A Tale of Two Presidents: What is Hate Speech, What is Not

A Tale of Two Presidents: What is Hate and What is Not
by, Charles W. Christian

 Recently Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A stated that he “affirms the biblical view of marriage,” and therefore does not support homosexual marriage.  He said this in the context of being asked about his Christian faith, for which he is well-known.  He is a longtime supporter of Christian non-profit causes.  Immediately many interpreted this as an attack upon the rights of others (at best) and as hate speech at worst. 

Also recently, Barack Obama, the president of the United States, stated that he did not affirm the idea that small business owners in America built their business without some help, including the help of government sponsored legislation, government regulated protections, and non-governmental help of family and friends and forerunners.  This was immediately attacked as a kind of hate speech against small business owners (at best) and as a downright attack upon entrepreneurs (at worst). 

My contention is that neither of the above mentioned men was engaged in “hate speech”, nor was either speech an attack upon any group.  Hateful attacks are so prevalent in our media driven culture today that it is easy to misquote, mischaracterize, and misinterpret public statements by any leader, especially if that leader does not agree with one’s own particular views.  In the case of the Evangelical Christian president of Chick-Fil-A, whose political leanings are toward the Right, the Left (mostly what I would call the “Far Left”) branded him as a promoter of hate.  In the case of the President of the United States, who speaks mostly from the political Left, the Right (mostly the “Far Right”) immediately branded him as an attacker of small businesses everywhere and a “hater” of those who flourish through “individual achievement.” 

Ironically, it is the attackers of these two men who have spewed the only hatred here. 

In both cases, their politics-driven attackers have misquoted and/or have mischaracterized the intentions of both men in the statements they gave.  The president of Chick-Fil-A was answering a simple question about his faith and what implications he saw in regard to his faith in the context of a current political hot button issue.  The president of the United States was speaking at a campaign rally in the context of addressing the historic reality that America’s approach to matters of business has never been thoroughly individualistic, although it has rewarded individual achievement. 

Cathy, Chick-Fil-A’s president, was correct that historically Christians, especially Evangelical Christians, have not supported the idea that marriage can be homosexual or same-gendered.  Obviously, there are Christians who believe that homosexual marriage would be acceptable, but his particular background has a history of being in opposition to such a proposal.  This is because the Church has historically viewed the term “marriage” as a theological term, even a sacrament (a “holy act” ordained by God with specific parameters, much like baptism or communion).  Therefore, it would be unthinkable to many Christians, not just Evangelicals, to change the definition of “marriage” into anything but what is observed in Scripture and in Christian liturgical tradition (a man and a woman monogamously committed).  There are Christians, even Evangelical Christians, who do not have a problem with the concept of civil unions (unions recognized by the government as contractually binding between couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual), but even many of those within this group of Christians would hesitate to give it the name “marriage,” since that is seen as a theological/biblical term.  The president of Chick-Fil-A was simply echoing this fact in his own response, and affirming that his own opinions are in agreement with those of much of traditional Christianity.  In addition, his affirmation was not done in a hateful or condemning manner, and therefore does not meet any of the qualifications of what could reasonably called “hate speech.”

President Obama’s assertion was intentionally taken out of context (“You did not build that”).  Taking someone’s words out of context in this manner is in itself a hateful act at worst and thoughtless at best.  The “you did not build that” portion of the speech, if one listens to only 30 more seconds of his address before and after that quote, is in the context of things like highways, the internet, and regulations that have historically assisted small businesses – and large ones – in the history of American enterprise.  In fact, one can find Republican assertions that echo the same sentiments best summed up in the old phrase, “We all stand on the shoulders of others.”  While this phrase was taken out of context and “spun” to be an attack on small businesses during this highly charged political season, it is actually an affirmation that has been echoed by many small business owners on both the Left and the Right of the political spectrum.  Therefore, it was not “hate speech” at all, nor was it an attack on small businesses.  Rather, it was an attempt to say that even his own party, which has not historically garnered wide support by small business owners, is worthy of such support.  Now, small business owners and others may not agree that the president or his party is worthy of such support, but that does not entitle anyone to intentionally misquote the intention of another.  Ironically, those who have intentionally twisted the words and intent of the president, just like those who have intentionally twisted the words of the Chick-Fil-A president, are engaging in the type of hatred and attack that both sides of the political aisle should condemn.

Of course, in addition to those who have twisted the words of both presidents discussed above, there are plenty examples of hate speech and unfair attacks.  They come from both sides of the political aisle.  Sometimes we choose to believe these lies and distortions because they come from a side of the aisle that we are rooting for, or that we more closely identify with in our ideology.  However, as people of the Truth, we should remember that lies or lies, whether they are riding an elephant or a donkey!

  

The Rich Young Ruler Today

The Rich Young Ruler Today
by, Charles W. Christian

Eugene Peterson, in his book called Practice Resurrection, notes that theological conceptions of ministry that he grew up learning in 75 years in church life and 50 years of ordained ministry have been replaced in many parts of the American church.  The theological concepts drummed into him in his small church in Montana and in the church he planted in and pastored for nearly 30 years in Maryland have been replaced by business models and marketing techniques.  The concept of “growing up in Christ,” which Peterson notes is a strong theme throughout the New Testament and especially in the letters of Paul, has been replaced with placating the masses in order to simply increase weekly attendance and giving.  Our emphasis in the Evangelical denominations (like the denomination I serve in) has placed a strong emphasis upon birth (becoming a “new Christian” or “new Nazarene,” etc.) and very little emphasis upon the biblical phrase “growing up in Christ,” or “becoming” a Christian, as Paul emphasizes. 

This emphasis has not only led to strong disconnections between churchgoers and their history and theology, but it has also led to frustration on all levels of ministries.  Denominational leaders complain on the loss of denominational loyalty, while rewarding local churches in their denominations that de-emphasize theological depth at the expense of getting people in the seats to count on their reports.  Local pastors leap furiously from one new trend and program to another without any compass, because numerical growth at any cost is substituted for an authentic discipleship that, in the famous words of twentieth century pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, is actually costly (one of Bonhoeffer’s most famous book, written shortly before his death at the hands of the Nazis, is called The Cost of Discipleship).   By buying into a “marketing” approach to growth instead of costly discipleship model, many churches in America have a skewed view of what it means to sacrifice.  Our values have become aligned with those of the very world that Jesus died to transform.

This brings us to the story of the rich young ruler, an encounter discussed in the Gospels between Jesus and a young man who has come to Jesus seeking answers regarding eternal life. 

In the story, recounted in Luke 18 (it also appears in Matthew and Mark’s Gospel), a religious leader who seems to have some wealth and influence, asks Jesus, “Good Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”  Of course, any teacher/preacher would be thrilled to have someone, especially someone of this young man’s influence, to become a “seeker”, one who is seeking a relationship with God.  Jesus, though, in Luke 18:19, refuses to give into flattery (He says, “Why do you call me ‘good’?  Only God is truly good?”).  This is Jesus’s way both of asking the young man what his views of Jesus are and of reminding the young man that Jesus’s answer will not be one based upon flattery or simple ear-ticking! 

As the story moves forward, the young man assures Jesus that he knows and has kept the commandments, yet still seems dissatisfied.  So, Jesus says, “there is one thing you lack.”  He then looks at the young man and tells him that he must sell all he has, give the money to the poor, come and follow Jesus, and then he will have the life he really seeks.

Jesus’s answer immediately shocked both the young man and Jesus’s own disciples!  It shocked the young man, whose face suddenly became downcast, likely because it seemed to cross lines that he did not see a need to cross (“for he had much wealth,” the text tells us).  He was seeking a theological/religious answer, not a “business” answer.  One look at both Jesus and him would make it quite obvious which of the two had better “business sense.”  Yet this poor itinerant preacher (Jesus) has the audacity to give business advice to the young wealthy business man!  The disciples are shocked, too (“How can anyone be saved, then?” they ask). 

Perhaps they were thinking, “Jesus, if you are going to keep challenging these rich people and running them off, we will never have the resources we need to get this ministry off the ground!”  Why did Jesus have to be so strict?  Why could he have not settled for 10% and calling it good?  Why couldn’t Jesus appoint this rich young man as His chief administrator, treasurer, advisory board member, or even new construction committee chairperson?  This would seem like a great “fit” for such an obviously talented and ambitious young businessman who is actually seeking out the Church!  It’s not like they had to go looking for him, after all.  He (the rich man) was seeking out Jesus.  Should not the poor budding congregation of only 13 (Jesus plus the 12) be allowed to get a boost in attendance in giving by gratefully accepting this talented, influential, and wealthy ally?

Jesus cared to much for the young man to mislead him.  He cared too much about the young man to simply allow him to fit another event on his calendar or to pick up another charity.  The young man wanted – and needed – a new life: a new way to live, which would by necessity include a whole new way of looking at his possessions.  This really does not fit in to any good marketing plans of today or apparently of yesterday!  However, it is the true message of the Gospel: come and exchange what you have – the bad and the good – for what Jesus has, which is better in the long run.  Then you will really live: have the “eternal life,” which begins not at death, but the moment we say “yes” to Jesus Christ. 

Maybe, then, instead of putting the rich rulers young or old into positions of influence in the church simply because they are in such positions outside the church, we should first give them the opportunity to allow Jesus to present them with a life in which Jesus is truly their priority. By this we do not necessarily mean that all those who are wealthy or powerful in the world’s eyes have no place in the Kingdom of God.  Jesus Himself does not say this.  However, Jesus is clearly stating that His concerns have less to do with worldly power, cunning, or marketing than with setting one’s priorities upon the things of God and then allowing every other priority to fall into line after that.  Re-learning this will likely produce churches that may have to rely less on appeasement and marketing strategies than upon Jesus.  But, it’s His church anyway, so why not try it His way?