Chick-fil-A president and chief operating officer, Dan Cathy, made a mistake, I feel, when he opined: “I think we are inviting God’s judgment upon our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, “We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ …” Nothing in either events narrated in the Bible or documented in broader historical records demonstrates that God becomes “ticked-off” at a nation and then conjures up retaliatory measures to “zap” an entire nation to “get even” with it for its people’s chosen behavior.

Mr. Cathy is not a biblical scholar or theologian, and it is unfair to hold him accountable for an emotional outburst and failure to understand fully the concept and operation of providence.

History is narrated in the Bible not as much as empirical observation but principally in prophetic perspective, and this is most noticeable in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). The attention there is only incidentally and instrumentally upon the empirically observed events. The prophets wrote more often in moral criticism of contemporary social and national behavior than in “prediction” of future events — more forthtelling than foretelling. Their focus was upon essential meaning and ultimate purpose. They were less interested in what happened or how it happened than they were in why it happened.

No matter what happens or how it happens, everything is a component of providence. In the final analysis, God is responsible and he gets the credit or the blame — and takes it. In every instance in the Old Testament the “evil that befalls” an errant people is not specifically God’s dropping down from heaven and stepping on them. Rather, it is the natural and inevitable consequences of their own action — what they do to themselves.

The patriarch Joseph was able to forgive his older brothers for having sold him into slavery by the wise recognition, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good to save many people.”

If Mr. Cathy is correct in his anticipation, it will not be that God will step in to punish America, but that we suffer the natural and inevitable consequences of our own behaviors. I think what he was trying to say was something like this. If — as he and I are convinced — God created marriage as one-man/one-woman, he is correct that the drive for same-sex marriage is the moral equivalent of shaking “our fist at Him.” They are saying, in effect, “We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.”

Mind you, the company serves gays and does business with vendors without this being a consideration. It does not bar gays from employment and conforms to all state and federal laws. The firm itself has not taken a position on marriage, and these are personal views. Of course a lot of workers who share these views seek employment there, and this is termed “freedom of association.”

One of many ridiculous complaints against Chick-fil-A is that it chooses to close on Sundays. For this gays mock it.

Mr. Cathy’s main statement, of which this may be an overstatement, is right on: “We are very much supportive of…the biblical definition of the family unit … thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

At least, this is what our Constitution provides, e.g., freedom of religion, thought, and speech. But the attacks upon the Cathy family and their family-run business works against American freedoms. Joseph might well repeat his wisdom in this regard. Perhaps it is providential that gay activists have become so open in their political and economic attack upon Chick-fil-A and that God meant it for good to save many people. Does this not portend what American society is likely to become if the gay agenda succeeds as the law of the land?

On the basis of the Chick-fil-A case, can we not take it gays will orchestrate economic boycotts against any business in which those who disagree with them are principals? Will mayors of major cities also work politically to make it impossible to do business there and deprive thousands of people a livelihood? Must every other business, organization, and institution certify it is pro-gay before being allowed to do business? How far into personal speech and private thoughts will this invade?

The gay agenda has betrayed its strategy and now we know.