Bad News Chicks

Folks I have some bad news. Buying fried chicken will not secure your right to freedom of speech. Now don't get me wrong, I do enjoy fried chicken, but the truth is that it just never tastes like freedom.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, so maybe I'm wrong, and if I am (you actual constitutional scholars) please tell me.

August 1st was a great day to be the owner of Chick-fil-A.
People lined up around the building.
Some folks just wanted to know that a little of their hard earned money, that they used to get delicious chicken sandwiches, went toward ensuring some folks don't get married/enjoy certain rights. (hospital visitations, health benefits, tax breaks, children, etc)
Others held up a much more noble cause: defending freedom!
One customer was so enthusiastic in her support of freedom/chicken that she brought along her two teenage daughters:
"It was good for them to see (that) this is what it means to be an American, and we have free speech, and when we want to make a statement, we can make it," she said. -1. CNN


The problem is this: freedom of speech is a right afforded by the government to its citizens. When LGBT folks/supporters get upset at a chicken chain that is funding campaigns against their ability to marry and they then make their frustrations known (whether it be via social media, boycott, or other), their actions/words against the chicken chain are not a violation of the restaurant's, nor the CEO's freedom of speech.

I have read some articles claiming that LGBT protesters are actually against the CEO's beliefs. Maybe they're right, but I'm pretty sure that that argument is at least an unintentionally misleading claim, if not an outright straw-man argument.

Now, if mayors like Rahm Emanuel and Thomas Menino actually moved their threats of "banning" Chick-fil-A from political posturing to reality, then we have a legitimate freedom of speech claim, because they are the government. When the government starts telling you what you can and cannot say, we all have a problem.
(This is why the Supreme court upheld the right for the Westboro folks to do their hate thing.)
However, there are legitimate pieces of legislation that have come out in the last 12 or so years that we should be getting our free-speech-breeches in a twist about.

But this?

Chicken?

And here's the thing; increasing a company's profits will not deter the government from violating free speech, because free speech is not a corporate/private issue, it is a government issue. If any violations ever did take place, the appropriate action would be political, not corporate.
Coming out to support the beliefs of the CEO and the way that Chick-fil-A donates their money to anti-LGBT organizations, that actually makes sense (if you're into that sort of thing).

If the shining example of "American freedom" is our willingness to support corporations monetarily because of the organizations they donate to, outside of the realm of their business, then I am afraid that I really do not know what is going on.

Maybe I don't.

After all, the surge of supporters/customers/"freedom fighters" present on the 1st was not the result of any direct corporate scheme.

Rather it was the idea of Christian pastor Mike Huckabee.

I didn't realize that was part of the gig. Now I'm wondering which corporations would like me as their sponsor...


1. CNN Wire Staff. “Chick-fil-A restaurants become rallying points for supporters.” CNN 1 Aug. 2012, 1 Aug. 2012 <http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/chick-fil-a-appreciation/index.html?iref=allsearch>.

Dying is Dangerous

A while ago I was sitting in my class on worship and we were talking about the images of Baptism. One of those images is death. In the original Baptism practice, full submersion, the baptized go from one state of being; as they were, to submerged, to coming out of the water anew. That practice of going under the water is meant to convey being put into the ground, the “final” act in life. However, the person is brought out of the water and back into life as something different. As we talked about this the sentence, “Dying is Dangerous” came up, and this got me thinking.

Regrettably, one of the biggest and earliest failures in my Christian understanding was to fail to answer a question from a classmate of mine. This person, seeking to challenge my faith and to explain her own problems with Christianity, asked how I could accept a faith that was bent on the concept of death. Paul clearly says, as recorded in the book of Romans: 

“We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.” (Romans 6:4-8)

To her these words seemed particularly negative and reminiscent of modern “cult” experiences like those in Waco, Texas during the 90’s. I hadn’t considered myself particularly knowledgeable about scripture or matters of faith when she asked, and my response was empty. I simply said that that wasn’t what was meant. Paul had been talking about something else. Christianity didn’t require its members to die. How could it? I thought of all of the church folk that I knew; they all lived fairly comfortable lives, in suburbs, in the U.S., and had been like that for a while. There was little that was actually dangerous about the faith.

Now that I revisit this conversation later in life, I come slightly more prepared. I think about what the life of a Christian was like as Paul is writing the letter to the Roman churches. 

This letter is his last. 

He is seeking help in pushing his evangelistic ministry further West. 

He is captured.

He is executed.

He never makes it West of Rome.

The church is not merely a building or a space where people gather to worship. It is literally the flesh and blood of a small group of Jews and Gentiles who have become convinced that there was something greater than a man in a carpenter that was executed in Jerusalem. 

This church is desperately trying to survive.

They are persecuted.

They are executed.

They are kicked out of their communities.

They are small.

They are weak.

There is little that is comfortable for the church during the first century and up until Constantine, when the church becomes the official religion of the state. Professing faith in Jesus of Nazareth was akin to treason. The choice for the early church was Caesar or God. Choosing Caesar meant some form of marginal existence under the empire. So what did choosing God leave someone with?

Death.

Paul goes on in Romans 6: “For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.” (Romans 6:9-14)

For the life that Jesus lived, a life that didn’t work with the first century understanding of law, he was executed. That life was so outside of the norm of the day that it didn’t sit right with those in power.

Not the Pharisees

and later,

Not Caesar.

To be a Christian is to follow the life of Jesus, which means accepting the earthly consequences of that life. However, the story of Jesus doesn’t end there.

Not on the Cross.

Not in the Grave.

There is one thing that Jesus and Caesar have in common. They are both conquerers. Caesar had conquered life, possessing the ability to end life on a massive scale. The story of Jesus reveals that Jesus has conquered death, possessing the ability to make death obsolete. When Paul says that we have been united with Christ in death, he is talking about being united in true life. 

Life that cannot be destroyed.

Life that cannot be conquered.

Life that Caesar does not control.

That which has separated God’s creation from God no longer has any power. God’s ultimate gift to humanity is the freedom from bondage. The first Christians were willing to put away the things that they had been doing, which had separated them from God, because those things could no longer persuade them that they were free. They were willing to follow God because they believed that while Caesar could end their immediate life, he could not have final victory. God had already claimed that prize.

Perhaps this all seems too foreign to so many today because the church in the U.S. is no longer persecuted. I believe that God’s vision for the church is one filled with things upside-down. The church is at its best when its members truly believe that professing their faith, that choosing to follow God, is a sacrifice.

When comfort is no longer found.

When flesh and blood are the church.

When we leave 99 for 1.

When we rejoice for the lost.

When we learn from the foolish.

When we embrace our enemy.

When we give all we have.

When dying is dangerous

and living is impossible.

Set Free

For so many people around the world the standard of living in the United States is an unobtainable goal. This shouldn't be too surprising, especially when we tend to think of starving children on the streets of Kenya, beggars lining the walkways of India, the shanty towns of Peru, and small fledgling villages in the heights of Katmandu, when we hear about folks who can't afford to be American. What tends not to cross most folks minds is that the standard of living of the United States is unobtainable in many places WITHIN the United States. All across the nation, in every city, there undoubtably exists a population that is beyond the brink. In the city of Detroit, this is true for so many, and the thing that always gets me is that it doesn’t have to be that way.

When banks foreclose most of your neighborhood, you are left with depreciating property value. As homes are foreclosed, the rate of crime, poverty, illness, poor nutrition, and death, increase. When banks refuse to lend to perfectly qualified folks in your neighborhood, you are left with an ever increasing rate of foreclosure and abandonment, and the cycle continues. That’s what I find so ridiculous about folks who believe that poverty, crime, and illness are endemic. For some people, that may be true, but to the vast majority of folks who find themselves left out, they are left with no choices. There are more than a few people I know of that have suggested that the best way to “solve” the poverty problem, in the United States, is to simply remove or “eradicate” all of the nation’s poor. This follows the same logic as some other folks who suggested that the best way to cure the AIDS epidemic was to round up all of the victims and separate them from the rest of society until they died off. This line of reasoning denies the possibility that there may, in fact, be something wrong with the way the problem is treated from the very beginning.

Most debates I have ever listened to, about who/what is right and who/what is wrong, ignore the one constant for all time; the past. I have friends who would say that many of the homeless I had worked with two years ago, were products of their own err. During that same time I had colleagues who were working with elementary aged kids in another part of the city. Several of their kids came from single parent homes, where their mother/father had abandoned them and whose remaining parent was a drug addict. The area is so poor that the existing school system is 20 years behind the one I was brought up in. The kids live off of a diet of highly processed food, with little to no fresh foods. Their parents are mostly out of work, so there is little money to buy much of anything as it is. One of the kids had become addicted to meth. He was 10 years old. When he grows up and walks into the office I used to work in and sits down with someone to talk about his needs, what would my friends say about him? Is he the product of his own err? Did he have a choice? 

The biggest conundrum that I think we will someday find ourselves in, is reconciling the benefits gained by some, through the losses of others. I may not be an active participant in what happened to that kid, but because I do nothing to stop it, and that I benefit from it, means that I passively accept it. Life inside the system is a life of either active or passive participation in other people’s oppression. Life outside of the system that so many American’s enjoy is a life of resistance. It is resisting the pressures to fail, the pressures to give up and quit. For far too many, there is no way of getting in. Once you’re out you’re out, even if that means you were born out. Every day is a struggle to see how you fit in the world. Every day is a test of your will to stay afloat. Every time you lose your job, or your kid’s school closes, it is a trail by fire. That is why every day that ministries like Motown Mission and JSCDC send people out to work, there is victory. Every day that someone is able to keep their home, who is on the brink, there is victory. Every time a neighbor mows the lawn in the vacant lot next door, or replaces a boarded window on a foreclosed home, there is victory. Every time the farmers market sells out of produce, there is victory. Every family that manages to stay together, there is victory. Every child that graduates high school, there is victory. And every time there is victory, the chains forced upon someone by the world around them are loosed, and every victory brings us all one step closer to being set free.