Chicago's Chicken Little

"The sky is falling; the sky is falling," said the little chicken.

You would think Henny Penny, or Chicken Little as she is also known, had taken over the soul of Rahm Emanuel.  The Chicago mayor, Obama's former right hand man, announced yesterday that "'Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values."

The frightful position that warrants this harsh and blatantly discriminatory stance by the mayor is the admission by Chick-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, that he is in favor of traditional marriage. As reported in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Cathy said, "We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

So apparently traditional family values are no longer acceptable in Chicago if the city's mayor is correct. This is ironic on so many levels that it is hard to believe it is not pure fiction. One wants to ask what planet Rahm Emanuel comes from. You don't have to be homophobic to see that grandstanding against the lifestyle embraced by 90% of the population is ludicrous.

The news outlets seem to be focusing on the surface of this issue; no surprise there. They question whether it is a wise move by any company to offend those who support more liberal values. They wonder if the owner of a private concern has the right to express an opinion that may upset some of his patrons. Do anti-discrimination laws forbid private private business owners from public statements about their personal beliefs, they want to know.

I want to know if anybody sees the larger issue here. Emanuel is joined in his anti-family view by the mayor of Boston and, to read the blogs, every pro-gay spokesperson on the web. There may be an IED in the path of these people. This could blow up in their faces if supporters of traditional family values protest in sufficient numbers, in intelligent arguments that highlight the hypocrisy in this issue. The proponents of tolerance are revealing themselves as the most intolerant of all people.

The last time I wrote in this space I suggested Christians can be opposed to homosexuality for numerous "secular" reasons. Here again Christians, Muslims, anyone who believes in traditional family values can be genuinely outraged by Emanuel's statement with no reference to any religious bias. The position the gay lobby is trying to achieve is simply not constitutional. The First Amendment guarantees the right to hold and to express family values -- even in Chicago.

Ironically, the ACLU has come out on the side of Cathy. This is the first time in my memory that I have agreed with that institution. For once, a liberal outfit decries the unconstitutional treatment of Christian beliefs. If it were not so far to drive, I would go straight to the nearest Chick-fil-A for a celebratory meal in support of the company and the position expressed by Dan Cathy. Even better would be to visit a Chick-fil-A in Chicago (yes, they are there.)

There was a time when being banned in Boston was an honor; that time may have returned. I hope the family values people in Boston and Chicago (and everywhere else) raise a sky pounding noise. Then the sky may start falling as Chicken Little feared; I only hope it hits Rahm Emanuel, not us.

Gay Alternative

A while back I posted a suggestion that Christians can use science to argue against the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) agenda. I do not think that believers should use Biblical arguments in the public square. The highly charged anti-Christian bias in the media and academia overshadows any truth that might be applied directly from the Scriptures. Besides, this is a pluralistic republic; no one religious view is supposed to be imposed on anyone.

Just because we cannot use Biblical arguments in public does not mean they are invalid at home. A mom recently asked for my input with her treatment of a family member being indoctrinated with GLBT propaganda. She had formulated a well-reasoned three prong approach to which I may add a fourth after laying some philosophical groundwork.

We must accept as a foundational truth that some things in the Bible are timeless. We categorically reject the GLBT suggestion that God's injunction against homosexuality was cultural; it is rooted in who we are as creatures in God's image, not how we socialize as humans. That being said, the proscriptions in Leviticus and Paul's exposition in Romans 1 clearly place homosexual behavior out of bounds for sincere believers. There is absolutely no hermeneutic basis for saying that since "only" Paul forbids homosexuality and not Jesus, it is therefore an acceptable practice. I will return to this idea in conclusion.

The second reason the mom chose to defend an anti-gay position is that it is unhealthy. In the post I referenced earlier I linked to an article by the Family Research Council which exposed the health risks of the GLBT lifestyle. Plainly summarized, homosexuals die far younger than heterosexuals. This is due to numerous behaviors associated with gay sex which expose them to multiple diseases in addition to the HIV/aids risk. Believers must warn against all lifestyle choices which endanger health: smoking, excessive alcohol use, workaholism, overeating, and the like.

And while science is the topic, we must counter the argument that there is some genetic or biological cause for homosexual tendencies. No widely accepted, peer-reviewed study has shown any such causal relationship. Even if it were to be discovered, a bio/genetic link would not make the behavior any safer or less sinful. Also, to call something a healthy alternative lifestyle because it is genetic is like saying autism or Down Syndrome or Parkinson's disease are "healthy alternatives." Nonsense; they are aberrations, not "normal" alternatives.

The mom's final point was to remind us that we are called to love sinners regardless of the sin by which they are ensnared. For some reason we tend to create classes of sin which engender a more visceral response. We can love the thief, but hate the pedophile; excuse the glutton or gossip, but condemn the lesbian; support the adulterer, but excommunicate the homosexual. Sin is sin, and we are all sinners saved (or not saved) by grace. Our love is to mirror God's: universal and unconditional.

Having said that, I do believe there is a reason why perversions of a sexual nature get more attention. First, God created humanity as male and female. This dual nature comes closer to representing God's image than either gender could singly. Add the fact that normal male/female association eventually begets children (within God's ordained structure: marriage) and you have the fullest picture of the image of God. I believe the family was intended to come closest to representing the triune character of the Creator: Father, Son, Holy Spirit mirrored by father, mother, child. Mess with the family and you mess with the imageo dei. I believe the strong injunction against aberrant sexual behavior is rooted in the desire of God to protect his image in his creation.

The second reason that sexual sin seems worse is closely related and stems from its unique spiritual nature. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 that sexual sin affects humans at a deeper spiritual level than other sins. It is my opinion that this is because of the unique bond that God intended to be formed between a man and wife, ultimately producing children.  The intimacy of the conjugal act is reserved for the husband/wife relationship because it speaks to the deepest part of who we are as divine image bearers. All sin tarnishes the image, but Paul suggests that sexual sin actually is in a class by itself.

Many Christians reject this kind of thinking as too harsh, too unforgiving. Post-modernism drifts away from all absolutes of any kind. The uncomfortable truth is that Scripture clearly makes absolute statements about many things. Anyone hoping to forge a Biblical world-view must come to grips with the discomfort of absolute truth. It's either that or make it up as you go along. Inventing reality, playing make-believe is fine for children. It looks kind of foolish in adults.

Why am I Here?

A return to the beginning or why I named this blog what I did.

Some friends and I are reading through Randy Alcorn's Money, Possessions and Eternity. Alcorn's purpose seems to be to get people thinking correctly about the relationship between this life and the "next", as some call it. Very much in line with Biblical teaching, Alcorn reminds readers that life on earth is the prelude to the program, not the whole deal. He rightly asserts that most people, Christians included, have lost the sense of the eternal. "Many of us habitually think and act as if there were no eternity," he says.

Alcorn emphasizes the Scriptural truth that money, possessions and our very lives here are temporal (having to do with time) and our ultimate destiny is eternal (not related to time.) Maybe because forever is such a difficult concept to wrap our finite minds around, we tend to ignore the implications. People have tried to use spatial metaphors to make the point more clear. If time and eternity were both on the same line, time would be a dot and eternity would be the rest of the line stretching enlessly in both directions. This may help, but it still leaves one struggling with what "endlessly" means.

For me, there is a more basic question that even Alcorn may be missing. Why should I care about eternity? (Why does heaven always matter most?) Alcorn points out that "There seems to be built into every person, society, and religion a basic belief that good deserves reward and evil deserves punishment." Got it. What goes around comes around. You eventually have to pay the piper. Karma. Alcorn's thesis is that our treatment of the temporal stuff that consumes our time here dictates our eventual state in eternity. I don't dispute that. But Alcorn, like so many other Christians, focuses on the rewards heaven holds for those who act appropriately on earth.

I wonder if this emphasis remains rooted in our temporal mindset. Forgo earthly pleasure and wealth to earn those same delights in heaven. Delayed gratification remains gratification of the original desire. Yes, the Bible promises temporal things as reward; I suspect this technique is used because we can't even imagine what the eternal reward will be like, so temporal metaphors must suffice. The Apostle Paul said that “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

I can imagine some pretty cool temporal things. Perfect wind for sailing every day, bike trips with no rain, hole-in-one golf on a regular basis all sound very satisfying. But if I can think them, they are less than what awaits if Paul is to be taken literally. Alcorn quotes some really, really rich people saying that the temporal stuff never does satisfy. Why would we think that an unlimited supply of it in heaven would be so wonderful?

Besides all this, isn't doing the right thing here on earth so we can be materially rewarded in heaven a twisted motive? Pie in the sky by and by is still just pie. Heaven matters most to me because I will be in perfect union with the God who created me. I will be in eternal fellowship with the One who can satisfy every need I have. As a fringe benefit, I believe my relationships with my fellow travellers will also be perfect. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," and he prayed that we (his followers) would be one in the same way. That is why heaven matters most. It is only there, in eternity that I will be completely fulfilled.

Still, my reason for behaving as I ought here on earth is not just because I will be granted perfect satisfaction in eternity; that would be selfish. I do what I ought because the One who paid my price of admission into eternal bliss asks me to. Out of love for Him and in recognition of the great sacrifice He made for me I do what he asks. And I want others to know that good has its reward and evil its punishment. And I want to make clear what true good is. All this is because I have a hope of heaven, and that is what matters most.