I think the whole thing is a misunderstanding. Chick-fil-A appreciation day was not a “Church” event, it was a “State” event, protesting the government stepping on the Constitutional rights of American citizens.
Of the 3 people in line I spoke to enough to know their positions, one was an atheist, one a “nothing” and one a Christian. In fact, two of the three were pro gay marriage - they were there to defend the rights of someone to hold an opinion different from their own. Of course, that's anecdotal evidence, but I believe the makeup of the crowd probably mirrored the makeup of the community in which it formed. Certainly in some communities that would be mostly Christian, but this was not organized or promoted by any church I know of.
So it's hard to respond to an article when the basic premise it argues form is flawed, but I'll try to address the points.
1) “This is not love.” It certainly was a bunch of people who love freedom and America. The crowd I was in was hugging, singing, and chatting. People were making new friends. Everyone was polite, upbeat, and respectful. If this isn't love I don't know what is.
2) “People felt hate and we ignored it.” Not at all. In fact it was responding to the hatred poured out upon Mr. Cathy. The whole thing was about opposing hate, and no hate was offered. I'd wager the people who "felt hate" are the ones who "felt hate" at hearing about Mr. Cathy's views. Should he and others who think like him be silenced because someone "feels hate".
3) “Christians put issues above people.” Again, aside from the fact that it was not “Christians”, this is also backward. It is the government that put the issue of gay marriage above the person of Mr. Cathy. This was supporting a person over an issue. And even if the protest had been against gay marriage, I don't see how that is against what Jesus taught. In fact Jesus states in Matthew 19 that God cerated them male and female for marriage. We can’t embrace love, mercy, hope, and peace when we ignore our brother who is oppressed.
4) “The mass actions of Christians built a wall of mistrust.” Again, ignoring the fact that this was not a Christian thing, what wall was built that was not there? It was the government and the LGBTQ community that started the conflict. This was as respectful and peaceful a response as I could imagine. Nobody was put down, nobody was attacked. Is merely holding an opinion now so offensive that it “builds a wall”? If so, that wall already exists.
5) “It did nothing to prove that Christians don't hate gay people.” It wasn't trying to. It was trying to tell the government to leave citizens alone. But again, even if it were a Christian thing, there is no way to “prove” that Christians don't hate gay people. I think Christians' actions, on the whole, show that they love gay people as much as they do anyone else. But to those who hate Christians, that doesn't matter. What matters is that some people who call themselves Christians do hate gay people. And that is the bat that is used to bash Christians as a whole.
So what does the author suggest would be a way for Christians to “prove” they don't hate gay people? It seems the only way to do that would be to stop being Christians, which is, of course, what is being demanded.
Now, what about the people who called for others to disrupt business on Friday? What religion is that? What kind of love is that? What walls of mistrust are they breaking down?
Posts
1 comments:
Yay! Thankee! :-D
Post a Comment