Social foo:Musing on wedding cakes and Christian ethics
I suspect that just about anybody who might read this is already familiar with the people forced to bake cakes and take pictures for gay marriages, and the bills in Kansas and Arkansas designed to prevent that kind of coercion in those states.
I find it sad that our country has come to this. Several of the colonies that later became the United States were started by religious folk who wanted to practice their religion without dealing with the (rather strict) rules governing it in Great Britain at the time.
The political part aside, though, there is a theological issue to consider. Would it be sinful to perform your calling in service to an event like a gay wedding ceremony? Is it participation? Endorsement? This is a different question from whether secular law requires it or not.
Today, it occurred to me that there may be a Biblical answer to that question.
One of the questions the Corinthians had for Paul concerned "meat sacrificed to idols" (1 Corinthians, Chapter 8). Was it okay to eat? To even buy?
To understand this question, you have to know a bit about the culture. We're not talking about going to a pagan sacrifice and eating at the potluck afterwards. Idols were everywhere in the Roman Empire, including in the butcher shops. All the meat was "sacrificed" to the local idol before it was sold. So, if you wanted meat that wasn't, you had to do the butchering yourself, or get it from a friend, or find somebody who could do it kosher. Not always doable in a place like Corinth. Meat slaughtered to an idol was part of the "price of citizenship" there.
So, the question was, would eating that meat, or even touching it, mean you endorsed the practice? That you were participating in the worship of the idol? Was it sinful? Given that Paul took time to address the question, we can assume it was very important to some of the people in the church. Given that it's coupled with a note that being clever can make you think a little too much of yourself, I'll bet some people were holding forth VERY strong opinions on the matter and using it as a way to prove how virtuous they were.
And Paul's answer is? The idols aren't real, so it doesn't matter so far as sin goes, and he isn't bothered by the idea of eating meat. BUT, some people aren't so sure about how meaningless the idols are, and if going without meat would reassure them, then Paul would eat vegetarian while he visited. What was important was that people who were shaky and insecure needed to be given room to feel comfortable and not pushed to a level they're not ready for.
So, I doubt that it's sinful to bake a cake for a gay couple's ceremony, though if you explained that it's okay because their event is a meaningless gesture, you may lose the business anyway. That said, it takes a lot of conviction to not be bothered by participating in such things, and not everybody is that certain. Heck, I'm not sure of my reasoning here, I just see some parallels.
That also means that the question of "endorsement" is also legitimate. If somebody assumes that your participation makes it "legitimate" in some way that would damage their understanding of their faith, well, then refusing to do so also makes sense. In today's world where Bishops defy their churches and dare their denomination to throw them out, an otherwise innocent gesture can become a talking point.
Gay marriage opponents sometimes get taunted that their faith must not be all that strong, to be bothered by these things. You know what? Sometimes it isn't. Few people just spring up completely sure and direct their whole lives in absolute certainty from then on. Faith is hard. When you're sure, saying that grace freed us from the Law is wonderful. When you're unsure, clinging to Law and duty can tide you through a rough patch to the other side.
I read an article today where someone counted the numbers and found that banning the Islamic headscarves paradoxically led to more radical cultures, while allowing them led to decreased tensions and more liberalization (in the good way). Why? If headscarves were banned in schools, then Islamic girls didn't go. If given the choice to wear them or not, they attended. Some eventually gave them up. Others didn't. But to bridge the cultural gap, it was necessary to give them the emotional space to be who they were, to cling to their rules as they stepped into an unknown culture.
The melting pot that is America operates on that virtue when it works at its best. You get to keep your traditions, and we show you ours. After a while, maybe you give some of them up. Maybe you keep them long after your home country gives them up.
The point is, we all need to give each other room to be who we are, so that we can be comfortable enough to actually listen to others. That laws are being drafted just to give some people breathing space is really sad. It shouldn't be necessary, but here we are.
I find it sad that our country has come to this. Several of the colonies that later became the United States were started by religious folk who wanted to practice their religion without dealing with the (rather strict) rules governing it in Great Britain at the time.
The political part aside, though, there is a theological issue to consider. Would it be sinful to perform your calling in service to an event like a gay wedding ceremony? Is it participation? Endorsement? This is a different question from whether secular law requires it or not.
Today, it occurred to me that there may be a Biblical answer to that question.
One of the questions the Corinthians had for Paul concerned "meat sacrificed to idols" (1 Corinthians, Chapter 8). Was it okay to eat? To even buy?
To understand this question, you have to know a bit about the culture. We're not talking about going to a pagan sacrifice and eating at the potluck afterwards. Idols were everywhere in the Roman Empire, including in the butcher shops. All the meat was "sacrificed" to the local idol before it was sold. So, if you wanted meat that wasn't, you had to do the butchering yourself, or get it from a friend, or find somebody who could do it kosher. Not always doable in a place like Corinth. Meat slaughtered to an idol was part of the "price of citizenship" there.
So, the question was, would eating that meat, or even touching it, mean you endorsed the practice? That you were participating in the worship of the idol? Was it sinful? Given that Paul took time to address the question, we can assume it was very important to some of the people in the church. Given that it's coupled with a note that being clever can make you think a little too much of yourself, I'll bet some people were holding forth VERY strong opinions on the matter and using it as a way to prove how virtuous they were.
And Paul's answer is? The idols aren't real, so it doesn't matter so far as sin goes, and he isn't bothered by the idea of eating meat. BUT, some people aren't so sure about how meaningless the idols are, and if going without meat would reassure them, then Paul would eat vegetarian while he visited. What was important was that people who were shaky and insecure needed to be given room to feel comfortable and not pushed to a level they're not ready for.
So, I doubt that it's sinful to bake a cake for a gay couple's ceremony, though if you explained that it's okay because their event is a meaningless gesture, you may lose the business anyway. That said, it takes a lot of conviction to not be bothered by participating in such things, and not everybody is that certain. Heck, I'm not sure of my reasoning here, I just see some parallels.
That also means that the question of "endorsement" is also legitimate. If somebody assumes that your participation makes it "legitimate" in some way that would damage their understanding of their faith, well, then refusing to do so also makes sense. In today's world where Bishops defy their churches and dare their denomination to throw them out, an otherwise innocent gesture can become a talking point.
Gay marriage opponents sometimes get taunted that their faith must not be all that strong, to be bothered by these things. You know what? Sometimes it isn't. Few people just spring up completely sure and direct their whole lives in absolute certainty from then on. Faith is hard. When you're sure, saying that grace freed us from the Law is wonderful. When you're unsure, clinging to Law and duty can tide you through a rough patch to the other side.
I read an article today where someone counted the numbers and found that banning the Islamic headscarves paradoxically led to more radical cultures, while allowing them led to decreased tensions and more liberalization (in the good way). Why? If headscarves were banned in schools, then Islamic girls didn't go. If given the choice to wear them or not, they attended. Some eventually gave them up. Others didn't. But to bridge the cultural gap, it was necessary to give them the emotional space to be who they were, to cling to their rules as they stepped into an unknown culture.
The melting pot that is America operates on that virtue when it works at its best. You get to keep your traditions, and we show you ours. After a while, maybe you give some of them up. Maybe you keep them long after your home country gives them up.
The point is, we all need to give each other room to be who we are, so that we can be comfortable enough to actually listen to others. That laws are being drafted just to give some people breathing space is really sad. It shouldn't be necessary, but here we are.