As I hear discussion about Indiana’s recent “Religious Freedom Act” bill, my mind pictures a restaurant owned by Christian business owners with signs reading “No Gays Allowed,” or something horrific and ugly like that. I’ve been pretty clear in previous blog posts that just because a Christian believes, according to the Bible, that homosexual actions are sinful (the Bible doesn’t say a person who identifies as a homosexual is sinful, only the willful action), it doesn’t mean they should treat gays and lesbians any differently (e.g. on Boy Scouts policy, on gay marriage / civil unions). We Christians should treat them with the same love, friendship and respect as we would heterosexuals who are having sex outside of marriage (which is almost every non-Christian we know), something Christians also consider a sin.
We aren’t to hold people who aren’t Christians and don’t believe the Bible to the same standard that we hold Bible-believing Christians to, Paul himself tells us this in 1 Corinthians 5:12. Logically it doesn’t even make sense to hold someone to the standards of a holy book they don’t first personally and on their own free will sign on to. It is illogical to attempt to hold me to the standards of the Qur’an, as I haven’t signed on in agreement to that as God’s Word for my life. But it makes perfect sense to hold a Muslim to the standards of the Qur’an. So don’t attempt to hold a non-Christian to the standards of the Bible, whether they be Muslim, atheist, gay or lesbian. And don’t judge or stigmatize them when they don’t.
To be consistent (which is the key concept missing in all of these debates), if a law is passed saying I can withhold my business services to gay and lesbians, I also need a law passed saying I can withhold my services from those having sex outside of marriage, those who’ve been divorced, and those who get drunk. These are three sins that Christians who get up in arms about LGBT issues in the public square need to honestly compare their reactions to, because these are extremely similar to the homosexual practice commands in the Bible. All four of these are premeditated things that you are willingly and consciously doing, without making effort to refrain from, and all four of them are widely accepted by our culture. We treat those who get drunk, divorcees and fornicators without stigma, yet those in the LGBT community with extreme stigma–which is inconsistent and wrong.
I have plenty of friends who run small photography businesses, most of them who are Christians. It’s one thing to deny a gay or lesbian service at a restaurant, as I described above. But isn’t legally forcing a photographer to photograph a lesbian marriage the same as forcing them into a political viewpoint or forcing them to participate in and endorse something they hold to be immoral? Some of these people may even vote for gay-marriage because they want to allow legal rights to gays and lesbians, but they still wouldn’t want to personally endorse a gay marriage, and why should they be forced to by our government?
Someone can be okay with something being allowed on a legal level (e.g. gay marriage) without having to participate in it themselves.
If I own a photography business and I have a personal or religious view that polygamous marriages are wrong, should I be legally forced to go to a polygamous wedding and shoot photos of the groom and brides?
It’s actually kind of scary to think about the amount of power our legal system will have over us and the amount of freedoms we as individuals won’t have as this line of thought continues.
If a lesbian couple, or a polygamous family, were to come into my Christian-owned restaurant, I had better serve them good food and treat them extra friendly. I had better show them the love and grace of Jesus, just as I would a non-married couple who is living together, or a couple who has been divorced and remarried.
But this is different than having to bless and agree with their actions as a Christian. Having to attend the act itself and put my name or business name behind it, like the business logo on the front of a little league baseball team’s jersey. If a frat party wanted to hire me as a photographer for their drunken, make-out and stripper filled party, would I be forced by law to oblige?
Would I be forced by law to photograph a porn shoot? It seems I would! If we are being consistent that is…
Or if that example seems too far-fetched, a swimsuit modeling shoot would also make an appropriate comparison. If I were a public photography business, there’s no way I would personally accept a job doing a swimsuit modeling shoot. It would in no way discriminate against the person in the swimsuit photo. That person could walk into my restaurant, my church, or my house with no problem whatsoever. What I’d be discriminating against as a photographer is the practice, which is something businesses do every day based on religious, political, moral, financial, and networking values.
The practice, not the person.
To the LGBT community: I know that to you the “person” and “practice” are indistinguishable and any attempt to make them two separate things hurts and insults you, because the “practice” is as much a part of your identity and is synonymous to you with who you are as a person. What I’m saying is that it’s helpful for Christians to see homosexual persons and homosexual practice as two different things because 1. this is what the Bible says and many Christians teach this incorrectly, 2. it gives freedom for people to identify as gay but stay celibate if they decide they want to live according to the Bible, and 3. it allows Christians to see gays and lesbians in the same light as we see anyone else, which I truly believe is a great step forward for all of us. Meaning: we aren’t saying what you are doing is any more “wrong” than someone who’s had a divorce, is having sex outside of marriage or who gets drunk, and we aren’t going to treat you any differently. You are our friends and a disagreement on a behavior won’t sever that friendship, just as it doesn’t sever our other friendships.
I don’t expect this blog article to fully bridge the gap between Christians like myself and the LGBT community, though it’s an essential cog to this conversation. And the growing group of 100% homosexual, 100% celibate, 100% Bible-believing Christians is going to be a very influential voice going forward because they break the old-school-Christian’s and the LGBT’s paradigm of this being a black and white debate with no complexity, no middle ground and no grey area.
Most of the time, you are screwed if you do or say anything that tries to get people to see this is a complex issue. We don’t like to pause and look at all angles. We don’t like to pause at all. We just like to yell. We load up our verbal and textual AK-47’s and as soon as we hear any of the hot button trigger words we are hyper-sensitized to, we blast away. The noise of our own gun deafening out any opportunity for constructive, loving, helpful conversation. And this gun certainly fires both ways.
Pause.
Breathe.
Think.
Love.
Be gentle.
Be consistent.
See both sides.
Yes, I’m talking to you Christians.
And I’m talking to you in the LGBT community.
Let’s get rid of the pendulum of act and react.
Let’s learn from how we already treat people who aren’t Christians. (With love and non-judgmentalism, not with a stigma)
And let’s hopefully (though I know it’s highly unlikely) move forward with gentleness, respect, dignity, and love.
The current “Religious Freedom Act” of Indiana seems way too broad and general, allowing for discrimination of LGBT people in their daily lives to take place. I will be courageous here and make an effort to try to come up with something that’s fair and just for all involved. I would propose a law that delineates an official marriage ceremony (which has religious, political and moral polarity to it) from a person’s daily life:
No person can be denied any service from a for-profit institution, unless that service involves direct personal endorsement of gay marriage or polygamous marriage by the institution. The denying of services cannot be to simply penalize the persons involved in gay or polygamous marriages (e.g. eating at a restaurant), but are restricted to being used to protect citizens from being forced by the government to put their business or personal name on an official activity they morally, politically or religiously object to. Gay marriage and polygamous marriage are issues to be voted on by the American public, a vote that citizens have the freedom to choose on without the government forcing them to vote one way or the other. Forcing citizens to vote for one side or the other would be unconstitutional, as would forcing a citizen or business to endorse an activity they are morally or religiously opposed to. Eating at a restaurant is not a moral or religious activity, getting married is. America cannot take away a citizen’s right to support what they choose about the religious or moral act of marriage, while at the same time America must protect all individuals, regardless of their moral or religious choice of marriage convictions, from being discriminated against or denied services in their daily lives.
It’s not perfect, but it’s an attempt to do better. Maybe we can do better together?
Grace and peace.
Related posts:
He is:
Author of Beyond the Battle: A man's guide to his identity in Christ in an oversexualized world
Host of the The Flip Side Podcast
Join an online men's small group led by Noah and team at BeyondTheBattle.net
- Ep. 107: Mark & Beth Denison on Betrayal Trauma - November 4, 2024
- When “I follow the Lamb, not the Donkey or the Elephant” falls short - October 31, 2024
- Why We Can’t Merge Jesus With Our Political Party - October 24, 2024
The cultural battle on the wrongness of homosexuality is as lost as the rest of the battle against sexual immorality. Time for the church to refocus on being servants. No one will care to hear about Christ if his Christians (myself included) aren’t striving at every turn to be selfless and considerate.
Speaking of considerate, how do I handle this situation: a coworker says she is engaged so I do the normal thing and ask to see a picture. I get shown the picture of another woman. Being put on the spot, the only thing I could think to say was “okay.” This is a troubling situation to me. How do I respond in a Christ-like way that doesn’t 1) affirm the evil of homosexuality, 2) doesn’t damage my working relationship with that person. It isn’t like I can say, “I’m happy for you.”
Hi Brian, I definitely agree with your first paragraph. I hit this with a post a while back: http://www.atacrossroads.net/christians-lost-cultural-war-marriage/ –I also appreciate how Christopher Yuan, a professor at Moody Bible Institute who also has same sex attraction, refers to the entire conversation as “biblical sexuality” rather than only talking about what the Bible says about homosexuality: http://www.atacrossroads.net/helpful-words-from-gay-christian-homosexuality-bible-christopher-yuan/
But I have found that since homosexuality has become such a polarizing topic, a topic where the testimony of the Church is on the line, as well as a topic that also seeps into a lot of popular thought in relation to politics and the law in a way that other realms of biblical sexuality don’t, it is also important to help people navigate it specifically.
My advice with the lady at your work who is engaged to a woman is to treat her as you would a lady who was living with her boyfriend. While yes, the difference with a cohabitating man and woman who get engaged is that they are moving toward a biblical model of what a relationship is, whereas two females getting engaged aren’t, the cohabitating male and female are still living in sin, yet we don’t treat them with a barrier-to-the-gospel stigma. I guess my point is: what will draw your co-worker closer to Christ / leave the door open for the light of the gospel to be effective from your life to hers… telling her you disapprove or saying “congratulations” ? My point being she is still 10 steps (or a thousand steps, just making up a number as a metaphor) away from accepting Christ, not one step. Taking a firm stance on her lifestyle at this point will only do more harm than good, like when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:12 we aren’t to judge non-Christians. Jesus is what will draw her to the gospel, not your stance on homosexuality. And if she accepts Jesus someday and the Holy Spirit is inside of her, God will do the work to convict her and show her the lifestyle changes she needs to make.
Good on you for trying to bring logic and consistency to an arena of partisans. Not sure how/if there can be agreement on questions of morality in a secular culture where non-judgmental tolerance is the defining feature. Tolerance is good in a secular society but in terms of morality the end is a low end, common denominator level of things where not much is ever actually wrong, just wrong for me. In terms of moral bearing, there’s just not much to stand on and little to move forward with. On the journey back to what’s solid and true, we’re blinded that the small steps we take are themselves missing the mark. . .in a culture that has little problem with one nite stands, living together seems like commitment.
Maybe only 20 years ago both church and culture viewed homosexuality as morally wrong, but now it is socially/culturally/politically considered right by both society and much of the church. Says alot that where you stand/stood can 180 so quickly. . . it’s either progress or blindness. It is good that people can no longer easily act out their preferred hate but it doesn’t say much for the church that it took society to bring that about. Forever the church has been content to vehemently pound book on gays while paying lip service to the favorite sins of its membership. Something real and genuine in Christ is lost in this, along with the moral standing to say anything powerful to society.
What’s amazing about Jesus is that people always knew where he stood on things, he never varied one inch from what was true and righteous, and yet he could be with prostitutes and tax collectors and lepers and the outcasts, and touch their hearts. There is something beautiful about Jesus that he could go into any situation and the most immoral people would know where they stand morally and be loved there. . . His being there did that. So much of the church lacks that in Christ, that we’re genuine that way.
Jesus’ situation was unique in many ways: he preached his beliefs openly. Everyone knew exactly what he thought about sin. And mind you, they killed him for it. The Paul who preached is not to judge those outside the church is the same who preached to the Athenians “God commands all to repent.”
Everyone knew where these men stood on their favorite sins. Jesus however, did come down harder on some sins than others: hypocrisy is what burned him up the most.
I am still uncomfortable as to handle the sinners around me. I can say things which will, deceptively I fear, give people the impression that I approve of their behavior. I am not sure I understand 1 Cor 5:12 yet.
Hey Brian, forget who said it but think it’s true, ‘Jesus never asked which or how many sins people did.’ We probably shouldn’t either, or judge sinners. Disconnect for me that for the church here the gospel is presented mainly in view of sin, while believers in countries where naming Jesus as Lord means real risk present Jesus as Life. . . the gospel is Jesus, and you don’t hear there what you do in the west. Noah’s right that if things are real, the Spirit will convict thoroughly, there’s absolutely no risk that someone in the hands of God will not have to deal with their sin.
What I’m reading in 1 Cor 5 is that we shouldn’t judge those outside the church. Today, seems like the church has it backwards, hungry to have a voice to pronounce judgment on society while inwardly there is no strength/heart to deal with what’s wrong within. It would count for so much more if the church was in a genuine way like Jesus. Always find it surprising/good that living under Roman oppression and brutality that Jesus never spoke against it, instead he cured the centurion’s servant and complimented his faith, and said when forced to go one mile by them, go two instead.
I’m an architect and have a project now for two lesbians. It never occurred to me that I shouldn’t do work for them. It’s a kitchen project but if it had been a whole house, should I not design it with bedrooms cause they will have sex? Should I take the job only after making it known that what they’re doing is sinful? Just seems that for too long the church settles for pounding people with doctrine when doctrine proves nothing at all. Just stating belief in something doesn’t prove the thing. . . what makes the difference is that what is living and powerful is present. Thinking of the woman caught in adultery, it wasn’t so much what Jesus said but who he was that counted for things and made a difference. There should be the same impact of Christ in our dealings with non-believers. . . that in a real way Jesus is present and living and powerful within. Judging outsiders rather than ourselves, and pounding them with doctrine rather than presenting them with a living Jesus, may be the clearest evidence of not being alive in the Spirit. Jesus said to go and make disciples in his name, not all the other things we’ve made it.
Having said that, it’s not easy to know what to say and do in all situations. It’s both challenge and comfort that Jesus never said or did anything on his own initiative but only what he received from the Father. Mess up a lot, but heart is that Christ would be that resource as to what to say and do.
Alan, you and Noah are such kind souls. Thank you for your example.
Jesus did point out the sins of some people very specifically: mostly, if not exclusively, he called out the Pharisees very caustically though he could have been harsher.
Perhaps there was a pattern there: they were claiming to be “believers” in God. So in a way, Jesus was disciplining those who claimed to be followers, but really weren’t open to His truth. We are similarly commanded to discipline such people in the Church.
All in all, I think I will have to pray and study this topic more before I am satisfied. In the meantime, at least I have a few more ideas on how to avoid conflict if faced with another situation where I am asked to give approval to something I believe to be wrong.
Thanks for the kind words Brian. Noah’s the real deal, have gotten so much from his words. . . your posts too man, enjoy them.
Jesus is just beyond figuring out for me. He is grace to prostitutes and Roman soldiers, yet reading how he dealt with religious authorities, it’s like they’re beyond hope. Thinking his harshness isn’t due to them personally – some of them did believe – but more so they represented a form of evil designed to trap and hold men. Something about religious pride makes one blind to what’s of God and satisfied/arrogant in the blindness. Thinking what Jesus met behind that whole religious system is why he is so strong set against it.
Not the most encouraging thing to hear, but being in this world and being in Christ means conflict. All of hell is set against Christ being real and genuine in his people in this world. Helps me to realize when meeting people who are antagonistic that it’s not just flesh and blood we are dealing with but something more always opposed to Christ. Often Jesus didn’t have to say anything and conflict arises. . . what’s true and real of God in him just drew out evil in opposition. It’s good to know that in Christ even in situations of persecution we can genuinely love enemies, knowing they don’t know what they’re doing.
Sorry, my last response got cut off.
Thanks for the kind words as well.
I think I need to go read Dale Carnage again. Guy had a lot of wisdom on how to talk to people.
C.S. Lewis got it right when he said that Pride was the most dangerous sin of all.
Something I noticed about Christ’s ministry is that his audience shared the same value system. They knew adultery was wrong. They knew theft was wrong. Jesus, however, showed them how shallow their thinking about rules and regulations had become. I get the distinct impression that sinners who hung around him knew they were sinners and wanted to be better. He didn’t rub their faces in their sins in part because he didn’t have to. He did do so with the Pharisees; there was some “hate” speech spewed for them: “you acursed brood of vipers” and all that. He sort of did the same with the woman at the well: pointing out that the man she was with was not her husband, which she had to have known was wrong, but that is as far as he went.
Big sigh over here. Days like this I wish we could dial up heaven and have the Almighty clarify the situation.
Think that for the Jews the Law had become merely a system, not something living in the heart. But even saying that, they didn’t get Jesus. Remember the times Jesus would teach saying “you have heard it said . . . but I say to you” and people would come away amazed cause he spoke as one who had authority? Jesus is just beyond them. If you read John and look for all the times Jesus says ‘cannot’ it’s no surprise that he says you cannot see the kingdom unless you’re alive in the Spirit. Without the Spirit Jesus is beyond us.
If it helps, have found that it’s not necessary to have figured things out before moving ahead. Often have found that what’s needed isn’t given before you’re in the thing God has led you into but that he always proves himself faithful in going on with him. Has helped me to realize Jesus isn’t that interested in what I think about the truth, more so that I believe it and act faith in him.
Hi Noah,
Thanks, as usual, for being thoughtful here and, again as usual, giving both sides of the issue something to think about.
I think the issue will continue to cause some problems for Christians in regard to legal matters because of the way Christians view being gay differently from what it seems clearly will become the law of the land. That difference was clear to me when I read your analogies that work from one frame but not from the other.
You said: “If I own a photography business and I have a personal or religious view that polygamous marriages are wrong, should I be legally forced to go to a polygamous wedding and shoot photos of the groom and brides?” For you, homosexual wedding is in this same category.
But what if we said, “If I own a photography business and I have a personal or religious view that (interracial) marriages are wrong, should I be legally forced to go to a (an interracial) wedding and shoot photos of the groom and bride?” Some Christians still believe this (and I suspect they believe it as sincerely as you or I might hold a different view even I think they are clearly wrong).
http://faithandheritage.com/2011/05/the-moral-status-of-miscegenation/
A strong view for religious accommodation would say: photographers should be able to opt out of interracial marriage ceremonies also. But most people (and I suspect you) would say “It should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of their race.”
Why the difference? Because for most people (and for the law) race simply should not have any moral component and to discriminate against someone because of that is immoral and should be legislated against. As a society, we have decided that this is the case, and have also decided that protecting people of all races is more important than allowing someone to make a moral or religious claim regarding race. In other words, the right to a religious accommodation isn’t absolute and at times government decides that protecting people from discrimination is more important than accommodating religious beliefs (a good example of this is courts’ consistent ruling that Jehovah Witness parents can’t withhold a blood transfusion from their child if that transfusion would save their life.).
So being LGBT is clearly moving in the law toward having the same status as race–a class of people that courts are saying we simply cannot allow for discrimination against based on that characteristic.
Which is why your analogy toward shooting porn or swimsuit models doesn’t hold if you are viewing this as the law is clearly moving toward viewing it. Being a porn star or swimsuit model isn’t the same as being black or gay–no court would force you to do that first photoshoot because you aren’t discriminating against someone based on the fact that they are in a class of people who society has deemed worthy of needing special protection. But they will likely force you to do the second (whether it is an interracial or gay wedding) because in that case you are discriminating against someone because of their membership in such a class.
So soon, Christians will have to decide if being in the marketplace and aiming to treat people all equally equates to them endorsing something morally. I don’t think it does. If I own a hotel and a married gay couple stops at my inn, am I endorsing gay marriage by giving them a room? I think we should view it as just running my business. If I own a company and give a gay couple spousal health care benefits, am I endorsing gay marriage? I think we should just view it as running my business. I just don’t think that Christians gain anything by fighting to keep that other view. If someone is talking about making Church’s marry same-sex couples, then I’d join the fight to protect a religious accommodation, but that’s not anything that I have every heard anyone endorse.
Jeff, you are right that the government and society are choosing to equate sexual preference with race, but they are going a step further. Whether they realize it or not, they are, in fact, also equating sexual expression with race and that is dangerous.
http://www.atacrossroads.net/5-reasons-gay-is-not-the-new-black/
Thanks Jeff. You are definitely right that legally sexual orientation is becoming the same as class and soon will be there altogether. And that is definitely what creates the challenge. I’ll get back to that in a second.
I do want to point out first that the Christian Bible says nothing about interracial marriages being wrong, so anyone trying to make that claim from the Bible is simply making the Bible say something it doesn’t say. Whereas it does say that a homosexual relationship / marriage is wrong. So for me personally, I guess I don’t really care what someone’s “personal” views are, or even their “religious” views because you’re right, a lot of bad things can be claimed under the guise of “religion.” –so I probably should reword that in my post. For me personally, as I try to guide Christians, I do care what the Bible says and doesn’t say, and trying to help a Christian navigate when the government is forcing them to endorse something the Bible says not to endorse.
I do not agree that sexual orientation should be equated with race as a class of people –I don’t think this is logical and I don’t think it respects the oppression people of color have had to overcome, but as you point out, things are going in that direction whether I like it or not! 🙂
A Christian businessperson is going to have to decide, “Is this a hill I’m willing to die on?” We’re going to have to balance what the Bible says about obeying / honoring our authorities and knowing God put them in their place, e.g. Romans 13:1-2 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
Thank you for making me think, in a gracious and tactful way, as usual Jeff!
Great article Noah! These conversations are so critical at this juncture in time. I think use divorce as an example of a sin as a blanket statement is probably a poor choice, seeing as divorce is permissible under very specific conditions (Matthew 19:9) Albeit, this is probably very rare.
Your thoughts on this?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/07/colorado-double-standard-bakers-should-not-be-forced-to-make-anti-gay-cakes/
Hey Brian, that’s pretty interesting. I think the guy makes a good point, there is definitely a double standard. I like that he was openly doing it as a public experiment to prove a point, not because he felt like those cake shops actually had to make those. My one critique is don’t use Leviticus to back up your views on homosexuality as Leviticus is a part of the old covenant. There are plenty of passages in the New Testament that are not a part of the old covenant that would be more accurately biblically.
I am pretty much at the point of keeping my opinion to myself until someone asks for it and letting the immoral people of the world do what they want. The world doesn’t want the gospel. Thoughts?
I think it depends on your context. As a pastor, I feel called to help both sides understand the fullness of the story of Scripture as it relates to the complexity surrounding this issue as I see it as such a divisive force to people finding the gospel. By “both sides” I mean the Christians who are self-righteous and judgmental who elevate the homosexuality commands above other commands–and who also don’t understand the difference between someone who is attracted to the same sex (not a sin) and someone who acts on these attractions (sin). With the other side being those who make the Bible say whatever they want so they can live sexually however they want.