katie and I were just lamenting this whole Chick-fil-A thing. Great insight. (Katie says that the article was a refreshing example of an American reflecting on his own culture).
Great article. I always appreciate your candid - well thought out and articulated arguments :) Hope all is well
Ben - love your thoughts! However, I doubt whether most people who participate in these activities actually believe they have any spiritual value. It seems to me that this is purely political in nature. Those who want to support Chick-Fil-A or who participate in moral-consumerism are making a political statement, albeit one which is obviously influenced by their moral beliefs which are, in the case of Christians, shaped by their religious convictions.
I think that one difference in America is that people still feel that they can influence the future of politics and legislation in their country - that they still have sway. They also realize the power of money and the media, which both sides are taking advantage of.
We get into a lot of grey areas when we consider how our Biblical convictions translate into to practical conclusions, especially as regards politics and the world economy - where things are interwoven and not cut and dry and black and white.
@shane and katie - thanks! i find that stepping back from your own culture (i.e., on the mission field) helps to evaluate it better. have you found that as well?
@gabriel - thanks!
@nick - i would like to think that most people participating didn't see it as a spiritual statement, and yet i'm sure there were quite a few. like i said in the article, i have no qualms with people choosing to make a political statement in this way (if anything, seems the rash words of certain mayors had the opposite of the intended effect by stirring up those who were previously neutral on the grounds of free speech. did you read the first article linked on the legal aspects, btw?) however, i'm aware that some people were serious about it as having spiritual value (if for no other reason than that i saw their comments in my fb news page... i mean like ALL day. it's part of what made me write the post. ;)
the idea of "moral consumerism" would be really hard to look at as "just political". after all, it's "moral" consumerism, not "political" consumerism. and because we are self-righteous creatures by (fallen) nature, we tend to attach moral significance to things which really lack them or are primarily self-indulgent. i thought it interesting that this kind of question that seems like such a "modern" concern was actually dealt with in the early church as well. the point (or one of them) of the post was to show this issue of "moral consumerism" in light of the biblical commentary.
i do agree with you, however, that the intersection of faith and politics is far from black and white. however, the gist of the biblical text seems to point away for "moral consumerism" as a meaningful expression of faith. there are much MORE meaningful expressions we might be engaged in if we are serious about it. btw, grudem has a HUGE volume on politics. have you heard of it/read it? (i have not, but heard it's really good.) looking forward to hanging some in the fall!
For me (Katie) it was one of the big lessons I learned from our time in Ukraine. Shane says 'absolutely'. It is hard to say anything as the minority (a foreigner) in America as being non-nationals we appear critical hence it is refreshing to listen to what an American says. Politics in the Evangelical church are very different in Ireland and while Christians are involved in Politics the Evangelical church does not get it's identity from the political party it votes for. By the way you are a very good writer.
I haven't read that book, but it sounds interesting. Just today we were ordering a book for our women's ministry, and quite a few people in the church wrote in that they would not be willing to buy the book from amazon. Moral consumerism certainly is alive and well, but I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that until the point when people get legalistic about it, trying to legislate what Christians can or shouldn't do. And in that way, it is very similar to the parallel that you made between this and the eating of meat sacrificed to idols in Paul's day.
When exactly will you be in Colorado?
@nick - i agree that certainly people have the right to be picky about where they buy from. you're right that, as long as they don't go projecting their own conscience on others legalistically, there's nothing "wrong" with it, per se. but there's also nothing inherently "right" about it, just as there wasn't anything more moral/spiritual in those who refused to eat meat and only ate vegetables in Paul's day. in fact, Paul says that these people are the ones who are "weak in faith", which is ironic because too often people think that their needlessly sensitive conscience makes them MORE spiritual. i actually wrote a whole post on this a while back and how to use our freedom in love: four principles for christian unity
@anglands - yeah, i don't think there's any other country on earth currently with the (unfortunate) dynamics between politics and church that exist in america. i am encouraged though that more and more evangelical christians in america (though still not a majority by a long shot) are rejecting the simplistic approach of evangelical = GOP. i'm not against christians being politically involved, just against it when done in a shallow and unthinking way (which is sadly characteristic of the way many christians approach theology. correlation? ;)
I think it is essentially important to focus on the Chic-FIl-A issue in the simple context of what it was. The context was "It boils down to Chick-Fil-A's stance against gay marriage". Agree 100% and that's all it was.
So how did it start? What was the egg and what was the chicken? Please connect these dots. The owner, who is a born again Christian,(the fruit seems to clearly point to this) reacted against the ill considered laws being pushed onto the country by saying on a radio talk show: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage." Do you agree with that? Darn well better eh bloke? It surely seems to me that he is right and the Bible has abundant comments on this and, of course, various other sinful behaviors affecting the judgment of nations and their citizens.
The next thing that happened was a huge anti Chic Fil A reaction by various politicians and "Gay" groups, attacking them. Comments by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and others, Rahm Emanuel saying "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values." A very powerful attack on Chic Fil A because of a pro Biblical position vs the LGBT positions which clearly are very anti Jesus, anti Biblical and in reality, anti human (that which is bad for God's creation).
Next? an effort by Christians (predominantly) to show support for Dan Cathy's very "politically incorrect" position - to "come to the aid" of a brother under attack for his stance defending the Gospel and God's heart & laws. I don't believe it was anything more than a righteous moral reaction to anti God attacks in 99% of the cases at the least. Is there some documented evidence to show otherwise? Would yo not side with this view as per I Cor 13? Is there somehow "moral consumerism" and if so are/were people thinking they became progressively more righteous with every chicken sandwich they ate? Well perhaps some did but mostly I don't buy it, at least not for the USA. I don't believe that most did, or even many. Is this really a case where people are thinking that what they eat recommends them to God? Don't really think so. Again, if they do, then they are clearly wrong as you point out correctly and very clearly. So to sum up my comment, Chic Fil A's president said he is against Gay marriage (the legalization of the same). Gay marriage proponents rose up in mass condemnation of him and his company on this. Christians (primarily) rose up in support of him and his position. This was a righteous heart reaction and not, if perhaps but in a few cases, (none really noted), liken to Paul's point that what you eat does not commend you to God, per se. The comparison is not equivalent - the issue is not about avoiding offense to someone who has a problem eating food sacrificed to idols, it is about supporting one who has made a righteous statement and demonstration of support when their brother was attacked for such. The 2 topics are totally unrelated.
continued for past post:
Additionally, it makes me sorry to see the "west" getting the short end of the stick so frequently as a convenient whipping boy by non USA countries. The west, specifically the USA has been THE beach head for freedom and democratic republics and political truth throughout the world for 200+ years and if you doubt that then you need to brush up on your world history. If that seems to be a "so what" then you need to study how God works in nations more fully.
I indeed have spent only a paltry 2 months in Europe, Israel and eastern Europe back when eastern Europe was even far more rigidly communist than it seems to be today and saw what the starvation of God's ordained natural right for opportunity for freedom did then. This is certainly a valid topic for discussion and admonition but it really is not what the chic Fil A "eat in" was about. Context should remain king or else confusion is engendered.
To sum up: Chic Fil A is about a moral reaction to an evil and not a self righteous statement by those who stood up.
dear "anonymous bloke" ;) -
sorry it's taken me so long to get a response to your comments. thanks for your feedback and you are of course entitled to your opinion, part of which i agree with. this blog post was never a question about if homosexual "marriage" is biblically permissible. obviously it's not.
i am familiar with the run-up of events leading to the "eat in". as i said, the blog was also not directed to whether is was a meaningful act of the citizenry against the bigoted infringement against particular establishments due to their given religious values (which is largely what happened with the mayors and even many non-christian, homosexual-marriage-supporting folks made an outcry about that kind of blatant crossing of lines by the government in contradiction of the constitution. again, for the legal ramifications, see the first link in the post.)
my post was not intended to imply that people who bought a chicken sandwich on that day were necessarily self-righteous (though it's certainly possible, right?) it was meant to deal with the question of moral consumerism in general as having no inherent spiritual value. i feel you may have missed the point of the allusions to Paul's comments on buying meat offered to idols. you seem to be confusing two passages. the passage in Romans 14 refers strictly to certain kinds of food defiling or making more holy (hence the christian vegan in said passage. ;) that is not the passage i quoted. the Corinthians passage is about people buying the SAME food item (meat) not because of any perceived holiness/defilement of the type of food itself, but rather what the seller had "dedicated" it to prior to being sold. in this sense, the passage does have fairly clear ramifications for the idea of "moral consumerism". i've met or heard of not a small amount of born-again christians who, on this principle, refuse to eat oreos or, as another commenter wrote, buy books off amazon. not because those products being sold are in themselves defiling, but rather because said companies have made statements of support for gay marriage. Paul's permission to but the meat that has been offered to idols, hence creating profit for the one who openly and proudly promotes false gods is therefore a fascinating critique against the relevance or spiritual worth of any such "moral consumerism."
the further comments were not to imply that anyone who ate at chick-fil-a during the "eat in" was self-righteous, but rather it was a call for us to examine what petty things we take part in that cause us to feel "righteous" (martyrdom via clogged arteries perhaps... ;), and realize how we allow ourselves to feel like exemplary Christians on that basis while possibly neglecting things that really matter. this seems to smack of the same rebuke Jesus gave the pharisees that they were all caught up with tithing from their spice rack (oh look, sanctification through food use again! ;) and passing by the serious matters of justice and the love of God for others. granted, this kind of self-righteous show can happen anywhere, but it is particularly a danger among the affluent (as were the leading pharisees and hence there IS a particular warning for those in the land of plenty, aka, "the west".) every culture has it's inherent weaknesses and blind-spots that creep into the church unchallenged as well. one such of america's traits happens to be consumerism/materialism. if you are in doubt about the dangers of material abundance and it's effects, a reread of God's warnings to the people in Deuteronomy may be helpful. but so that you feel i'm fairly critiquing not only american culture but the one i currently live in as well, feel free to read the previous post about social justice in the church.
this answer is probably too long already, and i really don't want to make it a separate post on the virtues and vices of american democracy, so we'll leave it at that. ;)
Fantastic... no really... fantastic!
thanks, joel!
Post a Comment