Last week the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake supporting a same-sex wedding (for the record, he didn’t refuse to bake them a cake, he simply declined decorating a cake specific for their wedding). While on the surface, that announcement looks like a solid win in the over-hyped culture wars, the decision itself was intentionally narrow, focusing not on the action of the baker but on the state civil rights commission. Reading between the lines, it could be taken as a win for both sides. I recommend reading this take from Skye Jethani that sheds some light onto this issue that might be missed in the usual media reporting.
I want to approach this from a different angle however. This past semester I took a course titled Paul and the Gentile Mission. The class focused on Paul’s missionary journeys, his letters, and the specific cultural issues the early church faced in an otherwise pagan culture. Early in the year the professor gave us the example of Pergamum, one of the Seven Churches in Asia addressed in Revelation. Its architecture and city layout that was typical of the Greco-Roman cities Paul would have visited. What was noteworthy was just how pervasive pagan religion would have been. If you wanted to purchase food in the market, you would have done so in the shadow of an enormous statue to Zeus. To come and go from the public square would require passing by temples, shrines, and altars dedicated to several different gods. Education would have been in a lecture hall either devoted to a particular deity or philosophical/rhetorical school. Receiving medical care would have been done in the name of Asclepius. And that doesn’t even mention the public baths, theaters, or gymnasiums.
All that to say, identifying as a Christian in such a multicultural and multi-theistic environment would not have been easy. Every public act would force an either/or decision that could potentially compromise one’s conviction. That’s why Paul spent so much time talking about syncretism (cultural conformity) in his letters, especially to the church in Corinth. And that includes eating meat sacrificed to idols.
It’s not an obvious link, but I think Paul’s message regarding what we eat is relevant today to the debate over homosexuality and gay-marriage. A quick summary of Paul’s argument from 1 Corinthians 8: food sacrificed to idols aren’t any more ‘holy’ than food that is not because mature Christians know the idol is meaningless. But not all Christians are mature in this sense, so we must be careful with the choices we make to not make weaker Christians struggle.
Applying that to this debate, my logic goes like this- if a devout Christian is so opposed to gay-marriage that he or she cannot be a vendor of services to the ceremony, then it follows that this person believes the marriage isn’t recognized in the eyes of God. If that’s the case then the “sacrament” of marriage would be invalid, in other words it wouldn’t count. So it’s just like meat sacrificed to a god we know isn’t real- if it doesn’t count, why should I be offended by it? If, on the other hand, the Christian believes the marriage is still sacramental, just sinful, then they need to apply the same standard by not supporting any second (or third, or fourth…) marriages, weddings between believers of different denominations (for example, imagine an Evangelical wedding planner working with a Catholic and Mormon who are getting married, oy vey!), and all weddings involving non-believers or all non-religious ceremonies. (Do you still get a cake if you’re married in a drive-through by Elvis in Las Vegas? Asking for a friend.) If that vendor cannot apply their objection so broadly, then maybe they shouldn’t be in the business in the first place.
The counter argument, going back to Paul, is that supporting something he doesn’t believe in, in this case a homosexual marriage, would cause weak Christians to struggle because it implies endorsement. But in every one of these cases that I’ve read about (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer), it seems to me that the conscious being violated is their own – the baker, the photographer, the florist – not the “weak Christian” whom they should be concerned about. I don’t mean this lightly or pejoratively, but to me that makes them the weak Christian. In this sense, the Supreme Court got it right, the government can’t compel the weak Christian to violate his or her conscience. One solution obviously would be for the oppositional Christian to become “mature”, but I think that’s asking too much and the government cannot assume this will ever happen. The alternative then, is to expect this Christian to continue to be “weak”, so he or she really needs to consider if they’re in the right line of work.
Participating in commerce is a choice. In the 1st Century, it was a choice that put Christians right in the middle of idol worship, emperor cults, mystery religions, and philosophical schools. Selling cakes would have placed one right in the marketplace under the shadow of Zeus. Participating publicly in a trade would imply membership in trade guilds or voluntary associations that had their own religious ceremonies and rituals (think Kiwanis, or the Elks Lodge but where membership was expected depending on your trade; e.g. the silversmiths in Ephesus (Acts 19:24-29), or the group of tent-makers where Paul met Pricilla and Aquila(Acts 18:2-3)).
I am a frequent critic of the modern evangelical persecution complex primarily because it so ignorant of history. The same is true here. Christians didn’t stop participating in the culture where they lived. Rather they were given warnings to guard against allowing that culture to influence their own actions and values that are demonstrated within the church. Much of what Paul wrote was about how believers were to behave when in fellowship with one another, not how to navigate the culture wars of their time. Paul wasn’t concerned about a Christian’s participation in commerce out in the world, rather he was concerned about how that participation affected the Christian’s relationships within the church and their ability to practice hospitality. As he wrote in Romans, “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 14:17)
I heard a quote on the radio from the baker in this case, Jack Phillips, basically asserting that if the state can force him to bake a cake it is forcing him to forsake his relationship with God. I say baloney, and so would Paul. God isn’t that petty, and the baker isn’t forsaking anything. The history of the church demonstrates that the culture-warriors today are making an argument that just didn’t matter to the earliest Christians. And it shouldn’t matter to us. I don’t wish Jack Phillips ill. I don’t even wish he’d get out of the baking business. What I do pray is that he, and others like him, can become mature in Christ and recognize that a commercial enterprise is not a religious endorsement (ahem, Hobby Lobby) understanding that the kingdom of God isn’t about what you’re selling, but about your personal righteousness, your peace in Christ to navigate a culture contrary to your ideals, and taking joy that the Holy Spirit has matured your heart so that these disputes no longer matter (liberally paraphrasing Romans 14).