Happy birthday to J.K. Rowling....and Harry Potter.

 

Harry Potter shares a birthday with his creator.  I share a birthday with….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BBC's Proms   Hedwig's Theme from Harry Potter

 

Hijacked!

Trump rally hosted by Dream City Church in Phoenix, AZ  | June 23, 2020

One question gets asked frequently on social media by mainline Protestants, Christians raised in other countries, and other people who haven't been thoroughly indoctrinated in the American Evangelical subculture but are familiar with the message of Jesus and the historical positions of Christians in general:  why are conservative American Evangelicals supporting Donald Trump, whose actions and character are so antithetical to the teachings of Jesus?

 

Having been around long enough to have seen it happening, and having educated myself as to the historical doctrines and practices of Christianity since the first generation of Christians post-Pentecost, I can state with confidence the nature of the problem.  American Evangelical Christianity® has been hijacked by wolves in sheep's clothing, and the sheep have been conditioned not to recognize their Master's voice.  In fact, they've been told He wasn't even talking to them!  The hijackers can be readily divided into two camps, which I will conveniently label as their first-century Jewish analogs:  the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

 

The Pharisees were eschatologically focused fundamentalists who ensured they and their followers never broke any of the 613 commandments by erecting behavioral barriers that kept them far away from the grey areas.  They painstakingly defined exactly what was and was not permissible on the Sabbath - whatever could remotely be considered work was forbidden.  They had no tolerance for ambiguity.  If there was any conceivable way something could lead to violating a commandment, it was forbidden….unless they really felt the need to do it, in which case they would interpret Moses' statutes more liberally.  They knew their Bible, for sure.  They practically accorded it divine status.  And they were eagerly awaiting the promised Messiah, who would sweep away the wicked, drive out the uncircumcised foreign oppressors, and make them the ruling class so they could show the goyim a thing or three.  But, they were convinced their God was waiting to send their deliverer until they got their national act together.  They were suffering under foreign oppression because they tolerated too much wickedness, so they needed to Make Israel Great Again and thus usher in the End of the Age.  Their power base was rural, working-class folk, and they were the rabbis that taught in the synagogues.  They hated Jesus, and he wasn't overly fond of them either.  They had a great deal in common with the Zealots (Hebrew Nationalists that were spoiling for a confrontation with the Feds…er, Romans), but they weren't looking to personally engage in violence, but rather expecting the Messiah to send those they hated to Gehenna on their behalf.  Pharisees fought the culture war against prostitutes, sinners, and tax collectors (they hated taxes), not the civil war.

 

The Sadducees were the ruling class - the Jerusalem establishment that maintained their wealth and power by appeasing or collaborating with the Romans.  They controlled the Priesthood and the Temple, and were the party of law and order, peace and prosperity.  They tolerated the Pharisees because strict Torah observance meant more tithes, but the zealots were bad for business, so the Romans found out about them quickly enough to head off any unpleasantness.  As long as the Pharisees kept the working class focused on cultural issues, they could keep collecting their interest, their rents, and their take of the Temple currency exchange.  Any threat to their power and profit, no matter how popular with the unwashed masses, would be dealt with subtly but swiftly, preferably using Roman muscle.  If they could convince the moralistic majority that their troublemaker was a sinner, that made everything easier, because the Romans would take care of the problem to shut the annoying Pharisees up while the Sadducees stood by with their hands folded and looked like the concerned liberals they pretended to be.  They were the party of the Temple - Jerusalem - Mount Zion, where God chose to dwell and which He would preserve forever (despite the words of Moses and the Prophets to the contrary).  They would do what was necessary to keep their good thing going, and no would-be Messiah was going to come in and take over, thank you very much.

 

Jesus was quite the Social Justice Warrior, in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, teaching the multitudes the path of non-violent resistance, hanging out with people the Pharisees despised, and giving way free food and health care.  He acted like whores' lives mattered, and had nothing favorable to say about either the wealthy and powerful Sadducees who oppressed widows and orphans or the hypocritical fundamentalist Pharisees who thanked God they were better than those disgusting tax collectors and sinners and filthy foreigners.  And was he ever a troublemaker!  Interrupting the commercial activities of the Temple complex…forgiving sins…doing all the things the Messiah was supposed to do in Isaiah…claiming to be GOD, for Christ's sake!  Nope.  He must die, for the greater good.  While they were plotting to kill him, he pronounced judgment on the Jerusalem establishment:  total destruction of the city and the Temple, and vengeance for the blood of all the prophets from Abel to Zachariah.  With his death and resurrection, he established a New Covenant, not for one nation but for all people, and not one strip of real estate but the whole earth.  The Old Covenant and its Temple were made functionally irrelevant, with God's Spirit dwelling in temples not made with human hands, and the Church named the new Zion and the Israel of God.  Forty years later, giving national Israel a full generation to repent and believe the Good News (a good number of them did so), God made the Old Covenant permanently obsolete with the destruction of the man-made Temple, the loss of its furnishings, eviction with extreme prejudice of the wicked tenants that had dared kill the Landlord's Son, and the permanent and irreversible end of the Levitical economy.

 

Alright…back to the point.  Hijackers!  Today's Pharisees are, like their first century counterparts, eschatologically driven fundamentalists who elevate the words of God (Bible) above the Word made Flesh, at least when it comes to interpreting Scripture and ordering their lives.  Much of American Evangelical Christianity® is Infected with the pernicious doctrinal system of Dispensationalism, introduced by John Nelson Darby in the early 19th Century, propagated by C.I. Scofield's reference Bible with embedded Dispensationalist commentary and accompanying eschatological charts in the early 20th Century, and taught at such Evangelical learning centers as Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary.  Under Dispensationalism, the Sermon on the Mount was given under the Dispensation of Law, and will apply to Israel in the Millennial Kingdom, but the Church is most definitely NOT Israel, NOT the heir to the Promises, and NOT the agency by which Christ's Kingdom will fill the entire earth (we're Plan B, holding the fort until Jesus removes us and restarts the Old Covenant to finally have things the way he wanted them all along).

 

As Pharisees who do not accept the applicability of Jesus parables and teaching on the Kingdom of God/Heaven to the present age, they are prone the Pharisees' moralistic hypocrisy and always willing to blame the degradation of culture for the Lord's delay in establishing His kingdom on earth.  Never mind that the Church has historically taught that the Kingdom was inaugurated during Jesus' earthly ministry with a parade on the back of a donkey followed by a rather unusual and bloody coronation, and made complete by his resurrection and ascension, where he rules from the right hand of God while the Kingdom fills the earth and until every enemy is subdued.  Nope.  To the Dispensationalist the Kingdom is future, full stop.    

 

The modern "fundagelical" Pharisees have been coopted by today's ruling class to continue the culture wars so they can have politicians elected who will enable them to get richer.  The Sadducees of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex recently joined by the private prison industry, finance and empower their culture warriors against the social justice oriented followers of the teachings of Jesus (fairly characterized as red-letter Christians) because if the working classes ever united across racial and theological divides the hungry could be fed with good things and the rich sent away empty.  (Historic Christianity honors the Blessed Mary by echoing her prophetic song every morning.)  The Greedy Bastards® fund the neo-Pharisees and their not-quite-right-in-the-head neo-Zealot cousins, the White Nationalists, so they will elect Republicans because of gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and Israel (not necessarily in that order).

 

American Evangelical Christianity® begrudgingly held their noses and voted for Donald Trump in 2016 despite his obvious lack of character or competence because (a) Hillary Clinton?  Seriously? and (b) he promised judges that would support their right to discriminate on the basis of religion and overturn the abomination that was Roe v. Wade. The fact that they believe he put us about a decade closer to Armageddon by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the nation that pretends to be Israel while rebelling against the King of Israel is the bonus that might get some of them to vote for him again.  But if they accepted that Jesus was speaking to them in Matthew 25, they would realize that the final judgment is going to be all about social justice, not moral purity, and repent before it's too late and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

"Why do you call me Lord, and don't do what I say?"  Luke 6:46

Another Arizona Lunatic to bring shame on the name "Christian"

Author's Note:  I originally wrote this and posted it somewhere six years ago.  "Pastor" Anderson is in the news again, and I am posting this old document on my blog so I can link to it in reply to any web post that calls this goofball a "Christian Pastor" or his group of ignorant sycophants a "church".  

From September 1, 2009:

Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona has been in the news lately, largely for publicly calling on God to kill the President of the United States [Note:  12/1/2015 calling for the execution of all homosexuals by Christmas].  I've been wondering how a so-called Christian leader (we'll get back to the fact that probably both terms are inappropriate) could say something so completely contrary to the ethics of Jesus and the teaching of St. Paul.  Then, I looked at FWBC's website, and specifically their doctrinal statement, and discovered that this is not, in fact, a Christian church.  FWBC's doctrinal statement appears below:

Doctrinal Statement

We believe that the King James Bible is the word of God without error.

We believe all Scripture was given by inspiration of God, and that God also promised to preserve his word. Divine inspiration is of no value to Christians without God's promise of preservation.

We believe that salvation is by grace through faith. Being born again by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is the only requirement for salvation.

We believe in the eternal security of the believer (once saved, always saved).

We believe that the unsaved will spend eternity in torment in a literal hell.

We believe that Jesus is God, and that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary.

We believe only in the local church and not in a universal church.

We reject the teaching of Calvinism and believe that God wants everyone to be saved.

We are Non-dispensational.

We believe that life begins at conception (fertilization) and reject all forms of abortion including surgical abortion, "morning-after" pills, IVF (In Vitro Fertilization), birth control pills, and all other processes that end life after conception.

We believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination which God punishes with the death penalty.

We oppose worldliness, modernism, formalism, and liberalism.

http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page6.html, retrieved September 1, 2009.

There's a lot of material in this doctrinal statement, some of which I agree with and much of which I find questionable.  Looking at the overall tone and structure of it, the main thing I notice is that it is not an affirmative statement of faith, but rather a reactionary statement of disagreement.  There are a lot of propositional statements and no supporting arguments, including scripture references.  Point by point, here's what I gather from this statement:

1.       Anderson believes the King James Bible is the word of God without error.  At first glance, this statement is far outside the mainstream of Christianity.  Taken together with the second statement, it makes a bit more sense, so I'll analyze the two as a unit.

2.       Anderson links his first statement to a claim that God has promised to preserve his word.  Does God's promise no longer apply, since 1611?   How is the King James Bible inerrant while modern translations are not so?  If the KJV disagrees with a scholarly interpretation of the proper translation based on historical evidence and the oldest existing manuscripts of the scriptures, does this mean we must accept the KJV interpretation and reject scholarship? Even among fundamentalist Christians, the "logic" behind this pair of statements is so far on fringe as to make it impossible to consider this individual a leader, since the vast majority of Christians are going in a completely different direction.

3.       Anderson believes in salvation by grace through faith, which is as scripturally sound as he gets in this doctrinal statement.  He follows with "being born again through believing on the Lord Jesus Christ", generally accepted among Evangelicals.  I can see nothing wrong with combining the two concepts, as they are both used to answer the same question, "What must I do to be saved?" 

4.       Anderson (and presumably his flock) believe in eternal security.  One would assume he's a Calvinist, since that doctrine is integral to Calvinism, but one would be incorrect. 

5.       He believes the destiny of those who do not accept Christ is eternal torment in a literal hell.  This statement does not place him outside the big tent of Christian doctrine, just firmly to the right side of the tent.  Personally, I believe only the believer is promised eternal life, and "the soul that sinneth shall die."  I think Anderson confuses terms, because he sees no valid reason to look beyond the King James Bible's translation and determine whether or not there are different words in the original text that have all been translated "hell", and that these may be referring to different things.  But, I could be wrong.  Eternal damnation is not mentioned in either of the historic creeds that define orthodox Christianity, so his position on this issue does not place him either in or out of the legitimate use of "Christian".

6.       He believes in the deity of Christ and the virgin birth.  Good.  Otherwise, he would definitely be something other than a Christian.

7.       He believes only in the local church, and not in a universal church.  This is a problematic statement.  Does he believe Jesus was talking about local congregations (plural) when he told Peter he would build "his Church (singular)"?  Paul's references to the Body of Christ actually refer to many bodies, when he definitely said there is one body, and one head?  By what authority did the apostles ordain bishops, presbyters and deacons?  WE believe in one holy catholic (universal) and apostolic (built on the foundation of the apostles, who ordained leadership in succession) church.  THEY believe in a bunch of local churches, with congregationally appointed leadership accountable only to themselves and possibly free-market forces, free from oversight by bishops (overseers) in succession to the original leadership.  This is far removed from orthodox Christianity and the clear teaching of scripture.  Paul ordained (consecrated) both Timothy and Titus as bishops, and instructed them to ordain presbyters (elders) in every city under their jurisdiction.  The historic practice of the church, since Paul's day, has been for bishops as representatives of the universal church to oversee local churches.  This point of doctrine places Anderson firmly outside of Christian orthodoxy.  He's a rebel, not a Christian leader. 

8.       Anderson rejects the teaching of Calvinism, and believes that God wants everyone to be saved.  This statement reveals much about Anderson's lack of consistent principles based on scripture and sound reason.  Because he already stated he believes in eternal security (point #4), he is lying when he says he rejects Calvinism.  Eternal security is the logical caboose on Calvinism's soteriological train of thought, the TULIP express.  At the head of the train is the doctrine of Total Depravity, which states that by virtue of Adam's fall (original sin) man is incapable of attaining salvation through any meritorious action on his own part, even if that action is only a choice to accept God's offer of grace.  Logically, if man is depraved, and salvation is by grace, then it is God's choice and God's action based on God's own will, apart from any meritorious condition on our part (Unconditional Election) which brings about our salvation.  To be consistent with basic theological concepts like God's omnipotence, Christ's death and resurrection fully accomplished exactly what He intended - atonement for those whom God has chosen (elected) to save (Limited Atonement).  Since it is God who has elected those for whom Christ has died, and God is omnipotent, he calls those whom he will save, and they respond (Irresistible Grace).  Because it is all God's action that saves us, our action cannot and will not override God's action, and therefore our salvation is eternally secure (Perseverance of the Saints).  In saying that Calvinism is logically consistent, I'm not attesting to its objective truth.  Anderson has a problem with at least one of the bases of Calvinism, which he identifies:  God wants everyone to be saved.  If God wants everyone to be saved, then Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and salvation is offered to "whosoever will."  It is the doctrine of Limited Atonement, the central point of Calvin's doctrine of salvation, which must give way to the clear witness of Christ's own words, and the other four fall right alongside it.  You can't have Total Depravity and have people capable of choosing to accept Christ.  Unconditional election becomes conditional, based on God's foreknowledge of who would accept his offer (consistent with Paul's teaching).  Limited atonement is now universal, consistent with John 3.  Irresistible grace is no longer - anyone who is free to accept is free to reject.  And eternal security is the final casualty of this return to rationality based on scripture.  Does he mean that once you accept Christ, you are no longer free to reject him?  The writer of Hebrews would beg to differ.  (As a side note, "God wants everyone to be saved" must logically be followed by the question, "If God wants it, and Jesus paid for it, why is it not going to happen?"  Calvin clearly perceived the danger of dropping the "L" was the slippery slope toward universalism.  The only thing that prevents most non-Calvinists from boldly declaring that Christ's sacrifice has accomplished universal atonement is their belief in eternal damnation.  If hell is not eternal punishment, then everyone will eventually be saved, although they may have to go through hell to get there.)

9.       Anderson's "church" is non-dispensational.  That doesn't really say anything substantive.  It translates to "there is something unspecified about dispensationalism we don't agree with."  That's like saying we're not Baptist.  You could agree with all points in the Baptist Faith and Message except one. 

10.    The most detailed point of doctrine they hold is their unconditional opposition to any form of abortion.  If they'd provided this level of detail in points 8, or 9, one might have some indication of what they really believe. 

11.    Homosexuality is a sin AND an abomination...and God punishes it with the death penalty.  Really, Steve?  Since when?  Are we talking orientation, or behavior?  And by "God punishes" do you mean "God allows horrible consequences like AIDS" or do you mean "God kills gay people"?   Perhaps you mean "God approves of killing gay people simply because they're gay, and doesn't consider it murder, so feel free to kill a queer for Christ."  What happened to "God wants everyone to be saved?"  Is it because it's an abomination, that it's OK to kill those people?  Does that mean it's OK to walk into Red Lobster an open fire with an Uzi because people are engaging the abomination of eating shellfish?  Are Christian's under obligation to obey Levitical law, or just the ones you've decided are moral in nature?  I'm pretty sure you'd have never been born, were that the case, since there's probably a goat-fucker somewhere in your family tree...

12.    Anderson's church opposes a bunch of undefined things:  worldliness, modernism, formalism, and liberalism.  What they really mean is that pop culture is unacceptable, unless it was the pop culture of 50 years ago (anything since the 60s is suspected of being worldly, if not satanic); while it's expected of the pastor to reject any convention, tradition or authority other than his own interpretation of the Bible, the conventions and traditions taught or practiced under the authority of the pastor are not to be evaluated by any standard whatsoever; any liturgical practice from any tradition other than our own is to be rejected as formalistic, but don't dare change the way we've always done things; and pay no attention to any political figure or social commentator that is calling for environmental stewardship or concern for the poor, or health care, or prison reform, or loving your neighbor as yourself - they're just liberals, and God hates liberals almost as much as he hates gay people.

FWBC's doctrinal statement, combined with its pastor's public call for God to kill the President of the United States (I guess Anderson's copy of the KJV is missing the pages with Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Timothy 2:1-3) reveal the problem with much of American evangelicalism:  lack of respect for authority.  When you don't have leaders in  local congregations ordained by and accountable to overseers or bishops, who are in turn accountable under some form of higher ecclesiastical authority, whether a synod or a convention, you get this kind of rogue leadership, damaging the consciences of their flocks, damaging the reputation of Christ's followers in the community, and defining the faith by what they in their limited understanding reject, rather than by what they believe. 

I'll leave with another quotation from FWBC's website.

Pastor Steven Anderson started Faithful Word Baptist Church on December 25, 2005.

Pastor Anderson holds no college degree but has well over 100 chapters of the Bible committed to memory, including almost half of the New Testament.

The legitimate leadership of the Body of Christ in this community (those who, like it or not, realize they're part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church) needs to come out forcefully and call this pastor and his congregation what they are:  a income generator for a con-man who calls himself a pastor and is not part of the church.

Thoughts on Capital Punishment

Four compelling reasons this progressive Christian supports the death penalty, and one objection to a common counterargument:

1. Although capital punishment was incorporated into the Mosaic Covenant, which was limited in scope to one nation, conditioned on that nation's obedience, and completely replaced by a new and better covenant with better promises, the death penalty is part of the universal and perpetual covenant with all humanity via Noah (Genesis 9, particularly v. 6).
   
2. While Jesus requires me to forgive those who wrong me, I have no right to forgive anyone on behalf of another.  There is no one left on earth that has the right to forgive a murderer - that right belongs only to the murder victim.  The murderer cannot ask his victim for forgiveness, and the victim cannot communicate that forgiveness in order to stay the hand of justice. Therefore, a murderer must join his victim(s) in the afterlife as a condition precedent to forgiveness.
   
3. All sins against God (short of blasphemy against the Spirit) may be forgiven, at God's discretion.  Such forgiveness has been offered by virtue of the Cross, and is accessible via repentance and faith.  Repentance includes restitution where possible.  Murder, however, is not only a sin against God - it is a sin against another human being.  If God's forgiveness were to deprive victims of justice, then God would be unjust.  God has never been, nor will he ever be, anything other than perfectly just.  Therefore, God's forgiveness does not (and cannot) abrogate the Noahic commandment of capital punishment for murder.
   
4. Life in prison is inhumane, and never required by any commandment given by God.  It is unjust to society, obligating the innocent to feed, clothe, and house the guilty.  It prevents the criminal from fully repenting of his offenses by making restitution to his victim, and thereby deprives victims of the restitution that is their right under the law.  In cases where restitution is impossible, either because the victim is dead (murder), or what was taken from the victim cannot be repaid (rape), death is the only just punishment.  Society simply cannot avoid capital punishment without multiplying the injustice of the original offense.

To those who believe that fallen, imperfect humans don't have the right to execute another human being, subjecting them to the horrors of eternal conscious torment without the possibility of God's posthumous forgiveness:  If you believe God will not or cannot punish sin in proportion to the gravity of the offense, you're accusing God of injustice, and ignoring the fact that God is fully revealed only in the the person of Jesus, and most fully in Christ's unconditional and sacrificial love for all humankind.  The Judge of All the World will act justly.  Our incomplete understanding of the reality beyond the grave taints our judgment, and we implicitly accuse God of injustice and perpetuate our own brand of injustice when we eschew the justice required for those who shed blood unjustly.

You're welcome to try and convince me of some error in my analysis.  However, I'd beware of the claiming that God's commandment is unjust.  Capital punishment is a perpetual commandment, given by the Lord to humankind via Noah, and your attempt to justify your objection to it is really saying that you know better than the Almighty.  

Who Are We, And Why Are We Here (Part 2)

The Mission Statement

An organization's mission statement answers yesterday's question, "Who are we, and why are we here?"  It is a brief statement that articulates the organization's identity and purpose, and serves as a standard against which leaders can check their strategic, tactical, and operational decisions.  If a potential strategic move does not further the mission, or is incompatible with it, the organization's resources would be better used elsewhere.  The mission statement tells the organization's leaders, managers, and workers why they should be doing what they do.

In the New Testament, there are quite a few statements that can be construed as mission statements, and Jesus and the apostles have provided powerful metaphors to illustrate the Church's mission.  Many of Jesus' parables were given for the express purpose of explaining the organization he was establishing, and he spent a great deal of time and effort articulating and demonstrating His mission, vision and values.  Let us take a brief survey of some of the statements and metaphors that answer the fundamental strategic question of "Who are we, and why are we here?"

According to Jesus, we are:

• ·         the salt of the earth;
• ·         the branches to His vine; and
• ·         the light of the world.

According to Paul, we are:

• ·         the Body of Christ;
• ·         the Temple of the Holy Spirit; and
• ·         His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for the purpose of good works.

Now, that last statement looks more like a mission statement.  It merits further study, and we'll get back to it in more detail a bit later.  But first, what can we infer about our purpose from the metaphorical pictures of our identity?  We'll address each of these "pictures of purpose" over the coming days, and see what we learn.  Let's begin with salt.

The Salt of the Earth

Salt is an amazing chemical.  It does many wonderful and useful things. 

In small quantities, salt is a seasoning.  It is absorbed into its environment, making it more pleasant.

In larger quantities, salt is a preservative.  It maintains its identity, and becomes the a major factor in the environment of the object to which it is applied, protecting it from adverse influences and fundamentally altering (curing) it in a way which prevents decay. 

In a solution with water, salt is a disinfectant.  In hot climates, it helps prevent dehydration.  In cold climates, it melts ice and makes sidewalks and streets safe to travel.  It is used in water softeners to counter the negative effects of other minerals, and in ice cream makers to allow rapid heat transfer through a liquid medium that is colder than water could be without it.

However, used in the wrong way, in the wrong amount, or at the wrong place at the wrong time, it's merely an irritant.

Who Are We, and Why Are We Here (Introduction to a Work in Progress)

Who are we, and why are we here?  Every organization needs a mission statement, and the Church is no exception.  The mission statement answers those two basic questions.  It gives the organization its identity and it purpose.  With the mission ever in mind, the organization's leaders identify goals and strategies to assist in attaining those goals.  Leaders establish the mission, and set the vision and values that guide the organization toward accomplishing it.

I'm not a theologian.  I'm an MBA, not an M.Div., but I'll stack my 16 years of fundamentalist Christian education against their three years of seminary and state with confidence that I know and understand the Bible at least as well as the majority of ministers, and far better than quite a few I've met and worked with in 32 years as a church musician.  That MBA gives me an insight into the strategic management of organizations that makes me look at the Church as a global enterprise, and consider its mission, vision and values as established by its founder and Eternal CEO, and articulated by his original senior management team, the apostles.

This series of posts (which might eventually become a book) is my attempt to re-focus (small-c) church leaders, workers, and members on the (Big-C) Church's foundational mission, vision, and values.  My hope is that a fresh look from a strategic perspective will improve the performance of the total enterprise (the Church) by targeting the efforts of its local units (churches) toward accomplishing the Founder's mission, vision, and values, as laid out in the scriptures.  

Who would Jesus refuse to serve?

I'm listening to NaturalReader's British virtual voice named "Audrey" read the New Mexico Supreme Court's recent decision in Elane Photography v. Willock, applying the state's Human Rights Act against a wedding photography business that refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.  Until this morning, I had been somewhat conflicted in my response to this case.  I am sympathetic to Elane Photography's arguments that applying the anti-discrimination law to require a photographer to create a positive portrayal of an event she does not view positively violates the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment.  I also believe that the offended woman that originally filed a complaint under the law was acting like a two year old whose mother refused to buy candy at the supermarket.  Why would you want to pay someone who didn't approve of your wedding to take photographs, when there are plenty of people who would provide the service willingly?

I am also supportive of generally applicable anti-discrimination laws, and believe that granting religious exemptions to generally applicable laws often threatens to nullify those laws.  The current gaggle of lawsuits against the minimum coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act proves that point:  if anyone can feel free to ignore any law you don't agree with, the purpose of the law is frustrated.  Drawing the line with respect to religious exemptions is a difficult task for courts, but the line must be drawn somewhere between "no exceptions under any circumstances" and "if you don't agree, fine - never mind."  I'm looking forward to the U.S. Supreme Court's resolution of the conflicting cases on the ACA's contracteptive coverage mandate, because how the Supreme Court draws that line will resolve many of these issues for the generation to come.

Even though I'm sympathetic to both the photographer's right to control the creative process and the State's desire to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations, I've finally arrived at the conclusion that the Gospel compels me to take a side.  Taking into consideration the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, I find there is no such thing as a Christian option to discriminate in public accommodations.   Rather, following Jesus requires us to submit to compelled service without complaint, and to voluntarily exceed what is required of us.

Reconsidered in light of the Sermon on the Mount, I see the photographer's refusal to serve Willock as comparable to the Pharisee's prayer thanking God that he wasn't like that tax collector over there.  It's not standing on faith - it's standing on selfishness in the name of faith.  So the State of New Mexico has a law that compels businesses offering goods and services to the public (public accommodations) to refrain from discrimination on any number of bases, including religion and sexual orientation.  Good for New Mexico.  What would Jesus say to a wedding photographer who was forced by the law to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony?

"Did somebody appoint you judge when I wasn't looking?  Pull up your big girl pants and get to work!  They're paying you - not compelling you to serve them for free.  Go make some money...and be sure to give them more than they expect.  Love your enemies...do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you.  You prayed for me to prosper your business - don't turn up your nose at my answer.  You want to complain about it?  Where were you when I made the world?"