On the Baking of Cakes and the Claiming of Rights

There has been a lot of press lately about a bakery in Oregon that refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding and was subsequently fined over $100,000 for violating Oregon’s law. I have recently posted a video of a man who called a lot of gay bakeries to ask for a cake to be made for a traditional marriage event that said “Gay Marriage is Wrong.” This generated a lot of discussion and a lot of assumptions about what I do or don’t believe.  And far from being a trivial issue I think the question of what is appropriate for a Christian in business is very important.

I am writing this post mainly to and for conservative Christians and conservative/orthodox pastors who are considering their responses to this question. I was not actually sure where I stood on this for a while, so I have done what I usually do, which is study and pray. I have a biblical argument to make, so I don’t necessarily think non-Christians or even liberal/progressive Christians will be interested, but for those folks who share a common sense of the authority of the Bible, I want to share this view in the hopes that it will encourage them to think about this issue in a different way. I would welcome reasoned critique and discussion, particularly (but not exclusively) from my conservative/orthodox brothers and sisters.  I am certain some of you will disagree with me.

Let me say this as clearly as I know how: I do not support the bakers or any other vendors who deny service to those who are LGBT or those in other religions. I don’t think that serving someone is equivalent to supporting their belief system or even supporting their actions. And though it may be the legal right of someone to deny service, I don’t think Christians should claim that right. In fact, I think Christians should be far more concerned about their responsibilities to serve the world than about their rights in the world.

The bible does not say to reject commerce with other peoples except in some very narrow circumstances. It says not to worship the gods of other nations, but not to stop trading with them. In fact, through the prophet Jeremiah, God told the Israelites who were in exile:

 ⁴ The LORD of heavenly forces, the God of Israel, proclaims to all the exiles I have carried off from Jerusalem to Babylon:

 ⁵ Build houses and settle down; cultivate gardens and eat what they produce.

 ⁶ Get married and have children; then help your sons find wives and your daughters find husbands in order that they too may have children. Increase in number there so that you don't dwindle away.

 ⁷ Promote the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because your future depends on its welfare.

 (Jer 29:4-7 CEB)

“Promote the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile” does not mean, “worship the Babylonian gods,” but it must mean to work with the people of the city.

In Exodus we have commandments about the importance of treating well those among you who are strangers, aliens, immigrants, what-have-you, and the reason given is that you should remember that you were once a part of that group.  ²¹ Don't mistreat or oppress an immigrant, because you were once immigrants in the land of Egypt. (Exo 22:21 CEB)  The immigrants mentioned here are not necessarily worshipers of Yahweh, so upholding their legal rights has nothing to do with them and their beliefs. It has everything to do with the nature of God and of the covenant call to be a blessing to all families of the earth.

Another passage that I think bears on the situation is also in Exodus:

⁴ When you happen to come upon your enemy's ox or donkey that has wandered off, you should bring it back to them.

 ⁵ When you see a donkey that belongs to someone who hates you and it's lying down under its load and you are inclined not to help set it free, you must help set it free. (Exo 23:4-5 CEB)

You are not required to agree with your enemy, but you are required to help him.

If we are going to take seriously the moral commands in the Old Testament, we need to take these moral commands seriously as well. I don’t want to do these things, but I don’t see God really giving me a choice if I am going to be faithful.

When we come to the New Testament, Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount need to be carefully considered. I think the most relevant portion is this:

³⁸ "You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

 ³⁹ But I say to you that you must not oppose those who want to hurt you. If people slap you on your right cheek, you must turn the left cheek to them as well.

 ⁴⁰ When they wish to haul you to court and take your shirt, let them have your coat too.

 ⁴¹ When they force you to go one mile, go with them two.

 ⁴² Give to those who ask, and don't refuse those who wish to borrow from you.

 ⁴³ "You have heard that it was said, You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.

 ⁴⁴ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who harass you

 ⁴⁵ so that you will be acting as children of your Father who is in heaven. He makes the sun rise on both the evil and the good and sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous.

 ⁴⁶ If you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even the tax collectors do the same?

 ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing? Don't even the Gentiles do the same?

 ⁴⁸ Therefore, just as your heavenly Father is complete in showing love to everyone, so also you must be complete. (Mat 5:38-48 CEB)

If the commentators are correct, the “force you to go one mile” refers to the ability of Roman soldiers to commandeer people to carry their supplies for a mile. So Jesus is saying to do the second mile out of love. Carrying the supplies of the Roman soldiers did not imply that one was in agreement with the Roman government or with the wars of the Romans.  It did mean that you were to witness to them, not by standing on your rights – I only have to carry this one mile – but by showing love through service – I willingly bear this burden for a second mile because I want to display God’s love for you. Also remember that Jesus healed the Roman centurion’s servant and was able to recognize the man’s faith even though Jesus certainly challenged the authority of Rome.

Verses 46-48 are the kicker: if you only love those who love you, you are no better than anyone else. How will that show the nature of God to the world? Only by showing God’s love will you be able to shine your light. 

Jesus was able to say these things and still call people to account for their sins, so showing love is clearly not equivalent to acceptance of sin. In fact, Jesus came to destroy the power of sin, so that we would not be ruled by sin and evil any longer.

Another passage that seems to have something to say is that of the “Good Samaritan.” The Pharisees knew that they were supposed to love God and love neighbor, but were not sure who their neighbor was. The parable did not tell them who their neighbor was, instead, the parable suggested how to be a good neighbor – which included caring for someone who was outside of your own religious and racial group.

I have expressed concerns that those who want to justify gay marriage are stretching the scriptures about “love” way too far. I think that what I have called the “Gay Agenda” is more interested in the rights of LGBT folks than in the rights of Christians. However, I am suggesting to my conservative and orthodox brothers and sisters that our own sin has been in narrowing the scriptures that I have referenced way too far.  Our sin has been in believing that our rights were more important than our witness. They are not.

I believe with all my heart that we should hold fast to the teaching that we are given; that we should not be blown about by every new doctrine that comes along. I don’t think the Holy Spirit contradicts scripture in a “new” teaching. But these are old scriptures, and old ideas, not new ones. We are called to be salt and light, which includes both telling the truth about what we believe is wrong and sinful, but also telling the truth about God’s redeeming love. I, for one, find that being salt and light and loving those who seem to be my enemies can be extremely uncomfortable at times. But these are not suggestions from Jesus, they are commandments.

So I would say – bake the cake. Bake the most beautiful cake you can. You don’t usually even know the circumstances of the two people getting married (even if it is man and woman) – you might not approve if you did – but it isn’t their beliefs that matter. It is your beliefs that matter. And most importantly, it is the nature of your God that matters. Witness to the nature of God by serving and loving not just the Christian community, but all the families of the earth.

Postscript 1: I'm not very good at this yet. All I can say is that I am better than I was 5-10 years ago and I hope that in 5-10 years I will have moved forward in my ability to love and serve. I am grateful to have a God of wrath who is trying to destroy the sin and evil in me, a God of grace who forgives my many failings and a God of love who has a lot of work to do to make me into God's image. I shudder to think what I would be like without God.

Postscript 2: In case you wonder, I do not believe that the requirement to serve extends to clergy. Our performance of a marriage ceremony is a clear demonstration of acceptance. This is why we have the ability to refuse to marry or to require counseling. I think that just as a priest would have refused to offer up an animal that was not suitable on the altar, we cannot offer up a marriage that we don’t believe God will bless – whether it is a same-sex marriage or one between a man and a woman that we don’t feel is healthy. Marriage may not be a sacrament in the UMC, but I believe it is sacramental in nature, a means of grace, and an act of worship, as well as a sign of God’s covenant with the people of Israel and Jesus’ covenant with the church. 

On Biblical Marriage: Toward a Theology of Marriage

Part 1
Part 2

Now that I have briefly discussed some of the passages in the Old and New Testaments that deal with marriage and sexuality, I will tackle the deeper issue of what marriage signifies in the biblical text.  Here I go back to Genesis, Chapter 1, which bears looking at in some detail.

How it was meant to be

Genesis 1:26-28   ²⁶ Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."  ²⁷ So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.  ²⁸ God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

God makes humankind (literally adam) in God’s image; male and female together are in God’s image.  Now one way to read this is simply to say that both men and women are made in the image of God, and I certainly agree with that.  We are all image-bearers in that sense. However, I think a part of the sense of this is that both men and women are necessary to encompass the full image of God.  We see that affirmed in the New Testament as well: both men and women are necessary for the body of Christ to be complete. I would argue that the text suggests that we take this even further: that man and woman in relationship are reflective of the creative, generative, and governing aspects of God. We can only bring life into existence together; we can only be fruitful together; we can only appropriately care for the creation together.  The first of those statements is obvious to all – we need a sperm and an egg to make a new human being.  But the last two statements are just as important. In order to be truly fruitful in all ways, women and men must work together.  In order to rule creation wisely, men and women have to rule together.  This is the basis of the covenant of marriage – the fulfillment of the image of God.  

Does that mean that single people cannot be fully in the image of God? No!  Every person carries the image of God.  But we are created for relationship and the relationship that is expressed in  the marriage covenant is a sign of God’s covenant with God’s people.  Ideally, it reveals to the world how God cares for the world. 

In Genesis 2 we see another way of understanding the relationship between male and female. Here the adam (the Hebrew word for human, either male or female) is made from the adamah (the Hebrew word for “earth”).  When the breath of God turns this little “earthperson” into a nephesh, or a being full of passions and desires and “selfhood,” God looks at the person and realizes that there is a problem: the person is alone.  God says for the first time, “it is not good.” What God is wanting for the person is an ezer kenegdo—a fit helper.  In the King James version of the Bible this was translated as a “help meet” which conjured images of one who was subordinate. However, the word ezer  (whether as a noun or an adjective) is most often referring to God, as in   Psalm 30:10 Hear, O LORD, and be gracious to me! O LORD, be my helper!” A helper is one who encourages, protects and saves. A helper is life-giving. 

 When the story tells us that God took the person and used the rib or side of the person to make (or build, as the Hebrew says) a woman, the words now used are that God built an ishah  (Hebrew forwoman) out of the ish (Hebrew for man).  I think what we are to learn from this story is that men and women have a special relationship in the created order.  

Unfortunately, in the next chapter the woman fails in her job as helper when she gives the apple to the man who is standing with her.  The man fails in his job as helper by failing to speak up in her conversation with the snake.  But the failure in the story should not blind us to the intent in creation.

Marriage as a sign of God’s love for God’s people

The image of marriage as a fundamental sign of God’s love for God’s people is found throughout the Old and New Testaments. 

One way in which we are shown in the Old Testament the sacredness of marriage is that it is used as a metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel.

Jeremiah 2:1-2 The word of the LORD came to me, saying:  ² Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem, Thus says the LORD: I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed me in the wilderness, in a land not sown.

Isaiah 61:10  ¹⁰ I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

Isaiah 62:4-5   ⁴ You shall no more be termed Forsaken, and your land shall no more be termed Desolate; but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her, and your land Married; for the LORD delights in you, and your land shall be married.  ⁵ For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your builder marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

The analogy becomes even more forceful when used to speak about the unfaithfulness of Israel.  The people of God are called adulterous; they are named whores when they follow after other gods. This is offensive language.  I think it is intended to be offensive to give an indication of the offensiveness of seeking other gods. 

Malachi 2:11   ¹¹ Judah has been faithless, and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god.

Jeremiah 3:1-3  ^NRS Jeremiah 3:1 If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not such a land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? says the LORD.  ² Look up to the bare heights, and see! Where have you not been lain with? By the waysides you have sat waiting for lovers, like a nomad in the wilderness. You have polluted the land with your whoring and wickedness.  ³ Therefore the showers have been withheld, and the spring rain has not come; yet you have the forehead of a whore, you refuse to be ashamed.

If you want more see Ezekiel 16:23-49 and the whole book of Hosea.

When we get to the New Testament, we in the Gospel of John that Jesus is seen as the bridegroom explicitly:

John 3:26-29  ²⁶ They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to him."  ²⁷ John answered, "No one can receive anything except what has been given from heaven.  ²⁸ You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, 'I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him.'  ²⁹ He who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. For this reason my joy has been fulfilled.

Jesus also uses this metaphor for himself:

Matthew 9:14-15   ¹⁴ Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?"  ¹⁵ And Jesus said to them, "The wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.

In addition, Jesus uses the image of marriage in some of his parables to describe the kingdom:

Matthew 25:1-13  ^NRS Matthew 25:1 "Then the kingdom of heaven will be like this. Ten bridesmaids took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.  ² Five of them were foolish, and five were wise.  ³ When the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them;  ⁴ but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps.  ⁵ As the bridegroom was delayed, all of them became drowsy and slept.  ⁶ But at midnight there was a shout, 'Look! Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.'  ⁷ Then all those bridesmaids got up and trimmed their lamps.  ⁸ The foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'  ⁹ But the wise replied, 'No! there will not be enough for you and for us; you had better go to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.'  ¹⁰ And while they went to buy it, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went with him into the wedding banquet; and the door was shut.  ¹¹ Later the other bridesmaids came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.'  ¹² But he replied, 'Truly I tell you, I do not know you.'  ¹³ Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

Finally, Revelation has extensive references to the bridegroom (Jesus) and the bride (the church). See for example: 

Revelation 19:7 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready;

Revelation 21:2 And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Now let’s look at that passage in Ephesians 5 that Baptists seem to love and United Methodists seem to hate:  

Ephesians 5:21 - 6:1  ²¹ Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.  ²² Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord.  ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.  ²⁴ Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.  ²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,  ²⁶ in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word,  ²⁷ so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind-- yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish.  ²⁸ In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  ²⁹ For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church,  ³⁰ because we are members of his body.  ³¹ "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."  ³² This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church.  ³³ Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband. 

First off, it is important to start reading in verse 21 where it says to be subject to one another. So what follows can be understood as a fuller explanation of how to be subject to one another, not how the woman should be subject to the man.  This is often read as saying that the woman should be “subordinate” to the man. But that would contradict both Genesis 1 and 2 and the rest of this passage. The job of the man, after all is to sacrifice himself for the woman and to encourage her sanctification.  [Full disclosure: I am blessed to be in a marriage where my husband has made a lot of sacrifices to enable me to be a pastor because he believes that is allowing me to be all that God made me to be.  He is fulfilling the role that Paul lays out here.] In fact, I would argue that the focus in this passage is on the relationship between Christ and the church.  The marriage, the relationship between the man and the woman is a sign of the much more important relationship.  

So why does only a male-female marital relationship reveal the relationship between Christ and the church?  Why wouldn’t any marital relationship—male/male, female/female or male/female—do this equally well?  I can understand how it possible to argue that they can, as a matter of fact. But I think a stronger argument is that only in the male/female relationship is there a relationship between those who are significantly “other.”  We’ve all heard lots of jokes about the difficulties in men and women understanding each other.  Most of those jokes are just silly; but there is some truth to them.  I will never completely understand the male perspective, because I am not male.  Some of you don’t think that matters; I do. 

One of the things that bothers me about Gay and Lesbian relationships has to do with the issue of leaving out the “other.” I don’t see relationships between two men or two women as a full expression of the relationship that God intended.  While two women or two men can love each other dearly and intimately, they can never be “one flesh.”  They can’t reflect the relationship between Creator and created who are very different but meant for one another.  

In Closing – A personal plea

This is a very brief overview of how I understand marriage on the basis of the Bible. I know this will not “convince” many people to change their stance.  But I deeply dislike simplistic views of scripture from both camps and I am trying to be faithful to a reasoned and faithful view of scripture. 

In all honesty, I would rather hold a different view of gay and lesbian relationships.  It would be simpler and people would not hate and ridicule me.  I could go along and get along. I could affirm the love that I know is very real in GL relationships without having a problem with certain aspects of those relationships, and therefore would not be in conflict with some wonderful people. I could present myself as modern and relevant and it would be a lot easier to reach out to the “nones.”  However, because I read the Bible as I do, and because I understand it to be authoritative for my life (see Excursus in Part1), it would be hypocritical of me to present myself as totally accepting of open marriage (and ordination) and I don’t think that would appeal to the “nones” either.   I maintain that I can love people with whom I disagree and I will keep trying to do that.  I hope that those who know me will try to love me back.   

This Changes Nothing

The apology by Alan Chambers, the leader of Exodus International, and the subsequent announcement of the closing of the umbrella organization changes nothing. Let me repeat: this changes nothing.  The apology seemed to be heartfelt and gracious and addressed the abuses that bedeviled the organization and its ministry. The leader was right to apologize for those abuses. However, the abuses themselves, the fact that a number of ex-gays have decided they are not “ex” gay after all, does not change the fact that choosing to have sex with those of the same gender is a sin.  There. I’ve said it.  It is a sin.  In fact, Alan Chambers says it as well.  In a part of the apology that rarely gets quoted, I might add:

I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them.  I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek. My beliefs about these things will never again interfere with God’s command to love my neighbor as I love myself.   

 And as a sin, it is a hard habit to beat, especially if you have a biological predisposition towards same-sex attraction.  It is hard to beat, just as a number of other conditions are hard to beat.  When a recovering alcoholic falls off the wagon, we don’t come to the conclusion that it is pointless to try to change his/her behavior towards alcohol.  So why make the claim that “reparative” therapy is not only useless but harmful just because it fails to work in many cases? Or for that matter, one can't make the case that it doesn't work if the real problem is that it is being used abusively.  Is the claim that no one has ever changed their sexual habits?  Is the claim that no one has ever changed their sexual orientation? 

There are many things wrong with this argument, but the one that disturbs me the most is this: If the claim is that God cannot help homosexuals live a holy life, either by overcoming their same sex attraction or by choosing to live a non-homosexual lifestyle despite that attraction (the choice that Alan Chambers makes), then how can we claim that God can change anything about anyone?  That is what troubles me – I want very much to believe that God can and will change me.  Not my sexual orientation or behavior; that isn’t my particular problem.  But there are things in my life that I pray daily that God will change.  And I truly believe that over time, the promise is that God will honor such prayers and work within each of us to make us into God’s own image.  In the Methodist tradition we call it “going on to perfection” and supposedly we really believe that this is possible. So while it may be true that Exodus International is full of sinful people who get caught up in power and give in to sin, that changes nothing about what I believe God can do in a person’s life.  

Yes, I know that the opposing argument is that love is not a sin.  I agree. Love is not a sin. Sexual orientation is not a sin. Sexual activity in the wrong context is a sin.  And I agree that we should love all people—yes, I really do mean all people—unconditionally.  As it happens, I don’t find it hard to love those of other sexual orientations.  But there are people that I find it difficult to love.  I suspect I am not alone in this.  That is because what is truly “inborn” in us is sin.  I am a sinner.  I was not born a nice person or a good person, but I desperately hope that I am getting better as time goes on. I don’t say this because I hate myself or anything, but I know the secret places of my heart and I know that I am not really a very nice person.  I don’t think I am particularly worse than anyone else, mind you, but I think we all have a nasty side that will come out given the right circumstances.  We also have the image of God that can come out given the right circumstances and the power of the Holy Spirit working within us!

So let’s stop acting like the failures of the “ex-gay” organizations somehow proves that it is not possible for God to work in the lives of those who have same-sex attractions to overcome those attractions.  If you want to hold up the list of bad guy ex-gays, I can hold up lists of gays who aren’t particularly nice people either – starting with Michael Piazza www.dallasobserver.com/2003-12-04/feature/fallen-angel/full/.  But talking about the problems of Michael Piazza doesn’t prove anything anymore than Walker Railey’s downfall proves something about United Methodist Ministers—except maybe that if we are looking for inborn traits, the lust for power is one that we should probably consider.