When a Brand is Tainted

The issue of Liturgy entitled “Branded Worship,” guest-edited by Nelson Cowan. Here is an excerpt from Cowan's essay on the ethical choices involved in singing (or determining not to sing) songs written by hymnwriters who have been accused of sexual assault. –– Melinda Quivik

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Our very brief story begins on a typical day in Jacksonville, Florida, in 2010—hot, humid, with a chance of scattered showers in the afternoon. I was deciding what I wanted to eat for lunch, so I pulled my vehicle into the drive-through at Chick-fil-A and ordered my usual: a fried chicken sandwich, waffle fries, and sweet tea. I then ate the meal and enjoyed it. . .

The simplicity of this scenario changed drastically in 2011. Chick-fil-A gained the national spotlight when its president, Dan Cathy, defended the company’s monetary donations to organizations supporting "biblical marriage" (i.e., one man and one woman). Between the news cycle commentators, op-ed columnists, bloggers, and social media pundits, Chick-fil-A went from a well-respected fried chicken powerhouse to an ethical quandary for some, and a rallying cry for others on both sides of the proverbial fence.

The chicken sandwich was no longer just a chicken sandwich. The ubiquity of social media and its algorithmic echo chambers fueled the controversy. Even today—many years after Cathy’s public comments—the Chick-fil-A brand is treated with adoration from political and theological conservatives and with suspicion from liberals and progressives. In 2019, Chick-fil-A modified its charitable giving strategy to focus on education, homelessness, and hunger. In doing so, they ceased donations to groups scrutinized by the media such as the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. However, despite their best efforts to pivot in response to controversy, for many, Chick-fil-A remains a tainted brand.

Among critics and questioners of Chick-fil-A, the topic of how to respond ethically proved to be a dividing point. In 2018 (and updated in 2022), Noah Michelson, Editorial Director of HuffPost Personal, penned the article “If You Really Love LGBTQ People, You Just Can’t Keep Eating Chick-fil-A.” A large photo of a spread of Chick-fil-A food adorns the article, with the biting subtitle “queerphobia never tastes good.” In no unclear terms, he contends that LGBTQ persons and allies need to choose where their loyalties lie—“with your community or with your stomach.”

Marie Whitaker is not as hard-lined, offering her thoughts in the NBC News article, “I’m black and gay and I still eat at Chick-fil-A.” She summarily quips, “The next time I treat myself to the chain’s sinful but tasteful fried chicken and white bread, I will give triple the money I spend to the marriage equality effort.” In a similar pivot, Executive Director of Baptist News, Mark Wingfield, refused to boycott the restaurant, instead suggesting readers redirect their frustration by boycotting politicians who work against the rights of LGBTQ people.

Regardless of how troubling some may find Chick-fil-A’s leanings, many, if not most U.S. Americans, take a third path. They may choose not to get involved, they may ignore the news, or they may believe that their fast-food choices are so insignificant in comparison to other problems in the world that they are not worth the ethical scrutiny. Although there is no data to corroborate these consumers’ approaches—or lack thereof—the writing on the wall is clear: people vote with their feet. Tainted brand or not, Chick-fil-A is growing steadily.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The full essay including references is available now in the digital and print editions of Liturgy. All of the essays in Liturgy 38, nos. 2–3 are available by personal subscription and through many libraries.

Nelson Cowan, the director of the Center for Worship and the Arts at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, is a worship leader and an ordained elder in The United Methodist Church.

Nelson Cowan, “When a Brand is Tainted: The Ethics of Song Selection in Corporate Worship," Liturgy 38, nos. 2–3 (2023): 39–48.