For evangelicals it seems, debates about Arizona bill SB 1062 are simply about religious freedom. But non-evangelicals often see more clearly because they have less at stake. Consider Noah Millman (once again):
So, for example, if the issue is being coerced to provide services for marriage ceremonies that violate one’s religious beliefs, why not write a law specifying that notwithstanding any anti-discrimination statutes, nobody can be required to provide services for a wedding ceremony which violates their religious beliefs? Would that allow florists to discriminate against gay weddings? Yes. It would also allow florists to refuse to provide flowers for a Catholic who was getting re-married after a divorce, or for a Jew marrying a non-Jew, or for an Indian wedding that involved pagan idolatry, or for a polyamorous ceremony taking place on a cruise ship. If providing flowers for a wedding amounts to endorsement, then I can see very good reasons for religious believers of various stripes to object to one or more of the weddings described. (Or maybe not – maybe there is only one group anyone cares about actually discriminating against; notwithstanding what may or may not happen, the law at least would be neutral.) If the issue is protecting florists from feeling they are endorsing weddings that they believe are wrong, then the statute should address that issue generally, and need make no specific reference to gay couples.
Some of these laws are being written even more broadly, in that they cover not just services for a wedding ceremony but any services to gay couples. So, a hotel owner might, under such statutes, be able to refuse a room to two men who are married, even though he would not refuse a room to a man and a woman who are married, or (possibly) even a man and woman who were unmarried. Ditto for restauranteurs, etc. Here, again, it’s unclear why gay couples should be singled out uniquely for being the object of discrimination.
If the issue is that the guest professes something that is religiously objectionable to the proprietor, and promotes it publicly by participating in a ceremony such as marriage (or simply by letting people know he is gay), then presumably there are other such professions that might be made that are equally deserving of protection. For example, I know many people who find proselytism religiously objectionable. Why shouldn’t a proprietor be allow to discriminate against individuals who engage in such activity? What is the difference between endorsing the legitimacy of a gay union and endorsing the legitimacy of Islam, or Mormonism, or even mainstream Christianity? If merely providing a room to a married gay couple counts as endorsing their marriage, then surely providing rooms to a Mormon mission counts as endorsing that mission. Right? A properly worded statute not invidiously aimed at stigmatizing gay couples by singling them out would need to allow for general discrimination against any individual whose declared conduct or identity poses a religious objection to the proprietor or service-provider.
This is roughly what Arizona did. Actually, Arizona went considerably further, making an asserted “substantive burden” on an individual’s religious freedom a legitimate defense against individual violations of any state law, regardless of whether it is generally and neutrally applicable. If I understand the law correctly, not only would it legalize a wide variety of types of private discrimination, not limited to my examples above, but would do much more. It would legalize polygamy and marriage with underage girls (both sanctioned by so-called fundamentalist Mormon groups). It would permit public school teachers to explicitly proselytize to their students (I’m quite certain you could find fringe Protestant groups or individuals who hold that such witnessing is mandatory at all times). I’m not sure, but I think if you founded a Church of Nude Defecation, and declared that God told you the Arizona state legislature was your temple, the state of Arizona could not expel you for practicing your faith in the place that God had designated.
Even if the law isn’t quite as nuts as that, it’s pretty nuts. Most people don’t actually want to repeal the process of balancing different interests by making one principle an absolute trump card. They just want to adjust the balance slightly when they don’t like a particular result. Which is completely fine – continual readjustment is exactly what that balancing act requires.
And this is a balancing act. The principle of non-discrimination is plainly in conflict with the principle that people should be free to deal with whomever they damn well please, and not with anybody else. Both principles are weighty and valuable. If the law required you to provide flowers for your ex-wife’s wedding to the guy who used to be your best friend, you would obviously suffer an injury. Well, somebody morally appalled by gay marriage who is coerced, by the law, into providing flowers for a gay wedding (or else exit the florist business) has also suffered a real injury. But so has somebody who is disgusted by black people eating alongside white people when he is prohibited by law from running his restaurant according to the rules of racial purity to which he ascribes. The question is whether there is any remedy for that injury that doesn’t cause a much greater injury to others.
This could mean, contrary to OL logic, that w-w really does make a difference. But I’m not sure this is where w-wists want to go since it would suggest that a Christian w-w is prone to bias if not error.
Old Life 
There’s no true remedy for anyone’s injustice or inequality in this life, but we wait for the life that is to come. In the words of Stanley Fish (http://tinyurl.com/kpxdnz9) it’s “politics all the way down.”
LikeLike
There’s No Such Thing As Free Speech: And It’s a Good Thing, Too … And Fish proved his point was true by being excluded from the sectarian New York Times.
LikeLike
“The principle of non-discrimination is plainly in conflict with the principle that people should be free to deal with whomever they damn well please, and not with anybody else.”
The former is a claim right, and the latter is a liberty right. Claim rights always destroy liberty rights. I never found the case persuasive that a liberty should be destroyed on account of a vice, especially like discrimination.
LikeLike
SB1062 was much less revolutionary than its detractors have made it out to be. According to University of Virginia Professor Doug Laycock (a law and religion expert), the statute allowed a business to assert a defense that it refused service for religious reasons, not that such a defense would have been successful.
The post above predicts radical and horrible fallout from the law, not realizing that we have already had for some time a very similar law, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that AZ, along with many other states, has had a state version of the RFRA.
Essentially, SB1062 clarified the Religious Freedom Restoration Act such that a business could use the defense allowed under the Act when sued by the State or an individual.
The AZ bill SB 1062 was all about religious freedom, or at least the ability to attempt to prove in court that the business refused the service on the basis of a substantial burden to sincerely held faith.
For a post by Prof. Laycock, check out the following link to Volokh Conspiracy:
Volokh Conspiracy
LikeLike
As an evangelical, if I was a baker, I’d bake the gay couple the best possible cake I knew how to, and then share the gospel with them!
LikeLike
How about this for a compromise:
The gay couple who goes to a Christian florist specifically for the purpose of making him provide flowers for their gay wedding goes and jumps in the lake.
The Christian florist who makes a stink about providing flowers for the gay wedding of two well-meaning gay people goes and jumps in the lake.
LikeLike
Petros is not far off on this one.
LikeLike
That was downright Solomonic, Erik.
LikeLike
Laws of general applicability should be generally applicable to everybody. Then, in my version of Utopia, we might have fewer laws of general applicability.
LikeLike
“But gay people are bad!”, the Christian replies.
Yeah, if you want to see the next bad person, look in the mirror.
LikeLike
How about this, Xian entrepreneurs: Do good work and make as much money as you can (from whoever you can) so you’ll have money to a) give to the poor and b) give to your church, thereby helping to maintain a gospel outpost in your community and an island of refuge for you and your family…whatever happens in the culture.
LikeLike
Chorts,
But then I’d lose martyrdom as an excuse for my lack of business skills.
LikeLike
Erik, what do best possible cake and really crappy cake have in common?
LikeLike
Darryl, thanks for sharing Millman here. Food for thought.
Peace.
LikeLike
AZ bill SB 1062 was a bad bill as written. This is the way “The Economist” described it: “SB 1062 reaches well beyond opposition to same-sex marriage by extending a blanket privilege on people with sincerely held beliefs: if it would violate your conscience to do business with pretty much anyone, you are under no obligation to consort with them. This is, in effect, an exemption from anti-discrimination laws for the pious. Under current law, a Catholic parish is under no obligation to give fair consideration to Muslim and Eastern Orthodox candidates when hiring a priest; it can summarily reject non-Catholics. But “an electrician can’t discriminate in hiring a worker,” notes Kaimipono Wenger, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Rewrite the legal regime to include SB 1062, however, and “religious individuals, and their businesses, [could] claim the right to be treated like religious institutions.” The bill “would effectively turn everyone into potential one-person mini-churches.”
LikeLike
There is nothing to stop the florist who believes that “homosexual marriage” is an oxymoron from distributing literature that says this, along with his flowers. There is nothing to stop the bed-andbreakfast owner from telling the homosexual couple that what they are doing is wrong, etc. If those with these kinds of convictions did this, it is likely that not many of those who practice what the provider things is wrong would ask for his services.
LikeLike
The bill had some pretty broad definitions:
“Exercise of religion” means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
“Unreasonable burden” means that a person is prevented from using the person’s property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to fulfill the person’s religious mission.
These are really quite broad and subjective. Later the bill balances these a bit:
E. In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
…but that isn’t much of a balance. There’s a reasonable fear that, whatever this means, there will be all kinds of alleged discrimination from who-knows-which religious perspectives, all under color of law while litigation is pending.
The caps are in the bill itself.
LikeLike
Richard,
That article appears to mischaracterize the bill. SB 1062 would only allow the business to use religious exemption as a defense once sued. The bill did not say that such a defense would prevail. The bill clarified existing AZ and federal law, which does not state that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to businesses.
LikeLike
MH, I don’t see how an act of the AZ legislature can clarify Federal law.
LikeLike
Can we say this is tough stuff? I can. There is a seam at which religious rights meet civil rights, and it’s not easy to legislate where that should be. Yes, there are even libertarians who will say you should only do commerce with those you choose, but do we want to be in suspense whenever we want to purchase something, not knowing if the business has a religious reason not to serve us? This is where there is now common ground between the gay, the black, the Jew and maybe the Christian too, depending upon the vendor.
I do think we need to escape the “zero sum game” mode of thinking in which one group’s liberty is always a take-away from another’s.
For the individual Christian trying to sort out the moral aspects of this, s/he needs to sort out whether an action is sin. I don’t believe it’s sin to rent to a gay or sell him a product even if it may offend sensibilities.
LikeLike
Dan, AZ as well as many other states, has adopted a version of RFRA as state law. SB1062 states that the AZ version of RFRA would apply to businesses.
LikeLike
My interest here is in protecting the civil liberties of those who cannot in good conscience sanction homosexual marriage by catering or photographing the event etc and whom certain folks seem hell-bent on compelling to recognize and sanction not homosexuals as persons but the practice of homosexuality and homosexual marriage.
The AZ bill, as I understand it, was as the Mag Hungarian notes, a defense once sued.
Still, there are other ways to deal with this such as this libertarian avenue suggested Delroy Murdock in NR yesterday.
State laws regularly recognize businesses as private property. Houston police recently escorted a man out of a business on the grounds that it private property. If that it is so, then a private business (not a tax-funded public conveyance) has a right to determine whom they will and will not serve.
That basic truth was blurred in 1964 in pursuit of a remedy for the ugly exclusion of African-Americans from lunch counters and hotels. Had good intentions not damaged African-American owned businesses in the 1960s and 70s there might have been alternatives to racist hotels and lunch counters provided by the free market.
By choosing coercion over persuasion and the market and an over-realized eschatology over a more long-term and patient eschatology, the civil rights movement—much to the chagrin of a great number of religiously conservative African-American pastors—have provided the cudgel with which they and others are now being bashed.
LikeLike
MH- I understand that the bill would have amended the AZ RFRA, but you said it clarified Fereral law. I am not saying this is an important point in the grand scheme of things, just a minor factual correction
LikeLike
Petros, why? Please don’t say because they will glorify God when they see your good works.
LikeLike
Thanks Dan, my bad.
LikeLike
Remember that verse when Paul talked about only making tents for Xians? Or when he said he’d be damned if he’d rent a classroom from a pagan or Jew (Tyrannus)?
LikeLike
Here a Muslim barber was taken to mediation. Must the barber violate his sincerely held religious beliefs or potentially be punished?
http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/22/rights-complaint-against-muslim-barber-who-refused-to-give-woman-haircut-quietly-resolved
LikeLike
RSC- I didn’t think you were a culture warrior. Your two posts here would have been at home on Doug Wilson’s blog.
I note that the mediation worked, by the way.
LikeLike
RSC – . Had good intentions not damaged African-American owned businesses in the 1960s and 70s there might have been alternatives to racist hotels and lunch counters provided by the free market.
Erik – What do you mean here?
LikeLike
RSC – By choosing coercion over persuasion and the market and an over-realized eschatology over a more long-term and patient eschatology, the civil rights movement—much to the chagrin of a great number of religiously conservative African-American pastors—have provided the cudgel with which they and others are now being bashed.
Erik – If I’m a black guy driving on vacation with my family and in need of a hotel at 11:00 p.m. I don’t think my eschatology comes into play in just wanting to lay my head down on the nearest pillow. Do I really need to drive another hundred miles just to find one owned by another black guy?
LikeLike
Erik, urban renewal which bulldozed many self-contained urban neighborhoods and arguably hurt the back middle class and fabric of many communities.
LikeLike
Erik-Erik – If I’m a black guy driving on vacation with my family and in need of a hotel at 11:00 p.m. I don’t think my eschatology comes into play in just wanting to lay my head down on the nearest pillow. Do I really need to drive another hundred miles just to find one owned by another black guy?
Well, yeah, that’s the way it worked. I have lived in the South my whole life, and I was told even as a child that segregation was wrong- “but these things take time “. God be praised that someone finally brought coercion to bear on the side of African Americans.
LikeLike
How is urban renewal relevant?
Why does a black guy need to limit himself to black owned businesses? Should I really have to care who owns a business if I need their goods or services?
Generally if a business has a fish symbol on it I avoid it, but other than that, why should I care? And why should a business care who I am as long as my money is green?
We rent out nearly 1,000 apartments and I can tell you horror stories of terrible black tenants, white tenants, male tenants, female tenants, Chinese tenants, Indian tenants, etc.
I can also tell you great stories of wonderful black tenants, white tenants, male tenants, female tenants, Chinese tenants, Indian tenants, etc.
The tenants I like are the ones who keep their stereos down and whose checks clear. I care about little else because it is bad business to do so.
LikeLike
Which way does a concern about an “overrealized eschatology” really cut in this case?
LikeLike
One of the best stories I have from 22 years in business is the day I rented an apartment to the daughter of a Haitian woman. I met the family in the parking lot and I was about 10 minutes late. It was a busy day and I probably felt like I was doing them — my potential customers — a favor by showing them an apartment. Based on appearances I would have guessed they were poor, uneducated, and would be a bad risk. We get back to the office and I find out that the daughter is new in town to get a masters degree, her sister, who is with her, is a veterinarian. The mom, who looks like she is around age 60 and is about 90 pounds soaking wet, is a nurse down in Florida. As we review the lease she proceeds to ask probing questions that I had never heard before in hundreds of lease signings. She absolutely cleaned my clock. This is something I will never forget and makes me realize what absolute fools we are whenever we judge anyone based on their skin color, nationality, or perceived wealth or poverty.
LikeLike
Consciences are subjective but the church does have a role in shaping them. And, while not being entirely callous to those who interact with the gay wedding itself (cake, photography), I do think conservative American Christianity has instilled a bit of Pharasaic separatist sensibilities.
On a different point, what if Muslims concentrate in a certain area – let’s just give them Detroit, maybe they can do better – and they refuse to do commerce with Christians?
LikeLike
Zrim, because my theology of work informs me that I should fulfill my God-given calling as a baker, and to bake my cakes “as unto The Lord”. My theology also informs me that the world is lost without Christ, and that I should share my faith in Christ as the only hope for this lost world.
So, what would you do, if you were the baker?
LikeLike
MM- ” I do think conservative American Christianity has instilled a bit of Pharasaic separatist sensibilities.”
Good call. Kind of like the fundamentalist doctrine of second order separation.
LikeLike
MM – On a different point, what if Muslims concentrate in a certain area – let’s just give them Detroit, maybe they can do better – and they refuse to do commerce with Christians?
Erik – Fortunately there are still trial lawyers in Detroit to sue for discrimination. Reminds me of Larry, Jeff, and Marty getting some Al Abbas Chicken:
LikeLike
Why shouldn’t a Christian florist raise a stink about being coerced, by human rights commissions, and oppressive injustice machines, to sell flowers to a sodomite couple seeking to marry?
What the heck is meant by a ‘well-meaning gay couple’? They sure as hell aren’t Bible-believing Christians; can’t say I think any of them mean well in any real sense of the phrase.
And anyone who thinks he could bake them a cake then get them to listen to him attempt to share the gospel with them is naïve.
We’re Reformed, remember? Some aren’t going to be saved, and we aren’t responsible to try to save everyone. That’s God’s business, not ours.
Those who belong to those whose ilk in Genesis were burned by God with raining burning sulfur, I see no reason to not oppose as spiritual enemies; and any Christian who feels uncomfortable doing wedding-related business with such folks, is right to; shame on any other Christian who in the slightest gives any such brethren any grief whatsoever for standing on principle.
LikeLike
We are at war here, the fact of the matter is. That it isn’t ultimately ‘against flesh and blood’ doesn’t mean isn’t so, on the ground. It’s a cultural war; the other side takes no prisoners. Neither should we.
LikeLike
diggy, I’m tracking with you but if a skinhead were to open an all white eatery in the City of Detroit he would be the only one harmed; notwithstanding the American pathos.
LikeLike
Will – Why shouldn’t a Christian florist raise a stink about being coerced, by human rights commissions, and oppressive injustice machines, to sell flowers to a sodomite couple seeking to marry?
Erik – Your browser made a mistake. You’re looking for:
http://baylyblog.com/
LikeLike
Will,
You’ve told me how I should respond to gays. How should I respond to Christian a**holes?
LikeLike
Will is into patriarchy and links to a little “homesteader porn” on his site:
http://eumaios.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/homesteader-porn/
That is actually pretty hilarious. Well done.
Will may be a guy I can do some business with here.
LikeLike
Petros, the answer seems to flow more from a theology of enthusiasm of work and witness (what happens when your cake isn’t the best and your customers are already familiar with the gospel, two things that happen all the time in the experience of believers?). But if your point is to be more neighbor than warrior, then golf clap for you.
LikeLike
I can’t wait to stick it to the children of Rome, when I tutor students. Those papist think they can have a successful academic career on my dime? Cuz, I know the knowledge they gain from me can be used to create Romanist families engaged in all sorts of heresies.
LikeLike
Erik: Join us. Better an a**hole than a pu**y, enabling progressives’ cultural and political victories by being too concerned about being compassionate towards sodomites to successfully combat the progs.
If there were more people like myself and Eumaios and our ilk in Christendom, we could turn things around.
LikeLike
BTW, though I am Reformed, my group blog isn’t all Reformed; it’s pan-Christian.
Combating the status quo will require an anti-ecumenical but pan-Christian unity.
LikeLike
Will S. – Erik: Join us
Erik – What part of rural Idaho are you holed up in? Do I need to bring my own weapons or do you provide them? Is one wife enough or do I need to bring some sister wives?
I need more details before I commit.
LikeLike
Will – Better an a**hole than a pu**y
Erik – I thought you were down on gays?
LikeLike
Will S: We are at war here, the fact of the matter is. That it isn’t ultimately ‘against flesh and blood’ doesn’t mean isn’t so, on the ground. It’s a cultural war; the other side takes no prisoners. Neither should we.
Caleb: What does “victory” look like for you? And how do you think ‘culture’ works? It doesn’t make sense to me to think that you can ‘win’ a ‘culture war’. Unless you are referring to antibiotics and drug resistant bacteria – that’s a culture war that I can get into.
LikeLike
Zrim – If I bake bad cakes for any length of time, I’ll be out of business. If my customers already know the gospel, that’s wonderful. I’m guessing you’re trying to make a pt by asking your question, but I don’t know what it is. Fwiw, your term “enthusiasm” always seems to be pejorative. I’m not sure why. It’s not a term I use, nor is it a term I hear much used, other than in this blog, and then the ghosts of Phoebe start appearing. In the context of work (Col 3:23 “heartily”) and witness (Rom 1:15 “I am eager to preach”), enthusiasm would seem to be a Biblical imperative.
Back to the main topic of the AZ bill, it seems that there are two separate but related questions. One has to do with whether there is a normative way a Christian baker/florist should respond to a request from a gay couple for their baking/florist services. The other question has to do with whether there is a normative way Christians, as a whole, should think about bills like the AZ law. While it wouldn’t violate my personal conscience to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I respect that there are others’ among us (Will S) whose conscience’s would be violated, and I’d hope they’d be protected by the law from reprisal.
LikeLike
My thought is that if we’re going to be consistent 2Kers is that Gay Marriage isn’t about religious conscience but about moral conscience. You don’t have to be religious to refuse doing a gay wedding. You could object on the grounds that homosexual marriage is a violation of the law of nature. This is why it’s absurd to assert that objecting to a Muslim wedding vs a Gay wedding is the same thing. It may be a Muslim wedding, but it’s a man and woman getting married, which is in accordance with the law of nature. If both the man and woman became Christians, their marriage would be recognized. If 2 gay married men became Christians their marriage wouldn’t.
So you can object, as a photographer, to assisting the wedding, not for religious reasons, but societal, and that by assisting them you are undermining the very society they are participating in.
LikeLike
Hence the reason why 2K works, because you uphold both spheres and you don’t commit the error of worldviewism that collapses the two. Your argument in court has nothing to do with your religious commitments, since you’re not acting as a religious institution or entity, but as a participant in the common realm. Gays can’t get angry at you because of your religious commitments and the state can’t oppress you (or the other party) on religious grounds.
LikeLike
Shouldn’t we also keep in mind that the homosexual population is between 1%-5% of the American population. The percentage who want to get married AND who will stumble upon a Christian baker or florist is much lower than that. How many Christian bakers and florists are there anyway? Seems like a pretty one-sided ‘culture war’. Or a non-issue.
LikeLike
The problem is that in the case of offering goods and services to the public is that one could be conceivably faced with selling to objectionable people on a good majority of transactions. If one equates the transaction with moral approval, I would say they are within their rights to feel this way, but that it is a poorly formed conscience.
The AZ law seems to me to be more the product of conservative political paranoia than it is a genuine concern to protect religious freedom. As someone who works in a service industry, I run across and work with all kinds of people who lead objectionable lifestyles, but, I have to figure out some way to be a good co-worker and provide great service regardless of my own moral convictions. The way the law was written would have created total chaos in service industries because it wouldn’t have any way to determine whether a refusal to serve was borne out of a genuine religious conviction, or if the refusal arose from the provider simply being uncomfortable and couching this in religious language. I fail to see how the current laws we have on the books protecting religious freedom are not enough to begin with.
LikeLike
Jed: The AZ law seems to me to be more the product of conservative political paranoia than it is a genuine concern to protect religious freedom.
Caleb: Precisely. The language of religious liberty is misleading. Since when is not serving someone part of the practice of the Christian faith?
LikeLike
Nate- that’s all well and good, but the secular religionists have their own worldviewism that collapses all spheres. The fact that the secularists deny that SSM is a violation of natural law means that there is nothing that tethers their beliefs except for the sentiment aroused for the groups that are successful enough to generate widespread sympathy. Going to court and defending oneself with natural law will be no more successful than using religious belief. Breaking a secular doctrine that currently holds the popular imagination will be enough to convict you.
LikeLike
It is with some regret, and a few giggles, that I announce my
retirementsabbatical from theological debate today. There will still be some theological reflection on my own blog, but no debate. Some pastoral advice that used phrases like “self-aggrandizement”, “self-promotion”, “self-gratification”, “hateful”, and “caustic” has caused me to consider the path of Charles Erdman vs. that of one of my heroes, J. Gresham Machen. That, and the fact that when your own start to turn on you, it’s time to go.My plan is to enjoy the rest of my days (hopefully another 50 years if I outlive my granddads) with my smoking hot wife, my books, my movies, my job, and my ever growing pile of money obtained in our Capitalist paradise that is the USA — plus a sedate Reformed Church life with good Sunday sermons and services. Beyond that, I leave the rest to you.
Just remember, The Bryan Crosses, Jason Stellmans, Tom Van Dykes, and Greg the Terribles you will always have with you. All you can control is the man in the mirror. Make sure he is a man that you like.
A ceremony seems appropriate to commemorate this fateful day, so I leave you with this from “Serial”, one of the formative movies from my slightly bent childhood.
LikeLike
igasx,
Breaking a secular doctrine that currently holds the popular imagination will be enough to convict you.
Which raises the question to me of how Christians ought to perceive our rights in society. In the West, we enjoyed a +/-1500 year run of a Christianized culture where, aside from denominational differences, there was little difference of opinion on what a good society consisted of. Now we find ourselves in a transition period back to something like the pluralism that existed in pagan Rome, where Christians will find themselves increasingly on the outside looking in on cultural matters – depending on where we live we may encounter more or less pushback because of this.
If this is the case, my question is when and where do we “fight for our rights”, and when do we accept persecution for our principled stands? As I read the NT, it seems that the apostles were writing broadly to encourage Christians to live principled lives even in the midst of resistance, I don’t see many apostolic arguments to assert our natural or civic rights. The early church flourished and grew in the face of such resistance. This isn’t to say that I think there are no instances where Christians shouldn’t contend for natural rights, or to seek forms of government that would best secure these, it’s just to say that I think extreme caution and wisdom is in order so that we do not harm our collective witness simply so we can have a more comfortable go of it in the world.
Maybe some would draw their line where the folks in AZ attempted to, but I would not. Mainly because in the case of the AZ law, the optics of the whole thing comes across as Christians (mostly, maybe other groups included as well) being upset at having to provide services to those they deem sinful. I don’t think it has done anything but further the perception, fair or not, that we scream and yell when we feel as if our rights are diminished, but have little issue when those not in the fold (e.g. gays, Muslims) have their rights diminished. To me this underscores the need for more discretion amongst Christians when we make our convictions a political matter. Maybe there is a time to resist, or to petition for our rights, but I don’t see this case as being very productive.
LikeLike
Jed: In the West, we enjoyed a +/-1500 year run of a Christianized culture where, aside from denominational differences, there was little difference of opinion on what a good society consisted of.
Caleb: I don’t buy this declensionist narrative. Those “denominational differences” could get pretty bloody. And I think you’re understating seriousness of those rifts.
LikeLike
Jed- “wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove” Being wise is both understanding our circumstances and implications and taking the necessary actions that best mitigates harm. That means we not only assess our own shortcomings and failures but also read Culture and understand necessary inferences. Failure to take appropriate action may cause the greatest harm.
Jed, your phrasing of the questions I believe shows the nature of the problem (which is indicative of Culture itself). The, “how should we”, while applicable in broad principles, should not be pursued as a cultural phenomenon. The principle we derive from the Bible and nature is that we should live as to do no harm to our neighbor, whether Christian or pagan. That is, individually, I must work out in my conscience what actions are necessary to avoid causing my neighbor harm, not the protection of a particular group, be it Christians or gays. So both sides suffer the same disease.
The way out? Our society has softened, both christian and secular, to mere sentimentalism that drives public discourse. The expansion of “harms” is self defeating and if continued it will lead to chaos. As long as sentimentalism is the driving force, where harms are not tethered to any norm, the will to power wins. A principled, limited definition of harms along with a strong bias towards the liberty of the conscience, is the ideal.
LikeLike
Erik,
Yeah, online debating is for the birds. It’s so last decade. Plus, it eats up valuable time that could be spent golfing. Just me.
All the best,
Andrew
LikeLike
Erik says: “It is with some regret, and a few giggles, that I announce my retirement from theological debate today. There will still be some theological reflection on my own blog, but no debate. Some pastoral advice that used phrases like “self-aggrandizement”, “self-promotion”, “self-gratification”, “hateful”, and “caustic” has caused me to consider the path of Charles Erdman vs. that of one of my heroes, J. Gresham Machen. That, and the fact that when your own start to turn on you, it’s time to go.”
Oh for Pete’s sake. Knock it off will ya? I for one will not hold it against you if you fail to uphold this knuckleheaded statement.
A morally divided nation is both ungovernable AND incapable of freedom.
LikeLike
Erik,
I edited your comment to give you wiggle room. Moderation is always preferred over total abstinence.
LikeLike
D, good call. E’s debating services would be sad to lose in this quandrant of cyberspace.
Edit my comments at a whim too, yo.
🙂
A nice Lord’s day to you all,
AB
LikeLike
On the one hand we have those who oppose us who just want us to go away.
On the other hand we have those who benefit from what we do, but are too squeamish to do it themselves, and think we are jerks.
Sounds like a classic case of “a pox on both their houses”.
The rational response is to just go enjoy life.
LikeLike
Ok, some ecclesiastes verses that come to mind say yer A-OK here, Erik. 🙂
In times like this, I’ve always liked this (emphasis mine):
Lates.
LikeLike
<iErik Charter
Posted March 1, 2014 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
It is with some regret, and a few giggles, that I announce my retirement sabbatical from theological debate today. There will still be some theological reflection on my own blog, but no debate. Some pastoral advice that used phrases like “self-aggrandizement”, “self-promotion”, “self-gratification”, “hateful”, and “caustic” has caused me to consider the path of Charles Erdman vs. that of one of my heroes, J. Gresham Machen. That, and the fact that when your own start to turn on you, it’s time to go.
My plan is to enjoy the rest of my days (hopefully another 50 years if I outlive my granddads) with my smoking hot wife, my books, my movies, my job, and my ever growing pile of money obtained in our Capitalist paradise that is the USA — plus a sedate Reformed Church life with good Sunday sermons and services. Beyond that, I leave the rest to you.
Just remember, The Bryan Crosses, Jason Stellmans, Tom Van Dykes, and Greg the Terribles you will always have with you.
Jiminy Crickets all. Thx for thinking of me, as if you could not. Nobody ignores Jiminy Cricket, unless of course they squash the little bastard.
;-O
On a personal note, EC, things are going as well in Philadelphia as could possibly be hoped. Thx for you best wishes.
LikeLike
Fascinating post, DGH. Those who know you and love you read it as yet another “radical Two Kingdoms” theological justification for sitting this one out.
It almost didn’t need to be written, though, since sitting it out IS your religion. Dog bites man, ho hum.
LikeLike
Tom, it’s such a shame you do all this warring and you refuse to set up an account with either evangelicals or the RCs, where you could at least collect interest, if not even build equity toward your eternal destiny. But then, you’re smarter than them all. You’ll always have that time with Pat, so, that’s a nice epitaph.
LikeLike
vd, t, just answering the question of what Jesus would do.
LikeLike
igasx,
As long as sentimentalism is the driving force, where harms are not tethered to any norm, the will to power wins. A principled, limited definition of harms along with a strong bias towards the liberty of the conscience, is the ideal.
In a more perfect world my friend, sight. Sad fact is that the will to power usually wins, and those who know how to use it to their ends are the winners. It’s fairly ironic that the gradual de-liberalization (in the classic sense) of our society is coming at the hands of self-proclaimed liberals in the halls of power who most definitely understand the score and what their aims are. They have a new set of dogmas to insulate plural society, and its most privileged/protected groups from the possibility facing offense, which of course creates a new set of losers. Problem is, as DGH has rightly observed, many self-proclaimed conservatives would simply return the favor if in power, and have when they held power.
Functionally in today’s political setting there are very few real norms, even when it comes to the inviolability of our founding documents, and the war wages on. I often hope both sides would just finally exhaust themselves and take up lawn bowling, at least there are real winners and losers in such a contest.
Where I see the best path forward for Christians politically is to drop the transformation, and cultural mandate in a Republican suit schtick, and opt for a more universally free society based on the norm that there are knowable axioms. These are based on Natural Law, it might actually be better for the peaceful continuation of society to set aside enforcing every level of NL, opting for what our founders did, preserving life, liberty, and property, creating a free society understanding that not everyone is going to agree on issues of personal or public morality. Let God sort it out at the end, because he certainly will. At the very least the US has achieved this historically, sometimes better, sometimes worse – but in a fallen world such things cannot last.
At the end of the day, I am of the opinion that confessional Christianity will always be considered an odd bunch in the socio-religious landscape. We may in fact face a future with more, instead of less resistance, simply because everyone from thoroughgoing secularists to hard core conservative Christian culture warriors on the right will never really understand us or our aims. In the event of political resistance, and even persecution, I would have to be pushed pretty far before considering the alternatives presented in our own theories of resistance, and even then if I felt the solutions offered by resisting were not viable, I’d probably just opt for conscientious disobedience, and let the consequences fall where they may. At the end of the day, I do not think the Kingdom is of this world, nor do I think it will ever be ushered in, or aided in any way by earthly or political means. It will continue to exist with or without me here to pontificate on the internet if you catch my drift.
LikeLike
The AZ law has been subject to a number of assumptions, both on the part of its supporters and detractors, that do not seem to be warranted.
First, the origins of the Federal law that inspired the state law that SB 1062 sought to expand was not brought about by conservative Christians, but rather the Native American Church and other Native American religions concerned with 1) protecting sacred land; and 2) the use of controlled substances in worship services.
Second, there are serious questions that the AZ law would have protected bakers and such from not providing services to gay weddings. The defendant would have to prove that it would “substantially burden their exercise of religion.” It could be difficult to prove that providing a cake at a wedding is a religious exercise, let alone a substantial burden upon it.
Finally, the policy concern in RFRA, state versions of RFRA, and even SB1062 is liberty of conscious. The federal law requires that the federal government must have a compelling interest in order to force someone to act in a way that substantially burdens that person’s exercise of religion. I see this a good thing.
LikeLike
Mad, no doubt both sides are misrepresenting the bill. For the benefit of others, definitions are no mere prefaces to statutory schemes, but crucial in how they operate. Did you see the definitions I included above? Here they are again:
“Exercise of religion” means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief. [caps are in the online bill]
“Unreasonable burden” means that a person is prevented from using the person’s property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to fulfill the person’s religious mission.
The first definition is unremarkable, as it tracks prior SCOTUS decisions. But the second is a commitment to broad application, don’t you think?
LikeLike
MM,
What implications if any would this have for the UCC and interstate commerce? Is there any case law that helps shape what would or would not constitute an unreasonable burden? Does it extend only to business owners or do employees of businesses that would not otherwise restrict transactions find protection under this law?
Part of the optical problem here is the law is arising as gays are seeing their rights expanded. I don’t think their criticism of the law is totally w/o warrant. My issue with the law is how it might be used to impede commerce, especially since the “religious conviction” defense is arising on the heels of legislative and judicial expansion of rights accorded to gays. I understand that many want to separate the issue of religious freedom from the question of gay rights, and that they are sincere in their efforts. However, they seem to me to be facing an uphill battle simply on the grounds of timing.
LikeLike
Jed, “Is there any case law that helps shape what would or would not constitute an unreasonable burden?”
There is case law in other contexts on substantial burden. In the Obamacare/HHS litigation I am seeing two different approaches. One more or less says “if the person says it’s a religious burden, it’s a religious burden.” The other delves into an objective analysis of whether it is a burden. My most recent blog entry shows the objective approach. If I remember correctly, Hobby Lobby won a decision (not from the SCOTUS) under the subjective approach.
There are decisions on substantial burden, but the AZ definition is unique as far as I know. We would need court decisions under the Arizona statute to really flesh out what it means.
LikeLike
Jed: Where I see the best path forward for Christians politically is to drop the transformation, and cultural mandate in a Republican suit schtick, and opt for a more universally free society based on the norm that there are knowable axioms
In order for the Natural Law basis to be subscribed to by the Left there must be some sort of “transformation” on their part. I agree that the current Christian culture must be “transformed” as well.
Jed: I would have to be pushed pretty far before considering the alternatives presented in our own theories of resistance, and even then if I felt the solutions offered by resisting were not viable, I’d probably just opt for conscientious disobedience, and let the consequences fall where they may.
I generally agree with that. There are rumblings from modern lower magistrates for resistance. But your strictures are far more liberal than the “submission” motif that is advocated around here by some (many?). In the meantime, Millennials are leaving the Church in droves and purchasing the postmodern assessment. So are we to merely tuck our heads and allow society to devolve till the Eschaton or engage with society and promote a natural law basis?
LikeLike
MM,
I’m sure you are correct, the two standards do appear to conflict. I will defer to your judgment as to the AZ language’s uniqueness. I can definitely see how a subjective standard could result in broader application, but we will never know how courts would interpret it.
LikeLike
igasx,
So are we to merely tuck our heads and allow society to devolve till the Eschaton or engage with society and promote a natural law basis?
Well, the key pronoun there is “we”, since we as Reformed Christians can’t even seem to acknowledge the critical role NL theory has played in our own past (e.g. neo-Calvinists, hard-core Van Tillians), I don’t know how much traction we would get convincing the broader culture of it’s value. I think like minded Christians can do some good at a grass roots level by involving themselves with the institutions and politicians who best exemplify their political and social convictions. It seems to me that there is somewhat of an uptick in both paleo-conservative ideas, in reaction to the neo-con ascendency in the GOP, as well as a rise in interest amongst social conservatives in libertarian ideals. Both more or less hold to an originalist reading of the Constitution, which is a great place to gain a hearing on NL ethics and legal theory.
In the meantime, Millennials are leaving the Church in droves and purchasing the postmodern assessment.
By virtue of being 35, I kind of straddle the transition period between Xers and Millennials, and while there is some truth in this, I don’t share your pessimism entirely. Millenials are a diverse group, and there is a portion among them that were raised in the megachurch culture that have sought out confessional Christianity as an alternative to mainstream evangelicalism – I do find this incredibly encouraging. I also know that a good deal of the exodus amongst conservative Christian youth has a lot to do with the general weakness in churches themselves. I grew up in a large youth group, and by in large Christian parents abdicated the responsibility of rearing Christian children in the hands of the youth pastor and staff. I think that confessional Reformed and Lutheran, heck even some Baptist churches that are returning to or staying faithful to catechesis in the church and home is also an encouraging sign. I just can’t bother myself with hand-wringing over the broader trends. Doesn’t mean I do nothing, it just means my focus is on raising my own kids, and serving my own church. I think it is good to be aware of the broader trends, but it can turn into an exercise of attempting to boil the ocean in attacking that problem when God has given me my own kettle here at home.
LikeLike
Jed: Doesn’t mean I do nothing, it just means my focus is on raising my own kids, and serving my own church. I think it is good to be aware of the broader trends, but it can turn into an exercise of attempting to boil the ocean in attacking that problem when God has given me my own kettle here at home.
Of course, but as we are seeing, an overly centralized government is making your ability to raise your kids and serve your church according to an objective standard more and more in turmoil. How are we to have peace with our neighbors when government is attacking? A return to federalism would help though I disagree with the Front Porchers who advocate for using governmental coercion to enforce a strict federalism.
LikeLike
Jed- Resistance need not imply violence. Here’s an example: I live in Colorado and happily voted for marijuana legalization for 2 main reasons.
1- I do not advocate governmental coercion against those who do no harm to others. (resistance- and for the same reason I refuse to wear seatbelts)
2- I thought it was a good step towards federalism by which a State pokes the Feds in the eye.(resistance)
Are my actions a failure to submit to the State?
LikeLike
Which make it only worse because the left coast needs to keep up the appearance that the government has it well regulated. Can’t have the appearance that people can freely live their lives.
LikeLike
It’s always interesting to see how political positions morph. It wasn’t too long ago that the libertarian position was to argue that private business owners should be able to engage or not engage in business with whomever they wished; now it appears the libertarian position is to make them engage in business with everyone.
And of course the argument that such situations are “rare” kinda falls flat when this exact situation happened just recently.
I agree that these laws which have been proposed recently do seem very broad. However, I’m not sure what the problem with the principle is. Are you saying that Chritians should not have the right to refuse to provide services which aid a practice they find objectionable? Being the photographer for a gay “wedding”, for example, isn’t exactly a neutral activity. And why shouldn’t an hotelier be allowed to ban gay couples- or unmarried couples- from his establishment? We are responsible for what goes on under our own roofs.
LikeLike
Yo, yo. Alexander.
So I think I catch your vibe. Here’s where I’m at.
If I own a hotel, can I simply not care what the people do who rent from me, and instead , focus on my golf game? Well, if they are engaging in something criminal, maybe I get a call while on the 11th hole. And I need to care then. Maybe. Depending how criminal..
But the topic on this thread, well, its something I’d rather they not call me when I’m golfing. Don’t care much, I guess. Only enough to mention it, and move on, here.
Whether I’m clear or not, or whether I’m missing the, all of that is very very possible. Just me.
Peace.
LikeLike
Andrew- Well, not to get too Biblical or anything but homosexual and extramarital sex are crimes: they break God’s law. And I think the Reformed tradition has always been clear that where civil law and God’s law butt heads, we are to honour God rather than man.
So should Christians have the right to refuse to work on the Sabbath? (That’s the first day of the week, known by heathen as Sunday, in case you didn’t know.)
Also, why are you saying “yo”? Aren’t you an adult?
LikeLike
Alex, only addressing “yo.”
It’s cuz I don’t know who the h**l I’m ever talking to out here.
Your question is what I wanted you to react with over that.
Good.
LikeLike
Alex, this means taking God’s law into your hands? That’s odd because God’s law also says honor the emperor, even the one persecuting Christians and worshiping false gods.
What’s a theonomist to do?
LikeLike
Ah, well, I’m not a theonomist so I don’t need to worry about that conundrum.
Because what I was actually saying was: doesn’t God’s law have any authority over us? Or, when it meets the world are we always meant to just go along with the world?
It’s not just the emperor who is persecuting Christians: is there any move by Christians you’re NOT opposed to and desire to write a snide blog post about? Does this issue even affect you or your church? From the general attitude of those on this forum I’d imagine your fellow travellers couldn’t be happier at this law being vetoed. Whereas, for those of us who try to love according to God’s commandments, in grace, these issues are of direct consequence.
And, of course, you didn’t address my question: when it comes to the Sabbath who wins: the Christian or the employer who wants him to work on the Sabbath?
LikeLike
Ahem, *live by God’s commandments.
LikeLike
Alexander the Metalworker – Whereas, for those of us who try to love according to God’s commandments
Erik – So glad you didn’t include a photo.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted March 2, 2014 at 9:45 pm | Permalink
vd, t, just answering the question of what Jesus would do.
Dr. Disingenuous, now you speak for Jesus? Migod, man.
LikeLike
vd, t, no I follow Jesus. You?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted March 4, 2014 at 8:03 pm | Permalink
vd, t, no I follow Jesus. You?
D, no you follow Jesus, mebbe making stuff up sometimes and call it Jesus. Theology. Which is OK if Holy Ghost am say it OK, but don’t say.
LikeLike
Tom,
Did you move from a Mac to a Commodore 64? Are you in Philadelphia or rural Nepal?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted March 4, 2014 at 8:41 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Did you move from a Mac to a Commodore 64? Are you in Philadelphia or rural Nepal?
Mac does a weird thing w/cut & paste. Got it now. Sorry for the bad HTML to this point, but I was talking to Darryl on this thread, not you, Erik. He doesn’t need a caddy or a gatekeeper–he can handle himself.
When someone claims to know What Would Jesus Do, I think it’s worth discussing.
And when the answer to What Would Jesus Do is consistently “Jesus would do nothing,” I think that really needs discussing.
LikeLike
Tom,
I was just reacting to your phrasing at 8:33, but you might have done that on purpose to yank his chain.
LikeLike
Alexander – Does this issue even affect you or your church? From the general attitude of those on this forum I’d imagine your fellow travellers couldn’t be happier at this law being vetoed.
Luther – I know a lot of gay Catholics who are struggling for SSM, I know gay Mormons who desire the same thing….I know a lot of gay evangelicals who desire SSM….I know no gay Calvinist who are agitating for Reformed Churches to recognize SSM….not saying there are no gay Calvinist…but you know.
I don’t blame gay Catholics, gay Mormons, gay Evangelicals…but…I don’t blame the gays….what’s up with those churches?
LikeLike
Then again….http://www.gaycalvinist.org
LikeLike
Do you know these guys, Van Dyke?
http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2011/05/calvinists-fold-on-gay-clergy.html
————————
Andrew Buckingham – Alex, only addressing “yo.”
Luther – I always thought your “yo’s” were ironic.
LikeLike
Luther, love the selective history and hand waving:
As if following Jesus, I mean the pope, worked out so well for those in the cross hairs of the Crusades and the Inquisition. And Jesus told Peter to put away the sword. It took until 1870 for Rome to get the message.
LikeLike
I was shocked by how there is a total lack of self-awareness…how un-ironic so many of the comments were.
LikeLike
Luther, shhhhhhh.
I was a theater major in college (hello Dg). But after freshman year, my girlfriend (now wife) talked me through that. I pick people’s brains for ideas, and odo so in weird ways. If you like my “yo’s,” you might like Jesse Pinkman.
Thanks friend. Take care.
Again. Shhhh
LikeLike