Posted on 02/24/2014 5:51:18 AM PST by xzins
Jesus Christ would absolutely bake a cake for a gay person. He’d bake a cake for a straight person. He’d bake a cake for a girl, a boy, a person who isn’t sure what they are, a black person, a white person — Jesus would bake that cake if it, in some way large or small, drew that person closer to Him.
And Christians should too.
Christians should show love and compassion to gays, straights, and everyone else. Christians should show God’s love in hopes of drawing people to a relationship with Christ. 95% of that may just be relationship building, but it should still be done.
If a Christian owns a bakery or a florist shop or a photography shop or a diner, a Christian should no more be allowed to deny service to a gay person than to a black person. It is against the tenets of 2000 years of orthodox Christian faith, no matter how poorly some Christians have practiced their faith over two millennia.
And honestly, I don’t know that I know anyone who disagrees with any of this.
The disagreement comes on one issue only — should a Christian provide goods and services to a gay wedding. That’s it. We’re not talking about serving a meal at a restaurant. We’re not talking about baking a cake for a birthday party. We’re talking about a wedding, which millions of Christians view as a sacrament of the faith and other, mostly Protestant Christians, view as a relationship ordained by God to reflect a holy relationship.
This slope is only slippery if you grease it with hypotheticals not in play.
There are Christians who have no problem providing goods and services for a gay marriage. Some of them are fine with gay marriage. Some of them think gay marriage is wrong, but they still have no problem providing goods and services.
Other Christians, including a significant number of Catholic and Protestant preachers, believe that a gay marriage is a sinful corruption of a relationship God himself ordained. Because they try to glorify God through their work, they believe they cannot participate in a wedding service. Yes, because they believe they are glorifying God in their work and view it as a ministry, they view providing goods and services as a way to advance, even in a small way, God’s kingdom.
Herein lies the dispute of the day. The latter group does not stand in the way of the former group providing cakes, flowers, and pictures for a gay wedding. Some of the former, however, believe the government should compel the latter group to violate their conscience. They only see the transaction through the customer’s eyes as if the vendors are passive participants.
That’s the problem.
We are not talking about race. We are not talking about restaurants. We are talking about a specific ceremony people of faith believe God himself created and ordained. Should the state force people to violate their conscience in that regard?
It is not staggering that there are aggrieved gay rights activists who think the state should be able to force people to recognize as normal that which most Christians view as sinful. What is staggering is the number of Christians who apparently think the State has the right to decide and enforce this issue.
You might think Jesus would bake a cake for a gay wedding. I think you are wrong. I do not think Jesus Christ would participate in the ratification of a sin — and a marriage between two people of the same sex is a sin. Are you really going to tell the millions of Christians in the United States who think otherwise that not only are they wrong, but the state should be able to force your opinion of what Jesus would do on them? In your pride, you might think 2000 years of Christian orthodoxy and the majority of practicing Christians in the world today are wrong — but don’t think among people of practicing Christian faith you are in the majority.
I understand if you are not a believer and define yourself based on your sexual preference that you think the government should legitimize you by forcing others to treat you in a particular way. But it boggles my mind to think any Christian should want the government to force their view of Christianity on another believer.
If you think the government should be able to force Christians to provide goods and services to a gay wedding or risk losing their business, why not command a preacher’s service? If a Christian baker cannot opt out, why should a preacher be able to opt out? And why not take from churches their tax exempt status if they fail to participate?
Christians should serve. But the government should not force them to.
How about Gay Cakes that indicate, say “Thanks for the best 6 months of my life?” Are Christian bakers allowed to bake cakes like that? Or is a faux ceremony the cutoff?
He was referred to once as a son of the carpenter
He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:1-3)
Looks like the folks back home knew what trade Jesus practiced. No reason to believe differently.
And what did He say to those who were about to stone to death a prostitute? What did He say to her?
We don't see things or our own behavior as He does and I have a growing fear for the day when He shows me my life through His eyes.
There is a moment between stimulus and response where we actually can choose what our response will be or simply react.
In that moment, should we even notice it, it is helpful to remind ourselves of Scripture, as you point out, especially by asking that simple, succinct question "What would Jesus do?"
Usually, the answer is not the same as our immediate reaction. Obviously, we should keep the letter of the Law, but it is equally important to remember His Spirit of the Law as He taught: Love, Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness.
So you think the government should be allowed to dictate what everyone’s religious beliefs are, as long as it’s what you believe? No one should be allowed to believe that it’s sinful to participate in the desecration of holy matrimony, because you don’t view it that way?
It’s surprising how many questions ending with a question mark are blown off by the person being questioned, because they don’t know what a question mark is.
Yes, Matthew 11:19, Luke 5:29-32, and other verses record such events. We can safely infer from Scripture that Jesus interacted with sinners but in no way endorsed nor partook of the sin.
To the hypothetical situation, I would agree with the author that Jesus would have sold cakes to the gays as normal interaction with sinners but would not have baked a wedding cake which would have been seen as an endorsement of the sin. Of course, that is just speculation but I don't think that it is a real stretch.
I do agree there is a mass amount of confusion. Christ gave His life for any and all who would believe upon Him, everlasting life. AND that is not enough, we expect Him to take the time to bake a cake for a pervert? REALLY????? This 'saving' business does require something on our part. Repentance and change of heart. That sacrifice was only going to happen one time. As Christ said on the cross 'it is finished', the ball is now in our court as to whether or not we choose to believe upon Him.
The author’s not talking about salvation, though, just cake.
You can't compel somebody to express or advance a viewpoint they don't believe in.
Most people agree that you can turn down a customer who wants a decorated cake that says "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler," or wants a T-shirt with "Bring Back Slavery," or wants a photo album made to celebrate killing California condors.
Most would even say you're wrong to go into a Black-owned business and ask for car detailing on a Confederate Flag theme --- unless you're looking for trouble.
That's true, even moreso, for caterers, florists, and event planners and reception or honeymoon venue managers, too. Providing for a wedding is being "expressively" involved in a celebration. Your own services are personalized: yes, you're selling a product, but you'e also expressing what you believe.
IN every one of these cases, the vendor should be able to simply decline the customer's request, because nobody should be forced to support or contribute to an expression of values which is against his own convictions.
We are persons, not machines or utilities. It's not just a matter of sticking in a credit card, pushing a button and out pops a product. We have souls, too.
There is a difference between normal commerce, and participation in sin.
Jesus never said we should not engage in commerce with sinners, or that sinners should not be allowed to buy food.
We are all sinners. How long would mankind have survived if God forbid all commerce involving sinners?
He does not forbid the baker to sell baked goods to sodomites, drunkards or thieves. Participating in the sin, by baking a cake in celebration of the sin is an entirely different matter. Refusing to engage in normal commerce with someone because you despise them on a personal level is an individual choice. It is not what God commands of us.
Of course we are all sinners. Christ was not. And this stupid article insults Christ, who He was/is and what price He already paid for us. It is completely different to have an economic discussion on profits with the in our face perverts.
What was Lot's wife's sin? She sure was not a participant in the abomination, yet, she disobeyed and ended up a pillar of salt. Perversion is not the typical run of the mill sins. Now I could care less what two consenting adults choose to do to one another behind closed doors. But that is not what this subject is describing. Why the White House is calling these that proclaim their perversions courageous. HA my relatives serving in the military are courageous, not these whining wimps demanding US cater to their perversions.
That just shifts the fight back to the churches. The homos will be more than happy to attack them directly to force them to conduct the services, just as they have done in other countries.
Actually the bible never establishes if she was saved or not. (John 4:1-29) He confronted her with her sin and told her what she must do, but it is not recorded if she ever did that. (although she does seem to recognize Him as the Christ in vs29)
Jesus never requires that we live sinless before saving us. But HE DOES require that we repent of our sins and our sinful ways before saving us. Without repentence there is no salvation
It is highly unlikely that any homosexual would repent once Christ confronted them with their sin. (True some might, but most wouldn’t. They refuse to believe that they are sinning regardless of what the bible says) So even after that point they’d not stick around long enough for Jesus to bake them a cake.
A minute’s Googling referred me to Mark 6:3.
I really wish you’d quit pushing your ignorance. That’s worse than being a red neck.
I see not only bad theology, but an unconfirmed stereotype here. God has the eternal view and can say, yes this person is destined for repentance, with 100% certitude.
If there are more stubborn homosexuals today it’s partly because Christians gave up the high ground, and part of such giving up is exactly such failings as this.
Christ lives within the believer.
Maybe Christ wants to bring it on.
I see not only bad theology
more detail please. What part of my post are you referring to? The woman at the well? The bible does not say if she was saved.
Perhaps the need for repentence before salvation?
Luke 5:32 (KJV)
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
2 Corinthians 7:10 (KJV)
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
, but an unconfirmed stereotype here.
Again who are you talking about? The unrepentant homosexual? How many pharissees repented in the NT? I can remember only Nicodemous. I have found that homosexuals are even more "religious" about their sin than the pharisees were. No matter how much you show them the scriptures, they still refuse to admit they are sinning.
(I recognize that many thousands have left that lifestyle, but in all the hundreds that I've talked to over the years I've not found one that would repent.)
God has the eternal view and can say, yes this person is destined for repentance, with 100% certitude.
We are all destined for salvation (God is not willing that any should perish) but many of us (perhaps most) do not accept our destiny. (This has the potential to go into a huge and long discussion of predestination which would take us far off topic).
Yes God knows who will be saved.
If there are more stubborn homosexuals today it’s partly because Christians gave up the high ground, and part of such giving up is exactly such failings as this.
Disagree. There are more stubborn homosexuals today because we stopped preaching against it and started making them comfortable in their sin. There is no real restraint on perversion these days. The pervert does not lose his family, his job, his friends etc. He is not shamed out of society. So men are free to pursue their basest desires and then to demand that the rest of us celebrate those desires.
Open homosexuals should be shunned.
And I disagree with you.
I perceive that the modern championing of the sin was because Christians shrank back from the difficult and cross-laden task of leading these sinners back from their sins to a form of blessed life style. Might be virtuous singlehood. Might be faithful marriage. All they could do is think of what you have thought of — shame them out of society. Well, this got old after a while. And Satan stepped in with a “remedy” that supplanted the one that Christians shied away from furnishing. And it really isn’t that hard. Offer one’s members to God (the Father to be exact) as weapons of righteousness. With prayer. Don’t take the negative attitude (”pray the gay away”) so much as the positive one (”pray the straight to yourself.”)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.