Standing on Principle

They tell us that when someone is, say, addicted to alcohol, the people around them need to avoid enabling their behavior. So, don't do things like invite them to a party where drinking will be going on or offer them a beer or ... well, you get the idea. You may not be responsible for changing their behavior, but you shouldn't be enabling them to do bad things. So a husband who beats his wife tells a friend that he did it, and the friend keeps quiet about it because, after all, they're friends, right? That's enabling the husband to repeat the behavior. Not good.

There have been multiple stories in the news over the past few years centering on "gay rights" and Christian business owners. A bed and breakfast owner refused to rent a room to a homosexual couple (not because they were homosexual, but because the owner didn't rent the room to any unmarried couples), was sued, and lost. A baker refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual "marriage" ceremony and was sued and lost. And then there was the photographer and the florist and ... well, you get the idea. They all said, "We are not free to provide our services for that particular behavior because that particular behavior violates our consciences", and they all paid the consequences. And conservative Christians stand up and say, "Yeah! What about that?"

I'm not asking about the legality of such consequences here. I'm wondering about the perspective. And I want to emphasize that I'm wondering about the perspective. Are Christians obliged not to serve those who are engaging in sinful behavior?

At the outset I would hope you can see that such a question is, well, stupid. I mean, the goal of Christian mission work is to serve people who specifically do not know Christ in order to lead them to Christ. Skid row missions serve homeless and spiritually lost people in order to bring them the Gospel. It would be horribly counterproductive to say, "We want to bring them the Gospel, but we can't feed homeless people because they're lost." Indeed, Jesus Himself fed the multitudes who were sinners. So that question doesn't make sense at the very beginning.

But at what point does it become enabling? Is a florist who sells flower arrangements to someone for the purpose of having a homosexual wedding enabling them? Is a Christian waitress who serves an obese customer (and Scripture opposes gluttony) enabling that sin? I mean, clearly all Christians are called to be in the world even if we are not to be of the world. We will interact with unbelievers. How much of what we do is normal interaction which, by doing it well, reflects Christ, brings glory to the Father, and presents the Gospel to the needy, and how much enables further sin?

Take your Christian photographer. She agrees to take wedding photos for a Christian wedding. We're all pleased about that. Does she refuse to take wedding photos at a non-Christian wedding? Well, no, probably not. So where is the line? Someone comes to her and asks her to take photos at their event. What event? "Well, we're having an orgy and want photos taken." Well, of course, we'd all say, "No, she shouldn't do that." So there is a line. But is a non-Christian wedding more godly than a homosexual wedding? Perhaps, since one is a genuine marriage and the other is not. Or is it? What if she was asked to document the homosexual event for the local newspaper, not as the wedding photographer?

Perhaps it is the timing of the issue? We know that immoral marriages take place all the time. A man leaves his wife for another woman and marries her. A Christian woman marries a non-Christian man. These things happen all the time. But these things happen all the time. This event, the subversion of marriage into something else, is new. Perhaps it's wrong for a Christian to participate on the basis of its newness? That is, if the wedding taking place is intended as a statement itself, perhaps providing support to that statement is the reason to deny it.

And, given that this photographer has decided that, on principle, he or she cannot provide services to this particular sin, what other sins need to be included?

And then there's the whole matter of Christian liberty. If one Christian photographer (or florist or baker or ...) excludes service to one particular sin, is it wrong for another Christian photographer to offer to do it?

And there's the whole question of whether or not what you're doing will be some sort of enabling or endorsing of sin. At a wedding -- any wedding -- who really knows who provided the floral arrangements? (And, if you did, do you think, "Wow, Mary's Floral Shop endorsed this wedding!"?) The photographer, on the other hand, is present and visible. But even then you have to wonder if the presence of the photographer constitutes endorsement or just ... business. Some would argue that the photographer is an artist and is asked to capture those "special moments", that the task of the wedding photographer is to engender in the long term a warm feeling about the event, and that would constitute endorsement. What about a t-shirt maker asked to make shirts for a Gay Pride parade? That might be a horse of a different color.

I don't think the issue is clear. I think that there are some times when the performance of a service can be construed as an endorsement or enabling of a sinful behavior, but it seems as if the only endorsement people are trying to avoid these days is the "gay wedding". There's no problem in going to your neighborhood barbecue celebrating your neighbors' moving in together. And would a Christian baker refuse to make a "divorce cake"? So is this not an issue of conscience regarding enabling and endorsing sin and only an issue of disagreement with homosexual behaviors? Perhaps we need to rethink this.
________
P.S. Please note that all of this has been written primarily in question form, not statement. The point is not "Those who discriminate because of conscience are wrong" or "We need to discriminate more because of conscience." I'm simply asking for more clarity.