Skip to main content

Bake them two cakes- but still call sin and unbelief what they are

As I've said before, I personally don't see how selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is endorsing their "marriage," or their sex lives, or anything else. It's selling them a cake, period.

But I carelessly shared a meme on Facebook the other day without checking out the blog post to which it linked. The meme said, "If a gay couple asks you to bake them a wedding cake, bake them two." A paraphrase of the Sermon on the Mount- and, I think, a very apt one.

But the blog post it linked to was terrible both logically and theologically. I posted a mea culpa on my Facebook page, complete with an explanation of what I found wrong with the post.

As it happens the Manhattan Project blog also posted a response to the post here. I commend it to you.

This is what I wrote:

Yesterday I posted a meme which suggested, paraphrasing Jesus, that "if a gay couple forces us to bake them a wedding cake, we should bake them two." I commented that to do so is not to endorse gay marriage, but merely to sell them a cake. I want to make it absolutely clear that I DO NOT ENDORSE the content of the post to which it links. It is intellectually dishonest and contrary to the Faith.

I'll say this as gently as I can, but it needs to be said.

First, that homosexuality is immoral and contrary to the Faith isn't a matter of opinion. Jesus explicitly endorsed the OT moral law (including the prohibition of homosexual activity) in Matthew 5:17-20 (the same chapter quoted by the blog!) and in Luke 16:17. And no, questions about ham sandwiches and sacrifices are not apt, since Jesus did specifically abrogate the ceremonial and dietary laws (see Mark 17:19, among other passages). What Paul has to say about these in Galatians (contrast what he has to say about homosexual activity in Romans and 1 Corinthians!) and the whole thrust of the Epistle to the Hebrews make it clear that it's the dietary and ceremonial laws, not the Moral Law, which Jesus abolished. And neither Judaism nor Christianity has ever had the slightest difficulty telling these apart. Moreover, Jesus DID explicitly define marriage as being between a man and a woman in Matthew 19:4 and parallels.

No, this is not a matter of opinion (or interpretation; what the Bible has to say about homosexual activity is perfectly consistent in every stratum of both Testaments). We don't get to "not believe" that homosexual behavior (as opposed to orientation- a concept less than a century old and condemned nowhere in Scripture!) is immoral. And Paul says of people who practice homosexuality that they "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9-11). So yeah, it DOES matter. And we have no alternative- certainly no loving alternative- but to warn of that. Not judging people does not mean condoning their sin or failing to condemn sin in the abstract. And btw, the two terms translated "homosexuality" in the NT are the same terms traditionally used in Greek for the active and passive partners in such activity.

The Scriptures are as clear and as consistent on this point as they are about anything. To claim to be a Christian and to take the position that homosexual behavior is not a sin is not intellectually honest. In fact, it's hypocritical.

I agree that we do not condone homosexual activity or "marriage" when we sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. Other forms of coerced involvement in gay "marriages" may well violate people's consciences in ways which transgress the First Amendment. In any case, the very valid argument that what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of anybody else's business ceases to be valid when the people engaging in that activity MAKE it their business by compelling them to be involved in it.

I'm sorry, but this post's suggestion that homosexual activity even might not be sinful contradicts not only the teaching of Jesus but of every stratum of both Testaments. And to take this position at a time when the right of Christians to practice their beliefs is under threat comes pretty close to being the modern equivalent of burning incense to the Emperor.

The position the blogger takes cannot be tolerated in any church with the desire to remain faithful to the content of the Faith- a concept which simply cannot change because we don't like it or because it's unfashionable. I have gay friends I love dearly, and I wish that it were otherwise. But it would be unfaithful and dishonest for me to pretend that such is the case.

As I said above, from a biblical view that homosexual activity (not orientation!) is morally wrong and that same-sex "marriage" is an oxymoron is patent. It is not a matter of opinion. It is not a matter of interpretation. Every stratum of both Testaments agree. The Bible is as clear on these two points as it is on anything.

But I still don't see anything wrong in selling a gay couple a wedding cake.


Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…