Several of my morning devotional
readings came together with an article I found on the Layman.
The article is also linked at CHURCHandWORLD.com.
The readings are Philippians 1:19-30; Hosea 2 and Psalm 38. The
article was from the Christian News,
“Bakery
Under Investigation for Declining to make Lesbian 'Wedding' Cake
moves Due to Harassment.” However, the thoughts I have about
the texts cover much more than the harassment the Kleins who operate
the 'Sweet Cakes by Melissa' are enduring for the sake of their
faith.* It is about the Church, in particular the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.) as well as other mainline denominations and God's
compassion, love and judgment.
The faithful in the United States are experiencing anxious times. We are uncertain about how the laws regarding discrimination versus religious freedom will play out. Certainly the future and freedom are threatened. And to make matters worse denominational faithlessness places denominational church members in a precarious position. They stand with their backs against two walls: a secular state and a compromising religious institution. So from the biblical texts God's love, compassion and his judgment.
Philippians 1:19-30:
Paul is writing about being in prison and the possibility of his death. But he insists that he will continue on for the sake of the believers that they may progress in their faith and have joy. And then Paul gives several admonitions and promises. The Christians must live their lives in a manner that is “worthy of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” They are here called to live a righteous life while bearing the righteousness of Jesus.
The Christians are promised that they will suffer, “For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake not only to believe in him, but to suffer for his sake.” (29a) But they are not to be alarmed. Their peace will be a sign for their enemies as well as themselves. The Christians will experience salvation, the opponents destruction. This is hard language but it is an eschatological promise. The reality of the ultimate future is not uncertainty but certainty. There is compassion but finally, in the end, there is judgment as well as salvation.
Hosea 2:
The Christians at Philippi were facing non-Christian opponents, those who had no desire to be called Christian. But in Hosea we see the people of God as the problem. They are the opponents, and this because they are completely compromised by false religion which included immorality. Israel is likened to a wife who believes her blessings, bread, water, wool, flax, oil and drink are gifts from lovers different from her husband. She is totally ignorant of the true source of her life. Israel becomes intimately involved with the Baals of the surrounding culture.
God's solution is to hedge her in; he places her in a position where she can only return to him. He takes away his gifts and even allows her lovers to see her lewdness so that they will also reject her. (This has too often happened to the church.) One could say that God takes away what his people believe to be their rights so that they might find real satisfaction in the Lord who is their true redeemer. God speaks to his people:
“I will betroth you to me forever; yes, I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in lovingkindness and in compassion, and I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. Then you will know the Lord. (19,21)
God judges his church in order to bring repentance and bind her to himself. God will judge his Church; the Scripture is very clear, but God will have compassion in the midst of repentance.
Psalms 38:
This is the prayer of the sinner; the confession of repentance and acknowledgment that we, I, suffer from my own sin. “for your sorrows have sunk deep into me, and your hand has pressed down on me. There is no soundness in my flesh because of your indignation; there is no health in my bones because of my sin.” Over and over the affects and pains of sin are stated.
But this is a paradox. In the midst of being a sinner the confessor acknowledges that there are enemies who hate them for following good. “For I said, 'May they not rejoice over me, who, when my foot slips, would magnify themselves against me. For I am ready to fall, and my sorrow is continually before me. For I confess my iniquity; I am full of anxiety because of my sin. But my enemies are vigorous and strong … They oppose me because I follow what is good.”
The faithful Christian like the psalmist, acknowledging that they are sinners and confessing will find their sinfulness thrown in their face by those who are also sinners but without repentance. And the answer is simply this. Continue in confession and faith in the God who does not forsake. “Do not forsake me, O Lord; O my God, do not be far from me! Make haste to help me, O Lord my salvation.”
The Kleins have moved from their bakery, painted in pink with crosses, to their home for safety's sake. Maybe they will be charged with discrimination by the state of Oregon. Maybe not. But the promises, life eternal, forgiveness and suffering still stand.
*Melissa and Aaron Klein would not participate in a same sex wedding by baking a cake and have discrimination charges filed against them.
Picture by Penny Juncker
24 comments:
If you open your doors to the public, you open them to the whole public. You cannot discriminate against any minority group. Its the law. Period.
No on is making them sell cakes to only some people. they have the liberty to refuse to sell to minority couples. But, if they do so, they cannot sell cakes to anyone else either.
same would apply if they had refused to sell a cake to a Conservative Christian couple. It would have been wrong to discriminate against them also, and again, they would have the same right to refuse to serve Christians...providing they did not serve anyone else either.
Gene
Gene,
I'm betting that if you were a baker you'd refuse to make a cake for an event that celebrated an incestuous union. No?
Bruce Byrne
Concord, CA
I am not a lawyer, but my son is. His expertise informs that the couple ran a public business and they do not have the right in Oregon to discriminate against a same sex couple, as they would not be able to discriminate against an inter-racial couple. And no Bruce your incestuous union is not in the same league. In the end you may not use your religion to mask your bigotry.
Gene, (?)
You're saying that it is okay to discriminate in one instance, but not in another, correct?
Specifically, you may discriminate against an incestuous couple, but not a same sex couple. Is that what you're saying?
Bruce Byrne
Concord, CA
Oh, and Gene,
Just wanted you to know that I won't resort to name calling. Name calling is what people do when they realize that they can't advance their arguments by reason, logic, evidence, fairness, etc. So you won't find me calling anyone names.
Bruce Byrne
Concord, CA
Gene I think you are missing the whole purpose of my posting. It wasn't meant for you. And I was suggesting if there is such a law that requires Christians to contribute to sinful acts or go out of business that was loss of freedom of religion. All you did was restate what you thought the law was. You did nothing more so you have not contributed to the discussion.
Anonymous,
You cannot comment here if you do not leave your name, city and state.
Bruce, Straw man arguments mean nothing.
1) we are not talking about incest (a criminal act that can lead to deformed children). As it would happen, I would show discernment against them, not discrimination. Your attempt at conflating the two is senseless. In contrast, If a jerk came in and asked me to make a cake for his racist rally, I would hold my nose and do it. I am running a business open to the whole public. People have a legally accepted right to such stupid opinions as the racist has. If he asked me to make a cake supporting the hunting for sport of illegal immigrants, I would not, for THAT would be illegal activity.
In the first case, The law would be on his side (it says he can march in a parade also...which I can avoid and not watch, and just pity the waste of a good white sheet). In the second, it would be on mine.
And in the Real World case of the women wanting to buy a cake, it was correctly on Their side.
Trying to combine two unrelated things is a sign you have lost the argument, and reminds me to the ridiculous 'slippery slope' ravings. Extending rights to more people does not mean will extend them to all, and people are not buying fear tactics like they used to, so asking if I would discriminate against the incestuous is only a sad attempt to conflate GLBT people with the incestuous, and to muddy a legal question with a ridiculous 'what if'
2) Incest is NOT covered by the states laws against discrimination
3) decent and moral people oppose incest. Decent and moral people support gay unions/marriages. By the way, read Mohler if you don't realize that yes, society now correctly sees you and your opinions as the indecent one, not me. I am not the one who used the word bigotry. But, it was accurate, and that was not name calling.
the law, a teacher, now teaches that. Discrimination against GLBT people IS bigotry. If you practice it, or espouse it, even saying that your interpretation of your religious duties demands it, you are espousing bigotry. The law, the society, and yes, more and more of the church, will be pointing that out to you. No need to shoot the messanger
4) the anonymous poster whose son is a lawyer was correct (that was not me, I try to always follow Violas sensible rule and put my name on my post)
Viola, why was the post not "meant for me"? I am a gay man. I have been discriminated against. You posted an argument implying such bigotry against me is acceptable if is it religiously held. that relates to me.
Such discrimination is illegal, and unacceptable. The fact it is religiously based is not relevant. I personally know racists and anti semites who use their conservative Christianity (I am in the south) to justify their racism and hatred of Jews.
You wont like this, but I would hope you have the intellectual integrity to leave it up, because it is a fact; The law now classes your support of these persons to discriminate on the same level as it does those who want to discriminate against other minorities based on (sincerely held) religious belief on the part of the discriminator.
It is right to do so. It will continue to do so. And those who hold these beliefs, such as these cake makers, don't have the right to discriminate simply because of their theology.
If they, or anyone else thinks they should, then they need to do some serious rethinking of their theological understandings.
In any case, the pity party for those who claim "I am being discriminated against because they wont let me discriminate", is ending in this society, and in the church, and it is right and good that is so. THAT was my point, and that was what I was adding.
Gene
Gene you are simply repeating yourself again. And no, I did not write this to comfort and help the LGBTQ community except with the hope and promise that they might repent and find new life in Christ. I mostly wrote it to the Christian community who are facing a seemingly bleak future. And I also wrote it to a compromised denomination.
Few people who read this and your comment realize that I had to delete you off of my last posting on same sex marriage at least ten times if not more. You have commented twice now-I will give you one more comment and then you will be deleted because you are simply repeating yourself.
In the Church under the Lordship of Christ the law never gets to trump Scripture.
No, Gene,
You mistake my intent. If you were willing to engage in a reasoned discussion, I'd show you that you and I agree on a whole host of things that one should be allowed to discriminate against. (I'm glad that you agree with me about incest, by the way. And no, I wasn't relying on an equivalency argument.) What I was doing was a modest exercise in category setting: There are some things which one ought to be able to discriminate against and those which one ought not be able to discriminate against. My experience is that when a list of various sexual behaviors is made, most people are surprised to find that we have only one significant area of disagreement. Once the categories are set and once a significant area of agreement has been noted, it's easier to have a rational discussion about why I categorize homosexual behavior as I do and why they categorize it as they do.
Gene, you repeatedly misinterpret my intent, you name call, you reject any attempt to even begin a calm discussion, you continually beg the question (assuming and asserting you conclusion in your premises), you jump to label an attempt to find common ground a failed argument and you celebrate the destruction of a Christian's business as appropriate, reasonable and would, no doubt, like to see more of the same.
I have to confess that, based on passed interaction, I expected as much (but I did hope for better).
Bruce Byrne
Concord, CA
viola, when you listen, I will stop repeating myself.
not until.
Bruce, I did no name calling. You expressed bigotry. I called you out on it (although I am not the anonymous who first used the term in the above posts). the bakers of the cake showed bigotry in their service to public. They have appropriately been chastised for it.
Bruce, you and Viola ARE bigoted. that's the point. you think I LIKE having to point this out? It's painful! Yet, like an old racist in the south or an anti semite anywhere, how will you learn if you are allowed to continue in this behavior and no one (I pray with love...I am trying, hard as it is, to do it with love) points out your error, how will you move past it?
Bruce, Viola, seriously, how else will you learn and repent? To not be honest with you would be a disservice, and you deserve better than that.
In brief, your theology is wrong. Your understanding of GBLT people is wrong. Your belief that we can be discriminated against and the discriminator be moral/right with God is wrong. We are (some of us) your brothers and sisters in the faith, and if you are a Presbyterian, you fellow pastors, elders and deacons, and our relationships blessed in our CONNECTED congregations. Your "modest exercise" directly implied what I share with the love of my life is equal to incest. Of Course I was offended. I forgive it. Please know that Bruce.
Even if we were in agreement about everything save your interpretation on the right to categorize gay people (one IS gay..or, if one wants to use offensive language, homosexual, even when sleeping or playing tennis. It is not a series of behaviors, and the implication shows how much you need to learn about Gay people) that would not be relevant to the fallacy that anyone has a right to discriminate against me just because of how they feel religiously.
there is no discussion to have Bruce. this is as settled among thoughtful people as the issue of whether discrimination on race is. the fact you don't realize this is all I am hoping to help you see.
Gene
PS (copied, and easily re entered...over, and over, and over) for any GLBT 17 year old (or 50 year old just dealing with these issues at that age) to see, as you know, I will do.
Gene
No Gene,
I am not going to delete this since it shows how intolerant the LGBTQ community can be and how they wish to take freedom away from Christians. I am praying for you.
Do not comment again.
No viola, I will post again each time you post something disparaging or unjust concerning me or other GLBT people. Especially those in the church.
I once had an old relative tell me I was "intolerant" of his views. he believed his conservative reading of the Bible said it was ok for him to see another minority as inferior, and even "ahem", to not do business with them, eat with them, etc. "Not that I hate them or anything, I am not prejudiced. they just need to stay apart from us" (wrong, and wrong)
Pray for me, and I will pray for you. as I said, I only post what I post in an attempt to help you. we share a Church you and I, and nation and a world. Please pray for me. I value your prayers. And I have no desire to take away freedom from other Christians. I want them, like I wanted for the old cousin, to be come BETTER Christians, tolerant, and fair to all.
Gene
Gene,
I didn't say you are inferior,(you are not) I said you are intolerant. And I would gladly eat a meal with anyone in the GLBTQ community as long as it was not their wedding meal. In fact, I have lots of times. Once again you are being ridiculous.
Do not post again.
Viola,
Please don't allow Gene to hijack and filibuster yet another one of your threads. This harassment is disturbing to me and I suspect your other supportive readers.
John Erthein
DeFuniak Springs, FL
I know John,
I always have the hope that others will just ignore him, because I think that would end the hijack. But it doesn't work because I have too many kind hearted friends: } I will just go back to deleting.
Viola,
I'm afraid I unwittingly contributed to the hijacking of your post. Based on past experience, I really should have known better.
Thank you, by the way, if you're willing to attribute my foolishness to kind heartedness. That's very gracious.
My willingness to engage is mostly due to hope. I really have had at least some success with people who disagree with me on this issue by seeking common ground, setting up the proper categories and then working through the issues. I can't think of a single person who 1) knows me and 2) is willing to reason with me that would afterwards call me a bigot--provided, of course, that they hadn't determined this a priori, although, of course, they may still disagree with me.
Anyway, I recognize (again) the wisdom of ignoring comments of a certain nature and will seek to show better restraint in the future.
Thanks,
Bruce Byrne
Concord, CA
Bruce, I hope you don't think I was getting after you, you really were being kind hearted. And I to often wade in when I should not. I admit I often don't know how to handle the situation and always feel some sadness no matter which way I react.
Viola,
I didn't feel you were getting after me; I felt a kindness extended toward me.
I'm just kicking myself a bit for taking the bait when I really do know better!
When I was younger, I was frustrated to read of how Jesus remained silent before his accusers. I think I wanted him to expose the motivations of their hearts in a manner that would leave them exposed and stunned. I'm coming (slowly) to understand the wisdom of his silence. Now, if I could only emulate it. Miles to go before I sleep on that one.
Thanks for providing this forum...
Bruce Byrne
Concord, CA
PS: Does anyone else find it funny that we're asked to "Please prove you're not a robot" before posting? I understand the reason for this, but it makes me laugh every time I see it. I wonder what the me of thirty years ago think if I sent myself a message back in time that said: "In thirty years you'll be asked to prove you're not a robot before being allowed to perform mundane tasks."
Post a Comment