Craig James, former football star at SMU, was briefly a sportscaster with Fox Sports. After his convictions on the nature of marriage, the sin of sexual perversion became known to the network he was fired. Then he filed a complaint with the Texas Workforce Commission, with help from the Liberty Institute. I share Mr. James’ convictions, without shame or apology. They are nothing more nor less than what the Bible affirms on the issues at hand.
I am in turn frustrated and angry at the legal brutality of the homosexual lobby against people who share those same convictions. Arizona recently backed off from legislation that would have protected the liberty of photographers and bakers to refuse to lend their crafts to same sex pantomimes. As such the interwebs has been abuzz over the question of how Christians ought to respond to such challenges.
Most homosexual activists, I would guess, would take the position that bakers have an obligation to bake for whomever seeks their services. Most would in turn, I suspect, support the notion that Fox News has every right to fire a “homo-phobe” like Mr. James. Most Christians, on the other hand, I believe, would hold the view that the baker should be free to just say no, and that Fox News should be forced to give Mr. James his job back. If I’m correct in my guesses then we can conclude one thing- most people are more interested in protecting their own desires than they are in being consistent.
When we go to the state and ask it to make those who don’t like us play nice with us, do we not implicitly invite others to go the state when they believe we are not playing nice with them? When we ask the state to arbitrate interpersonal relations, we should not be surprised when the state determines it can determine how we must relate to others? Is the problem in these two instances simply that the Gay lobby has more power than the Christian lobby? Is our calling then to rally the Christian troops to wrest power from the Gay lobby? Or ought we perhaps turn the other cheek?
The Fox network has no more obligation to hire a man whose perspective, however biblical it is, offends a part of its audience than a baker who abhors racism has a duty to bake a cake for a Klan rally. To put it another way, the Fox network ought to be legally free to not hire people, even good people, they don’t agree with, and Christian bakers ought to be legally free not to bake for people, good or bad, whose events they find offensive.
I understand hypocrisy, self-contradiction among the heathen. They have no reason to pursue a consistent and coherent view of liberty. They have no reason to respect the liberties of others. Christians, however, are called to do unto others as we would have them do to us. We want to be free to determine with whom we will do business. Why then, even if others do the same to us, do we seek to take away that same liberty from others?
Jesus says we are blessed when we are persecuted for His name’s sake. He doesn’t call us to call in Uncle Sam to persecute those who persecute us. Instead He calls us to turn the other cheek. Perhaps if we selflessly affirm the liberty due to those who wrongly hate us we might one day be free from oppression from those who hate God.
Lawlessness in the bible is not another option. Lawlessness is no law at at all. If God oils always just then His work in our salvation must display that justice. If God brings glory to Himself we who are the trophies must be justified in His display. So God gave the law without grades. He speaks curses against the lawless.