My goal is not to tell you how you should think or feel about the issues. I could try, but I find that articles far better than I could write don't budge many people, so why waste good blog space? What I would like to do is process some of the key values rolling around in my head. I don't intend to offend or suggest that you're wrong if you disagree with any of these. Well, except for one point.
Hold my tongue until I hold the facts. I'm amazed at how many rants on both sides of this issue aren't even arguing the facts. People hear keywords, assume battle positions, unload their ordnance without aiming carefully, and respond to all objections with ad hominem attacks - all while arguing points that aren't even touched by the measures at hand. Make no mistake - both sides of this issue do this. You can't stop it, and calling people on it has a low chance of success. What you can do is avoid doing it yourself. Check everything before making public comments. Just reading it doesn't mean it's true, no matter how well it argues your (predetermined) point. If you don't know it as fact, you can't argue it as fact.
Service is different than promotion. Let me tread lightly, here. Regardless of what you think about these recent laws, it's important to separate these two ideas no matter what. The former has to do with commerce and the second has to do with free speech. Whichever view you hold, these are different things, and must be treated as separate things.
Can a rule be universally applied? Whatever rules you promote, run them through this test first: Can I substitute equivalent but opposite ideas and still have the rule make good sense? For example, would I use the force of law to require a printing business owned by atheists to print posters that say, "Jesus is the only way" whenever a customer requests it? If it works one way, but not the other, it's likely discriminatory.
Can an objection be universally applied? Don't embrace the previous idea without embracing this one, too. For example, with a little substitution to an objection, would you end up with something like, "I don't like your view on Issue X, so I won't sell you these shoes, because you might use them in a march against my view"? I'm not saying this is equivalent to anyone's specific objection, but I'm advocating taking every objection, substituting in equivalent but opposite ideas, and seeing if the objection still holds water. If not, drop it.
Jesus didn't die so that I could avoid serving those I differ with, but so that I would. This speaks more to me about a missional attitude than which opinion we should hold about a particular state law. Have the debate about free speech. Have the debate about the rights of commerce. Have the debate about what constitutes discrimination. But in my opinion, followers of Christ have no real room to question the missional attitude we should have all along the way. So, if we argue about the laws in order to hide a non-missional attitude, our attitude is wrong no matter what the law is. The beauty of the Gospel is that it frees us, equips us, and compels us to love even our enemies unconditionally, and to serve them humbly.
But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink. -- Rom 12:20
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." -- Matt 5:43-45
I'm not telling you what cakes you must bake or what slogans you must put on them. I'm not telling you what you do and don't have the right to refuse. "Serving" here is a much larger idea than the act of selling goods and services. My point to Christ followers is that the Gospel must set our priorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment