Perhaps Love Bakes a Cake?

[GoldenEagle]

Found this today... Is it way off base or is there some merrit to this line of thinking? Where does one draw the line?

 

God bless,

GE
 

 

Perhaps Love Bakes a Cake?

Date: 04 Sep 2013

By: Micah J. Murray

 

It is a culture war that has raged in churches and courtrooms, in parades and fast food places. Now in the most bizarre turn of all, the “gay marriage” battle is being fought in bakeries across the country.

 

It is a story that’s in the news again this week, but we’ve seen it several times now: A bakery declines to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, citing Christian conviction. The gay couple files complaints of discrimination with the media and state. Both sides rush to stake out their battle lines – gay rights activists bring boycotts and threats against the business owners while Christians raise the rallying cry of religious freedom. The conversation ripples outward with both sides becoming louder and louder. Everyone involved believes they themselves are the victim of discrimination.

 

While many Christians see this as a disturbing indicator of mounting persecution, I see it as a disturbing indicator that somewhere along the way we got confused about what it means to be followers of Jesus. And now we have these cultural war skirmishes where we exchange volleys of Bible verses but don’t look at all like Him. As I watch the story pass through the news cycle every few months, I wish that we could change its course.

 

The bakers’ argument is simple yet problematic – “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin… The Bible tells us to flee from sin. I don’t think making a cake for it helps.”

 

But there’s simply no Biblical command for Christians to deny services to those whose actions you believe to be sinful. If there was, who could Christians serve? If all the Christians who believe gay marriage is sinful followed this precedent, where would it stop? Christian landlords would refuse to provide a home for gay couples to live in. Christian shop owners would deny selling groceries and household goods that gay couples would use to live their gay lives. Christian employers could even decline to hire gay people, knowing that they would use their wages to support their “lifetime of sin”.

 

Here our hypocrisy is on display. Where is the refusal to do business with any other people deemed “sinful” by your interpretation of the Bible? If you believe premarital sex is sinful, do you decline a wedding cake to any couple who had premarital sex? What about couples that are divorced and remarried ? What about couples who are of mixed faith – “unequally yoked”? Or couples who aren’t Christians at all – after all, without faith it is impossible to please God? By this standard, these Christian bakers would have to carefully vet each prospective couple to make sure that they will have a Godly marriage free from sin, perhaps have them sign a Statement of Faith. How else could the bakers be sure that they’re “fleeing from sin” rather than “helping somebody celebrate it”?

 

But if we continue this line of thinking, who CAN Christians do business with? Should a Christian landowner rent a home to non-Christians who will live there “in sin”? Should a Christian restaurant owner turn away any guests that are likely to commit gluttony? What ofmaterialism and greed and consumerism? They’re all strongly condemned in the Bible – far more than gay marriage. Should a Christian retailer turn away any customer whose purchases support a life of THOSE sins?

 

This is where the “cake debates” reveal a larger problem. We’ve reduced Biblical ideas of sin and godliness to a small handful of sexual “issues” where we plant our flags and fight to the death – abortion, gay marriage, pornography, premarital sex. The great majority of our words are spent arguing about these things to the neglect of a holistic view of Christian living. In the process, we make people into props for our debates and eliminate the potential for any meaningful relationship.

 

We’ve taken the whole of the Bible and somehow turned a few verses into an excuse for discrimination. Christians have an undeniable double-standard in how we treat people who we believe to be sinful. I don’t think this double-standard is simply an oversight or a mistake on the part of some Christians. It reveals a systemic problem that’s wholly taken for granted: when we draw our circles in the sand, gay people are on the outside. Always. It’s veiled in terms of “Biblical marriage” and “personal belief” and “religious liberty”, but when it’s directed only at the gay community I can’t help but wonder if it’s just bigotry baptised in the language of religion.

 

I fully affirm the freedom to practice religion and to worship God without government interference. But discrimination against gays is simply not an act of worship to God nor a sacrament of the Christian faith. While I recognize each individual Christian’s right to their own conscience, this shows us how far Christianity has been hijacked by political interests. When Christians have become convinced that refusing service to gay couples is actually an act of service to God, something is wrong.

 

Contrary to the narrative being spun by some conservatives, this isn’t a case of being denied the “right to believe what we believe.” You can believe that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman for life – nobody’s going to penalize you for that. Where Christians get in trouble is when we try to make everyone else live by those same beliefs. But freedom is a two-way street, and there are laws established to protect that freedom for all citizens. These laws that some Christians see as persecution of their faith are the very same laws protecting them from discrimination.

 

Suppose that the headlines read “Athiest Baker Refuses Wedding Cake to Christian Couple.” The uproar would be deafening. Every conservative Christian and political news outlet would be outraged. If it happens to us, we want to call it persecution. But when we do it to others, we want to call it “religious liberty.” We can’t have it both ways, and I find these fear-mongering cries of persecution to be simply dishonest.
 

It is interesting to note that the Bible actually addresses this scenario I Peter 4: “If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler [that is, a Christian who tries to make non-Christians conform to Christian standards]. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” Perhaps this isn’t a new phenomenon after all. Perhaps from the beginning we’ve had this tendency to push our views on other people and then suppose that we are being persecuted for it.
 

What has been conspicuously absent in all this talk of the Bible and Christian values and pleasing God is any mention of Jesus. It’d be easy to wrap this up with talking of how Jesus was a “friend of sinners”, and how Christians should follow His example by befriending sinful gay people. But I think that’d still be missing the point. And it’s simpler, even, than that.

Christianity is a religion of love and of grace. Whenever morality becomes elevated above love we have veered away from the meaning of the faith.
 

Perhaps the most Christian thing of all is to love God and love our neighbors.
 

Perhaps Love is patient and kind and keeps no record of wrongs.
 

Perhaps Love covers a multitude of sins.

 

Perhaps Love doesn’t demand that everyone live up to our standards.

 

Perhaps Love gives with no strings attached

 

Perhaps Love meets people where they are and cares about them as people instead of issues.

 

Perhaps Love bakes a cake.

[GoldenEagle]

For clarification I think it's horrible/despicable that those involved threatened and boycotted the business to where it was shut down.

However, one friend said the following:
 

 

 

Lance: No one's saying that a Christian pastor should be a part of a gay wedding. And yes, the bakery owners have the legal right to refuse to do business with whomever they please. The point Micah was trying to make with the bakery example is this: would those bakery owners apply the same criteria of "we don't want to aid in a sinful lifestyle" to couples that had pre-marital sex? What about non-Christian hetereosexual couples? What about clients who struggled with gluttony? Would the bakery owners apply the "not aiding sin" criteria apply to those other categories? I think not.

 

[missmuffet]

One friend said the following:

Lance: No one's saying that a Christian pastor should be a part of a gay wedding. And yes, the bakery owners have the legal right to refuse to do business with whomever they please. The point Micah was trying to make with the bakery example is this: would those bakery owners apply the same criteria of "we don't want to aid in a sinful lifestyle" to couples that had pre-marital sex? What about non-Christian hetereosexual couples? What about clients who struggled with gluttony? Would the bakery owners apply the "not aiding sin" criteria apply to those other categories? I think not.

 

Your friend has said something that I find interesting.I deal with homosexuals everyday.I am kind to them.It is their choice.Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin.It would not be my choice.I think I would make the cake.

 

John 8:7So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up^[a] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”

[Guest man]

Lance: No one's saying that a Christian pastor should be a part of a gay wedding. And yes, the bakery owners have the legal right to refuse to do business with whomever they please. The point Micah was trying to make with the bakery example is this: would those bakery owners apply the same criteria of "we don't want to aid in a sinful lifestyle" to couples that had pre-marital sex? What about non-Christian hetereosexual couples? What about clients who struggled with gluttony? Would the bakery owners apply the "not aiding sin" criteria apply to those other categories? I think not.

 

 

 

 

 

This is true.

 

They should have just baked the cake.

[GoldenEagle]

 

One friend said the following:

Lance: No one's saying that a Christian pastor should be a part of a gay wedding. And yes, the bakery owners have the legal right to refuse to do business with whomever they please. The point Micah was trying to make with the bakery example is this: would those bakery owners apply the same criteria of "we don't want to aid in a sinful lifestyle" to couples that had pre-marital sex? What about non-Christian hetereosexual couples? What about clients who struggled with gluttony? Would the bakery owners apply the "not aiding sin" criteria apply to those other categories? I think not.

 

Your friend has said something that I find interesting.I deal with homosexuals everyday.I am kind to them.It is their choice.Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin.It would not be my choice.I think I would make the cake.

 

John 8:7So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up^[a] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”

 

 

Yes this is true Bo. John 8:7 is a good reminder.

I particularly like the ending of that section of the chapter...

John 8:7-12

⁷ So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. ¹⁰ When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

 

¹¹ She said, “No one, Lord.”

 

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

 

¹² Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

 

It's interesting how quick we are to quote Jesus with "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" and ignore the last part of that verse. "..neither to I condemn you. Go, and sin no more". This is the message of the Gospel. Yes, I believe Jesus did point out their hypocrisy, in a way that only Jesus can. (BTW, when we point out others hypocrisy, we ignore our own in a twisted ironic sense IMO for sure).

But he didn't turn back to the woman and say that since her accusers were hypocrites, she was free to return to her adultery. He extended grace,was forgiving and kind, but gently reminded her they (the accusers) had a point, and she should adjust.

To me, this couple lost their business due to lack of wisdom.

 

God bless,

GE

[alphaparticle]

 

For clarification I think it's horrible/despicable that those involved threatened and boycotted the business to where it was shut down.

However, one friend said the following:

 

 

 

Lance: No one's saying that a Christian pastor should be a part of a gay wedding. And yes, the bakery owners have the legal right to refuse to do business with whomever they please. The point Micah was trying to make with the bakery example is this: would those bakery owners apply the same criteria of "we don't want to aid in a sinful lifestyle" to couples that had pre-marital sex? What about non-Christian hetereosexual couples? What about clients who struggled with gluttony? Would the bakery owners apply the "not aiding sin" criteria apply to those other categories? I think not.

 

 

Just as people have the right to deny services to whomever, so do potential customers have the right to boycott. It goes both ways.

 

But, in terms of your OP, that is interesting an interesting thought about if the train is being missed in not baking cakes for gay marriages. I have been thinking a lot about the way the christian right asserts itself in the public sphere and I have to admit, I don't get it. There's a lot of hand slapping and not a lot of sharing the actual gospel. Why should unbelievers care if a bunch of believers think that extramarital sex at all is wrong? You tell them it's sinful, they give you a funny look, because they don't believe in sin, or God, or know that a savior has died for them. Suppose you get them to stop their particular sinful behavior, but to what end if they don't believe in Jesus?

[GoldenEagle]

I also found this a very interesting perspective:
 

Lance: "Further perspecitve, I had a pastor once who held the position that homosexual behavior was a sin. However, in the lawn mowing business he ran, one of his clients was a gay couple. Did that mean he approved of their behavior? No, and he would absolutely not perform a marriage ceremony for them either. Mowing a gay couple's yard, however, is a long way from endorsing their personal choices."

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

GE I so get it, and both ways though. I mean the guy baking the cake might be dealing with conscience issues. He might feel he is giving his approval in doing this thing. In his circumstance the gay couple might request two men (or two women) to be placed atop the cake, since (obviously) it would not be a traditional cake topper.

 

And here's the thing (although I do see the opposite side of it as well) if someone's conscience is condemning their own participation in it, and believes the same is as giving his approval (against what his conscience allows) what can you say? After all Paul allows for the weak brothers conscience (in respects to another's own eating) however in this case there is no danger in being embolden to eat what he forbids himself (obviously). And it probably wouldn't have been such an issue (at all) if it was just serving food (like in a diner) without the moral attachment of a union (and of the which) he is definitely not giving his blessing.

 

But lets just say there is a couple who has opened up their own home for a bed and breakfast, and a man comes in wanting a room, and the other is not present ( the Christians being clueless until the other shows up) Being either two men or two women in their home. I can understand them being uncomfortable with this. However, it would be hypocritical to allow to unmarried (being man and woman) in either then. And so folks sometimes cant recognized they are being that way until you compare the two different situations. However, if they are consistent and allow not for that either then you can obviously see that they don't wish to use their residence (or employment) to cater to this lifestyle in the sense that they feel they become participants in it, and in the latter case open up their own home for such practices to take place.

[missmuffet]

 

 

For clarification I think it's horrible/despicable that those involved threatened and boycotted the business to where it was shut down.

However, one friend said the following:

 

 

 

Lance: No one's saying that a Christian pastor should be a part of a gay wedding. And yes, the bakery owners have the legal right to refuse to do business with whomever they please. The point Micah was trying to make with the bakery example is this: would those bakery owners apply the same criteria of "we don't want to aid in a sinful lifestyle" to couples that had pre-marital sex? What about non-Christian hetereosexual couples? What about clients who struggled with gluttony? Would the bakery owners apply the "not aiding sin" criteria apply to those other categories? I think not.

 

 

Just as people have the right to deny services to whomever, so do potential customers have the right to boycott. It goes both ways.

 

But, in terms of your OP, that is interesting an interesting thought about if the train is being missed in not baking cakes for gay marriages. I have been thinking a lot about the way the christian right asserts itself in the public sphere and I have to admit, I don't get it. There's a lot of hand slapping and not a lot of sharing the actual gospel. Why should unbelievers care if a bunch of believers think that extramarital sex at all is wrong? You tell them it's sinful, they give you a funny look, because they don't believe in sin, or God, or know that a savior has died for them. Suppose you get them to stop their particular sinful behavior, but to what end if they don't believe in Jesus?

 

That goes for many,many who do not believe in Jesus Christ.Not only the homosexual.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

For clarification I think it's horrible/despicable that those involved threatened and boycotted the business to where it was shut down.

However, one friend said the following:

 

 

 

Lance: No one's saying that a Christian pastor should be a part of a gay wedding. And yes, the bakery owners have the legal right to refuse to do business with whomever they please. The point Micah was trying to make with the bakery example is this: would those bakery owners apply the same criteria of "we don't want to aid in a sinful lifestyle" to couples that had pre-marital sex? What about non-Christian hetereosexual couples? What about clients who struggled with gluttony? Would the bakery owners apply the "not aiding sin" criteria apply to those other categories? I think not.

 

 

Just as people have the right to deny services to whomever, so do potential customers have the right to boycott. It goes both ways.

 

But, in terms of your OP, that is interesting an interesting thought about if the train is being missed in not baking cakes for gay marriages. I have been thinking a lot about the way the christian right asserts itself in the public sphere and I have to admit, I don't get it. There's a lot of hand slapping and not a lot of sharing the actual gospel. Why should unbelievers care if a bunch of believers think that extramarital sex at all is wrong? You tell them it's sinful, they give you a funny look, because they don't believe in sin, or God, or know that a savior has died for them. Suppose you get them to stop their particular sinful behavior, but to what end if they don't believe in Jesus?

 

That goes for many,many who do not believe in Jesus Christ.Not only the homosexual.

 

Yeah that is my point. I think the Christian right pushes things backwards. What's the point of getting a couple, heterosexual or homosexual, to stop having extramarital sex if they don't believe in Jesus?