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: Part 2, The New Testament

Part 1 
Part 3

(Note: Though these posts are on “Biblical Marriage,” I am addressing the issue of same-sex unions as well as traditional marriage because in today’s environment we can’t seem to talk about one without including the other.  I think that one problem the church has had is that it has failed to have a strong “theology of marriage.” These posts are a very small beginning on that task – one which I hope to do much more thoroughly over time.)

In the Gospels, Jesus doesn’t speak about marriage often. However, what he does say (first in the Sermon on the Mount and later to the Pharisees) affirms that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Interestingly, Jesus quotes both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 in the passage from Matthew 19, bringing together the two creation stories. He also adds that God has joined the man and woman,  and no one should separate them.

Matthew 5:31-32   ³¹"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' ³²But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:3-9  ³Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" ⁴He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' ⁵and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." ⁷They said to him, "Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?" ⁸He said to them, "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery."

Jesus is not quoting law here; he is talking about the nature of God’s creation. He sees the creation of male and female and the marriage of the two as somehow at the heart of creation (a concept I will explore more fully in the next post).  The law provided for divorce because of the brokenness of the world, but that is not the way that God intends for the world to be.  

In addition, Jesus radically redefines adultery and thus redefines marriage. 

Matthew 5:27-28   ²⁷"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' ²⁸But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  

In the Gospel of Mark, in particular, we see that Jesus makes adultery a sin against a woman as well as a sin against a man and by doing so shows the woman is an equal partner in the marriage.  

Mark 10:10-12  ¹⁰Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. ¹¹He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;  ¹² and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Though many argue that the silence of Jesus about same-sex unions means that he must not have disapproved, Robert Gagnon shows the foolishness of that position: “If Jesus had wanted to communicate affirmation of same-sex unions he would have had to state such a view clearly since first-century Judaism, so far as we know, had no dissenting voices on the matter. Without a clear statement none of his disciples would have made such a logical leap.”  Gagnon, Robert A (2010-10-01). The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 3829-3831). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.

It isn’t just a leap, it is a huge jump across a chasm!  In a sense Jesus strengthened the laws having to do with sexual purity and marriage.  It makes little sense to say that he would have totally abrogated the one on homosexual unions.

It has also been argued that Jesus was interested in love; that the loving relationships between same-sex couples are equivalent to a faithful, committed marriage between a man and a woman. Once again, there is no evidence for that.  

This would probably be a good time to say something about divorce. I often hear the argument that “The church permits divorce; why not permit same-sex marriage? Are we not being hypocritical to allow one and not the other?”  Yes, we do permit divorce in the church; in fact, I have even counseled people to consider divorce, particularly in cases of abuse. No one should stay in a marriage where they are abused.  It is not the “Christian” thing to do. “Turn the other cheek” was not meant for abused spouses.  If your husband (or, for that matter, your wife) is abusing you, they have broken the marriage covenant already.  

However—and this is a large however—we do not teach that divorce is a happy and wonderful thing. We do not teach that divorce is a sign of the kingdom. We teach that divorce is the result of a broken world. And I don’t know anyone who has had a divorce that is proud and happy that their marriage failed. 

I suppose it would be possible to argue that same-sex marriages could be seen the same way. That it is better for a same-sex couple to marry than to “burn,” as Paul put it.  That, even though marriage would ideally be between a man and a woman, in some cases, due to our imperfect, broken world, some people are born with a “natural” same-sex attraction and should be able to be in the best relationship possible, even if it is not ideal.  Well, one might argue that—but, of course, that is not the argument.  What the LGBTQI coalition argues is that same-sex marriage is perfectly normal and acceptable. And the Christian side of the coalition wants to argue that same-sex marriage is just as representative of the kingdom as traditional marriage.  They want to say that same-sex marriage is all about love and faithful commitment and God smiles on their (sexual) relationships.  

Back to the Bible . . . 

When we look at the works of Paul we see a much more complete understanding of marriage.  Paul’s most extensive writing about marriage is found in 1 Corinthians 7.  Let’s look at it fairly carefully.  Paul is evidently writing in response to a question from the Corinthians about whether or not marriage is acceptable. He responds in the affirmative, believing that immorality would result from forbidding marriage.  What is fascinating about this passage is that Paul gives the same advice to the man as to the woman.  The man cannot deny his wife her “conjugal rights,” and the woman cannot deny her husband; unless, of course, they agree on it. And when Paul says “the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does,” a statement that sounds very patriarchal and traditional, he follows it with, “And the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does!!” (exclamation points are mine) The mutuality that Paul calls for really is extraordinary. Yes, Paul goes on to say that he wishes everyone were like him (celibate) because he is happy with his state and the fact that it allows him to focus on and serve the God that he adores. But he is fully aware that this is a gift from God.  

Paul continues his statement by insisting that believing spouses should not separate from unbelieving spouses if those unbelieving spouses wish to remain together.  Believers can “sanctify” the unbelievers, making them holy – presumably because they are “one flesh.”

I think I know what the response will be: all of these things could be true of same-sex couples as well as they could of male-female couples.  Isn’t it better for a same-sex couple to marry than to be involved in immorality? Doesn’t Paul acknowledge that marriage is itself a concession, so that same-sex marriage would just be another kind of concession?  I might agree except for the matter of Romans 1.

So let’s just address it now: what do we do with Romans 1:26-27?  I know the arguments here as well:

• Paul was not talking about a faithful, committed, monogamous same-sex relationship.
• Paul was talking about an exploitive relationship between men and boys.
• When Paul mentions “unnatural” intercourse he is failing to take into account same-sex orientation, which is natural for homosexuals. 

 All of these excuses assume that Paul was unaware of orientation and committed relationships. However, the scholarship that I have read (by LGBT supporters, I might add) insist that homosexuality was well-known in the Roman empire and that same-sex relationships (male-male) were well thought of in Greek society and at least tolerated in Roman society.  If this is true (and who am I to argue with the likes of John Boswell and Louis Crompton?) then Paul was in exactly the same situation that we are in currently and was very clear on where he stood.  

I have not used a number of the “clobber passages” (as they are called) in this essay, because I don’t think they are necessary to make the case.  (My readers are, of course, free to disagree with me.) I don’t think that it is necessary to talk about homosexuality as an abomination or to argue the point about what the Greek terms ‘really’ mean.  When we come at the issue of same-sex ‘marriage’ by first looking at what the Bible says about marriage, we don’t have to demonize. And, I might add, we don’t have to require that those outside the Christian faith abide by our understanding.  While I believe that Christians need to vote their consciences, we may not have the majority.  That should not stop us from holding to our own point of view and teaching and preaching what we believe.  If we are the ones demonized because we don’t agree with the views of the greater society, then so be it.  Our call is always to approach people with love and grace, especially those with whom we disagree.