A few weeks
ago, I had a hard conversation with someone who wanted my pastoral
counsel. A woman who owns a remodeling
company was contacted by a family who wanted her to renovate a building they
use to celebrate something she strongly opposes. If she accepts the contract, she will, in her
mind, be serving the interests of people whose lifestyle clearly violates her
deeply held beliefs. If she refuses, and
the reason is discovered, these individuals could take her to court, and she
could lose her business.
Thankfully,
I had just finished reading this piece, and in the same spirit, told her that remodeling a building isn’t an
endorsement of what goes on in that building.
It’s just a job. Furthermore, she
should not first consider her convictions, but instead think of others and
serve their interests. Finally, after
about an hour of back and forth, I honestly got tired of her struggle and told
my transgendered friend to “suck it up” and say yes to re-modeling the WestboroBaptist Church.
That story
not end the way you thought it would?
For several
weeks now, I’ve followed the banter on both sides of a national discussion that
is nearly out of control. Though a
number of legitimate issues have been raised from religious freedom to
compassion and understanding, to tolerance and Christian servitude, this
conversation predictably, and regrettably, became incredibly polarized. (We
Americans are getting really, really good at that)
I’m not a
pundit, a news commentator, a pie in the sky blogger or a politician. I’m a pastor who currently serves a network
of churches, all of whom are asking serious questions about these issues. After the cameras are turned off and all the
online news and blog sites cool down from this recent controversy—after
Jonathan Merritt and Rachel Held Evans have moved on to other pots to stir--our
churches will still be left to navigate the minefield that is left behind, and
they will do so with both a desire to honor their convictions, and an equal
desire to serve people in the name of Jesus.
And if we don’t start admitting that these issues are far more
complicated than current discussions suggest, we will do neither.
Where this
issue is concerned, my convictions as a follower of Jesus lead me toward two
unavoidable conclusions that, on the surface, would seem to conflict. On the one hand, the Scriptural concept of
the imago dei brings me to conclude
that no individual should be denied essential services, or otherwise treated as
“subhuman,” regardless of who they are, or what they may be involved with that
I might find objectionable. As I
understand it, the recently debated Arizona “religious freedom” law would have
potentially created that kind of environment, and so I was disappointed that so
many Christian leaders would thoughtlessly stand behind such a reckless piece
of legislation. I don’t want to live in
a country where someone could be denied service in a restaurant because they
are gay anymore than I want to live in a country where a cab driver can refuse
to take me to a Baptist church because he thinks we are all ‘full of hate.” Additionally, I tend to agree with Andy
Stanley, who has recently stated that serving people who are not like you and
disagree with you is, in many ways, the essence of what it means to be
Christian.
On the other
hand, I’m very concerned that religious freedom is being significantly
diminished. For 238 years this nation,
with few exceptions, has been a model for complete and unfettered religious
freedom. I also believe that faith isn’t something
that can be merely confined to what happens on a Sunday in a building, but
spills over into one’s daily life and includes one’s vocation. Contrary to those who contend that baking a
wedding cake, taking pictures, or any other service-oriented task is “just a
job,” 1 Corinthians 10:31 would seem to indicate that nothing a follower of
Jesus does is “just a job,” and should be undertaken with this solemn
realization in mind. In light of that
recognition, I want people to be able to think deeply and meaningfully about
how their faith is best expressed without the outside compelling influence of Caesar—or
fellow blogging Christians screaming “hypocrite!”
To be sure,
some of those bloggers are asking some VERY legitimate questions: “Why would
you photograph the wedding of a heterosexual couple who lived together, but not
a gay couple? Aren’t we all
sinners? Isn’t there something in
Scripture about ‘going the second mile’?”
These deserve deep, prayerful reflection for churches to formulate a
response. Unfortunately, the same folks
asking these questions are also insisting that those they ask be forced by law to
simply comply. To be sure, there is
something quite ironic about telling your brothers and sisters in Christ to “suck
it up,” and not be concerned about freedom of conscience. “Just do what a follower of Jesus should do. And in the event that you don’t know what to
do, never fear. We will tell you.”
Trouble is,
religious freedom and the Christian responsibility to serve others aren’t
mutually exclusive enterprises, and I’m alarmed at the dismissive approach to
this issue that seems to be taken by more progressive evangelicals. As a follower of Jesus, my mandate is to
serve both conscience and people, and legislation from either side of the aisle
won’t bring about that end.
The reason
this issue is more complex than most in the media recognize is four-fold: First, evangelical Christians hold to a sexual
ethic rooted firmly in Scripture that speaks clearly to a number of things,
including homosexuality. Sexuality isn’t the center and circumference of who we
are, Jesus is. But among the innumerable
things over which Jesus has declared His Lordship, our sexuality is
included. As His follower, I can’t
simply play the M.C. Hammer game of “can’t touch this” if I’m going to be faithful
to His entire counsel, and on this issue, His counsel is clear. I’m amenable to discussions of Biblical
authority. Send me a Dan Savage who saysthe Bible is “full of B.S.” any day and I’ll have an open, honest
conversation with that guy. But please,
let’s have no more of the laughable hermeneutical acrobatics some in the
evangelical world are attempting in order to harmonize a high view of Scripture
with the affirmation of gay relationships.
The sheer exegetical incoherence and academic dishonesty inherent in
those discussions makes me nauseous.
Disagree if you want with what the Bible says. We can have radically different views of the
authority of Scripture and still be friends. But first let’s be real and admit that on this
issue, Scripture speaks clearly.
I love people, and I love to be loved by
people. In our current environment, I
recognize that it would be much easier on me to capitulate on this issue—or to
simply say nothing. I have gay
friends. I have lesbian friends. I have transgendered friends. They are precious, image-bearers of God that
I believe Jesus died to save. My
affections for them, combined with what I know God has revealed about this
issue in His Word, compel me not to roll over.
Instead, I’m commanded to take “every thought captive” as I contemplate
how to interact with those who are different from me. The
result of this will be obedience to my conscience as guided by the Holy Spirit,
as well as a God-given desire to reach out and love all people. Followers of Jesus, don’t have the luxury of
choosing one of these over the other.
Second, there
is a broad way in which the balance of conscience and service will be struck
among churches and those who are a part of them. if asked by one of the roughly 10,000 people
who attend our churches what they should do, I would encourage them to
seriously contemplate “baking the cake.”
Personally, I’m in agreement with others who contend that there is a
marked difference between solemnizing a ceremony and providing the
accoutrements for that ceremony.
Additionally, I don’t know of any other way that people can feel the
love of Jesus unless they are around people who belong to Jesus. At some point, we have to think about how
people can be surrounded by Gospel communities that not only preach, but live,
a message of loving both God and neighbor.
So as I’m consulting with churches on this issue, I encourage them to
have these conversations at a much deeper level than they experience in
American media or on internet blog sites.
Third, I
want our churches and those who are part of those churches to come to their own
conclusions as to how to respond to this without outside coercion, because
freedom of religion means, well, freedom.
We have a number of churches in our Association who have policies on
things like divorce, ordination, et al that I personally disagree with, but if
I know that the local body of Christ has come together and, within Scriptural
boundaries, come to a consensus on an issue after long, mature and prayerful
discussion, then I stand with them. My
role is to encourage them to think deeply and prayerfully. Some may take my advice above, and some will
disagree. For those in the latter category, I wouldn’t want them lending their
resources to something they believed to be sinful any more than I would want my
transgendered friend in the hypothetical example above forced to work for Fred
Phelps.
Unfortunately,
the rushed discussion around these issues doesn’t allow for that. In the face of gay marriage being legalized
in my state, many churches were quickly advised by attorneys to add language to
their governing documents that on the one hand would protect them from a
potential lawsuit that could drive them into bankruptcy, but on the other hand,
has shut down the conversation altogether.
I want people in our churches to talk with homosexuals, not with attorneys
about homosexuals. It is tragic that our
current environment actually encourages the latter. We need a better, more mature, less trite
conversation than the one we are currently experiencing.
And the more
I listen to the voices on all sides of this discussion, the more I’m convinced
that legislation and/or enforcement from either side won’t solve the
problem. Regardless of which side
prevails in a battle of this nature, the inevitable result would be that the
problem gets worse, not better.
The
simplistic logic, reactionary judgment, and vitriolic division that surrounds
this current discussion illustrates clearly that this is a distinctly American
argument. Our realpolitik has, for
decades, created the very culture in which conversations like this one
naturally turn sour. Followers of Jesus
must aspire to a higher form of dialogue.
But to do so, our clear mandate to love our neighbor must continue to be
informed by and balanced with our prime directive of loving our God. Harsh, reactionary legislation on one side,
and litigious efforts to put people out of business under a “Jim Crow” mantra
on the other will ensure that love is the absolute last thing that
characterizes any of us.
3 comments:
Amen. IMHO, a job, whether contract work or longer, is a mission field. To say, "No thanks" to an opportunity where we may share the love of Christ, be light in the dark, results in depriving the mission field in being reached - and we miss out of the blessings of obedience.
Joel, I understand the direction you are coming from, however, is not baking the wedding cake just a breath away from encouraging pastors to participate in modernization of those unions?
Hi Don. Thanks for writing. My short answer to your question is no. But your disagreement with me here actually points back to my original point. Churches and those who are a part of those churches, should have the freedom to talk through this issue as you and I would do if you were in my association. And, they should be able to do it without the outside coercion of government. Personally, you and I may disagree, but if you were to come to see things my way, I wpuld want it to be because you freely chose to do so and not because any particular response was being forced on you. Our Association has a baseline of belief on this issue, but our application will be varied depending on the context, since our region is also very diverse. I just want government to treat our churches with the same respect and freedom. And in response, Id also like Christian leaders to not so quickly back legislation that, in the end, is itself a slippery slope from religious freedom toward the denial of basic services. Our current environment of litigiousness and legislation is making this sort of reflective process nearly impossible. Hope that helps explain the larger point.
Post a Comment