So a same sex couple in New Mexico wanted to have a commitment ceremony.
They started looking for a photographer and contacted one via e-mail.
In returned they received: “We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!”
The couple was hurt, devastated and apparently angry. They sued the photographer for discrimination.
At the hearing, the photographer said that when he and his wife formed the company two years ago, they made it company policy not to shoot same-sex ceremonies, because the ceremonies conflicted with their Christian beliefs.
“We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed — everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of — would be in line with our values and our beliefs,” he said.
The couple won the case and the photographer was forced to pay the $6,600 in attorney fees.
Who was in the right here? Was anyone? What would you have done if you had been the photographer? What would you have done if you had been the couple?
How do you think Jesus would have handled the situation?
Ethics question of the day
Published by
I see the photographers as being terribly judgemental… imposing their views on the same sex couple who, btw, may have been Christian (I have Christian Lesbian friends and I do not doubt their faith).
1st John 4:20 says “If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.” (NIV)
Narrow view of brother = Christian
Wider view of brother = everybody
Either way… the photographers, in their judgement, face being called liars… which brings their faith into disrepute… bring Jesus into disrepute. And there isn’t alot of love coming from the people who believe God is love.
In addition, where is the “in the world” element here (assuming the same sex couple weren’t Christians). This is a prime opportunity to be with “the world”, participate and witness to being “different”.
Jesus hung out with people the Pharisees didn’t like. The photographers are being the Pharisees and not Jesus in this scenario. Hanging out doesn’t condone the action but it demonstrates love… putting others before themselves… being Jesus and $6,600 better off.
People will disagree with me here… I know… but let’s take 1st John 4:20 seriously and stop hating people who are different and start loving for lovings sake.
hard to debate something i agree with.
my only hang-up/drawback is not so much with the photographers actions as with the fact that the government stepped in and said you have to give service to whomever asks. that goes against everything “American” in my mind.
but on the flip side – discriminating against anyone is supposedly just as strong of an “American ideal” and even more importantly it goes against my “Christian ideals.”
so – sounds like a good reason as to why Jesus said, “Or say you’re out on the street and an old enemy accosts you. Don’t lose a minute. Make the first move; make things right with him. After all, if you leave the first move to him, knowing his track record, you’re likely to end up in court, maybe even jail. If that happens, you won’t get out without a stiff fine.” (matt 5:25-26)
The American Way… huh? How about common decency… that’s universal!
Basically, your hang up is that the government told them to be nice. Wait a minute… isn’t that the way it should be… to stop numpties from not being nice? What if this was a couple of people of colour? Without a doubt, you’d agree with the government on that one… to stop some numpty in a confed flag from doing what they please.
Discrimination is wrong. end of. We have to be smart and follow the example Jesus set in the passage you quote. Don’t let it go to court. The photographers should have shown compassion and love for people… not love for their ideals and, in essence, love for themselves… not their Lord.
Hey! I said I agreed with you! Come on… be nice!
Just had to throw that “American way” in for your Scottish enjoyment.
hahaha… I was being nice 🙂 You know I love you!
1.Please do not ideologically mix “race†with “sexual behavior†or “sexual orientationâ€. It is scientifically proven that nobody can choose his birth skin color, but it not scientifically proven that “homosexual orientation†is genetic — at least for the majority of the homosexual people.
2.There is a question of civil rights here. The homosexual couple has the right to ask for the photographers’ service, but the photographers have no right to choose either to accept or not accept the job according to their personal beliefs. This is a conscience objection issue and freedom of choice goes only one way.
Taking this case as an example: one of these days, a doctor could be fined (or even jailed) because he refuses performing an abortion due to his religion beliefs. Should he be jailed or fined by this? Should the doctor be punished because his conscience objection? I do not think so.
So, the judge’s decision is totalitarian, in Orwell’s sense. There is a hidden Marxist policy involved that punishes people according to some personal political options. The outcome of this policy will be the spreading of anger and a quiet revolt throughout society, and all this for nothing (look at ex-URSS and China): you cannot change the human nature by means of violence, even if you kill millions of people. Gay political activists think they are winning a war, but they are only turning things worse for them at the long run. Violence only leads to more violence: this is inevitable and is a matter of time.
The wise decision of the gay couple should be choosing another photographer, and afterwards sending a copy of all photos to the photographers that refused the job, with a small footnote: “Should you be capable of doing a better job?†This is the right way “to winâ€.
You cannot conquer people’s hearts by fear; if you think you could, you are living in your own illusion world.
Consider 1 Corinthians 13: 4-7
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
NNote: it says, (Love) is not self seeking. It also states that (love) is kind and not easily angered.
A potential customer who demands a photograper to
take photographs that are against his ethics and then sues that business person when he does not comply is not acting in a spirit of Love. Thus in my religious opinion, I believe it is the couple who erred.
Furthermore, the photographer did not refuse the job and then judge and lecture the couple on the sin of homosexuality. and tell them to repent their sinful ways, he just refused the business.
The photographer sets the parameters of the scope of his business, as with any other business and he was upfront about it. What if the business in question was a restaurant offering only vegetarian items on the menu and a person walks in a demands a 16 oz steak and then sues when he doesn’t get it?
It doesn’t appear that the photographer broke any laws nor did he breach any contract.
On a small number of occassions in my career, I have refused handle ad business that had to do with fortune telling, strip clubs, etc.
What if the couple asked the photographer to take nnude commitment ceremony pictures or photograph the consummation of the union? Oh, I keep forgetting, I should not judge!
As far as the dangers of judgement, I don’t think what the photographer was doing is judging. Even iif he did sin against the couple, Jesus states one should forgive one’s brother of such transgressions. Sueing someone does not sound like forgiveness.
Oh JD… you’ve opened up a can of worms here! Marxist totalitarianism, abortion, vegetarianism and nnude photo shoots. Wowsers!
Yes this is a conscience objection issue… and yes violence creates violence… fully agree… but discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
I am not FOR ONE SECOND defending the behaviour of the same sex couple… sueing someone is not a loving action… I am, however, viewing this from the perspective of the professing Christian couple who judged the situation and then turned down the job.
Love isn’t selfseeking… therefore the photographers aren’t acting in love because all they care about are their beliefs and not about the people they hurt in the process.
I think it is wrong to care more about beliefs than people. I think Jesus did (does) too… afterall he condemned the Pharisees as being whitewashed tombs… looking good on the outside and dead inside. Caring more about their “holiness” than people’s physical wellbeing. The story of the Good Samaritan is interesting because none of the Jewish characters are willing to give up their “holiness” but the enemy character was. Samaritan’s have holiness rules too… which were set aside to care for the individual.
So yeah… where is the love in this? Neither side is displaying love… which is a shame considering the alignment of one couple to the God of love.
First, let me dispell a false doctine. Paul, speaking to the Ephesians encouraged them to judge those who say they are of the faith, but are instead liars. The Ephesians are commended for their ability to judge between false and true men of God. Jesus’statement “judge not that you be not judges” is misused in the church today. In context, He is blasting those who judge others while they themselves practice sin.
Paul says the same in Romans 1:32 “who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but approve of those who practice them.”
This is hypocrisy. That said, sin is real and can be identified clearly in Scripture. Let me speak plainly… Christians believe the WHOLE BIBLE, not just the parts they like. Homosexuality is a sin. Here are just a couple of verses that make that very clear.
Romans 1:24-27 “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness,in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
I Cor. 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother; who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner – not even to eat with such a person.
I Cor. 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS (emphasized because this is the topic), nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
I didn’t say it….The Bible says it…
God loves everyone, and wants all to come to repentance. But, not everyone will. I can be kind and show love toward them, but that doesn’t mean I have to join their sin party. Repentence is a gift that gives you the opportunity to renounce sin and embrace the One who gave His life so you could live with Him forever starting today.
BUT – – If you insist on embracing your sin, you have rejected God. It’s not the other way around. God does not hate you; You demonstrate through your lifestyle that you HATE GOD.
Repent… change your mind… and He will change your life!
Jonathan…I think you know where I stand on this one…
Wayhey… Seems to me that some people love the WORD more than they love the WORD MADE FLESH. Let him who has no sin cast the first stone!!! because we all have sin… have sinned… will continue to sin… but God has/will forgive us.
Seems to me that homosexuality is a scapegoat here… what about adultery? Divorce is seen by our Lord as adultery… and yet this goes merrily under the radar. Look around your church… are the adulterers among you (ie folk on their 2nd or more marriage etc) challenged with the same bile that homosexuals attract? No way… why is that?
FOR THE RECORD… I see the ethical dilema from the perspective of the couple who claim to be Christians. Their refusal to work with the samesex couple, because of their beliefs, is the issue at stake. Would they take pictures at a remarriage? YOU BET THEY WILL!
Now THAT is hipocriscy!
How can we go from using scripture in early arguments to, “some people love the word more than they love the word made flesh”? Isn’t that like saying that scripture doesn’t really count because what Jesus REALLY meant was… whatever?
I’m a little worried about saying that homosexuality is being made a scapegoat too – we don’t know what attitude the photographers would take to adultery, remarriage, divorce, etc. I guess I could say that I’m OK with being addicted to porn, because the issue of gossip hasn’t been dealt with effectively by the Church – until there are no more gossips, nobody can tell me what I should and shouldn’t be looking at.
Seems we need to strike a balance somewhere – love, yes, needs to be shown in much more abundnance than at present. But we can’t translate that into “anything goes”.
Ian… I wholly agree we need to strike a balance but love isn’t moderate or balanced… its an all thing!
I have never suggested that anything goes… I want the photographers to live up to the hard lifestyle that they have chosen… and seek to identify with. This isn’t an easy choice!
I am not saying that its ok to sin… what I AM saying is that we accept some behaviour and castigate other.
Think about I Cor. 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
This is one heavy verse… because it is so easy to overlook idolaters, covetous, thieves and revilers. Why? because they are in our midst… they are each and every one of us. To revile is “to speak abusively” for example. Maybe this is the PLANK in our eyes?
As for Scripture… what about loving God and loving our neighbour? Thats an ALL OR NOTHING statement… nothing moderate or balanced there. It doesn’t say LOVE GOD AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR UNLESS WE DISAGREE WITH THEIR LIFESTYLE… THEN I CAN OPT OUT. No opt outs… ever.
This means we HAVE to join the “sin party” so eloquently described above… because its the world we are called to be in but not OF. Being in the world does not mean we have to agree with them… or condone they action but we are not called to CONDEMN them either – they condemn themselves.
John 3:17&18 – For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
We are called to display God’s unconditional love to all… without exception… with no opt outs. That includes scapegoats!
Ok.. All I am going to say on this is that it is not our place to judge the rightness or wrongness of either party, for it is God who judges and the spirit who convicts the individual of any sin or mistaken theology.
We are too ready to discuss such matters while children starve, while injustice and inequality reign, while families in our respective and wealthy nations live in poverty and without hope. How arrogant and misguided we, and I count myself in this, are that we are find it essier to argue than agree, to debate than help others, regardless of sex, race, creed, orientation, or lifestyle choices.
“Think about I Cor. 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
I’m willing to bet that if people had asked the photographers to shoot a session of fornication, idolatry, adultery, sodomy, theft, coveting, drunken revelry, or extortion, they would have politely declined these, as well. The government has allow people to exercise their faith. Some will, no doubt, exercise their faith with judgement and others with love.
The photographers responded lovingly. They were truthful and kind. They did not slam the couple. There is a difference between conscious objection and discrimination.
And by the way, Jesus spent time with sinners, such as the prostitute, but he did not participate in celebrating their sin. I do not believe Jesus would have photographed this ceremony, though I do think he would have expressed his love for them while sharing the truth. (If the photographers had done that, how many people would have called THAT judgemental?)
Thomas we are called to love but not to compromise. I love people, I want to see them come to know Christ but I am not going to condone or enable them to sin.
I think a better response from the photographer to this couple would have been something like this: “We do not photograph same-sex weddings. I would love to sit down with you and explain why I cant shoot your wedding. Lets get together so I can share with you why. Thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!â€
Jesus loved the rich young ruler but after he told him to sell all and he didn’t respond. Did Jesus go after him?
Do you think that these Lesbians have ever heard about Christ? My guess is yes and they didn’t believe (John 3:17-18). If they did they wouldn’t be together. They want to do what they want to do and the norm in Christianity today is to just give them Love. You are going to Love them straight to Hell because you are enabling them to sin and not calling them out of their sin.
How do you interpret these scrips?
2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,
2Co 6:18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
2Co 7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.
Ernie… I am not asking the photographers to compromise nor am I asking them to condone something they feel is wrong according to their beliefs.
What I am saying they should demonstrate their love for God and their neighbour by being with the couple but demonstrating a credible alternative to the couple.
As for the verses you quote… well they say to me that we should keep ourselves apart… distant… distinct from the world and all the “bad” people in this world. While I understand this… I find it difficult to reconcile it with the example shown by our Lord who became flesh and blood and moved into the neighbourhood… who pitched His tent with us.
We are called to be in this world… where we are set apart is in our thinking… in our loving compassion… in our concern for the least, the last and the lost. Jesus hung out with tax collectors, prostitutes and the “bad” people these verse say we should be apart from.
By taking pictures of the wedding… the photographers are not enabling it to happen or enabling them to sin. Nor are they celebrating the sin… this isn’t a guilt by association type deal… unless, of course, the observers are judgemental and behave like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. They would allow the samesex couple to bring out the best in them… by allowing them to demonstrate love:
Matthew 5: 43-47 (The Message)
“You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’ I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that.
Oh and if I am to call people out for there sin I’d better start with the plank in my own eye first… but then its easier to pick on scapegoats… the “other”… those who are different than ourselves… instead of getting ourselves right before God… separating ourselves mentally… being different by daring to love rather than to condemn.
Oh and Ernie… thank you for addressing me by name and leaving a link to your blog. I appreciate that! Its too easy to say something then hide behind anonimity.
Blessings,
T
In the law in regards to claims of discrimination, there is an idea of a “protected class,” which in the past included race, gender, religion and national origin. Although it has become the least protected in recent years, under the Bill of Rights it was the only protected class (it has its own clause, whereas race and gender were not recognized and foreign born citizens were explicitly excluded from the office of President). Disability has been added to that category to some degree, but the confusion there is what constitutes a “disability†such as to be actionable discrimination. Now, homosexuality has become the new battleground as it seeks such a “protected class†standard. The first inquiry that no body seems to be asking is “What is a homosexual?†Is it two people of the same sex living together? Or do they have to engage in sexual acts? Or do we devise some quasi-scientific test based on genetic markets? Or do they have to declare themselves homosexual in order to be protected against discrimination? That is they would say I desire or I have sex with the same sex? I see problems with any “test†to determine how people belong to a protected “sexuality†class. First, every college student that lives in a dorm that was fired from a job could claim discrimination based on a perception that s/he was G/L because of a same-sex room-mate. The second option would require an inquiry into the bedroom which is something no person would want to have happen or would ask to happen. The third is even more invasive and problematic given the contesting scientific evidence. This means that in order to be protected against discrimination, one must declare oneself a homosexual and it would seem that if a person did that, s/he would be protected whether or not they committed same sex acts. At that point, then homosexuality is at best a declaration of an ideology, like saying “I am vegan.†Or “I am conservative/liberal.â€
Religion is likewise a declaratory affirmation. For all practical purposes I must declare that I am a Christian, in order to place myself in that protected class. That may be by wearing a cross, carrying a Bible, putting a fish on my car or proselytizing, but there must be some symbolic gesture or statement that brands me a Christian, before I can claim discrimination by another. So what we have from a purely secular legal perspective in the Christian vs. homosexual clash is a clash of declarations. One of those is long-recognized and enshrined in American jurisprudence. The other declaration was a recognized mental illness until 1973. Something is strangely amiss in our courts if the free exercise of religious freedom and conscience is being trumped by an amorphous claim based on a as yet undefined class of persons.
Dan…
“as yet undefined class of persons”
As a follower of Jesus… I try not to look at people as classes or types or groups… but as invidividuals… each deserving of love because God loves them. We all are the “whosoever” of John3:16.
We need to move beyond considering people in group terms… even considering ourselves in group terms… and treat everyone as individuals… loving our enemies as well as our friends.
wow. 20 comments!? crazy!
i’ve been trying to avoid this debate because i already got into it with someone else via e-mail and the constant back and forth was an absolute beating – goes to prove how much i hate conflict i ‘spose.
this has got to be one of the hottest topics of debate in the church today. it would seem there are so many different ramifications for which ever side of the debate you’re on.
Like Lurch said, “We are too ready to discuss such matters while children starve, while injustice and inequality reign, while families in our respective and wealthy nations live in poverty and without hope.”
i think trying to follow the “third way” that Jesus seems to teach can make people absolutely passionate one way or another – we all want to/hope to be right in what we’re doing.
but the call of Christ is never easy.
imagine if we really looked at the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) and turned it into foreign policy. people would say you’re absolutely nuts. but that’s why “hate is easy and love takes courage.”
i don’t think there’s one absolute right or wrong answer to any of this. each person is going to have to pray, seek God and follow what they feel God is calling them to do.
each person may have a different interpretation of that as well – or may feel a different calling as well. that’s what makes our faith so unique, special and amazing at times.
Doug Pagitt writes: “I am responsible as anyone for the faith I profess. If I want to be a full participant in Christianity, I need to stop complaining about the beliefs articulated by others and make my contributions instead.”
my point in bringing up this topic is/was never to argue that homosexuality is right or wrong. and from the people who have commented so far – i don’t think there’s an argument within that area – but more of “how do we treat the sinner amongst us.” i think God will convict each of us in various ways. and thus I go back to Pagitt’s quote, “If I want to be a full participant in Christianity, I need to stop complaining about the beliefs articulated by others and make my contributions instead.”
i don’t claim to have the end all answer. i don’t claim to know exactly what was/is on God’s mind and heart when “the Word became flesh and moved into the neighborhood” and “the Word” (Jesus) taught us to love and give and give and love some more… and then we’re told later by Paul to “expel the evil brethren amongst us.”
i don’t know how all that works out – and obviously we all have differing opinions – i just know that I’m called to love even those who may be in the wrong or those who may hurt me and/or my family. i don’t always like it – but i know that Jesus says we must go the extra mile for everyone else. we must give and give and give till we can’t give anymore – and then give some more. that applies to the homosexual living in our neighborhood, that applies to the bigot, that applies to the folks with different political views and maybe more importantly, that applies to my church family, my blood family and my wife.
God has called me to love. I don’t always do it right – I don’t always do it enough – but I’m working on it.
Jonathan what was the first thing that Jesus preached? It was repentance from the way you are doing things. It is wrong to Judge someone because they are Gay but it is even worse to accept their lifestyle because then they see that nothing is wrong with it.
When Jesus ate with the publicans and sinners it was revolutionary! He had no problem going and witnessing to them and showing them the a better way. As should we. Note that after Jesus talked with them they followed Him.
Mar 2:15 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.
They followed Christ after their encounter with him. Are People following Christ after their encounter with you? Are the staying justified in sin thinking “hey Im ok with that Christian they accept me for who I am” If we are completely surrendered to Christ we will find the balance. Help us Lord!
Great topic and great responses It has made me think about how I respond to people -E
Later Jesus and his disciples were at home having supper with a collection of disreputable guests. Unlikely as it seems, more than a few of them had become followers. The religion scholars and Pharisees saw him keeping this kind of company and lit into his disciples: “What kind of example is this, acting cozy with the riffraff?”
Jesus, overhearing, shot back, “Who needs a doctor: the healthy or the sick? I’m here inviting the sin-sick, not the spiritually-fit.”
Mark 2:15-18 (The Message)
What challenges me is being in the world but not of it… not compromised by it, as Ernie puts it above. Acceptance is a difficult issue… but I would rather hang with riff-raff than Pharisees… any day of the week!
Thanks JD for the discussion!
more discussion from another source.
in the article they mention, “instead of ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ ‘Why don’t we love the homosexual and hate OUR sin?'”
I think that’s a very unique way and positive way of looking at things. I was thinking the other day, “it’s always ‘hate the sin, love the sinner.’ but it should be reversed. ‘love the sinner and hate the sin.'”
You make some great points Ernie.
People did change after their encounters with Jesus. He brought about worlds of change to those he came in contact with.
But I think he preached love and then repentance. I don’t believe there was a condition that Jesus placed on people to receive his love. He offered it regardless of their repentance. And because of his love – people would most often repent.
When the religious leaders condemned the woman caught in adultery (John 8) (obviously one of the hot topics of the day) they wanted Jesus to do the same.
If Jesus was so concerned about repentance, you would think he would have said, “You’re right guys. She committed sin! She must repent now or else!”
Instead he stopped to write in the sand.
Lots of people have ideas about what Jesus wrote in the sand. There’s probably no way we’ll ever know for sure (at least on this side of heaven). But he looked at the religious leaders and said, “Let him who has no sin – cast the first stone.”
As he continued writing in the sand they all left, one by one.
Finally Jesus stood and asked the woman where her accusers went. She said, “They’ve all left.”
He said, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more. I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
It seems to follow John’s writings about Jesus.
“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” John 3:17
I’m also reminded of the prodigal son. The son was going his own way – and out of love the father gave him the inheritance out of love. Finally the son hit a wall and realized he’d be better of working as a servant for his father than feeding the pigs. He came home and even before he spoke anything of repentance, the father stood there with his arms wide open – giving love to his son.
Also Matthew 11:20-24 talks about Jesus condemning several unrepentant cities. Repentance seems very important in this passage. But it starts off by saying, “Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.”
It appears that Jesus showed up, performed miracles out of love – and then when they did not repent he was upset. He didn’t force repentance and then perform miracles. He performed miracles and then looked for repentance.
“We love him because he first loved us.”
Another thought that’s been swirling through my mind is, “How would this change if these were our children? Would we respond differently if our children lived a lifestyle that we didn’t see aligning with scripture? Would we shun them or refuse to take part in their commitment ceremony? Would we be willing to take pictures of our children if they were wanting to hold their own commitment ceremony?”
More thoughts on a complex issue…. 🙂
Good points!
thomas – I need to be careful hanging out with people that party a lot because I used to party a lot. We need to be careful that we dont get influenced by the people we are trying to influence. I agree with you I would rather hang out with publicans than pharesse’s anyday!
We are called to a ministry of reconcilation not a ministry of condemantion!
**If Jesus was so concerned about repentance, you would think he would have said, “You’re right guys. She committed sin! She must repent now or else!**
Jesus did agree that she needed to change her way of life. He didnt agree in the RELIGOUS WAYS of the pharisee’s. The last words he spoke to where “go and sin no more” Great point jonathan about the way he did it. We all need to learn form Jesus’s example on how he approached and interacted with sinners! Am I a Pharisee? Help us all Lord.
On the prodigal son the Father never went to hang out with him when he choose his path. He did accept him when he turned from his ways. I think that this story is a better example of forgiveness (eph 4:32) than excepting someone in sin. Becasue that is what this topic is about to me. Are we enabling people or are we actually helping them.
I typed that to fast the last sentence was:
Are we enabling people or are we actually helping them sin. 🙂
The American Way… huh? How about common decency… that's universal!
Basically, your hang up is that the government told them to be nice. Wait a minute… isn't that the way it should be… to stop numpties from not being nice? What if this was a couple of people of colour? Without a doubt, you'd agree with the government on that one… to stop some numpty in a confed flag from doing what they please.
Discrimination is wrong. end of. We have to be smart and follow the example Jesus set in the passage you quote. Don't let it go to court. The photographers should have shown compassion and love for people… not love for their ideals and, in essence, love for themselves… not their Lord.