Is Chick-Fil-A And FOX Now Gay Affirming?

James A, ThM

Chick Fil A (“CFA”) has been reputed for their positive stand for traditional marriage, but it seems CFA is caving under the relentless social pressure of the LGBT Mafia. Chick Fil A has been sponsoring events by Level Ground throughout 2015. Level Ground is a pro-LGBT movement that hosts campaigns and gay film festivals in support of the gay and lesbian agenda. Level Ground is supported by a handful of deluded “Christians” such as hell-rejecting Rob Bell, emergent churchologist Brian McLaren, and pro Catholic, gay-affirming, Liberty University professor, and member of the SBC’s committee on ethics (ERLC), Karen Swallow Prior.

On May 18, 2015, CFA in Pasadena hosted a Level Ground event in which %20 of proceeds from CFA purchases went to Level Ground causes (Source), and most recently sponsored an event by Level Ground in Nashville, TN. They are listed on Level Ground’s website as a permanent sponsor.

We attempted several times to get a response from Chick Fil A, but as of yet, they have not offered any rejoinder of our inquiries. Thus we will expand this article at a later time if and when we get more information.

It is very disheartening and disappointing that many Christians have stood with CFA when they endured persecution for the stand on traditional marriage, the hours Christians waited in lines to purchase the famous Chick Fil A sandwich enduring the heckling of LGBT protesters in a show of support for Christian liberty, only to have CFA capitulate and sponsor pro-LGBT events behind our backs. We expected better from you Chick Fil A. I for one, will not set foot in another Chick Fil A store so long as they continue supporting pro-LGBT causes.

*UPDATE 10/27/15 Christian News is now reporting on this issue with more details.

See also NTEB’s article

---

*UPDATE 11/5/15 CHICK FIL A RESPONSE

We received the following response from Chick Fil A,

Chick-fil-A has issued a statement on the matter you may use. Please attribute to Carrie Kurlander, vice president of public relations and public affairs, Chick-fil-A.

Chick-fil-A Statement Re. “On Level Ground” Film Festival Sponsorship – Nov. 4, 2015 As with all local sponsorships, our business model allows our individual franchisees to make independent decisions on behalf of their restaurant and the communities they serve. We trust their decision to support the events and organizations they deem best for their individual communities. As a corporation, Chick-fil-A is focused on supporting causes that benefit youth and education.

While CFA did admit that they “trust” individual franchise owners to “do what’s best” for their individual communities, they did little to nothing to clarify whether “what’s best” is the promotion and endorsement of LGBT events and “ministries”.

Furthermore, CFA Corporate did nothing to distinguish their position on gay marriage, same-sex relationships, LGBTism, from that of their rogue franchise stores. Instead of taking the opportunity to reinforce their previously held CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS stand against LGBTism, they merely stated that they “support causes that benefit youth and education”. Perhaps CFA believes that the endorsement and sponsorship of LGBT causes “benefits youth and education”. How is that any different from what the LGBT community says about their own agenda? This is the very “nuance” that we’ve seen demonstrated by numerous Southern Baptist leaders on gay marriage and Roman Catholicism.

The only obvious thing that any rational person can adduce from the facts is that CFA corporation has no qualms with CFA stores, whether corporate or individual owner-operated franchises, endorsing LGBT causes. Nor did CFA deny being a corporate sponsor of Level Ground (as opposed to the sponsorship now displayed by Level Ground as being a single store as opposed to CFA corporate). Chick Fil A has either grossly neglected to take this opportunity to reinforce their previous views on same-sex relationships, leaving their Christian supporters still wondering, or they are hiding behind “nuance” and tacitly approving LGBT causes. Either way, their response is clear enough for me that CFA has shifted their views on LGBTism…for the worse.

By the way, Jesus is not a fan of “nuance”. He opposed lukewarmness in Revelation 3:16-18, and said “let your nay be nay” (Matthew 5:37, see also James 5:12).

_______________________

Fox Audience is also a sponsor of Ground Level. Yes, that FOX. However, we don’t expect much from FOX, so it didn’t make it past the “hmmm…interesting” file for more than just a cursory mention.

The Insane and Inconsistent Bias of Anti KJVO Critics

James A, ThM

Critics of the King James Only position (“KJVO”) rarely give an accurate or fair representation of the actual facts supporting our arguments, and often hold to bias and inconsistent contentions. Case in point: KJVO critic, Norman Geisler (who wrote an endorsement for the cover of James White’s “King James Only Controversy”), in attacking the KJVO position, on page 324 of his Systematic Theology, offers the following as his fourth reason for rejecting KJVO views:

“Fourth, the original KJV had the apocryphal books in it. They were not taken out until a 1629 edition, but this did not become general until the nineteenth century. If the original KJV was inspired, then why did it contain the Apocrypha? All fundamentalists reject these books as not being inspired”.

Now watch this: later in the book on the Canonicity of the Bible, when Geisler attempts to argue against reasons for accepting the canonicity of the Apocrypha, Geisler offers this logic as his tenth reason for rejecting the Catholic presupposition for accepting the Apocrypha as inspired authority:

“Apocryphal books appeared in Protestant Bibles prior to Council of Trent, and they were generally placed in a separate section because they were not considered of equal authority” Systematic Theology, page 388.

Geisler is quite aware of the King James Version translators placing the Apocrypha between the testaments (in which the KJV also made a distinct note that they did not consider the Apocrypha inspired), and here Geisler even admits that this is a solid reason for rejecting the Apocrypha. So why then does Geisler use this very fact against KJVOs only a few chapters earlier in attempting to discredit the KJVO position? King James himself stated,

As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist (as I said before) & indeed some of them are as like the dietement of the Spirite of God, as an Egge is to an Oyster.” King James 1, Basilicon Doron, page 13.

It is hardly fair and quite disingenuous to use the same argument in which KJVOs agree with in rejecting the Apocrypha as authoritative, inspired or canonical as Geisler’s logic for rejecting the canonicity of the Apocrypha only to use that very same logic to undermine the KJVO position knowing that neither KJVOs nor the KJV translators (and the KJV predecessors) considered the Apocrypha inspired or canononical. This is right on par with KJVO critics slandering the over 5,000 manuscripts that support the KJV verses the few that support the modern versions, only to praise those received texts/manuscripts when they need their majority evidence to convince skeptics of the Bible’s authenticity and reliability.