Thanks to a pointer from Justin Taylor, here’s that rarest of things: an article that attempts to apply thoughtful, Biblical logic to an argument over gay rights:
Our culture has conditioned us to believe that “loving our neighbor” requires accepting them as they are. We now excuse all manner of behavior that our holy God finds abhorrent simply because someone we know – friend, family, coworker – is engaged in such openly sinful behavior. We don’t want to appear intolerant or judgmental or “unloving” by separating ourselves from their presence. But Paul makes it clear that if the person engaged in sin is a believer we shouldn’t even eat with them.
Please stop arguing that Christians should be forced to violate their conscience unless you are willing to be consistent in its application. On this issue, what our culture accepts cannot be used as the standard. Fifty years ago, racism was tolerated while sexual sins were publicly denounced. Today, the situation is reversed. Many Christians (surprisingly, even some Anabaptists) are now willing to argue (or at least imply) that the state should be able to force Christians to serve at celebrations of sexual sin. Yet, these same people will likely balk at claiming that we should be forced to serve celebrations of racial sin.
If, like the Pharisees, you want to bind the conscience of all believers to a standard that is difficult, if not impossible, to support by Scripture, the least you can do is to argue for its broad application. Tell us that the white baker is not only obligated to serve a same-sex wedding but that the African-American florist [I think he means “baker”] is obligated to bake a cake for the Aryan Nation’s national convention.