Several articles on Christians and conscience\/employment concerning homosexual marriages<\/p>\n
=====================<\/p>\n
\u201cBaking Cakes for Caesar – Why We Need Freedom to Say \u2018No\u2019\u201d
\nBreakpoint Commentary by John Stonestreet
\nMarch 3, 2014<\/p>\n
Would Jesus bake cakes for same-sex weddings? Good question, but there\u2019s more to this whole issue that WWJD.<\/p>\n
The call for tolerating same-sex marriage has now become a demand for compliance. Cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado and Elane Huguenin\u2019s New Mexico photography business have shown us that \u201ctolerance\u201d ends exactly where the right to say \u201cno\u201d begins. And so people, businesses, and non-profits are forced to choose between their livelihoods and their convictions.<\/p>\n
Some fellow Christians are giving this new state of affairs a thumbs-up, including Kirsten Powers, whose fearless stand against abortion I admire, and Skye Jethani, a friend I respect greatly.<\/p>\n
They argue that Christians who won\u2019t participate in gay \u201cweddings\u201d are \u201capplying Scripture selectively.\u201d If you object to baking a cake, shooting photographs or playing music for a ceremony for two men or two women, they say, you should also object to serving anyone with an unbiblical lifestyle. But since no business owner can do a background check on every client\u2019s personal life, Powers and Jethani conclude that any religious objections to doing business are illegitimate.<\/p>\n
Plus, they say, baking a cake or providing floral arrangements doesn\u2019t mean that a Christian is participating in or affirming gay \u201cmarriage.\u201d They\u2019re only conducting business.<\/p>\n
Before I reply, it\u2019s important to understand how confused this conversation has become, especially with the all the noise surrounding the anti-discrimination bills in Kansas and Arizona.<\/p>\n
The Kansas bill was very problematic, and unfortunately created enough negative sentiment to defeat the Arizona bill, which did not give anyone the right to refuse to serve gays, members of other faiths or political parties, or even Yankees fans for that matter.<\/p>\n
And neither the baker in Denver, the photographer in New Mexico, or the Florist in Washington refused to serve customers because they were gay. They refused participation in a same-sex wedding.<\/p>\n
Every good baker and photographer I know who take their work seriously see themselves as participating in the ceremonies they service, especially weddings. Their cakes adorn the celebration and their pictures document the story. And that\u2019s why they object to being forced to participate in same-sex weddings. It\u2019s not something they can do in good conscience.<\/p>\n
A baker friend of mine told me he turns down cake business all the time because of convictions that have nothing to do with same-sex weddings, like if they are sexually explicit or crude. He wouldn\u2019t bake a wedding cake if he knew the couple to be abusive. His faith has shaped his business for over 15 years, why should he be forced to disconnect his faith from his business now?<\/p>\n
Again, if he refused to serve a gay person a cupcake, he\u2019s sinning. However, that\u2019s not the same as baking a rainbow cake to celebrate gay marriage. It just isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Powers and Jethani are right that Jesus would serve, wash the feet of, and have dinner with a gay person. But that\u2019s different than saying that Jesus, the carpenter, would carve an altar for a same-sex wedding with a rainbow on it in place of a cross. He spent time with tax collectors, but He didn\u2019t help them steal more.<\/p>\n
Theologian Russell Moore makes a strong case for avoiding any involvement with same-sex \u201cweddings,\u201d which I\u2019ll link to at BreakPoint.org. But I\u2019m with Eric Teetsel, there\u2019s much to consider about what constitutes involvement and what doesn\u2019t. And, there\u2019s another question.<\/p>\n
Even if we assume that Jesus would participate in a gay \u201cwedding,\u201d does that mean we should force everyone to do it? Stamping out the freedom of those whose consciences differ is still unthinkable. I\u2019d never want a judge to order a bakery owned by someone who identifies as gay or lesbian to be forced to bake a \u201cGod hates gays\u201d cake for Westboro Baptist church. I would defend that baker\u2019s right to say no every time.<\/p>\n
We can\u2019t shrug off conscientious objections as if religious liberty doesn\u2019t matter. As Os Guinness argues in \u201cThe Global Public Square,\u201d religious freedom is essential not only for Christians or for religious people, and in this deeply polarized society, it\u2019s essential for maintaining peace, prosperity, and even civilization itself.<\/p>\n
________<\/p>\n
Copyright (c) 2014 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. “BreakPoint” is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.<\/p>\n
======================<\/p>\n
http:\/\/jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com\/2014\/02\/26\/bible-prohibit-providing-services-sex-weddings-theologia ns-weigh\/<\/p>\n
\u201cDoes the Bible prohibit providing services for same-sex weddings? Theologians weigh in.\u201d
\nJonathan Merritt
\nFebruary 26, 2014<\/p>\n
The evangelical world blew up this week over the question of whether Christian business owners and individuals should refuse goods and services for same-sex weddings. Many Christian theologians, pastors, and bloggers \u2014 particularly hailing from the evangelical new-Calvinist movement \u2014 have argued the answer is yes in some cases.<\/p>\n
In a Daily Beast column I wrote with Kirsten Powers, we argued that the Bible does not prohibit such service. Sean Davis at The Federalist blasted the column as \u201ca masterpiece of Biblical ignorance.\u201d He points to a passage in 1 Corinthians where the Apostle Paul addressed whether Christians should eat meat sacrificed to idols as proof that Christians should not provide service to same-sex weddings.<\/p>\n
Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), made a similar argument and cited the same scripture in a response to our column. He reasserted his position that Christians should \u201csacrifice the business for the conscience\u201d when there is an obvious deviation from Biblical standards. ERLC Director of Communications Joe Carter took to Twitter to accuse Kirsten and I of having \u201cembarrassed\u201d ourselves with the column.<\/p>\n
So, is our argument really that far off base? I reached out a variety of leading theologians the evangelical world respects to get their take. They uniformly found the use of 1 Corinthians in this case to be a misapplication.<\/p>\n
David Garland is professor of Christian Scriptures and dean at Baylor University\u2019s Truett Seminary and author of the Baker Exegetical commentary on 1 Corinthians. He said that he thought using this passage 1 Corinthians to justify refusing service for a same-sex marriage is difficult to square with the text, especially when you consider the entire context of the passage:
\n Paul\u2019s argument actually goes from chapter 8 through ten. In chapter 9, the emphasis is on how to ultimately win unbelievers. The argument here is actually about giving up one\u2019s right out of love for others and the sake of the faith. The goal in 8 and 9 is answering the question, \u2018How do you win people over?\u2019
\nWhen asked what he thought Paul would say to the Christian church on these issues, Garland replied, \u201cI think Paul would say, \u2018How can you witness to someone whom you will not serve?\u2019 That doesn\u2019t mean you condone, but you can serve without condoning.\u201d<\/p>\n
Next, I spoke to Scot McKnight, professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary and author of several commentaries and books. He characterized Moore\u2019s column as \u201cuncharacteristically elliptical\u201d and said the 1 Corinthians passage is about not engaging in behaviors that might cause a weaker Christian to sin.<\/p>\n
\u201cPaul would be saying to the photographer don\u2019t photograph if it would make a weaker brother or sister to fall into the sin of same-sex relationships,\u201d McKnight said.<\/p>\n
Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary and author of numerous books, including the NIV Application Commentary on 1 Corinthians, agreed with McKnight\u2019s analysis of this passage:
\n \u201cThe issue in this passage is what to do when another Christian tells you that an action you\u2019re involved in is a problem for them,\u201d Blomberg said.\u201d To apply to a cake-baking situation, you\u2019d need a weaker brother saying that if they saw you selling cake for a gay wedding, they were going to not only bake a cake but go commit some sin. Somewhere in the world of 7 billion people, there might be someone like that. But I don\u2019t think so.\u201d
\nRichard Hays, professor of New Testament and dean of Duke Divinity School, echoed McKnight and Blomberg\u2019s sentiments about the scripture passage:
\n I don\u2019t think that passage has much of anything to do with your own conscience. It has to do with not engaging in behavior that would negatively affect those who are more morally scrupulous than you are. Paul is talking about restricting your freedom when your conscience is not offended, not about how to live when your conscience is offended. It certainly doesn\u2019t have anything to do with protecting my own conscience.
\nIn his book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament , Hays argued that the church should not support or bless gay unions \u2014 even lifelong, monogamous ones. When I asked him about whether or not he thinks it\u2019s okay for a Christian to refuse to bake a cake for a gay or lesbian person who was getting married, he responded:
\n \u201cJesus was condemned by the scribes and Pharisees for associating with people of whose conduct they disapproved. The charge of eating and drinking with them tells us that Jesus\u2019 enemies did regard him as complicit in their behavior. But he did it anyway,\u201d Hays said. \u201cI worry that the people who can\u2019t bake a cake for people are putting themselves inside the bubble of Pharisaism. I just can\u2019t go there.\u201d
\nAnd what of those vendors who refuse services to same-sex couples but turn a blind eye to other kinds of unbiblical weddings? Should we be concerned about the apparent double standards of our brothers and sisters?<\/p>\n
Craig Blomberg thinks so.<\/p>\n
\u201cDo the people involved regularly inquire about such things? If not, why would you change things just because someone happened to volunteer the information that they are gay and this is for a wedding,\u201d he said. \u201cI try to look for consistency of application no matter what principle you\u2019re following. Whatever principle you\u2019re applying for heterosexuals who you may not approve of, you should do the same.\u201d<\/p>\n
McKnight agrees: \u201cThere is a fair charge of hypocrisy since it concerns itself with only one kind of sin.\u201d<\/p>\n
======================<\/p>\n
http:\/\/erlc.com\/article\/are-christians-hypocritical-on-weddings-and-conscience-pr otection<\/p>\n
“Should a Christian Photographer Work at a Same-Sex Wedding Ceremony?”
\nRussell D. Moore
\nFebruary 23, 2014<\/p>\n
Dear Dr. Moore,<\/p>\n
I am an evangelical Christian, and I work as a wedding photographer. By conscience, I hold to an orthodox view of human sexuality, with all that entails. I\u2019ve been asked to photograph a same-sex wedding service (legal in my state), and I\u2019ve said no. I wonder if I did the right thing.<\/p>\n
After all, this is a business, providing a service. Would it be right for me to refuse to serve a gay couple if I owned a restaurant? I don\u2019t think so. If a same-sex marriage isn\u2019t a marriage at all (as the historic Christian view teaches), then how is this different from just photographing people at a birthday party or community festival (in which case it wouldn\u2019t matter what\u2019s happening with them sexually).<\/p>\n
Moreover, I\u2019m not sure that photographing an event is an endorsement of that event. I have photographed weddings of people who were divorced (and I didn\u2019t investigate the background), people who were probably cohabiting, people who were most likely unequally yoked to one another, and so on.<\/p>\n
So I\u2019m kind of caught. My conscience bothers me because I turned this couple down, and my conscience will bother me if I photograph this wedding. What do you think?<\/p>\n
The Wedding Photographer
\nDear WP,<\/p>\n
You\u2019re right that this situation is more complicated than whether to serve someone at a restaurant (yes) regardless of that person\u2019s sexual or marital situation. I would also argue that the situation is very different from photographing some other event, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the clients\u2019 sexual or marital context. The fact that this is a wedding means there\u2019s a different moral question for you.<\/p>\n
You are also right that your role as a wedding photographer is different from an officiating minister, a member of the wedding party, or even an invited guest. All of those people are part of the wedding itself, the assembled witnesses who affirm the lawfulness of the union and pledge to hold the couple accountable for their vows.<\/p>\n
If you were, say, a photojournalist for a news service, there to report on the first same-sex marriage in your state, for instance, there would be no issue for your conscience. As a wedding photographer, though, you are in a third place between participant and neutral observer.<\/p>\n
A same-sex wedding is different, I think, from the other problematic marriages you mentioned, for a couple of reasons.<\/p>\n
First of all, while a biblical view of marriage would see that such people (fornicators, believers to unbelievers, unlawfully divorced, etc.) should not get married, and that the church has no authority to marry them, we also would affirm that such people, when married, actually are married. A pastor who joins a believer to an unbeliever bears an awful responsibility for doing something wrong, but the end result is an actual marriage.<\/p>\n
The same-sex marriage differs not in terms of morality, but in terms of reality. It is not that homosexuality is some sort of wholly different or unforgivable sexual sin. It\u2019s that the historic Christian view of marriage means that without sexual complementarity there is no marriage at all.<\/p>\n
More than that, you are right to note that your situation takes place at a moment of concerted cultural revisionism on the question of marriage as conjugal union. A same-sex wedding service right now is not merely personal, but, whether the couple intends this or not, political, with all sorts of corresponding questions.<\/p>\n
Your conscience is conflicted right now, but suppose there\u2019s in the near future an evangelical or Roman Catholic or Muslim photographer whose conscience would be morally opposed to participating at all in a same-sex marriage ceremony. There\u2019s a real question as to whether the civil state will penalize this person\u2019s conscientious objection, at least in some parts of the country. And a state that will do that has over-stepped its authority.<\/p>\n
I would say that the decisions you\u2019ll make, generally, as a wedding photographer will correspond often with the Corinthian dilemma of whether to eat meat that had been offered to idols (1 Cor. 8).<\/p>\n
The Apostle Paul says, first of all, that the idols don\u2019t represent real gods (1 Cor. 8:4), in the same way that you would argue that a wedding without a bride or a groom isn\u2019t really a marriage. If something\u2019s put before you, the apostle writes, eat it to the glory of God, no questions asked.<\/p>\n
But, the apostle says, if the food is advertised as sacrificed to idols abstain from it for the sake of the consciences of those around you (1 Cor. 8:7-9). This is the difference between investigating a doughnut shop owner\u2019s buying habits before eating there and stopping in for doughnuts when the sign out front flashes: \u201cEat here and support our owner\u2019s cocaine and prostitutes habit.\u201d<\/p>\n
You need not investigate as a wedding photographer whether the wedding you are photographing is Christ-honoring. But when there is an obvious deviation from the biblical reality, sacrifice the business for conscience, your own and those of the ones in your orbit who would be confused.<\/p>\n
That said, don\u2019t be mean.<\/p>\n
The couple asking you to do this wedding aren\u2019t your enemies (Eph. 6:12). They are made in the image of God and are loved by him, and so should be loved by us. As orthodox Christians we don\u2019t believe this leads to the happiness they\u2019re looking for, but we must stand with kindness as well as with conviction. Tell the couple that you wish them well, but that you have beliefs about marriage that won\u2019t allow your conscience to participate in this way. Thank them for asking you but recommend a photographer who can click away with a clear conscience.<\/p>\n
________<\/p>\n
Russell D. Moore is the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Several articles on Christians and conscience\/employment concerning homosexual marriages ===================== \u201cBaking Cakes for Caesar – Why We Need Freedom to Say \u2018No\u2019\u201d Breakpoint Commentary by John Stonestreet March 3, 2014 Would Jesus bake cakes for same-sex weddings? Good question, but there\u2019s more to this whole issue that WWJD. The call for tolerating same-sex marriage has […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[135,2477,3607,1061,2324,97,2124,1388,4725],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5428"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5428"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5428\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}