Posted on 04/14/2015 3:49:30 PM PDT by fwdude
If there’s one thing today’s secular progressive enjoys, it’s telling Christians how to be Christians.
It feels funny when it happens. A bit like getting combat training from Jane Fonda or Cindy Sheehan.
But they mean well.
And they know a verse. Their favorite verse is Matthew 7:1, which says “judge not lest ye also be judged.” They quote it every time a Christian expresses an opinion because their years of deep theological study have shown them that Matthew 7:1 means it’s wrong to have an opinion. About anything. After all, an opinion is a judgment and you can’t do that.
Says so right there.
Red letters even.
The urge to lecture Christians on how to be Christian is almost irresistible in the dispute over whether businesses can be forced to participate in same-sex weddings.
“I thought you were a Christian. Aren’t Christians supposed to follow the law?”
For the moment, let’s put aside the far-from-resolved debate over whether the law really does mandate involuntary servitude for same-sex weddings.
For the purpose of this conversation, we will assume that it does.
Shouldn’t Christians just obey the law?
In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote one of the greatest commentaries ever written about what Christian citizenship requires.
It is also instructive to remember the context in which the letter was written. It was a letter written to his fellow clergymen who were concerned about his activities.
At the time, not everyone appreciated his demonstrations the way we do today.
Specifically, they expressed “anxiety over [his] willingness to break laws”. He acknowledged the apparent contradiction in urging people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools and demonstrating in ways that the law forbid.
“How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” he asked rhetorically.
His response is instructive both for the Christian and for those who seek to understand what motivates Christians,
“The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Well how do we know whether a law is just or unjust?
A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
And this is where everyone starts to get uncomfortable. Is that MLK or Jerry Falwell?
Then he gives some examples:
An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.
I wonder if that would include laws that let one person decline to bake a cake with a message they disagree with but not another person. Doesn’t he understand that these people offend me?
The left isn’t going to condemn MLK anytime soon because they like what he did. But their failure to appreciate or even acknowledge why he did it causes them to miss a much larger point.
Fundamental to Christianity is the idea that there is a law higher than man’s law.
The compulsion to obey God regardless of what the law says is the reason the Civil Rights movement was a movement of Christians. It is the reason Quakers violated the law to be an integral part of the Underground Railroad. It is why Christians rallied against the ancient practice of exposure in which infants were set out to die immediately after birth. It is why Christians worked in India to eliminate the practice of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands.
This isn’t an attempt to provide an exhaustive history of Christianity. I’m confident I don’t need to remind you of the challenges the Christian church has had. That’s what President Obama is for.
But context is important.
The reason Christians violated the law to free slaves, save babies from exposure, and rescue widows from funeral pyres is the same reason Christians today feel they cannot be part of a same-sex wedding ceremony. We are bound to a higher law.
And before you start lecturing your Christian friends about why their position is actually not the Christian position, stop and ask yourself this question. “Do I actually know what I’m talking about?” If you haven’t read a Bible in a year, the answer is likely no.
Besides, the fact that you may not understand why someone feels something is wrong should not prohibit you from respecting their conscience anyway.
Nevertheless, the idea that there is a law that is above government is not simply just a Christian idea, it is an American idea as well.
The Declaration of Independence reminds us that our rights are endowed by our creator not our government and that governments are created to secure rights, not to create them.
We are a constitutional republic (rather than a democracy) with a Bill of Rights specifically because our Founders understood that the majority can be wrong; a position that assumes a moral law exists above legislated law.
Therefore, even if everyone knows I’m a terrible, horrible, very bad guy, even ninety-nine percent of the public can’t vote to take away my right to free speech, the free exercise of religion, or a fair trial.
Your rights transcend your political popularity and the government exists to protect those rights, not appease the mob.
This structure protects us all because, as the gay lobby has so clearly demonstrated, neither political popularity nor political powerlessness are necessarily permanent conditions.
While the right not to participate has historically been protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee to the Free Exercise of religion, some now claim the obligation to participate is required by the “duly enacted” non-discrimination statute.
The majority said you can’t use religion as an excuse to “discriminate”, so you can’t.
But the majority isn’t supposed to be able to “duly enact” away the First Amendment. That’s why it’s the First Amendment.
But again, we’re assuming none of that matters.
In a world in which the law is in conflict with the Christian conscience, the response from many on the left is a cold, “Just obey the law.”
To which the florist responds, “I will obey the law, I just won’t obey your law.”
And from his perch in heaven, Martin Luther King Jr. says, “You go girl!”
What we have is the Totalitarian Mindset exerting its control over behavior. This mindset does not accept facts or Christian values that reject their policy. For them 2 + 2 = 5 and no one dares to say otherwise. It is a cancer taking America to a oligarchical collectivist state a la Orwellian Oceania and Airstrip One. Christianity and Conservatives will be the last bastion to do warfare against these savages.
It most definitely is. I will not participate in sin. If I am told by the government to dishonor God or break His laws, I will not do it. Period.
But carpentry services are not sinful, and Christ did not participate in the prostitutes prostitution. We can treat sinners with love, associate with them and minister to them but we must draw the line at participating in their sin.
Liberals always remember Matthew 7:1. They always forget Matthew 18:15-17:
“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”
I think not.
Yoy seem to miss the point of standing up for one’s faith.
I understand it fully, but I also know that not every action done in defense of one’s faith is smart, successful, or Godly. I think this is a flesh reaction.
It’s a hill, a worthy hill, but not one worth dying on.
And you fully miss the obvious: most of these are set ups. They won’t ever have to actually bake that cake or arrange those flowers. What say you to that?
I’m sorry, a cake is a cake and flowers are flowers...and frankly it’s just stupid to call that “participating.”
Ever heard of “civil disobediance” ?
Many battles are worth fighting.....to use the wedding analogy, any participatory part (use of your home, being at the service, etc) would be a more worthy cause than simply providing commodities ahead of time.
But let’s get real. These are set ups, not real battles - these scenarios are contrived for just this kind of thing. In their rush to not participate in their sin, these poor people have participating instead in their scam. That’s why it’s not a hill to die on. It’s a fake hill.
you clearly didn’t see who started it.
Maybe in your eyes, but to Christians it is participating in and lending tacit approval of the act. I will not, even under duress, do anything that dishonors my Lord. Just as I will not participate in abortion in any way, even to observe one as a medical student years ago.
Pull your pharisee robes back for just a second and climb down off of your high donkey. In the eyes of MANY Christians, it is NOT participating and not giving tacit approval. Get over yourself. It’s just baked flour or arranged flowers. Period. Nothing approving nor disapproving at all.
I think being played for a fool dishonors the Lord, and that has been the result of these in many cases. It is participating in a scam.
As for observing an abortion, that’s totally different. I would agree with you on drawing the line there. You were THERE. Totally different than selling a commodity.
My response would be, if the law said you needed to allow your neighbor to use your wife while his was out of town, would you be prone to follow that law? Because the applicability is basically the same.
you clearly didn’t see who started it.
actually, if we’re going to trace back the inflammatory rheoric on this thread, your response to #6 started it...
#6 simply posited an opposing opinion to your opinion...no putdown, unless one is easily offended...
I don’t wear pharisee robes and have no horse. I also try not to be a jerk to total strangers on the internet. You follow your conscience and I’ll follow mine. However, it is not the arranged flowers or the baked flour but the appearance. Paul stated when asking Christians not to eat meat sacrificed to idols that here was no problem with the meat, it was the witness to the rest of the society at that time that was important.
that’s not what Paul did exactly....and it’s a poor analogy - and besides: he also said be all things to all men so that we might save some....And by the way, this is a sorry witness to the unsaved, in case you’re wondering. Oh, the angry religious right is all behind it, but that’s not a witness issue.
That was my point.
And you do have your robes, you’re just not aware of it. You assumed all Christians would take your point of view on it....therefore you assumed I was not a Christian. Now you’ll say wait wait...I didn’t say that - but you did. Go read your own post.
That oozes pharisee.
Let me help you out with a little english lesson. Assuming someone doesn’t understand the issue simply because they offered an alternative position is indeed pejorative and provocative.
The deal is this: I see the POV of the bakers and florists who refuse these services. I respect it, I just think it’s counter productive to what they’re actually trying to achieve. Meanwhile, no one has shown any indication they can see the POV I’m representing at all. Read the entire thread again, you’ll see I’m 100% right about that.
I’ll say it again....
If you don’t think that freedom is a hill worth dying on, you are on the wrong website - and in the wrong country.
I’m sorry, cakes are not freedom. They just aren’t. How many adulterers do you think these same bakers have serviced? Do they draw the line on “second marriages?” How many thieves?
I just totally reject your premise that this is a freedom hill. I do not condone anything the gaystapo and their media friends have done by the way - that’s predictable - I just think this whole thing has driven more people away from Jesus than any good it might have done.
And again, you refuse to even comment on the obvious - which is that all of this is almost always a scam - designed to trap Christian businesses into looking like fools. And it often works. You won’t touch that one, because you have no answer for it.
Assuming someone doesn’t understand the issue simply because they offered an alternative position is indeed pejorative and provocative.
indeed it is...to one who takes easy offense and is eager to hurl insults to prove it...
Meanwhile, no one has shown any indication they can see the POV I’m representing at all.
a POV you could have offered in the first place, rather than ratcheting up the temperature with derogatory rhetoric...but then, I guess, what’s the fun in that...?
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.