Chick-fil-A: The Battle For The Soul Of A Chicken Sandwhich

Unless you live under a rock, you have likely heard that the fast food chain Chick-fil-A has changed their charitable giving policies. Of course the outrage machine has gone into full swing, and many people seem to have lost their minds. I want to try to speak some sense into this mess and maybe calm down a person or two.

Let’s start with what Chick-fil-A has actually did and said since that seems to have gotten lost in all of this. The press would have you believe that the restaurant suddenly stopped donating to The Salvation Army and The Fellowship of Christian Athletes (Both are excellent organizations by the way). This is not the truth. There was a multiyear agreement between them and that agreement was fulfilled. In short, the restaurant honored it’s commitment. The narrative that is being told makes it appear as if this was a reaction to outside influences rather than an agreement that had run it’s course. Chick-fil-A has decided to change how they handle their charitable donations and what their focus will be. That does not strike me as strange and, in fact, sounds a lot like good stewardship of the resources that they have. Their donations will be evaluated on an annual basis without regard to the religious preference of the organizations that they support. The giving did not magically stop, the agreement had run it’s course.

Chick-fil-A has made the following statement which reads, in part: “Staying true to its mission of nourishing the potential in every child, the Chick-fil-A Foundation will deepen its giving to a smaller number of organizations working exclusively in the areas of education, homelessness and hunger”  Their focus then will be children, and three specific areas of concern. Their choice of support will be a deeper commitment to Junior Achievement USA (JA), a deeper commitment to Covenant House International, and donations to local food banks. I am not sure which part of that is so problematic. I have heard the argument that the Salvation Army provides those types of services as well, and that is indeed correct. The thing is that Chick-fil-A donated to the Salvation Army through the Angel Tree program (a good program) and camps for kids (another good program). Neither of those programs address youth homelessness, education, or long term hunger. The Salvation Army also is not focused specifically on children, the area where Chick-fil-A has said it wanted to focus. The organizations it has chosen to support are.

Is there any indication anywhere in this that Chick-fil-A has capitulated to any outside influence? No, there is not. What there is however is a lot of hype driven by a mainstream media that, on most other topics, conservatives would be decrying as questionable at best and fake news at worst. If you believe the hype and think that Chick-fil-A is capitulating to anyone, it’s time for some soul searching I think. Why is it that you believe the media in this, but not other things. Why is it that this sensationalist reporting is believable, but most other reporting isn’t? Why is it you are always on others to do the research on a story, but you did no research on this? If the headline were simply “Chick-fil-A to focus exclusively on children’s charities” there would likely be no major outcry, but because the headline is “Chick-fil-A Stops Giving to 2 Groups Criticized by LGBTQ Advocates” (New York Times) or “Chick-fil-A Revises Giving Policy After Anti-Gay Outcry” (WSJ), we all lose our minds? What is it in us that has made the LGBTQ lobby the monster under every bed, in every shadow, and behind every decision that is made? Why is it that when ever anything that says LGBTQ comes up, we do not investigate, find the facts, believe anything that is said even, in favor of some nebulous and conspiratorial “gay agenda”?

Let’s be honest about some things. The LGBTQ advocacy groups have become a powerful force in lobbying efforts and society in general. I am not blind to that. They have been successful, in the corporate world, in getting a CEO fired from Mozilla, for example. I am not blind to that either. They have a single issue agenda, and I am not blind to that. They have improperly slandered charitable organizations, such as the Salvation Army, as being “anti LGBTQ” because of Christian moral stances. I am also not blind to that. They are not, however, the bogeyman. They are not the singular driving force behind every Christian social problem or every Christian failure, real, or perceived. That wold be us Christians who are screaming so loudly about it.

The actual facts are that Chick-fil-A profits soared after the boycott attempts by some. That would not seem to indicate the necessity of any sort of capitulation on a purely business level. The facts are that they still affirm the same values as they always have. The facts are that they are still giving to charities that seek to help vulnerable populations, but to be fair, more narrowly targeting their giving to focus on the population they seek to help the most. The facts are that the people driving the narrative are the same mainstream media that, under nearly any other circumstances, most of us would criticize for being a sensationalist hype machine.  I will still eat at Chick-fil-A from time to time. The fact is that it is a pretty yummy chicken sandwich. If you like their food, you should too. If the only reason that you were eating there however is that they were a target of the LGBTQ advocacy groups, then that is exactly the same behavior that you decry in others. In a very real way, which I find odd and puzzling, Chick-fil-A has done a great deal to reveal to us a fundamental flaw in us. It is the reality that we are so ready to see Christians fail that we will believe hype we would normally discount, engage in wild assumptions of motives without evidence, and jump to conclusions without proof. The fact is that this is not a battle over the soul of a chicken sandwich, it is a battle over ours, and we would do well to reflect on why it is we seem to be losing.


You Might Also Like

6 Replies to “Chick-fil-A: The Battle For The Soul Of A Chicken Sandwhich”

  1. While, I agree that LGBTQ lobbying groups are not to blame for all Christian problems, I do think the public relations people at Chik-fil-a must have been aware of the perceptions that would circulate as a result of their change in policy. If not, they are incredibly naive. Perception or reality, the LGBTQ vendetta against groups that do grat good but don’t accept their narrative on sexuality is pretty difficult to swallow.

    1. “I do think the public relations people at Chik-fil-a must have been aware of the perceptions that would circulate as a result of their change in policy”
      I agree completely. I think they were well aware of the perception that it might cause. I also think that they acted as they have in the past and given to those organizations they feel will best serve those they are trying to help, no matter the backlash, just as they have done in the past.
      I also think it is important to separate the advocacy groups from individuals. I believe that most individuals, even if they themselves do not go to Chick-fil-A because of their beliefs, don’t want to see it closed down, they simply won’t support it. I can respect that. I don’t do business with certain companies myself for similar reasons. Bad things happen to all of us when we let a group speak for us as individuals.

      1. I had to read this article twice because it was so poorly written. I’m a dinosaur due to my thirty plus years of teaching English, but if you had been in my freshman English class, I would have given you an F for mechanics. Learn to proofread! Please! “It’s” is a contraction. “Its” is the possessive form.

        1. It’s good to know that you being a dinosaur has not kept you from the rather modern tradition of being an internet troll.

  2. Dear author,
    I read the articles you mentioned, and the articles the NYT cited. They do, in fact, present substantial evidence of the motivation for the change in giving strategy, not to mention direct quotes from the CfA person who said they had been “taking it on the chin” but now their stance has hurt their ability to expand and therefore they were going to redirect their charitable giving….away from the “anti-LGBT” charities mentioned. Two of the major examples were the closure of their first British outlet 6 mos after it opened and losing at least 2 airport concessions specifically because of their anti-LGBT stance.

    1. dear reader, folks like Franklin Graham have reached out to the chain and been assured and satisfied that they are not changing the theology that they have held since their beginning, and come away satisfied.
      This is the original quote from the original article. The outlet is one that no one had heard of until a couple of days ago which makes me skeptical. It also uses a small quote, with no context, from someone who is unnamed. That also makes me skeptical. “But after years of “taking it on the chin,” as a Chick-fil-A executive told Bisnow, the latest round of headlines was impossible to ignore. This time, it was impeding the company’s growth.” Even taking the statement at face value, one executive does not speak for the company, nor does it indicate a change, simple a recognition of the situation.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.