Homosexuality is one of
the hottest political and social issues of our times. Since it is discussed several
times in the New Testament and since I teach New Testament, I wanted to produce
a clear, concise statement of my position on this issue.
First, a genuine Christian position on homosexuality must
never be about hate. The New Testament is very clear that we are to love our
neighbor as ourselves. I do not consider gay people to be my enemies, but for those
who do, I would remind them that Jesus commanded his followers to love even their
enemies. All Christians should love gay people. Gay people should never be
mocked, ridiculed, threatened, or abused. Gay people will never be won to
Christ out of hostility. They should be treated with love and compassion.
Second, Gay people should not be refused service simply
because they are gay. Christian business owners do not refuse service to adulterers,
or to unmarried people who are living together. Why should gay people be
singled out?
Third,
the issue is not, or should not be, about orientation, but about behavior. The
Bible simply does not address the issue of sexual orientation. It addresses
behavior. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), the men of the city
gather at Lot’s house and demand, “Where are the men who came to you tonight?
Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” That is about behavior,
not orientation.[1] Leviticus
18:22 says, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman.” That’s about
behavior, not orientation. Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man lies with a man as
one lies with a woman…[it] is detestable.” That’s about behavior. Romans 1:27
speaks of how “Men committed indecent acts with other men.” That’s about
behavior. Finally the English Standard Version translates αρσενοκοιται in First Corinthians 6:9 and First
Timothy 1:10 accurately as “men who practice homosexuality.” That too, is about
behavior. The same is true of the condemnation found in Jude 7.[2]
In every case, the Bible is discussing behavior, not orientation.
Orientation is about attraction and temptation, neither
of which by itself is sin.[3]
Personally, I am attracted to women and have sometimes been tempted by women,
but that fact alone does not make it sin. Even Jesus was tempted in all points
as we are—yet without sin. So when a man is attracted to or tempted by another
man, or when a woman is attracted to or tempted by another woman, that by
itself is not sin.
There is
a difference between attraction and lust. Lust has to do with strong desire
that one chooses to focus and dwell upon. Both gay and straight people can
choose what they focus on and lust after. They do not always choose to whom
they are attracted. There is nothing, therefore, inherently sinful about a
celibate homosexual. In fact, a Christian who is attracted to people of the
same sex, but who refrains from having sex with people of the same sex out of a
deep love for Christ should be commended for his or her dedication to Christ!
In
addition, there is also nothing inherently sinful about same-sex love that is
non-sexual. The love David and Jonathan had for each other is said to have
surpassed even their love for women (2 Samuel 1:26), which is saying a lot
considering David’s attraction to women!
Finally, while there is nothing inherently sinful about
same-sex attraction or same-sex love that is non-sexual, the Bible is very
clear that having sex with someone of the same sex is not only sinful, it is
particularly detestable to God. Leviticus 18 and 20 are clear that God even
expects pagan nations to know better, and that he will destroy nations over the
practices listed in those chapters. Those practices include sex with close
relatives, sex with animals and sex with people of the same sex.
The
condemnation of the behavior of sex with people of the same sex is not just in
the Old Testament, it is repeated several times in the New Testament. The Bible
is very clear—sex with people of the same sex is sin, just like sex with close
relatives is sin or sex with people outside of marriage is sin. Those who want to twist Scripture into
saying something else would do well to heed Paul’s warning about immorality in
general, “For God has
not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore
whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who
gives his Holy Spirit to you” (1 Thess. 4:7-8).
Objections
People have, of course, raised all kinds of objections to
this position. First, some will question why Christians make
homosexuality such a battleground issue. The answer is that we Christians
did not choose the battleground. Christians are not the ones seeking to make
the changes. These changes are being imposed on our society by judges,
politicians, Hollywood, the news media, public schools and gay rights advocate
organizations. Christians are simply responding. If our society, for example,
wanted to legalize sex and marriage between close relatives, Christians would
be forced to make our voice heard on that too. It is part of living in a free
democracy, but infinitely more important, it is part of Jesus’ command to be salt
and light in this world.
Second,
some will
admit that the Old Testament condemns sex between people of the same sex, but
the Old Testament also says we should stone murderers and we don’t do that
anymore either.
That’s true, but the fact that we don’t stone murderers doesn’t make murder any
less of a sin. Besides, no one is advocating the execution of gay people
(except in some Muslim countries).
Third,
some will
argue that the passages prohibiting homosexual behavior in Leviticus were
simply part of a ritual purity code designed to distinguish Israel from her
neighbors. The
implication is apparently that these practices are not valid for today. If that
is true, than prohibitions against incest and child sacrifice would not be
valid either since they are part of the same contexts.
Fourth, some will acknowledge that the Old
Testament condemns sex between people of the same sex, but will argue that the
Old Testament also says we shouldn’t eat pork, etc. The implication is that the
prohibition against sex with people of the same sex, like the prohibition
against eating pork, should be ignored. It is certainly true that The New
Testament teaches that the New Covenant has fulfilled the Old Covenant in some respects
(for example, regarding sacrifices, food laws, priesthood and ceremonial
purity), but that does not mean that we can just throw our Old Testament out. We
know that New Testament writers continued to believe that the Old Testament was
valid because they extensively allude to and quote from the Old Testament as
their Bible and final authority. Unlike the sacrifices or dietary laws, the fact
that the prohibition against sex with people of the same sex is repeated several
times in the New Testament makes it clear that this prohibition was not
annulled.
We
should also note that the context of Leviticus 18 and 20 is not about
sacrifices, ceremonies or dietary laws. As mentioned above, it contains
numerous sexual prohibitions including sex with close relatives and sex with
animals as well as sex between people of the same sex.
Fifth, some people object by pointing out
that Jesus never condemned
homosexuality. It is true that there is nothing
recorded in the Gospels about Jesus specifically condemning sex between people
of the same sex, but Jesus didn’t specifically condemn sex between children and
parents, or sex with animals either.[4]
On the other hand Jesus was not entirely silent on the topic. According to
Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus says,
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that
at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,” and said, “For this
reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and
the two will become one flesh” (Matthew 19:4-5).
In this passage, Jesus is quoting from Genesis 1:27 and
2:24 affirming the sacredness of marriage between one man and one woman. Jesus
never even hints that God would approve of same-sex marriage. On the contrary,
Jesus specifically condemned sexual immorality (e.g. Mark 7:21). In Jesus’
culture all Jews, including Jesus, agreed that the Torah was their Bible. In
fact, Jesus strongly affirmed and upheld the Torah (Matthew 5:17-18)—and the
Torah specifically condemned sex between people of the same sex (it also
condemned cross-dressing as an abomination; Deuteronomy 22:5).[5]
Sixth, some people object saying that Romans
1 is discussing idolatry. They argue that Paul is, therefore, discussing the
kind of orgies that took place in the context of pagan worship but that he was
not condemning loving same-sex relationships. That Paul was not condemning loving same-sex
relationships, however, is usually just asserted by the critics, not
demonstrated. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that would lead us to
believe that Paul would have approved of sex between people of the same sex in any
context. The fact that he specifically condemns the practice three times
without qualification is evidence that the critics’ objection is false.
While it
is true that Paul is discussing idolatry in Romans 1, that is only a partial
truth. In Romans 1 Paul is condemning the willful rejection of what may be
known of God, leading to idolatry. Paul says that as a result of this willful
rejection, “God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual
impurity” and to “shameful lusts” as well as to wickedness, evil greed malice,
etc. The fact that Paul is discussing idolatry in Romans 1 does not excuse any
of the sins he lists in that chapter, whether murder, deceit, slander or sex
with people of the same sex. Nowhere in the Bible is there any hint that sex
between people of the same sex is acceptable to God.
Seventh, another objection is that
Romans 1 is about the behavior of the Caesars or about oppressive relationships
between rich and powerful Roman citizens and the lower classes but not about
loving same-sex relationships. Some of my arguments on Romans 1 above also
answer this objection, but the argument about the Caesars ignores the fact that
some relationships between an emperor and another man or a boy were probably
loving same-sex behaviors! Paul still condemns the behavior, whether loving or
not. Besides, there is nothing in Romans 1 about the Caesars anyway. That is
something read into the text, not from it.
Rev. Canon Steve Chalke, argues that
our understanding of ancient culture shows that upper-class Roman citizens
regularly sexually abused lower class non-Roman citizens. He believes that this
is what the Bible is referring to when it condemns homosexual behavior. For
example, Chalke says, “When 1 Timothy and 1
Corinthians make references to men who have sex with other men, it’s
part of a much longer list of people who are exploitative ― murderers, slave
traders, liars, perjurers, thieves, the greedy, slanderers, swindlers.”
The passages Chalke cites, however,
also contain references to lying, greed, slander, lawlessness, adultery, drunkenness
and other sins. One has to ask, therefore, whether Chalke thinks these sins are
also acceptable unless perpetrated by rich and powerful exploiters. After all,
it would be ridiculous to imagine that sexual immorality, adultery or
homosexual behavior were practiced only by rich and powerful Roman citizens who
exploited the lower classes, so we have to ask how Chalke can be so sure Paul’s
condemnation is only directed toward the upper classes.
I suspect that we find the answer to
this when Chalke goes on to address what I think is the real issue. Chalke
says, “Whoever Paul is talking about, it cannot be the wonderful same-sex
couples that are in our church, or the gay man or the transgender woman I know.
It just can’t be them.” The issue is really not about biblical interpretation
at all. It is about emotion. Some people just can’t imagine that God would
condemn such nice people.
There almost seems to be a new gospel
in the air—a gospel of niceness, in which all warm, friendly, nice people are
accepted by God. It is only the terribly abusive, oppressive, and mean people
whom God condemns. One problem with this assumption is that some of the
friendliest and nicest people you’d ever want to meet are among those whom Paul
says will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians
5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-6). The kingdom of God is not for those who deny, excuse
or explain away their sin—regardless of how nice they are—but for those who
sincerely repent of their sin and turn to Christ in faith.[6]
Eighth, one’s sexual orientation is
genetic—gay people are born that way. But the disputed question of whether
people are genetically predisposed to being gay is entirely irrelevant to this
discussion. From a biblical perspective, the issue is about behavior, not about
sexual orientation or genetics. For example, a genetic predisposition to
alcoholism is not sinful nor is it necessarily sin for someone to be tempted by
drinking too much. Getting drunk,
however, is a behavior condemned in the Bible as sin. Similarly, a genetic
predisposition to same sex attraction is not sinful, nor is it necessarily sin
for someone to be tempted by someone of the same sex. But the Bible teaches
that it is sin to lust after someone of either sex, and it is sin
to have sex with people of the same sex just as it is sin for opposite sex
couples to have sex outside of marriage.
Ninth, some people object saying that we
don’t make other sins illegal, like adultery, for example. That is true,
but it is also irrelevant since no one is trying to make sex with people of the
same sex illegal either.
Tenth, some will argue that even scholars can’t
agree on the interpretation of the homosexuality passages in the Bible so we
should avoid being dogmatic and judgmental on this issue. Actually, you
would be hard pressed to find any subject on which all scholars agree.
You could undoubtedly even find some perverted scholars who would say that
having sex with children was OK! The fact, however, is that for more than 2,000
years virtually all scholars did agree that the Bible teaches that sex between
people of the same sex is sin. It has only been very recently, when western
society began to push same-sex marriage, that so-called scholars have come out
of the woodwork to re-interpret these passages to support their cause. Many
people begin by assuming that what their culture teaches is true and they
desperately try to re-interpret the Bible to support their culture. Others so
desperately want to fit in to their culture that they twist the Bible to
support their views. Make no mistake about it—The Bible itself is very clear:
Sex between people of the same sex is sin.
Eleventh, what Christians tolerate changes
over time. For example, at one time Crown College didn’t allow dancing or
drinking (by faculty) but we do now. Perhaps it is now time to change our
stance on homosexuality. This objection is like comparing apples to oranges.
While it is true that Crown College changed its position on dancing and
drinking, there are no prohibitions against dancing or drinking (in moderation)
in the Bible. These rules were adopted not because such practices were sinful
in and of themselves, but because in the culture of the time they were
considered by many Christians to be characteristic of worldliness. Similarly,
at one time Crown required men to wear a coat and tie—but that wasn’t because
the college thought it was sinful to appear without a coat and tie! By
contrast, there are numerous prohibitions in the Bible which are very clear,
for example against adultery, murder, theft, incest, and having sex with people
of the same sex (in both testaments). These prohibitions transcend cultures and
time periods, and those who strive to be faithful to the Lord are simply not
free to change or ignore these prohibitions.
Twelfth, Christians are inconsistent because
they tolerate other sins like pride, greed, envy, or gluttony, but they do not
tolerate homosexuality. Unfortunately, there is some truth to this objection.
The biblical answer, however, is not the complete toleration of all sin, but
that churches should be more consistent!
Thirteenth, some argue that people should be
able to marry whomever they love. Really? Should the government also support or promote
polygamy, polyamory, incestuous marriage, the marriage between adults and
children or the marriage between adults and their pets? If the only issue is
love, then the answer would have to be yes—In fact, some would say the answer
should be yes. Others would say that this begins to make marriage, as the union
of two people for the purpose of raising and supporting children, meaningless. At
least one gay rights activist was honest enough to admit that making marriage
meaningless was the whole point of the same sex marriage debate. This argument,
however, really obscures the real issue which, as will be seen below, has to do
with freedom of religion and speech.
Fourteenth, people should not be refused
service simply because they are gay. As I mentioned at the beginning of
this position paper, I agree. Unfortunately, many of these cases have been
misrepresented in the media. For example, both Barronell Studzman, owner of Arlene’s flowers in Washington
State, and Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado were happy
to serve gay people. Barronell Studzman had served gay clients for years and Jack
Phillips told the gay clients he would be happy to provide baked goods for
them, but they just could not support same-sex marriage.
I
would not want government to force a gay baker to make a cake saying that
homosexuality was sin, would you? I would not want the government to force a member
of PETA who owned a sign company to make a sign advertising cheese burgers. I
would not want government to force a Jewish deli owner to cater an anti-Semitic
conference. I would not want a Muslim store owner to be forced to sell supplies
to churches. I would not want the government to force an African-American
restaurant owner to cater a meeting of the KKK. No one should be forced to
support causes with which they disagree. When government can tell individuals
or businesses what issues they must support or cannot support, we no longer
have freedom.
Fifteenth,
the precedent for
including practicing homosexuals in church membership is the inclusion of
uncircumcised believers in the early church. Circumcision was required in the
Old Testament, and yet that requirement was overturned to allow uncircumcised
believers into the church. Similarly, practicing homosexuals should also be
included in church membership. This argument, however, is comparing apples to
oranges. Unlike homosexual practice, circumcision was never regarded as sinful.
The comparison is like suggesting that since the uncircumcised were welcome
into the church, child molesters or those living in adultery should also be
welcome! Modern church that openly bless behaviors that are called sin in both
testaments, have departed from the faith and fall under the condemnations found
in Second Peter and Jude.
The real issue[7]
Politically
speaking, however, the real issue is not about whether someone should be able
to marry someone of the same sex. The real issue is about freedom of speech and
freedom of religion. As I mentioned above, in Oregon a Christian baker had been
happily serving a gay customer for years. Contrary to impressions left by the
news media, she did not hate gay people and was not opposed to serving them. When
the customer, however, decided to “marry” his gay lover and wanted the baker to
bake the wedding cake, the baker determined that her religious convictions
would not allow her to support gay marriage in this way and she respectfully
declined. The state of Oregon pressed charges against her.
When gay
marriage became legal in Massachusetts, the public school system began
promoting it. One Christian family did not want their children exposed to this
state-sponsored propaganda and asked that their children be exempted from the class
sessions in which homosexuality would be promoted. The school refused. The
family sued. The judge determined that since gay marriage was public policy in
Massachusetts, the family did not have the right to exempt their own children
from such instruction (the idea that parents have no right to exempt their
children from state indoctrination on any topic should concern all Americans of
any social or political persuasion)!
In
Boston, a Catholic adoption agency that specialized in difficult placements was
forced by the state to go out of business because they could not in good conscience
adopt to gay couples—even though there were other adoption agencies that would
adopt to gay couples!
In
Maryland a Christian camp faced legal battles with the state because they could
not in good conscience rent their own privately owned facilities out for
same-sex civil unions. A Christian family in New York also faced legal battles
when they could not in good conscience rent out the facilities on their own
farm (which they made available for weddings) for a gay marriage. There is an
important distinction here. It would be wrong for this camp or family to refuse
service to a client just because he or she was gay. But freedom of speech and
freedom of religion should protect their right to refuse to lend support to an
institution, i.e. gay marriage, they believe to be sinful.
In yet another
case a Christian counselor faced legal opposition when she declined to counsel
a gay couple having relationship problems. Even though the Christian psychologist
referred the couple to another counselor who was open to gay relationships, the
gay couple sued anyway. Similar legal battles were faced by a Christian
photographer who could not in good conscience photograph a gay wedding.
More
recently California bill SB 1146 would have cut off all state funding (student
aid) to colleges that prohibit sex between people of the same sex. This would
discriminate against Christian Colleges based on their religious beliefs and
effectively put most Christian colleges out of business.
Chai Feldblum, who was the Obama appointee to head up the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission once said that when gay rights clash
with religious freedom there is virtually no case in which religious freedom
should win! Several law school professors once wrote that the clash between gay
rights and religious freedom was going to be a “train wreck.”
It is very important to note that this issue is NOT about
whether the government should be able to force people to violate their beliefs.
For example, if someday the government passed a law forcing me to swap my gas
car for an electric car because of climate change dogma, this would violate my
belief that climate change is more about politics than science, but it would
not violate my religious convictions and I would obey the government.
The real
issue, politically speaking, is whether the government should be able to force
people to do (or refrain from doing) something that they sincerely believe
would constitute sin against God. That is what the first amendment was designed
to protect. There are always exceptions to any rule of course, (e.g. freedom of
speech does not allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater), but generally
speaking, a government is tyrannical that attempts to force people to do things
they sincerely believe are sinful. This is just as true, whether we are talking
(hypothetically) about a government that would force a Muslim grocer to sell
alcohol, or a Jewish deli owner to sell ham, as it is about a government that
would force Christians to promote homosexual behavior through the support of
gay marriage.
There is
a very simple solution to this problem. If the government would simply ensure
that any and all gay rights laws and regulations were also accompanied with
strong freedom of religious conscience protections, the issue would largely
dissolve. The fact, however, is that many gay rights advocates (both gay and
straight) strenuously object to religious conscience protections, and such
objections to religious protections are, in my opinion, not only in opposition
to the first amendment, they are fundamentally anti-American.
Summary
First,
gay people are people for whom Jesus died—every bit as much as he died for me
or you. Those who call themselves Christians but physically or verbally abuse
gay people are like Pharisees, demonstrating that they really have no concept
of God’s grace or the magnitude of their own sin.
Second,
the Bible says nothing about sexual orientation. It is not necessarily sin to
love, be attracted to, or tempted by someone of the same sex. Third, the Bible
is very clear that sex between two people of the same sex is serious sin—so
serious that the Torah said God would destroy nations over it. Finally, the
real issue, politically speaking, is about freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Gay marriage and Christian business
owners
As
mentioned above, Christian florists, bakers, psychologists, printers,
photographers, and others have been sued for discrimination against gay people.
While most, if not all of these Christians are happy to serve gay people, they
cannot in good conscience provide services which they believe to be in support
of the institution of gay marriage. Other Christians would insist that there is
nothing wrong with providing services for gay weddings.
We need
to be clear that there are at least three separate issues here. First, “Can a
Christian business owner biblically provide services to non-Christians,
including gay people?” The answer should be an unqualified “yes.” There can be
no serious doubt that Jesus the carpenter, Paul, Priscilla and Aquila the
tentmakers, Simon the Tanner, and Lydia the Christian business woman all served
unbelievers—many of whom were likely very unethical or immoral. Jesus and the
others apparently did not think that serving such people constituted support
for ungodly lifestyles.
The
second issue is whether the U.S. government should be able to force people of
faith to violate their fundamental religious convictions. The answer is
absolutely not! In a nation in which the Constitution guarantees freedom of
speech and religion, the government has no Constitutional right to force people
to promote causes with which they disagree, whether that involves requiring a
Christian to bake a cake for a gay wedding, forcing a Muslim to provide
catering services for a wine company, or forcing a pro-choice sign maker to
promote a pro-life rally! Freedom of Speech is not just about being able to say
what you want—it also involves not being forced to say or promote something you
don’t want to say or promote.
For
clarity sake, it was important to separate these two issues from the third, and
much more difficult issue which is, “Would it be sin for a Christian business
owner to provide services for a gay wedding?” Specifically, would providing
such services constitute “support” for gay marriage? Christian business owners
who refuse to provide services for gay weddings do so because they sincerely
believe that providing such support constitutes support for the unbiblical
institution of gay marriage. In the discussion below I’ll use catering as an
example but the principles apply to virtually any Christian service companies
(florists, bakers, printers, photographers, etc.).
Whatever
we decide on this issue, it is important to be consistent. Suppose, for example
that you are a Christian owner of a catering service. If you could not in good
conscience cater a gay wedding, could you cater an anniversary party for an
unmarried heterosexual couple celebrating 10 years of living together? Could
you cater a wedding for a heterosexual couple who had each divorced their
spouse in order to marry each other (something Jesus clearly calls adultery)? If
catering a gay wedding constitutes support for gay marriage, wouldn’t catering
these other two events constitute support for other relationships the Bible
call immoral? Interestingly enough, I’ve never heard of a case in which a
Christian business refused service to couples in other immoral relationships.
You
could, therefore, say you won’t provide services to any couples living in
sinful relationships, and that would at least be consistent (although possibly
illegal since apartment owners cannot legally refuse to rent to unmarried
couples). But then you have to ask whether you could cater other parties in
which sinful activities are likely to take place. Then you have to ask whether
you could provide catering services for businesses or organizations which you
may consider to be unethical or immoral, like Planned Parenthood, for example?
Many Christians are also having trouble with Target’s policies now. Could you cater
an office party for Target? If so, why not for Planned Parenthood, and if for
Planned Parenthood, why not for a gay wedding?
Unfortunately,
if Christian caterers can’t in good conscience cater for businesses,
organizations or events which may not be entirely ethical or moral, the pool of
potential clients is going to be pretty small—probably limited mostly to
churches and Christian-run organizations. But some churches have ethical
problems too, and even ethical organizations like Hobby Lobby or Chick fil a
undoubtedly have immoral or unethical people working for them. If you decided
to only serve non-sinners, your only possible customer lived 2000 years ago!
As Christians, we should
not arbitrarily pick out one hot button sin issue and decide we will not
“support” that, while supporting all kinds of other sinful institutions,
organizations or events. As mentioned above, it would seem to be inconsistent
to refuse to cater a gay wedding, but cater an unmarried couple’s celebration
of 10 years living together.
Unfortunately,
the biblical solution to this issue is not as clear as we might like. Some remote
but possible insights might be found in the following:
When tax
collectors asked John the Baptist what they should do, he didn’t tell them to
stop collecting taxes for Rome. He just said they should not collect more than
they were required. It would seem that John didn’t think collecting or paying
taxes to Rome constituted support for the violent, imperialist Roman
government. The same is true for Jesus who said to give to Caesar what belongs
to Caesar, and for Paul who said we should pay our taxes. There have been times
in our country when well-meaning citizens have advocated withholding taxes,
thinking that paying taxes constituted support for immoral or imperialist
government activities. But John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul did not seem to
think that paying taxes constituted support for the immoral, corrupt and
imperial government of Rome (America is certainly no worse ancient Rome)! The
point is that if paying taxes does not constitute support for an immoral
government and does not involve the taxpayer in sin, perhaps we should not
automatically jump to the conclusion that providing paid services for a gay
wedding constitutes support for gay marriage.
In
strict churches I have attended, some would argue that a Christian should not
attend any function which included alcohol (including a wedding reception)
because people there may drink too much and the Christian’s presence would be
lending support for sin. Jesus, however, attended a wedding in which alcohol
was not only served but provided by him—and John 2:9-10 implies that people at
such weddings regularly drank a bit too much. Jesus apparently didn’t think
that attending this wedding and creating wine for it constituted support for
possible excessive drinking which may have occurred. If Jesus’ attendance at an
event in which people may have drunk excessively did not constitute support for
their sin, perhaps we should not automatically jump to the conclusion that
providing paid services for a gay wedding constitutes support for gay marriage.
When our ethical scruples become more strict than those of John the Baptist,
Jesus and Paul, perhaps it is time for some reexamination.
We
should remember that Jesus accepted invitations to eat with Samaritans and
Pharisees. He apparently didn’t think those associations constituted support
for Samaritan or Pharisee beliefs or practices. When Jesus attended Temple
ceremonies and even told Peter to pay the Temple tax, Jesus apparently didn’t
think this constituted support for what Josephus believed to be a corrupt Temple
leadership. Further, as mentioned above, it is hard to imagine that Jesus,
Paul, Simon or Lydia provided services only to those with whom they agreed! In
fact, Paul had to know that some of the tents he sold could be used for very
immoral and ungodly purposes and yet that didn’t keep him from selling tents.
The
point is that if these cases did not automatically constitute “support” for the
various institutions, organizations, people or practices, perhaps we should not
quickly jump to the conclusion that providing paid services for a gay wedding
necessarily constitutes support for gay marriage.
These
examples are admittedly a bit of a stretch. Some Christians may think a better
basis for decision is Jesus’ command to love our neighbor as ourselves. These
Christians may believe that when they provide services to various organizations
and events, they are not supporting institutions or approving behaviors, they
are simply showing love to individuals exactly as Jesus commanded.
One of
the issues Paul addresses in both First Corinthians and Romans was the controversial
issue of meat offered to idols. The issue seems to be that some Christians
thought it was perfectly OK to eat meat that had recently been offered to idols
(maybe it was on sale?) because, after all, an idol is just a block of wood or
stone. Other Christians were like, “You’ve got to be kidding—that was offered
to an idol! To eat that meat would be like idolatry!” The interesting thing
about this controversy is that Paul did not come down on one side or the other.
I can’t help wondering if the issue of whether a Christian business person
could offer services for a gay wedding would be a “meat offered to idols”
issue. Each Christian is going to have to decide for themselves, and avoid
judging other believers who may have different convictions.
So when
Christian business people—whether bakers, or florists, or caterers, etc.—make a
profit providing services for non-Christian events such as gay weddings, I am
not at all convinced, from a biblical perspective, that this necessarily
constitutes support for those events. In fact, it may constitute obedience to
Jesus’ command to love one’s neighbor.
But even so, there are
still undoubtedly limits. For example, I am quite sure that Jesus and Paul
would have refused to make or sell idols, and I find it had to believe that any
informed, dedicated Christian sign maker, for example, could in good conscience
make a sign promoting Satanism or ISIS! Where to draw that line is the $100,000
question. That is a question that each Christian business owner will have to
decide for themselves.
If they decide to refuse service for gay weddings,
Christian business owners should be aware that they may have to give account in
court of law. They may have to explain why they have a religious conviction
against providing services for a gay wedding, but have no problem providing
services for other celebrations they may consider to be immoral. If they can’t
answer this question, it may appear to the court that their decision is not
based on principle but is simply discrimination.
Ultimately,
and infinitely more important, is the fact that each Christian business owner
will one day have to stand, not before some human judge, but before God himself to give account. Whatever you
conclude, you need to be convinced in your own mind before God.
One final thought: If the
issue is that you can’t in good conscience “support” gay marriage, would a
disclaimer placed on your website make any difference? When running paid
advertisements, TV stations often make a disclaimer saying something to the
effect that “The views expressed on this program do not necessarily reflect
those of the management of WXYZ TV.”
An
example of one such disclaimer might be: “We happily serve clients of any race,
nationality, orientation, creed or political ideology, but we reserve the right
to refuse service promoting causes which violate our religious convictions.”
This would not necessarily keep you out of legal trouble, but it may help to
clarify that you are refusing to support certain causes and are not
discriminating against individuals.
On the
other hand, if you chose to provide services to anyone regardless of the cause
they are promoting, you could post a disclaimer saying, “Services provided by
this company do not necessarily imply support or endorsement of any issue,
group or cause.”
[1] Some argue that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah
(Genesis 19:1-8) was lack of hospitality and concern for the poor. They base
this on Ezekiel 16:49 which says, “Behold this was the guilt of your sister
Sodom: she and her daughter had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but
did not aid the poor and needy.” That’s true, but it is only part of the story.
The next verse, Ezekiel 16:50 says, “They were haughty and did an abomination
before me. So I removed them when I saw it.” The “abomination” for which they
were removed is described in Genesis 19:4-5 when the men of the city came to
Lot’s house demanding to have sex with the two male visitors he had taken in.
In response, Lot’s visitors told Lot and his family to leave because God was
going to destroy the city. The same behavior in a similar story described in
Judges 19 is described as wicked and vile (Judges 19:23). Second Peter 2:6-7
refers to the “sensual conduct of the wicked” in the context of Sodom and
Gomorrah. Likewise Jude 7 say, “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding
cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural
desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment f eternal fire.” Any
attempts to limit the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah simply to lack of hospitality
or unconcern for the poor are a result of a very selective reading of
Scripture.
[2]
Some might want to interpret Romans 1:27-28 as being about orientation: “In the
same way men…were inflamed with lust for one another…God…gave them over to a
depraved mind.” I would argue that there
is a difference between 1) sexual attraction, 2) temptation 3) lust and 4) a
depraved mind. Virtually everyone is subject to sexual attraction, but just
being sexually attracted by someone is not necessarily temptation. Granted, the
line between attraction and temptation can be pretty fuzzy but I think there
can be a distinction between the two. Neither attraction nor temptation are
sin. Lust goes beyond attraction and temptation to mentally dwelling on, strongly
desiring and perhaps fanaticizing about the object of one’s lust. Jesus equates
sexual lust with adultery (Matthew 5:28). The “depraved mind” to which Paul
refers in Romans 1:27-28 goes beyond someone who may be struggling with the sin
of lust to someone who is “inflamed with lust” (Romans 1:27, NIV). I would
interpret this as someone who has totally abandoned himself and given himself
over to sexual lust. Paul is speaking here specifically of same-sex lust but
the depravity could apply equally to those who have totally abandoned
themselves to opposite sex lust as well—e.g. those who have given themselves
over to pornography or “one-night-stands.” Of these four categories, sexually
orientation falls into the first category of sexual attraction. Just because
someone is attracted to someone else does not mean they are “inflamed with
lust” toward that person. By itself, same sex attraction is no more sin than
opposite sex attraction.
[3] In his article, “Is Homosexual Orientation Sinful?”
(JETS 58:1; March 2015, 95-115) Denny Burk argues that same-sex orientation
alone is sinful. Burk seems to equate lust with any kind of desire for anything
outside of God’s will. If Burk’s argument were taken to its logical conclusion
it would seem that Jesus’ desire for food in the wilderness (hunger, Lk 4:2),
constituted sin since he was desiring something outside of God’s will (i.e. to
eat, thereby prematurely ending the ordeal in the wilderness to which the
Spirit had driven him). Apparently Jesus sinned again in the garden of Gethsemane
when he strongly desired to avoid the cross (sweating drops of blood!),
praying, “…let this cup pass from me.” By Burk’s definition it would appear
that for a young man to recognize that his fiancé is beautiful is not sin—but
if he is attracted to her, it is sin because attraction equals desire and the
couple is not yet married! Burk’s Jesus was apparently born without
testosterone! This leads to my second observation which is that Burk also seems
to have a very docetic view of Jesus. Burk’s Jesus is one who could only be
tested externally but never felt temptation the same way every other human
being does—not even in his human nature! If Burk’s view was accurate, it would seem
to undermine the whole point of Hebrews 4:15 “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to
empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not
sin.” How could Jesus possibly “empathize with our weakness” if he never
experienced such human weakness? Admittedly there is a fine line between normal
desire and lust but to erase the line completely would seem to make Jesus a
sinner! I’ve heard that Martin Luther once said, “You can’t keep the
birds from flying over your head, but you can prevent them from building a nest
in your hair.” For Burk, it would appear that if the “birds” fly over your
head, you have sinned!
[4]
One reason Jesus didn’t specifically single out homosexuality may have been
because although homosexuality was widely practiced in pagan Roman culture, it
was not so prevalent among the Jews of Judea and Galilee, to whom Jesus usually
confined his ministry (cf. Matthew 15:24).
[5] This does not mean women can’t wear pants or that men
can’t wear kilts! It is a prohibition against members of one sex deliberately
dressing up to portray themselves as members of the opposite sex. How this
actually works out may vary from one culture to another. This paper will not
address transgender issues except to say this: Biology places human beings in a
box from which they cannot escape. People may change their sexual appearance through
surgical procedures but they cannot change their chromosomes! Modern
sociologists, therefore, make a distinction between sex and gender, saying that
gender is a social construct that can be fluid. The Bible knows no such
distinction between one’s sex and one’s gender. The Bible knows only of male and
female—determined by biology not by social constructs of so-called male and
female characteristics. There is nothing inherently sinful for a man to have
what a culture might consider to be feminine traits—for example, to be
nurturing or to love beauty, style or shoes. There is nothing inherently sinful
for a woman to have what society considers to be masculine traits—for example,
to love hunting, or mixed martial arts, or to dislike makeup or frilly
clothing. Just because a man has what a culture might consider to be feminine
characteristics, does not make him female. Just because a woman has what a
culture might consider to be masculine characteristics does not make her male.
People need to stop letting society pigeonhole them into its alphabet boxes! Be
who you are and accept people for who they are within biblical boundaries which
include prohibitions against 1) pre-marital sex, 2), sex with people of the
same sex, 3) lust after people of either sex, 4) sex with close relatives or
animals or 5) dressing in such a way as to pass oneself off as the opposite sex
(Deuteronomy 22:5).
[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-chalke-pompeii-ancient-roman-porn_us_596fb1fee4b0110cb3cb542a
[7]
There are actually at least two separate issues that need to be clearly
distinguished. First is the question of whether we want a government that can
force people to support causes with which they disagree (violation of free
speech); or can force people to violate sincerely held religious convictions
(violation of freedom of religion). Second is the question of whether it is
actually wrong or sinful for a Christian baker (or florist, etc.) to sell
products that will be used in a gay wedding. Those who say “yes” it is wrong,
should ask themselves whether they would sell a wedding cake (or flowers) to
someone who divorced his spouse in order to marry someone else—something Jesus
clearly calls “adultery.” I’ve never heard of a Christian baker or florist
denying services to those in second or third marriages. Christians should also
ask themselves whether they would have the same crisis of conscience if they
were the owner of a fast food place and were asked to sell a couple of their
special half-pound bacon cheeseburgers to a morbidly obese person thereby facilitating
gluttony—one of the “seven deadly sins.” The analogy is not exact, but in both
cases the owners would be selling a legitimate product (wedding cake, cheeseburgers)
which would be used for sinful purposes. I’ve never heard of a Christian who
would have a crisis of conscience selling the cheeseburgers to anyone. However
one answers these questions, it is important to be consistent.
