Lutherans and cake bakers and Calvinism... oh my

[FireDragon76]

I have been thinking recently after talking to my pastor about the case of Masterpiece Cakes v.s Colorado, and the whole thing makes me thankful to be a Lutheran. And at the same time, I'm even more fearful and bewildered by the fact American Christianity as a whole does not have the moral clarity on this issue that we do. They have not clearly heard the Gospel of freedom.

I have learned more about Mr. Jack Philips and while he seems like a sincere man, I realize the error of his theology ultimately lies in seeking to "glorify" God in his work. Mr. Jack Philips, like many, is influenced by a quasi-Reformed understanding of what that means. It means being aggressive, even if passive-aggressive, against those who are seen in opposition to his beliefs. I'm sure this goes back to the days when the Reformed were started as an anti-Catholic movement, and felt the need to act in aggression against any perceived threat to the "true faith". But they have too often continued this behavior and intensified it, especially in America. And in America, this religious mentality dominates.

It also has its roots in the peculiar emphasis of the Reformed on glorifying God. Yet God does not need our glory. Its almost as if some of these "evangelical" folks think that it is a pious work that proves you are a Christian, to use glory like a badge of membership in the Christian "club".

No, God does not need our good works, but our neighbor does. "Piety" is not a substitute for real good works. It's so simple and clear in my mind. We should love the things God loves, and give our service indiscriminately, just as God causes the sun and rain to fall on the righteous and unrighteous. If a man asks you to go with him one mile, go with him two, and do not resist an evil man. What could be more clear than the words of our Lord himself?

It's times like these I am thankful I have a good pastor and that I am Lutheran. Lutheranism has set me free from the sort of scrupulous conscience that the baker in this case, Mr. Jack Philips, has. It saddens me so many other Christians do not understand this simple truth, that the Gospel has set us free.

 

[Halbhh]

Hmmm....

I think it comes instead from not actually knowing that actual scripture is not against "gay marriage" -- something nowhere in scripture at all -- but instead about the specific, precise action of sodomy intercourse. A wrong that also traditional married male/female couples can do (as referenced in Romans 1:26).

So, not having a real knowledge of scripture, instead one is left with this guessing/error, a non-biblical guessing or adding to scripture what is not in it.

The preachers he is following simply do not know their scripture on this -- haven't checked carefully -- that's my guess. Because if they did check and learned the real scripture and they would have to be cautious, and admit, for example that a continent (non intercourse) "gay marriage" has no sexual sin. That would be....humble....to admit they made a mistake.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, my pastor was clear, baking a cake in this case is not a participation in sin. My pastor is from a conservative LCMS background, so he does have alot of sympathy for conservative Christian sexual ethics, but on this issue he would disagree. Our church doesn't stand for shaming or humiliating anyone, regardless of our views of sexual ethics.

This poor gay couple has no clue what Mr. Philips beliefs mean to him, all they see is somebody being mean to them, so Mr. Philips has presented them with a scandal in the name of Jesus, which is horrible (look at Jesus warnings about causing scandal). The tragedy in this is the inability for people to be civil with each other, even when they disagree about what the ideal of marriage is.

 

[Resha Caner]

While all you say may be true - we do differ from the Reformed, we do promote a theology of the cross rather than a theology of glory, we do not promote aggressive shaming of people we disagree with - one simple fact remains: the LCMS views homosexuality as a sin.

How, then, do you proceed from there? I would have no problem serving gays as long as that service does not require me to participate in their sin. Regardless of what your pastor may say, I would personally feel baking a cake for a gay marriage (wherein the gay status is somehow displayed on the cake) to be a participation in that sin. It would make me very uncomfortable.

My class this semester is the legal history of the U.S. It is interesting to see how much things have changed over time. Apart from the ethics in this case (Christian or otherwise) early American law would never have dreamed of applying "rights" in the way it is now applied. Still, we are where we are. Such things have the legal force of law. Christians have long since lost the ability to define the moral construct of modern American society. So, if someone feels they need to refuse to bake the cake (as I would), they must be prepared to pay the consequences.

Still, as has been pointed out many times, there are means by which bakers and photographers can address these situations. As the law sees it, it is not an issue of ethics. Unfortunately, that's been settled and current law makes sexual orientation a protected class. So, rather, it's an issue of equal treatment. If the baker clearly states they don't put human figures on their wedding cakes, include a Bible verse about marriage on every wedding cake, etc., etc., then they are treating all of their customers equally. A gay couple would have no recourse for a complaint, and if they are willing to accept such terms, then the baker should bake them a cake.

 

[Halbhh]

While all you say may be true - we do differ from the Reformed, we do promote a theology of the cross rather than a theology of glory, we do not promote aggressive shaming of people we disagree with - one simple fact remains: the LCMS views homosexuality as a sin.

How, then, do you proceed from there? I would have no problem serving gays as long as that service does not require me to participate in their sin. Regardless of what your pastor may say, I would personally feel baking a cake for a gay marriage (wherein the gay status is somehow displayed on the cake) to be a participation in that sin. It would make me very uncomfortable.

My class this semester is the legal history of the U.S. It is interesting to see how much things have changed over time. Apart from the ethics in this case (Christian or otherwise) early American law would never have dreamed of applying "rights" in the way it is now applied. Still, we are where we are. Such things have the legal force of law. Christians have long since lost the ability to define the moral construct of modern American society. So, if someone feels they need to refuse to bake the cake (as I would), they must be prepared to pay the consequences.

Still, as has been pointed out many times, there are means by which bakers and photographers can address these situations. As the law sees it, it is not an issue of ethics. Unfortunately, that's been settled and current law makes sexual orientation a protected class. So, rather, it's an issue of equal treatment. If the baker clearly states they don't put human figures on their wedding cakes, include a Bible verse about marriage on every wedding cake, etc., etc., then they are treating all of their customers equally. A gay couple would have no recourse for a complaint, and if they are willing to accept such terms, then the baker should bake them a cake.

I've notice in the last many years that the word 'homosexuality' is not any longer very precise in popular usage.

I seems to mean different things to different people, and we are left guessing.

Some may mean any gay person, including virgins.

Some one else may mean any gay person that has any kind of same sex relationship, regardless of any kind of sexual action, even if it's a sexless romantic relationship.

Some one else may mean a gay person that does either kind of sodomy.

Some one else may mean a gay person that does sodomy intercourse (the only one said in scripture to be sin).

So....when people use the word now, I pause and wonder -- what you you thinking 'homosexual' is really?

I strongly distrust the tendency to replace the actual wording of the scripture with our own modern notions.

 

[Resha Caner]

So....when people use the word now, I pause and wonder -- what you you thinking 'homosexual' is really?

I'm sorry if I was unclear. Given the context of gay marriage, I thought the intent would be clear as it implies a sexual relationship. I was only speaking of those actively involved in a sexual relationship. I have no problem with homosexuals who choose to remain celibate.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm sorry if I was unclear. Given the context of gay marriage, I thought the intent would be clear as it implies a sexual relationship. I was only speaking of those actively involved in a sexual relationship. I have no problem with homosexuals who choose to remain celibate.

Actually, I wonder if we should presume a gay couple is doing any certain act behind closed doors they aren't saying they do....

Don't you think it would be wrong for me to presume a random man, Stanley, is a thief? See? Stanley might have thought of stealing something once, or even likely did, but is that enough knowledge on my part to start to guess what Stanley does I don't actually know about with certainty? If Stanley lives on the wrong side of town, I can't presume Stanley is stealing stuff.

But if you check the Old Testament scriptures in question carefully in several translations, you find out it's only sodomy intercourse that is being talked about, and nothing else. (Not kissing, not even other forms of sexuality, but instead solely that one thing alone) Rom 1:26 is about when a traditional male-female couple does that same sin.

Sadly, it's our continuing modern error to guess at sins in others.

Because it's not scriptural to oppose 'gay marriage', we should not add to scripture and create some new sin that isn't there.

 

[Resha Caner]

Actually, I wonder if we should presume a gay couple is doing any certain act behind closed doors they aren't saying they do....

I think you're looking for a loophole. I don't condone witch hunts and peeking into people's bedrooms. But to think all these pairs of men and women are getting married just because they're good friends is naive.

 

[Halbhh]

Let me try another angle to better illustrate what I'm getting at.

We know all sin, and all have fallen short, and all need Christ for salvation, because of their sin.

You, me, Ralph, just like those other people over there.

So, I would be delighted if more gay couples showed up at our church (we have more than zero, but even more would be more better).

And more of the poor -- we have some, but even more would be better.

And more races -- we have several right now in our congregation (Praise the Lord), but even more would be even better.

And how about more artists. I think we have a few, but I'd love it to have more.

What other category of sinner might we find and bring in??

.

 

[Halbhh]

I think you're looking for a loophole. I don't condone witch hunts and peeking into people's bedrooms. But to think all these pairs of men and women are getting married just because they're good friends is naive.

Ok, but generally following sola scriptura -- we are not to create new kinds of sin past what scripture says is sin -- but instead sins are precisely those listed in scripture, and not anything else --

"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you." Deu 4:22

So, what does it say then, precisely?
Leviticus 18 ESV

Verse 22 points to sodomy intercourse, and not anything else, not even other kinds of sexual acts between gay people that are not that exact one.

Does that put a different light on it?

 

[Resha Caner]

What other category of sinner might we find and bring in?

According to you? None of them. We should pretend robbers don't rob, killers don't kill, and liars don't lie. So, none of them need the church.

Further, the poor are not sinners because they're poor, nor are blacks sinners because they are black. Likewise, as I've already indicated, I don't think a man is a sinner because he is tempted toward a sexual act by another man. But a sodomite is a sinner (by the very definition of the word), and accepting gay marriage enables that sin.

Finally, I never said such people can't attend my church. I hope they do. But we'll not legitimize their union.

 

[Resha Caner]

Does that put a different light on it?

No. Again, I think you're looking for a loophole.

 

[Halbhh]

According to you? None of them. We should pretend robbers don't rob, killers don't kill, and liars don't lie. So, none of them need the church.

Further, the poor are not sinners because they're poor, nor are blacks sinners because they are black. As I've already indicated, I don't think a man is a sinner because he is tempted toward a sexual act by another man. But a sodomite is a sinner (by the very definition of the word), and accepting gay marriage enables that sin.

Finally, I never said such people can't attend my church. I hope they do. But we'll not legitimize their union.

From memory, all sin, all fall short, all must rely on Christ.

Not just other people.

Exclude all the sinners from your church, and you will have only a very few old people left, if even that.

I'm saying what I know you agree about.

 

[Resha Caner]

From memory, all sin, all fall short, all must rely on Christ.

Not just other people.

Yeah. And?

 

[Halbhh]

Yeah. And?

Well, humbly, and the rest of the New Testament, for all of us. See, I know you likely agree with me about 99% of things. I didn't forget that.

 

[FireDragon76]

The real issue I see is that the baker told them flatly the issue was their same-sex relationship, violating Colorado law. I could see ways of getting out of this problem without shaming a gay couple. They might not all be pure, but at least they would be legal.

Instead, like many evangelical Christians do, he felt the need to turn that moment into what effectively amounted to a sermon about how they were horrible human beings that offended his God (despite the fact that he has presumably been called to be a baker and a not their pastor).

If it bothered him that much, he could have simply said "I'm sorry but I'm not the best person to bake your cake, but I know somebody else who could do a better job", and that would have been both honest and sought to avoid shaming them. That might not have worked but it would have been more defensible.

 

[LizaMarie]

The real issue I see is that the baker told them flatly the issue was their same-sex relationship, violating Colorado law. I could see ways of getting out of this problem without shaming a gay couple. They might not all be pure, but at least they would be legal.

Instead, like many evangelical Christians do, he felt the need to turn that moment into what effectively amounted to a sermon about how they were horrible human beings that offended his God (despite the fact that he has presumably been called to be a baker and a not their pastor).

If it bothered him that much, he could have simply said "I'm sorry but I'm not the best person to bake your cake, but I know somebody else who could do a better job", and that would have been both honest and sought to avoid shaming them. That might not have worked but it would have been more defensible.

He should not have done that(there are some Christians who don't make Christianity look very good.)-but I think there have been cake bakers and photographers,ect who have done just exactly that,kindly referred them elsewhere. And gotten sued for it. There was a case of a woman florist who (was it a florist or photographer?) who was friends with a gay couple who came to her for flowers for their wedding, I think it was flowers, and when she tried to refer them elsewhere ,due to her reliegious convictions, they took her to court. And that has happened many times. One can Google it.
And then the Apple Orchard farmer who sometimes held weddings at his farm. He was told by the city of East Lansing Michigan that he was no longer allowed to sell his produce at the local farmers market because he declined to hold a same-sex wedding on his own property!!! He took it to court and finally got it reversed as they ruled that was religious discrimination. As they should!
Year ago I used to have no issue with same-sex civil weddings, as long as conservative churches were allowed to define what they considered marriage to be, and religious liberty was not affected.
But there are so many cases, where we see religious liberty being impacted. I mean a city telling an orchard owner(East Lansing Michigan) he can no longer sell his produce at the Farmers Market because he won't hold same sex wedding on his own property???
And I believe it's even worse in some parts of Europe. Pastors can be imprisoned for hate speech if the preach that marriage is one man and one woman.

 

[Archivist]

I am curious--exactly how does baking a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage condone same-sex marriage? The wedding cake isn't part of a marriage ceremony. It is served at a reception that follows the ceremony.

Is a mechanic who changes oil in a limo that will transport a same-sex couple from the church to the reception hall condoning same-sex marriage? Is the pilot who flies that couple to their honeymoon condoning same-sex marriage? Where do we draw the line.

I understand that a pastor cannot be forced to perform a same-sex marriage if the church does not condone such marriages, and I hope that remains the case legally. The argument could certainly be made that an organist who plays at a same-sex wedding is participating in the actual ceremony and therefore should be able to refuse to play, but that is a different situation from the case involving a wedding cake baker.

 

[Resha Caner]

I am curious--exactly how does baking a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage condone same-sex marriage?

Really? So the cake has absolutely nothing to do with celebrating the "marriage"?

 

[Archivist]

Really? So the cake has absolutely nothing to do with celebrating the "marriage"?

I didn't say that. I said that it is not part of the wedding ceremony, so it isn't condoning the marriage. It is served as part of a reception. If the baker was asked to bake bread for Holy Communion at a same-sex marriage that might possibly be condoning the marriage since it is eaten as part of the ceremony but I'm not sure on that. Again, where would you draw the line?