Chick-fil-A Foundation donated to far-left SPLC in 2017, tax records show
Christians have a right to be outraged at Chick-Fil-A for their betrayal of the company's long-standing support of pro-Christian organizations. What is a bridge too far, however, is the realization that the company has donated to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left anti-Christian organization that has done much harm to the pro-family movement in America. Sadly, I think the true realization is that the new folks at Chick-Fil-A have abandoned the heritage Truett Cathy left this company and have decided to virtue signal their "wokeness" to the world. Sad. Let's hope the hashtag #getwokgobroke soon applies to Chick-Fil-A.
Chick-fil-A’s charity arm donated in 2017 to the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that has labeled many Christian conservative organizations as “hate” groups.Following the immense conservative backlash to Chick-fil-A’s recent decision to end giving to the Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Christian conservative activist and commentator Ryan Bomberger raised an alarm Wednesday about a past donation made by the Chick-fil-A Foundation.In an op-ed slamming the Chicken sandwich chain’s “cowardice … in the face of LGBT activism,” Bomberger linked to a copy of the Chick-fil-A Foundation’s 2017 IRS 990 PF form.SPLC is a far-left legal group that aims to “fight hate” and teach tolerance. It gained prominence in the civil rights community by defending victims of attacks by white supremacist group Klu Klux Klan.Although it is glorified for its fight against white supremacist groups, the organization has labeled dozens of Christian conservative advocacy nonprofits as “hate” groups because of their views on issues like marriage and criticism of radical Islamic terror. SPLC’s “hate” group label has been used in mainstream media to discredit the work of Christian conservative advocacy groups.
The Democratic Cold War on Christianity Heating Up
The Culture Wars of the last 30 years are slowly evolving into a Silent Cold War with leftist Democrats openly engaging on every front Christians and Christian-leaning companies and organizations. Do not be misled: this is a clash between two worldviews: a Western, Judeo-Christian worldview and a Marxist, secular-humanist worldview. If you read the end of the book (the Bible), you will find out which side wins, but there will be a world of hurt and turmoil before we reach that point where the King establishes His earthly Kingdom.
One of the great unknowns in terms of the future electorate is the effect the Democrats’ increasingly radical anti-faith stance will have on its voting coalition.Black and Hispanic Democrats tend to be far more religious than the white Democrats who are driving the party’s agenda. Will this alliance hold as the party increasingly kowtows to vocal anti-Christian Marxists? Will these voters start to defect as Democrats intensify their open war on people of faith?These questions arose this week when the sad story emerged that Chick-fil-A would no longer support three mainstream Christian-based charities; the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Paul Anderson Youth Home, all under the auspices that they are anti-LGBTQ.Like the Salvation Army, Chick-fil-A never expected to find itself on the frontline in Democrats open war against Christianity. But, they were there nonetheless, and surrendering ground against these enemies was a mistake. The only way liberals will back off the attacks against Chick-fil-A is if the company heartily endorses and celebrates the full LGBTQ agenda. In other words, they expect either the destruction or total surrender of their religious foes.They elevated their attacks far beyond the usual slanderous name calling, which is really what put Chick-fil-A on the defensive. The fast food chain was under assault in every Democratic-controlled area and institution in the country. Democratic mayors in many key cities, to include Boston, Chicago, San Antonio, Buffalo, and San Jose worked to either prevent the restaurant from opening in the city or at its airport, or planned to drive it out. No doubt, Democrat governors would be the next to take up the fight. That they were all trigged by a chicken restaurant shows the powerful counter-cultural force its very existence conveyed.Democrats can no longer hide their contempt and hatred towards those who “cling to religion” and believe that the Bible is God’s word and means what it says. That’s really the rub. Liberals hate the Bible and they know if they can force people to compromise on Biblical teaching, Christianity will lose its effectiveness as a countercultural force.
The Death of Journalism
It has been over 20 years since Dennis McCallum published The Death of Truth: What's Wrong With Multiculturalism, the Rejection of Reason and the New Postmodern Diversity in 1996. We are witnessing the full impact of the death of truth in our culture today.Fake News is not a new reality for Americans, but it has taken until 2019 for the average American to accept that when it comes to journalism, there is no truth anymore. If truth died in 1996, we will put the shovel to journalism in 2019.Two hate hoax stories in the last month serve as the final stake in the heart for American journalism. The first, the Covington Catholic School debacle, and the second, the Jussie Smollett story, showed journalists for what they really are in 2019: unashamed political hacks so devoted to the Cult of Progressivism they see no truth beyond what they believe truth to be.That is indeed sad.From the New York Times to the LA Times to the Washington Post to the Associated Press, Reuters, ABC News, and CNN, they all pushed forward the unproven narrative of Smollett's alleged assault as if it were proven fact. Politicians from Nancy Pelosi to Cory Booker to Kamala Harris all expressed their outrage at the "culture of hate" that permeates America. (See "Did the Media Jump the Gun on the Jussie Smollett Story?")When the Chicago Police Department started to suggest the the accusation was a hoax, you could almost hear a collective, "Noooooooooooooooo" from the leftists elites.I think Nana Efua Mumford writing in the Washington Post best summed up the leftist angst concerning the possibility that Smollett made up the story:
If Smollett’s story is found to be untrue, it will cause irreparable damage to the communities most affected. Smollett would be the first example skeptics cite when they say we should be dubious of victims who step forward to share their experiences of racist hate crimes or sexual violence. The incident would be touted as proof that there is a leftist conspiracy to cast Trump supporters as violent, murderous racists. It would be the very embodiment of “fake news.”And that reason, more than any other, is why I need this story to be true, despite its ugliness and despite what it would say about the danger of the world I live in. The damage done would be too deep and long-lasting. This could be one tragedy that the Lyon family — and more importantly, the ordinary people who loved the show and invested in Smollett and his character — could never overcome.
Sometimes even the most devoted disciples of the Cult of Progressivism and their doctrine of intersectionality trip over the truth, and the truth still hurts.Mumford is correct. If it is proven that Smollett was race-bating and staged the entire story in order to sow mistrust and deceit, then his actions and the actions of the celebrity leftists who voiced the emotion-laden support for Smollett in the hours after the story broke minimize and discredit all victims of true racism and violence.That is another unintended consequence of the Cult of Progressivism: true racism and our ability to call it out and identify it with authority and integrity has also died.How can we stand in judgment of someone accused of racism or violence when every day new stories emerge that trumpet the left's desire to prove their narrative right only to learn that their entire narrative is nothing but a house of cards. Racism, violence, and the host of other labels the left throws around like confetti have lost their value and impact in our culture. That is sad.In many ways, I read Mumford's editorial as the rough draft of an obituary for journalism in America. "I need this story to be true, despite its ugliness and despite what it would say about the danger of the world I live in. The damage done would be too deep and long-lasting."Unfortunately, the elitist left will not learn from this painful lesson. Just as they quickly brushed the Covington hoax under the red carpet, so this hoax will quickly die and the Progressive bandwagon will wait until the next big story about MAGA-wearing thugs surfaces and they will race to twitter to express their outrage and support.A generation ago, Walter Cronkite, "the most trusted man in America," used to sign off with the words, "And that's the way it is..."Today, journalists end their report with the words, "And that's the way we want it to be, so it is true."
How Should Christians Respond to the Syrian Refugee Crisis?
Here’s what is happening in the last half of Matthew 2 in a nutshell: the political environment in Israel grows alarmingly dangerous, and because of the threat of death and violence, Joseph takes the Child and his mother, Mary, and flees from the hostile land of Israel to the relative safety of Egypt, where he lives until the danger has passed.
Sounds like the Middle East today, doesn’t it? We see the Child Jesus forced to flee or risk certain death at the hand of Herod, and we see thousands of Syrians fleeing today or risk certain death at the hands of ISIS.
This shines an important light on the realities of the political environment we see in the Middle East today. Political violence and death have been a part of that culture for much longer than Americans care to admit. Jesus was a refugee forced to flee from the threat of Herod.
How Should We Respond to the Syrian Refugee Crisis?
This raises a difficult question for Americans. How should we respond to the request of our president to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States? At the risk of oversimplifying an incredibly complex situation, I see one clear principle in the Matthew narrative that I believe is important when seeking ways to minister to refugees—it is the importance of returning to your homeland. Jesus didn’t flee to Egypt, take up residence and live out the rest of His life in Egypt. As soon as the threat of violence was over, He returned to the Land of Israel.
One of the problems we face with the prospect of bringing Syrian refugees to America is that they will likely live out the rest of their lives here. Is it right to take young people—the very health and vitality of a population—and transport them around the world to a place from which they will never return? Would it not be better to put resources into helping refugees flee to countries neighboring Syria, care for them, and then when the danger of ISIS is removed, help them return home where they can live and serve as productive citizens?
From a military perspective, it doesn’t make sense to transport able-bodied young Syrian men and women to the United States while at the same time arguing we should transport able-bodied young American men and women to Syria to fight their war. I try to picture how Americans would respond if the situation was reversed. Based on what we know of American history, I think it would be safe to assume that most Americans would rather stay and fight for their homeland than flee to another country on the other side of the world.
I recently read an article on Medgar Evers, the civil rights champion of the 1960s. The South was not a safe place to be an African-American civil rights worker in the 1960s. Evers lived with the constant threat of violence and even death, and many encouraged him to flee the South until the political environment cooled down. Not long before he was gunned down by Byron De La Beckwith, he was quoted as saying, “I don’t know whether I am going to heaven or to hell, but I’m going from Jackson.” Evers had the courage and the conviction to stay in Mississippi and fight for the rights of others, but he also had something else–a love for his home and a desire to see it become a better place to live.
I find it hard to believe there are not modern-day Syrians who have the “stay and fight” courage and conviction of a Medgar Evers or Mahatma Gandhi. Would the people of Syria not be better served if we created safe zones within neighboring countries to protect the true refugees–the mothers and their children, the old, and the weak–and then train and equip the young men to fight against the evil that has invaded their country?
I can hear someone now charging, “that’s not compassionate.” Is it compassionate to take the very people who will be needed to rebuild a new Syria after this terrible civil war? Is it compassionate to accept a token 10,000 refugees out of the millions of hurting people just so we can feel good and note we “did our part”? No, my friend, true compassion is being willing to help change the radical Islamic paradigm in Syria in order to lay the foundation for a peaceful, prosperous country that is safe for all people to live. Simply transporting the problems to America is not a compassionate solution.–Chris Eller
This Week’s Core Virtue
Hope (Hebrews 6:19-20): I can cope with the hardships of life and with death because of the hope I have in Jesus Christ.
Download This Week’s Issue
"The People Did What Was Right in Their Own Eyes"
In the Old Testament book of Judges, we see a phrase oft repeated, and "the people did what was right in their own eyes." This phrase is a sign of a society or nation sliding into moral decay. They no longer acknowledge God or His law, but instead simply make their own determination of what is right and what is wrong.Christians find themselves facing increasingly difficult decisions as they weigh the choices between staying obedient to God's Word and their own conscience and being obedient to the government and the civil laws of the land. This conflict is the focus of the world right now as everyone watches a county clerk in Rowen, KY live out her Christian convictions verses her civil responsibility as a representative of the state.Albert Mohler provides an excellent commentary on the difficult decisions Christians face in our culture today as he examines what is happening in Kentucky. Here are some bullet points from his article:
- In court today, Judge Bunning told Davis: “The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.” He continued by arguing that “if you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”
- This story, now far larger than would have been imagined just a few weeks ago, points to some of the hardest questions faced by Christians who are determined to be faithful to Christ and to fulfill their responsibilities as citizens. Many of these questions defy a simplistic answer. How are Christians who hold elective office to fulfill that office when the nation’s highest court or those holding higher office rule and legislate contrary to Christian conviction? The same question is quickly extended to those serving in the military, holding appointive office, or even merely working for the government.
- The Bible is clear — a Christian cannot act in violation of conscience without committing sin. Kim Davis has been clear, even as her own marital background has been discussed, that her conversion and Christian beliefs do not allow her to sanction what the Bible declares to be sin.
- The Bible clearly commands that Christians respect the rightful authority of civil governments, understanding that the institution of human government is itself a part of God’s design. At the same time, the rightful power of government is not absolute. The Apostle Paul tells us to obey the government but Daniel and his friends were right to refuse to bow the knee to King Nebuchadnezzar. When is the Christian to obey and when must the Christian not obey government?
- It is very revealing that many of those who are celebrating Judge Bunning’s decision to send Kim Davis to jail and who are now asserting their absolute commitment to the rule of law are the very same people who made the opposite argument when it served their purposes. That argument, taken at face value, would have meant no civil rights movement — and no gay rights movement.
- What this story reveals beyond the headlines is that the moral revolution on marriage and human sexuality will leave nothing as it was before. No area of life will be untouched, and no address will be far removed from the front lines of the revolution. This story comes from Rowan County, Kentucky. A County Clerk is headed for jail. A legion of Christians struggles to be faithful in their own situations, responsibilities, and callings.
I believe the most revealing quote from Mohler's article is the statement by Federal Judge David L. Bunning who states, "The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.... If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”This is the problem with "American Justice" today. Each one can do what is right in his or her own eyes. We jail a county clerk for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, yet two years ago President Obama was praised for ordering the Justice Department to no longer enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the president believed it to be an unconstitutional law. The New York Times noted the constitutional conflict created by the president's action:
When President Obama decided that his administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, he was presented with an obvious question with a less obvious answer: Would he keep enforcing a law he now deemed unconstitutional?
A debate in the White House broke out. Some of his political advisers thought it made no sense to apply an invalid law. But his lawyers told Mr. Obama he had a constitutional duty to comply until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Providing federal benefits to same-sex couples in defiance of the law, they argued, would provoke a furor in the Republican House and theoretically even risk articles of impeachment.
Two years later, that decision has taken on new prominence after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. accused Mr. Obama from the bench on Wednesday of not having “the courage of his convictions” for continuing to enforce the marriage law even after concluding that it violated constitutional equal protection guarantees. The chief justice’s needling touched a raw nerve at the White House. “Continuing to enforce was a difficult political decision,” said an aide who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations, “but the president felt like it was the right legal choice.”
When President Obama came across a law he didn't believe he could enforce because of personal convictions, he simply made the decision to no longer enforce the law, yet when the same decision confronts Kim Davis, she is jailed for failure to carry out the stated law of the land.
I wonder what Judge Bunning would say to President Obama? If he has integrity, he would have to say, "Mr. Obama, the court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.... If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems."