I have so much and yet so little I want to say about this weekend’s tragedy, but perhaps the only thing I will say is this:
If Omar Mateen could legally purchase the handgun and assault rifle he used to slaughter 49 people, perhaps it’s (past) time to consider and debate whether or not people like him should be able to legally purchase such weapons in the future?
I’m browsing through podcasts, and I see this…
Arizona’s legislature passed a bill that allows Christians to discriminate against gay people (particularly when it comes to gay weddings). Of course, the bill doesn’t explicitly say that, but there’s no question what the bill is actually about. Christians want to be able to deny goods and services to gay people, and this law was designed to give them legal protection to do so.
Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill, albeit for different reasons than I would have, but this specific legislation and legislation like it has support from the Christian Right, and it is certainly possible that refined legislation could be proposed that would avoid some of the “unintended and negative consequences” cited.
I think this is terrible, harmful legislation, and I think it’s fueled by sloppy Christian theology. Some random thoughts, which by definition, are in no particular order.
I worked my way through college and graduate school refinishing antique furniture. My primary client was a gay man. At the time, I was firmly convinced that homosexual practice was wrong under all circumstances, but I never once thought of denying services to him. That’s bad business, and I would have gone out of business had I done so.
In fact, I never asked for any personal information from my clients, and it never factored into my decision to take or not take a project.
I do not understand why some Christians believe that providing a service to an individual constitutes support of that individual’s behavior.
What would happen if all Christians everywhere stopped providing all of their goods and services to gay people? Should Christian grocery store owners be allowed to deny food to gay people and families? Should emergency room doctors be allowed to deny emergency services to gay people? This legislation is sparked by florists and bakers, but there are bigger implications here – and not just for businesses, but for gay people who would suffer as a result.
Christians who deny services to gay people but do not deny services to heterosexual divorced couples (who are divorced for reasons other than those covered by Paul) or couples who were sexually active before marriage are hypocrites. If you’re going to cite the Bible and your deeply held religious beliefs, at least apply them consistently.
For example:
If you refuse to photograph one unbiblical wedding, you should refuse to photograph them all. If not, you’ll be seen as a hypocrite and as a known Christian, heap shame on the Gospel. As all Christians know, Jesus saved his harshest words for the hypocritical behavior of religious people. So, if Christian wedding vendors want to live by a law the Bible does not prescribe, they must at least be consistent.
Before agreeing to provide a good or service for a wedding, Christian vendors must verify that both future spouses have had genuine conversion experiences and are “equally yoked” (2 Corinthians 6:14) or they will be complicit with joining righteousness with unrighteousness. They must confirm that neither spouse has been unbiblically divorced (Matthew 19). If one has been divorced, vendors should ask why. Or perhaps you don’t even have to ask. You may already know that the couple’s previous marriages ended because they just decided it wasn’t working, not because there were biblical grounds for divorce. In which case, you can’t provide them a service if you believe such a service is affirming their union.
If your hotel is hosting the wedding and you don’t see rings on both individual’s fingers, you must refuse to rent them only one room. The unmarried couple must remain in separate rooms until after the ceremony. Otherwise, you may be complicit in fornication. And of course, you must not under any circumstances rent a room to a gay or lesbian couple.
While we’re talking Bible, where does the Bible command Christians to deny goods and services to non-Christians? Take Paul, for example. We know that Paul depending on support from churches, but we also know he was a tentmaker. Are we to assume that he only did business with other Jews and Christians? Given that he was a missionary, that seems unlikely, does it not? It seems much more likely that he did business with all sorts of people with whom he fundamentally disagreed about almost everything (see this exposition of Romans 1 for an example of the cultures in which he worked).
It seems to me that Paul would do the exact opposite of what Christians behind this legislation are doing. Romans 12:18:
If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
What’s more “peaceable”? If someone with whom you disagree wants to buy something from you…
a. Deny them services and fight the lawsuit if they bring it.
b. Sell them what they want to buy.
From the perspective of Christian witness, are people more likely to be drawn to Christ or pushed away from Christ by a Christian who refuses services to a gay person?
Maybe this kind of legislation is one of the reasons millenials are leaving the church in droves.
“We will not stand by,” the statement harrumphs. But, actually, yes, yes they will. Standing by is exactly what they will do because that is all they can do. This doesn’t affect them. It does not harm them — it neither picks their pockets nor breaks their legs. It doesn’t compel them to do anything. It doesn’t compel them not to do anything. They are by-standers to something happening elsewhere, to other people. And as by-standers, all they can possibly mean by “We will not stand by” is that “We will assume a posture of extreme indignation and offendedness while standing by.”
Very interesting.
Group apologizes to gays, then shuts down
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/us/exodus-international-shutdown/index.html
I struggle to understand how traditionalists cite religious freedom in this argument.
Three points on this:
1) Religious freedom is primarily about government establishment and support as far as our founding legislation is concerned. In other words, the government can’t enforce or promote a particular religious idea on society.
In reality, it’s contradictory to argue along the lines insinuated by this video. Religious freedom should be about freeing society from sectarian religious opinions, for example, about marriage.
2) Because this is what religious freedom is ultimately about acoording to the founding documents, it’s nonsensical to oppose gay marriage as some sort on infringement of your religious freedom. Demanding that your sectarian views on marriage be enforced as law is exactly contradictory to religious freedom.
3) If gay people glare allowed to legally marry, neither the legal rights nor the religious liberty of heterosexual people are impacted in any way, shape, or form.
Also, floating Martin Luther King Jr. in support of denying civil rights is pretty hilarious.
I’ve got a lot of mixed feelings about this piece, but it is worth a read.
I venture to say the problem is shame, and our inability to look at it. Shame, at its core, is the fear of being unworthy of connection with others. Because connection is so fundamental to human well being, it’s a powerful and manipulative social tool. The smokin’ hot wife phenomenon is most rampant in a particular subset of Christian culture where shame is used for purposes of control and conformity, where men are expected to be manly and dominant, and women are expected to stay quiet and submissive. If you’re not these things, you’re not worthy of connection with those who are. In one way or another you’re shamed for these differences.
It’s also a culture where attraction is synonymous with lust, and where beauty and mystery are often seen as dangerous. How are these dangers controlled? Shame, of course. So I call balderdash on the smokin’ hot meme for a couple of reasons: One, in a shame-fueled culture, it too easily appears to be manly dominant men posturing over property value, and two, it puts women in an impossible double-bind. Her (quiet, submissive) beauty is both expected, (to find a husband and keep him from cheating) and vilified, (because her existence might lead men astray in action or in thought). A public proclamation of her smokin’ hottness puts her in the awkward social position of having her beauty publicly approved by her husband, (good) while also potentially making other men lust, (bad). What’s a girl to do?
Full piece:
So, while it is not accurate to state that biblical texts would allow marriages between people of the same sex, it is equally incorrect to declare that a “one-man-and-one-woman” marriage is the only allowable type of marriage deemed legitimate in biblical texts.
This is not only our modern, academic opinion. This view of the multiple definitions of “biblical” marriage has been acknowledged by some of the most prominent names in Christianity. For example, the famed Reformationist Martin Luther wrote a letter in 1524 in which he commented on polygamy as follows: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not oppose the Holy Scriptures.”
Accordingly, we must guard against attempting to use ancient texts to regulate modern ethics and morals, especially those ancient texts whose endorsements of other social institutions, such as slavery, would be universally condemned today, even by the most adherent of Christians.
I had someone comment on a post I wrote about homosexuality, making the tired but nonetheless common non sequitur that, if one views same-sex relations as acceptable, then one must also embrace bestiality.
I found myself wondering whether the apostle Paul faced the same sort of ridiculous objection from his contemporaries. I can imagine his opponents saying, “Paul, if you allow uncircumcised men into the people of God, then you cannot logically exclude animals from it.
Via.
hoping for redemption 