Let me step in the manure, too

Tempers are flying. Facts are secondary, because sacred cows have been poked with very sharp sticks: discrimination and religious liberty. Lately, that debate has been focused on states like Arizona, Indiana, and Arkansas and their measures to permit businesses to refuse certain forms of business transactions based on religious convictions. No matter what I say from this point forward, I'm likely to irk someone.

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.

License, Legalism, Love

Last Sunday, I added a last-minute thought to the message which 1) was a much bigger thought than I gave it room for, 2) may have been distracting to the main message, 3) was not thought through fully, and 4) the one thing some people really latched onto. I still haven't decided if it was a good addition or not!

The idea was that in Christ, we have three possible paths to tread: License, Legalism, or Love. When we went through Galatians over a year ago, we talked about License, Legalism, and Liberty, which is a theologically accurate list, but I like the focus of Love more than that of Liberty.

License is the idea that because I have my sins forgiven by grace, I can live as I please, do whatever my flesh desires. Hey, it's all going to be forgiven, right? Sure, it might be disrespectful to the Cross, but if it's covered, it's covered. Paul repeated teaches against this view, especially in Galatians.

Legalism is the idea that our righteousness and our standing before God is dependent on how well we adhere to a certain moral code. There are plenty of non-Christian religions that are blatantly legalistic. Although it's relatively rare to find an evangelical church that teaches this outright (there are some!), this more often finds its way into church by stealth. A church can believe in grace and teach grace, but still end up with teachings and sermons that boil down to "try harder, do it right, it's all on your shoulders." We can inadvertently create an attitude of legalism while preaching grace.

Liberty is the idea that in Christ, we finally have the freedom and ability to obey Him. We have been set free from sin and death and set free for following Him from our heart. The bonds are gone, but we are also enabled for the first time to actually obey, which we choose to do freely.

But I prefer the third element to be labeled Love. Not because Liberty is inaccurate in any way, but because Love encompasses Liberty and so much more.

Love is more than an idea ... it's a relationship, it's a motive, it's a mode, it's an attachment, it's so many things. Rather than freely disobeying God (License) or obeying God in bondage (Legalism), it is freely obeying God drenched by love in every way. We obey Christ because we love, love is our attitude while following Him, we love Him by obeying Him, and we even love by obeying the command to love. We have been freed because of love, Christ's will has been revealed to us because of love, and His will is how He provides for us a way to love Him.

"Liberty" describes the freedom and enablement we have because of Christ. "Love" describes the what, the why, and the how to exercise that freedom and enablement.

It's easy to slip back into legalism, where we try to create a set of rules. It's even easier to slip into license - just do whatever we desire to do, whether or not it is Christ's will. Loving relationships are not the easiest routes, but they are clearly the best ones, because love is the only path of the three that reflects Christ's character.