The state of Indiana recently passed religious freedom legislation that seeks to protect Christians from being forced to participate in activity that violates their religious conscience. The law has been met with loud protest. The homosexual lobby insists that the law legalizes discrimination against them. Many states, including Georgia, have passed, or are in the process of writing, similar legislation. In fairness, it seems that objections have more to do with perceptions than realities (see here and here).
First, I must affirm the need for religious freedom protection. The promotion of the homosexual agenda with the simultaneous ascendency of secularism endangers the free exercise of religion in the public square. It’s much more than serving cake at a gay wedding. The secularists seek to resist any public expressions of religion and that includes the marketplace. If they succeed, Christians will be excluded from the medical, psychological, educational, and legal professions.
With that said, legislators must give careful consideration to the implications of religious freedom legislation. Christians must exercise discernment so that we can be faithful to Christ without alienating the very people Christ seeks to save. If the purpose of religious freedom legislation is to protect public and private religious expression and practice, then all is well and good. But, if the purpose is to codify discrimination, or deny civil rights, then legislators must resist such efforts.
Here’s the rub – during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s many businesses could have argued for a religious exemption in denying service to blacks. There were many religious leaders that wrongly used Scripture to suggest “an equal but separate” doctrine; or even the suppression of black civil rights due to their inferior status. Many Christian institutions used Scripture to prohibit inter-racial dating. If we continue in this unholy tradition, then we give credence to our critics that the “Christian right” is an American expression of the Taliban and the mission of Christ is not served.
I remained opposed to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Contrary to the assertions of many that “you can’t legislate morality,” the fact remains that’s exactly what government does – legislate a civic morality. So, I am within my civil rights to seek to shape public policy based upon my religious faith. Also, I would oppose any effort to force, or penalize, religious persons (or institutions) to act contrary to the tenets of their faith or their conscience.
However, Christians must remember that Christ came “to serve, and give his life for many” (Matthew 20:28). Christians are called to model the example of Christ. Christians lived and served the household of Caesar (Philippians 4:22). Caesar believed himself to be a god and certainly his palace was filled with pagan idols and sinful practices. Serving in Caesar’s household did not mean that Christians compromised their faith, but that they lived their faith in a pagan and hostile environment.
The primary issue is that for centuries western Christians have practiced their faith in a culture that was friendly to Christianity. Now we find ourselves in a secular culture that espouses a new paganism. Our task is to be a faithful witness to the mission of Christ in the midst of a hostile culture. In seeking to protect our religious civil rights we must also be willing to turn the other cheek.
