Do Unto Others

This post is a continued examination of the proposed Arizona bill that allows religious people to turn down requests by homosexuals. It will look at the following article found over at Formerly Fundie

If that article does anything, it provides a good example of how those who do not believe  do not have the truth nor know what scripture is really saying. John 14:15-17 lays this out quite clearly and the author of that post demonstrates the Bible’s truthfulness.

#1. The problem that Powers and Merritt point out, is how a refusal to provide products or services for a same sex wedding typically require an incredible amount of biblical picking and choosing, combined with a healthy dose of hypocrisy.

I would ask, how is it hypocritical? First, the people originating this bill are politicians not the church. Politicians are seeking relief for those Christians who are bullied by the homosexual community who refuse to take no for an answer or turn the other cheek.

Second, the bill is not requiring Christians to refuse the requests. Christians are still free to provide those services if they are asked and feel they can do so. All the bill does is protect those people who do not feel comfortable participating in a same-sex ceremony.

Third, what verses are being cherry picked? There is no biblical  command to participate in any marriage ceremony so what verses are being ignored and what verses are being used to avoid christian duty? The author needs more specifics here.

#2. However, it was actually a “Christian” wedding that ultimately helped me decide how I would navigate this issue when the time came.

It was a beautiful day when two believing Christians married before God by a member of their clergy, surrounded by their family and friends. Everything met the Christian stamp of approval… until the reception.

As I looked throughout the room at the drunken debauchery taking place on the dance floor, I turned to my assistant (also a Christian) and said:

The first problem I have with this is how is the author defining the word ‘Christian.’ The second problem is his definition of the words ‘drunken debauchery.’ His readers only have his word on what took place and how do we know he is not exaggerating what took place?

There is also another major problem with his ‘experience.’ How does he know if all the people involved in the wedding are actually christian? People are at different stages of the Christian faith and they are not going to act like Jesus all the time every time. It is just impossible.

The author of that post made a very bad judgment and thinks he is being hypocritical. But how could he come to that conclusion as with that wedding, he had no advanced knowledge of any sin being evident in the reception whereas in a same-sex wedding, he has foreknowledge that sin is going to take place.

There is no comparison between the two events.  One can use the proceedings of the heterosexual wedding to turn down future requests by that family and remain unhypocritical but to say that the events of that wedding, which he had no knowledge of makes him hypocritical if he turns down a same-sex request is absurd.

#3. In the end, I was having a hard time justifying same sex couples as being the only group of people I wouldn’t serve– thankfully, I never did turn any of them away.

If people feel they have permission from God to participate in a same-sex ceremony then they shouldn’t worry about it. Here it looks like he did not go to God for guidance in how to deal with this problem. He may feel it is okay for him to do that but that position does not allow him to say that the Arizona bill is not needed.

Others do not have that permission or feel that they can participate in such a ceremony are being left vulnerable to abuse and bullying by those who side with the homosexual community and we need to ask, is it hypocritical to leave your fellow Christian in danger because they do not agree with your stance?

Hypocrisy goes in several directions not just in one. Believers have a duty to protect each other and be true to their faith when dealing with others. There is more to the picture than just the same-sex participants and to attack fellow Christians and to allow them to be abused by sinners is not a Christian thing to do.

#4. These religious freedom laws are actually Un-Christian, because they are positioned against the central teaching of the New Testament: love your enemies.

Now we are getting into the area that demonstrates how those who do not believe do not understand the Bible or have the truth. Refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony is not withholding love. It is a personal preference which has a lot of underlying emotions an beliefs that influence the decision.

Refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony is also not displaying hatred. Sometimes people just do not want to be involved and they should not be forced or coerced into participating. The homosexual is not the only person with freedom of choice.

A person who goes into business for themselves seek more freedom in their business decisions. Something they do not have when they work for someone else. That freedom should not be taken away simply because their faith leads them to turn down certain requests stemming from sexual preferences.

Does this mean that Christians must cater heterosexual orgies simply because they are in business even though that sexual practice goes against their faith? This is something the author of that article doesn’t realize; it isn’t just about the homosexual desires but all people’s desires who run counter to biblical teaching.

#5. “If your enemy is hungry, give them something to eat. If they are thirsty, give them something to drink.” Romans 12:20, Prov. 25:21

The biblical teaching? Bake their cake. Take their photographs. Let them stay at your hotel. Love them generously!

This verse does not apply to same-sex ceremonies but this is the convoluted type of thinking the author of that article has. The homosexual couples are not hungry, they are not thirsty and they are not in need. They are trying to mock God and that makes a big difference in deciding to participate in the ceremony or not.

He also does not understand biblical love for sinners. Love doesn’t always approve of other people’s actions nor does it blindly support them. I will again say that it is a personal choice of the Christian business owner if they want to get involved or not. Of course they would need strong guidance from God on this issue.

We do not toss out all the scriptures and just use the ones on ‘love’. That is cherry picking by the author of that article. He ignores other scriptures in order to justify his support of sin.

If the homosexual was actually hungry or thirsty or in real need of help, then we can help them but a wedding ceremony does not meet the biblical criteria for need.

#6. Treating our gay brothers and sisters with less love than we’re commanded to treat people who are trying to murder us, is un-Christian.

Here the author of that piece makes his biggest mistake. Unrepentant homosexuals are not our brothers and sisters. They are still in the clutches of evil and practice evil. They have nothing of God in them.

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1 NASB)

Unless the homosexual has repented of their sins and given up their homosexuality, they are not Christians. God has not changed the status of the homosexual or the practice of homosexuality no matter how hard people try to change the words and meanings of the biblical passages speaking against them.

The author of that article continues on in distorting how scripture is to be applied and to what situation. He wants to elevate a ceremony of happiness to the level of real need and it just doesn’t work.

If he wants to use scripture and the words of Jesus, he needs to point out in the Bible where Jesus attended and helped out at a same-sex wedding ceremony; then gave instructions to do the same. To take verses applying to one difficult situation where no one else is around to help and apply them to a happy occasion where the participants are surrounded by supporters, then demands that the christian join in, is heresy at its best and a bad attempt to use scripture to justify sinning.

The only cherry picking I see is being done on the part of the author of that post as he looks for scriptural support for his bad thinking. What makes that author hypocritical is would he have the same attitude towards murders and rapists who want to have him photograph their ceremonies?

Would he think their sins were great enough that he could justify refusing to participate and refuse to demand that other believers participate? What makes the homosexual sin so special that the author feels he can demand that Christians participate and violate their beliefs? Or leave them unprotected from the abuse that will follow when the believer refuses?

Love is not a blanket permission slip that allows us to ignore the rest of what the Bible teaches. Love is not an excuse to support or participate in sin.

31 [r]Treat others the same way you want [s]them to treat you.

This verse does not mean one cannot refuse a request when the request may violate one’s belief . believers need to consider Romans 14 in their decision to participate in same-sex ceremonies because the bigger picture includes weaker believers who may not survive seeing other believers participate in a ceremony where sin is at the center of attention.

But this is the thing with those who no longer believe or do not believe Jesus. They ignore these passages in their haste to ‘be cool’ or ‘inclusive’ or disobedient to God. They only want the scriptures that tell them what they want to hear and that is wrong.

For me I doubt I would participate in a same-sex ceremony because I disagree with it and it would be hypocritical of me to participate when I have stated publicly that I have disagreed with such practices. It would not be hypocritical of me to refuse their request. One has to be consistent with their faith as long as they have the truth guiding them and the author of that article has it backwards and is wrong.