To be fair, this does play into stereotypes. Noah’s pithy comment can help one to appreciate how American evangelical Christianity looks from the outside. For someone on the inside, this can be a sort of gestalt shift.
“To be fair, this does play into stereotypes.”
Really? Which one(s)?
“Noah’s pithy comment can help one to appreciate how American evangelical Christianity looks from the outside.”
Like people who stand by their friends, and have a little fun on the side? Oh the horror.
Actually, the comments of Noah and Bryan help illustrate the illusion of dialogue on these issues.
Refuse to eat a chicken sandwich? It’s a mark of valor, a sign of solidarity, a display of one’s principles and public commitment to an idea.
Eat a chicken sandwich? Pff, typical. This is how you people look to Everyone Else: your “protests” involve eating fast food.
Of course, the criticism and statement is insincere. They understand the purpose, and effect, of supporting a corporation for taking such a stand. Which is precisely why they hypocritically belittle it: they wish you wouldn’t do that.
For the record I have no problem eating a chicken sandwich in an attempt to comfort a man, or to show solidarity with a cause. Sometimes that might even be a good thing to do even if it looks a bit humorous from the outside. Let’s not get worked up about the wrong things, folks.
Let’s not get worked up about the wrong things, folks.
We’re not.
Sometimes that might even be a good thing to do even if it looks a bit humorous from the outside.
Those “on the outside” don’t seem to think it’s “humorous”. They seem to think it’s threatening, something that has to be responded to with mockery and ridicule in the hopes of discouraging it or similar acts in the future.
Though, I never ate their food even before I learned of their morally reprehensible political and moral stances, except for once or twice. The food alone is a good reason to nuke them all from orbit (along with many other fast food chains).
I find it interesting that no matter how careful one is in how he states it, anything said in support of traditional marriage is classified by the homosexual community as hate speech.
This Chik-fil-a thing has opened my eyes a little wider to just how much pro gay “marriage” forces rely on mockery and emotion to bully and intimidate people. No one wants to be accused of “hating” gay people, or of being a “homophobe” or a “bigot.”
It’s important for Christians and other defenders of marriage to continue rationally and calmly presenting their case, but I’m starting to think that we need a parallel effort to fight fire with fire, in some sense. As we’ve seen in recent threads here, some poeple will never be influenced by arguments because the name-calling strategy has become their default way of reasoning about this subject. We “hate” gay people, so there’s honestly no reason to hear us out or think any further.
If people were unafraid–proud even–of being falsely labeled, rather than being defensive (“See.. we’re not really hateful, because..”), the primary tactic of our opponents would be neutralized.
As for how to get from here to there, I have idea.
Right, as we’ve pointed out, word usage isn’t what it used to be…
Here’s how the words are being used by many today:
Racist – 1) anyone who disagrees with someone on the political left. see bigot
Bigot – 2) anyone who disagrees with someone on the political left. see racist
Hate speech – 1) speech, the content of which is counter to the prevailing views of secularists or those on the political left 2) any speech advocating a particular moral structure, when such advocation is counter to the views of secularists or those on the political left
This is, in fact, how the words are being thrown around more and more commonly, so they’ve become rather meaningless for discussion purposes.
Presumably, many same sex marriage proponents would seek to prohibit other forms of marriage, and as such, would be “bigoted” themselves toward some other group. So those terms and labels really aren’t helpful at all.
If people were unafraid–proud even–of being falsely labeled, rather than being defensive (“See.. we’re not really hateful, because..”), the primary tactic of our opponents would be neutralized.
A superlatively rational missional strategy. This is surely the right way to open doors for the gospel.
Well, it’s something of a sticking point, as the Gospel is good news, but it is fairly clear on some points. To seek to water down the Gospel by acquiescing to a lesser moral standard simply demotes the good news it contains.
Bryan, sometimes I see you here offering opinions, and sometimes I see you offering meta-opinions. I’m not sure that’s the right word for it, but what I mean is something like this: without giving away anything about what you believe on a topic, you throw in evaluative assessments of the way others speak their own beliefs.
It’s as if you’re taking on the role of offering advice on how others ought to conduct their business here. And it’s a subtle thing, because sometimes I think that’s entirely appropriate, while at other times it seems like you’re standing on a hill at distance, stroking your beard, and offering your wisdom from above without actually getting involved yourself.
I see it in your sarcasm in #13, where we don’t even know if you care about opening doors for the gospel, but you have advice for us anyway. I saw it in your recommendations earlier that we be “more philosophical.”
Again it’s subtle because you are not entirely uninvolved, but you seem to be taking on a dual role here: a participant role and a meta-participant role, a facilitator or consultant role. The two don’t mix well, you know..
Tom, you are correct in observing that I often make higher-order remarks (i.e., remarks that are primarily about other people’s remarks, as opposed to the subject matter more directly). You are also correct in noting that some of my remarks are about the larger conversation. Sometimes I try to adopt the perspective or assumptions of people with whom I disagree. I confess to all of this.
What I don’t quite see, however, is why any of this should not fit well with my more direct and first-personal engagement with the topics in question. On the contrary, I tend to think that it is highly beneficial to adopt and change perspectives, not only to understand, to engage, and to facilitate the thinking of others, but also to remind oneself of tenor and direction of the larger conversation, improving both it and one’s own thoughts and contributions in the process. When, however, I notice a curious feature or discrepancy in the thinking of others, I also don’t mind pointing that out.
I suppose this is both a meta-level comment as well as a direct, first-order response from my own point of view. But I appreciate your comment, convinced as I am that this sort of “stepping back” is often helpful and interesting.
No, it is not just you. Twice or thrice I was inclined to respond to bryan, but ended up pulling back because most likely I would just throw gasoline into the pyre. He snipes, he dodges (just read his conversation with Melissa, it is rather unnerving). He complaints about condescension and then goes on to offer several condescending recommendations. I find his comments to be little more than trivial, frivolous and irrelevant.
The above judgment is no doubt harsh, probably unfair, probably biased, but there you have it.
Now we know where G. Rodrigues and Crude are coming from. Maybe theirs is spiritual discernment (like Holopolenko’s immediate judgment that I am a fool and Melissa’s claim about my scientism)?
There is a pattern here Tom, and I don’t think it’s healthy.
Maybe theirs is spiritual discernment (like Holopolenko’s immediate judgment that I am a fool and Melissa’s claim about my scientism)?
There is a pattern here Tom, and I don’t think it’s healthy.
What on earth? I was just trying to work out where you were coming from and I was basing my opinions on what you wrote, so what was the “spiritual discernment” quip about? I don’t like to read into other people’s words but I did ask you for clarification multiple times. Clarification that you failed to give. I have explained my reasoning in the other thread, if you come back and wish to read it.
Anticipated apologies if this comes out as cheap and mean (*), but reading bryan’s response #16 (I had not read it by the time I wrote #17) to Tom Gilson, brought to my mind the literary character Mr. Collins from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice: the vacuity, the pompousness, the assumed tone of self-importance.
(*) And I am well aware that I am a fit target for a parallel, not very sympathetic, exercise in character anatomy.
I have done a fair amount of organizational consulting in my time. I have facilitated a lot of meetings. One thing I have learned is that if I am not invited to advise or facilitate, but do it anyway, I come off as an interfering wise guy or know-it-all. It happens even though I’m pretty good at consulting/facilitating. It has everything to do with whether I have established that credential with my selected client victim, and whether that person/organization is looking for advice from me.
I’ve been guilty of that mistake often enough in my life, and I’ve had some very painful encounters (not recently, thank God) with leaders who have told me I was guilty of it. I think I’ve begun to learn to recognize it in myself.
By the way, I’m absolutely delighted to see this Chik-fil-a response. Usually with these sorts of moves, what happens is that the intimidated party backs down. There’s no longer a Chik-fil-a in my area, but if there was one, I’d be in line today owing to their valor on this one.
The Chick-fil-A here usually has a line wrapped around the building with a 30 minute wait. Saturday, it was spilling out into the street causing some light traffic congestion. I don’t know if that was from the news, or just a busy day, but they seem to be doing very well here.
I really hope, and expect, that the people participating in the “kiss in” event tomorrow will be treated so kindly by customers and Chick-Fil-A staff that the story will be just that – how kindly they were treated.
The way these things usually work though is the demonstrators do something to provoke a negative reaction of some kind to ensure they get the “mistreatment” they are expecting.
I agree with Noah above, nothing like supporting a christian marriage by eating fast food (only in america). I however, support christian marriage but don’t need to drive to a fast food joint to openly express my disagreement with it.
Loading...
"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel
"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell
By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.
Copyright, Permissions, Marketing
Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.
The Thinking Christian blog is back, using a temporary design following an extended maintenance break. Some design features are missing, included images on posts. We're working on it as time allows. Further improvements to come!
Subscribe
Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!
"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel
"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell
By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.
Copyright, Permissions, Marketing
Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful. More informatiion here.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Absolutely perfect. Nothing more American than protesting gay marriage by eating fast food. Viva la revolución!
Your sarcasm is noted. So is its lack of substance.
There’s nothing more human than taking a relational stand alongside someone we agree with.
To be fair, this does play into stereotypes. Noah’s pithy comment can help one to appreciate how American evangelical Christianity looks from the outside. For someone on the inside, this can be a sort of gestalt shift.
“To be fair, this does play into stereotypes.”
Really? Which one(s)?
“Noah’s pithy comment can help one to appreciate how American evangelical Christianity looks from the outside.”
Like people who stand by their friends, and have a little fun on the side? Oh the horror.
And I’m curious. If I rephrase noah’s prissy comment thusly:
“Absolutely perfect. Nothing more American than supporting gay marriage by refusing to eat a chicken sandwich. Viva la revolución!”
Does this help America’s gay advocacy community appreciate how they look from the outside?
Actually, the comments of Noah and Bryan help illustrate the illusion of dialogue on these issues.
Refuse to eat a chicken sandwich? It’s a mark of valor, a sign of solidarity, a display of one’s principles and public commitment to an idea.
Eat a chicken sandwich? Pff, typical. This is how you people look to Everyone Else: your “protests” involve eating fast food.
Of course, the criticism and statement is insincere. They understand the purpose, and effect, of supporting a corporation for taking such a stand. Which is precisely why they hypocritically belittle it: they wish you wouldn’t do that.
For the record I have no problem eating a chicken sandwich in an attempt to comfort a man, or to show solidarity with a cause. Sometimes that might even be a good thing to do even if it looks a bit humorous from the outside. Let’s not get worked up about the wrong things, folks.
Let’s not get worked up about the wrong things, folks.
We’re not.
Sometimes that might even be a good thing to do even if it looks a bit humorous from the outside.
Those “on the outside” don’t seem to think it’s “humorous”. They seem to think it’s threatening, something that has to be responded to with mockery and ridicule in the hopes of discouraging it or similar acts in the future.
No thanks, on the Chick-fil-A appreciation day.
Though, I never ate their food even before I learned of their morally reprehensible political and moral stances, except for once or twice. The food alone is a good reason to nuke them all from orbit (along with many other fast food chains).
Fried food? I’m in.
I find it interesting that no matter how careful one is in how he states it, anything said in support of traditional marriage is classified by the homosexual community as hate speech.
Tolerance does not seem to work both ways.
@Mark in #10,
This Chik-fil-a thing has opened my eyes a little wider to just how much pro gay “marriage” forces rely on mockery and emotion to bully and intimidate people. No one wants to be accused of “hating” gay people, or of being a “homophobe” or a “bigot.”
It’s important for Christians and other defenders of marriage to continue rationally and calmly presenting their case, but I’m starting to think that we need a parallel effort to fight fire with fire, in some sense. As we’ve seen in recent threads here, some poeple will never be influenced by arguments because the name-calling strategy has become their default way of reasoning about this subject. We “hate” gay people, so there’s honestly no reason to hear us out or think any further.
If people were unafraid–proud even–of being falsely labeled, rather than being defensive (“See.. we’re not really hateful, because..”), the primary tactic of our opponents would be neutralized.
As for how to get from here to there, I have idea.
Right, as we’ve pointed out, word usage isn’t what it used to be…
Here’s how the words are being used by many today:
Racist – 1) anyone who disagrees with someone on the political left. see bigot
Bigot – 2) anyone who disagrees with someone on the political left. see racist
Hate speech – 1) speech, the content of which is counter to the prevailing views of secularists or those on the political left 2) any speech advocating a particular moral structure, when such advocation is counter to the views of secularists or those on the political left
This is, in fact, how the words are being thrown around more and more commonly, so they’ve become rather meaningless for discussion purposes.
Presumably, many same sex marriage proponents would seek to prohibit other forms of marriage, and as such, would be “bigoted” themselves toward some other group. So those terms and labels really aren’t helpful at all.
A superlatively rational missional strategy. This is surely the right way to open doors for the gospel.
Well, it’s something of a sticking point, as the Gospel is good news, but it is fairly clear on some points. To seek to water down the Gospel by acquiescing to a lesser moral standard simply demotes the good news it contains.
Bryan, sometimes I see you here offering opinions, and sometimes I see you offering meta-opinions. I’m not sure that’s the right word for it, but what I mean is something like this: without giving away anything about what you believe on a topic, you throw in evaluative assessments of the way others speak their own beliefs.
It’s as if you’re taking on the role of offering advice on how others ought to conduct their business here. And it’s a subtle thing, because sometimes I think that’s entirely appropriate, while at other times it seems like you’re standing on a hill at distance, stroking your beard, and offering your wisdom from above without actually getting involved yourself.
I see it in your sarcasm in #13, where we don’t even know if you care about opening doors for the gospel, but you have advice for us anyway. I saw it in your recommendations earlier that we be “more philosophical.”
Again it’s subtle because you are not entirely uninvolved, but you seem to be taking on a dual role here: a participant role and a meta-participant role, a facilitator or consultant role. The two don’t mix well, you know..
Is that just me, or do others get the same sense?
Tom, you are correct in observing that I often make higher-order remarks (i.e., remarks that are primarily about other people’s remarks, as opposed to the subject matter more directly). You are also correct in noting that some of my remarks are about the larger conversation. Sometimes I try to adopt the perspective or assumptions of people with whom I disagree. I confess to all of this.
What I don’t quite see, however, is why any of this should not fit well with my more direct and first-personal engagement with the topics in question. On the contrary, I tend to think that it is highly beneficial to adopt and change perspectives, not only to understand, to engage, and to facilitate the thinking of others, but also to remind oneself of tenor and direction of the larger conversation, improving both it and one’s own thoughts and contributions in the process. When, however, I notice a curious feature or discrepancy in the thinking of others, I also don’t mind pointing that out.
I suppose this is both a meta-level comment as well as a direct, first-order response from my own point of view. But I appreciate your comment, convinced as I am that this sort of “stepping back” is often helpful and interesting.
@Tom Gison:
No, it is not just you. Twice or thrice I was inclined to respond to bryan, but ended up pulling back because most likely I would just throw gasoline into the pyre. He snipes, he dodges (just read his conversation with Melissa, it is rather unnerving). He complaints about condescension and then goes on to offer several condescending recommendations. I find his comments to be little more than trivial, frivolous and irrelevant.
The above judgment is no doubt harsh, probably unfair, probably biased, but there you have it.
The above judgment is no doubt harsh, probably unfair, probably biased, but there you have it.
Unless “being 100% accurate” is now harsh, unfair and biased, I think you’re in good shape on this one.
Now we know where G. Rodrigues and Crude are coming from. Maybe theirs is spiritual discernment (like Holopolenko’s immediate judgment that I am a fool and Melissa’s claim about my scientism)?
There is a pattern here Tom, and I don’t think it’s healthy.
@bryan,
Would you be more specific?
What would you like specifics about Adam?
G. Rodrigues and Crude were agreeing with me, Bryan.
Since you apparently agree with the culture here Tom, I’ll take this as a compelling reason to bow out. Farewell.
Bryan,
What on earth? I was just trying to work out where you were coming from and I was basing my opinions on what you wrote, so what was the “spiritual discernment” quip about? I don’t like to read into other people’s words but I did ask you for clarification multiple times. Clarification that you failed to give. I have explained my reasoning in the other thread, if you come back and wish to read it.
Now we know where G. Rodrigues and Crude are coming from. Maybe theirs is spiritual discernment
It’s called “reading what you write, noticing the patterns and content, and drawing a conclusion based on that information”.
Rather like you were suggesting you had just did in your “discernment” of the “culture” on here, with the added benefit of not being BS.
Anticipated apologies if this comes out as cheap and mean (*), but reading bryan’s response #16 (I had not read it by the time I wrote #17) to Tom Gilson, brought to my mind the literary character Mr. Collins from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice: the vacuity, the pompousness, the assumed tone of self-importance.
(*) And I am well aware that I am a fit target for a parallel, not very sympathetic, exercise in character anatomy.
I have done a fair amount of organizational consulting in my time. I have facilitated a lot of meetings. One thing I have learned is that if I am not invited to advise or facilitate, but do it anyway, I come off as an interfering wise guy or know-it-all. It happens even though I’m pretty good at consulting/facilitating. It has everything to do with whether I have established that credential with my selected
clientvictim, and whether that person/organization is looking for advice from me.I’ve been guilty of that mistake often enough in my life, and I’ve had some very painful encounters (not recently, thank God) with leaders who have told me I was guilty of it. I think I’ve begun to learn to recognize it in myself.
And in others.
By the way, I’m absolutely delighted to see this Chik-fil-a response. Usually with these sorts of moves, what happens is that the intimidated party backs down. There’s no longer a Chik-fil-a in my area, but if there was one, I’d be in line today owing to their valor on this one.
The Chick-fil-A here usually has a line wrapped around the building with a 30 minute wait. Saturday, it was spilling out into the street causing some light traffic congestion. I don’t know if that was from the news, or just a busy day, but they seem to be doing very well here.
I really hope, and expect, that the people participating in the “kiss in” event tomorrow will be treated so kindly by customers and Chick-Fil-A staff that the story will be just that – how kindly they were treated.
The way these things usually work though is the demonstrators do something to provoke a negative reaction of some kind to ensure they get the “mistreatment” they are expecting.
I agree with Noah above, nothing like supporting a christian marriage by eating fast food (only in america). I however, support christian marriage but don’t need to drive to a fast food joint to openly express my disagreement with it.