[The is the first of three posts, which I’ll post on three-hour delays. I’ll then take a couple of days off to give the readers a chance to think through this, and to give me a chance to recover from typing all this.]
This, to me, is a hard one. I was hoping the readers would make it easy for me, but both sides have been argued extremely well in the comments. It’s tough.
So I have these two opposing positions rattling around in my brain, competing for dominance. I’m not going to get much sleep unless I get this sorted out. So I’m going to let the two points of view argue it out. They’ll take turns using my hands to type, but one side will prefer italics so you can tell which side of my brain is talking.
[Here begins the discussion between two parts of my brain.]
We need to start by stipulating to some agreed facts and positions.
Agreed. I’m sure you’ll agree that the Bible condemns homosexual conduct in no uncertain terms.
Totally.
And that the nation’s laws are beside the point when we’re discussing what is right and wrong — especially in an international forum. It’s not about what laws Congress ought to pass. And it’s not about whether we might be arrested or even executed for acting on our beliefs.
True. As hard as it can be, wrong is wrong, and we can’t sin just to avoid prosecution or fines.
Nor does it matter what price tag is placed on obedience to God. Even if it means going broke, we need to be obedient. Right?
Again, I agree. It’s as though we’re the same person!
And we’re not talking about “rights,” are we?
Agreed. Rights are a means of describing limitations on the power of government. To say, “I have the right to …” means “The government can’t constitutionally stop me from …” But that has nothing to do with what the scriptures teach. That is, the scriptures do not express themselves in terms of giving Christians rights, but of blessings and character and obligations. When we start talking about “rights,” we’ve moved from Christianity to politics and law. We’ll not go there. (It’s really hard to separate our American worldview from Christianity.)
All that being so, then you agree that the woman should have sold the cake to the lesbian couple.
Absolutely not. We cannot participate in another’s sin. Consider Paul’s many commands about meat sacrificed to idols. Idolatry is a sin of the first order (if sin could be ordered, you know), and Paul condemned not only participating in the idolatrous sacrifice directly (too obvious to need saying, really) but even eating the meat sacrificed.
(2Co 6:17-18 ESV) 17 “Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, 18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
Homosexual activity is sin, and a wedding of a lesbian couple is indeed a celebration of that sin. If we can’t even eat the meat sacrificed to a false god, could we sell meat to idolaters knowing that the meat would be used to honor a false god?
That’s an interesting turn. I’m not sure I would have thought of meat sacrificed to idols. Let’s consider why Paul took such a hard line. Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant published The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks
For the Greeks, the sharing of cooked meats was the fundamental communal act, so that to become vegetarian was a way of refusing society. It follows that the roasting or cooking of meat was a political act, as the division of portions asserted a social order. And the only proper manner of preparing meat for consumption, according to the Greeks, was blood sacrifice.
The fundamental myth is that of Prometheus, who introduced sacrifice and, in the process, both joined us to and separated us from the gods—and ambiguous relation that recurs in marriage and in the growing of grain. Thus we can understand why the ascetic man refuses both women and meat, and why Greek women celebrated the festival of grain-giving Demeter with instruments of butchery.
To eat meat sacrificed to idols was to join in the culture and community of idolatry. Among the Greeks and Romans, worship of the gods was no occasional practice. It permeated life. To refuse sacrificed meat was to declare a change of allegiance — from pagan gods to the God of the Jews. It was not a withdrawal from society exactly but a withdrawal from those elements of society involving the worship of false gods — which a very large portion of society. Not eating meat was both social and political — it was not rebellion against the emperor, but it did reject the entire sacrificial system, the entire worldview of the Roman pagans.
You couldn’t enter their city halls without offering a sacrifice of incense. You couldn’t restart your fire from the city’s central hearth except by honoring the city’s patron god. And nearly all meat would have been slaughtered in honor of a god — often left over from a ritual sacrifice at the local temple.
But Paul seems to have approved eating such meat if the Christian is not specifically aware that it’s been sacrificed and if doing so does not tempt other Christians to sin against their consciences. Therefore, it seems that for a Christian of understanding, it would be okay to sell a wedding cake to anyone walking in the door, so long as the customers put their own bride and bride dolls on top and the baker doesn’t ask. Right?
Maybe, but sometimes knowledge of what’s going on is unavoidable, such as in the case of a wedding photographer. What does he do? He can’t avoid knowing! He’ll actually be a part of the event — an observer and not a celebrant, but present. Does he condone their sinful choices by being there? Indeed, doesn’t he contribute to the marriage happening? How can he participate in such a sin?
That is a better example because it removes any chance of finessing the problem. I think we have to turn to —
(1Co 5:9-13 ESV) 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler — not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Read this one carefully. Paul plainly approves associating with sexually immoral people — so long as they aren’t Christians! It’s not our place to judge “outsiders”! And yet we’ve made the judging of outsiders a major part of evangelical culture! We preach against the sins of outsiders. We lobby to prevent the damned from acting like the damned. We want them to act like Christians without the muss and fuss of having to actually, you know, convert them. It’s so much easier to get the legislature to force them to act like Christians against their will.
Ouch! Are you saying that the church has no business telling the lost how to live? Isn’t God opposed to sin? Aren’t the lost just as subject to God’s law as Christians?
Listen to Paul. Learn from him. The damned are damned. Put a sword to their necks and force them to go to church, cut out their tongues if they blaspheme, and jail them if they commit fornication — and they’ll still be damned. What good would we have done other than turn the gospel of love into a gospel of power, compulsion, and resentment. We change people by persuasion and the power of God’s word — or not at all.
But won’t the world be a better place if we use our influence to keep people from sinning?
Define “better”? More pleasant for Christians? A place where we feel less guilty for not converting our neighbors? Or a place where God’s kingdom has the greatest opportunity to grow?
Think about it. Does the kingdom prosper best when the rest of world is nice and pleasant and life is good for both those inside and outside the kingdom? Or where the kingdom shines as a city on a hill — in darkness?
Okay. So we shouldn’t — as God’s church — force people to live like Christians. But we can oppose murder can’t we?
You’re leading into the abortion debate, aren’t you? Don’t change the subject! But, yes, government has a God-given role, not to impose all Christian values but to keep the peace and protect society from the lawless. And so the government properly bans murder, and in a democracy, the citizens can properly call on the government to do so. And murder is also forbidden to Christians even if not illegal. But government is not charged to make people go to church or confess Jesus. Faith has to come from the heart, not fear of the state.
Being a good Christian and being a good citizen are two different things which sometimes overlap (neither should commit murder, for example), but they are not the same thing.
Hmm … So we can participate in the sin of others?
No. But drawing the line is not easy. We hav to get entirely out of the judging business for those outside the church. And that’s so far removed from how we normally think, well, it’s just hard to know how to act without judging sometimes. I mean, we’ve not met many people who are good at that. It’s a foreign way of living. It’s as crazy as, you know, loving our enemies. It’s hard to persuade yourself that it makes sense. And even harder to do it.
But a wedding …
Is nothing. They were committing fornication before and they’ll be committing fornication afterward.
So should a preacher preach the wedding?
Absolutely not. To ask a minister of the gospel to conduct the service is to ask for God’s blessings on the union, and that can’t happen. God doesn’t bless the union. We can’t pretend otherwise. We can’t lie.
[to be continued]
This is a touhg one Jay, and one I’ve seen in person when I was in college. My summer job was at a leather goods stpre and the owner was a good Christian. We sold all kinds of leather goods and hides and never asked what they were to be used for. But one day, a customer volnteered that he was going to make a leather top for his friend and wanted something that the friend could slip out of easily. It was clear what the purpose of the “sliiping out” was for, and my boss politiely declined to sell the leather. This was long before Gay Pride was a power, so nothing came of it.
But I have also seen the dark side of what can come of this. A co-worker, who was homosexual, was murdered by a gang simply for the reason that he was gay. While I did not approve of his lifestyle, he was a hard worker and very friendly to all in the office. He should not have died the way he did.
Jay touches on two good points. First is that this is a hard decision and has, I believe, reasonable arguments on each side. As Jay draws it here, my previous answer is off the intended point.
Second good point is that we have different expectations of believers and unbelievers. Believers are held to a higher standard because of who they are in Christ. Within them is the power over sin — the Holy Spirit — and forgiveness. Neither of these reside in the unbeliever. As some have said, “dead is dead”.
Now, I find myself in this hypothetical navigating a general principle which has different reasonable responses in terms of degree. As to unbelievers who are engaging in sexual immorality, we cannot simply decline to interact with them at all. Does the believing UPS driver refuse to deliver a package to them? Do we turn them away when they are hungry? How do we address this matter of “degree of involvement”?
That same wedding photographer who videotapes a lesbian wedding… should he also feel free to hire on to shoot porn for an unbeliever? The issue is sexual immorality; the problem is, what constitutes “participation”? As scripture does not create a hard line of this sort, I believe we have to leave this decision to the Spirit-led consicience of the believer. I hold no confidence that some council of wise men can take us beyond this by virtue of some carefully-considered ruling. The key, IMO, is to encourage the baker here to follow the Spirit, rather than his preferences– or the preferences of people offering on-line opinions for ten cents a ton.
I would note that the church as a part of society has evolved in this regard, both for good and for ill. There was a time when the church rejected illegitimate children for fear of encouraging immorality. We have outgrown this. At the same time, the Episcopal church is ordaining homosexuals. There was also a time when believers in general opposed abortion. Now, among Protestants at least, the question is no longer a settled one. It is good that this discussion takes place, because it is opening up on many fronts.
As to judging those who are without, I would note that the prohibition is because those are already judged. They are dead in their sins and merely awaiting sentence– unless they are later redeemed. But recognizing this fact does not preclude us from judging actions as being good or evil. I can seek the redemption of a murderer without stepping back from any comment on murder. I can insist that rape is wrong without sending the rapist to hell in my own heart.
What is immoral for me is immoral for my unbelieving friend. I must refrain from taking God’s role in responding to such immorality, but that does not mean that I do not have a role to play in talking to my friend.
me thinkst thou art late on thy third post. 😉
Forsooth, milady, thou speaketh verily. My computer ateth my homework.
LOL
I feel like in the case of the baker she may have been willing to bake them a cake for a birthday or some other occasion. I can’t speak for her though personally as a christian I feel like we are all ministers and to participate in a marriage where God is asked to bless the union, a union we know God has forbidden would be to participate in a lie about who God is. If I get the vibe the baker is expressing she is not hateful to people she disagrees with she just couldn’t with integrity profit from something that misrepresents who God is.
“It was degrading,” she told the television station. “It was like she chastised us for wanting to do business with her. I know Jesus loves me. I didn’t need her to tell me that. I didn’t go there for that. I just wanted to go there for a cake.”
This leads me to believe the people in question may believe in Jesus. Which would make for a whole different question. Are they Christians? If so do they feel their lifestyle is a moral one or are they openly defiant toward God? If so surly we wouldn’t join in that.