As it stands today, what sort of gospel do these various same-sex couples know from their interactions with the various Christian bakers, photographers, florists, and caterers making the news of late? Even if there has been a history of good relationship and employment of LGBT persons, would not it have been better to eschew discrimination, provide exquisite service, build a relationship, and demonstrate the love of Christ for sinners?

After reading the news about Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington State florist being sued by the state Attorney General, a medical professional in my congregation emailed me with some concerns. He asked, “I need a biblical explanation for this.  If I owned a hotel, I would rent to all.  As a [medical professional] I serve all. I have the right of refusal based on financial constraints, medical risks, and inability to agree on treatment. I understand not pastoring over a ceremony… but isn’t this different?”  I was encouraged by this man’s discernment, and I believe that such discernment is lacking in many cases where Christians refuse to engage in commerce with certain unrepentant sinners. I believe that this practice is in error.

I am a middle-aged, ordained teaching elder in good standing in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). I would never officiate at the ceremony of a so called same-sex wedding, even though it means that eventually I will face a loss of privilege, a financial fine, or even incarceration. I have chosen to remain anonymous, therefore, not out any fear of discipline, but rather so as not to cause undue conflict in my congregation for what I’m about to espouse, which I believe to be both biblical and yet unpopular in current Evangelical and Reformed American Christianity.

Namely, this florist—and many other Christians involved in providing the trappings of  the American wedding industry—are incorrect regarding the biblical principles for providing their goods or services for a same-sex ceremony. I believe they are in error due to a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, due to a conflating of a personal “ick” factor with biblical morality, and due to an unhealthy fixation on the individual rights of Christians versus the corporate calling of the Church.

Misunderstanding “Priesthood” of Believers

One of the foundational doctrines of the Protestant Reformation is the “Priesthood of Believers,” which states that through Christ, all believers have direct access to God and need no other human priest. This wonderful benefit bestowed upon believers through our union with Christ has implications for our work-life in that while there are some who labor in ministry inside the church, all believers have a divine calling on their lives. Those called to labor outside the church are not in “profane” callings but rather “secular” callings. While this belief elevates all work to a divine calling, this does not mean that everything believers do is “priestly” or ministerial in nature, which is the misunderstanding at the root of this florist’s error.

There is a difference between providing goods and services for all the cultural practices surrounding an American wedding ceremony and the ministerial role of binding the couple together in God’s name. A florist makes the venue verdant and beautiful, a photographer captures the moments in time, a baker and caterer provide the larder for the reception, but none of those things—even when done by Christians—manifests the covenantal authority of the Triune God!

A pastor alone officiates a wedding ceremony in the name of our Triune God. The minister alone, in that ceremony, represents Christ in all three of his offices of prophet, priest, and king. Reflecting a prophet, the minister proclaims the truth of God’s Word over the marriage. Stepping into the role of priest, he performs the ceremony and leads the couple into covenant vows before God. Only the minister is ordained with the king’s authority to pronounce the ceremony binding in the name of both God and state.

Christian florists, bakers, and photographers—however earnest and zealous their faith—are never performing those roles at a wedding ceremony. They are certainly doing their work unto the Lord (Col. 3:23), but at the wedding their work is not authoritative in the name of the Lord. It is a distortion of the priesthood of believers to think that a confection, photograph, or bouquet—when created by a Christian—somehow brings the weight of heaven’s authority and approval into a wedding ceremony.

An underlying assumption of religious significance to the cultural trappings of the ceremony (flowers, food, photos, etc.) must be in play since surely there is a limit on how far such refusals extend. Does the Christian seamstress who makes or alters the gowns of the wedding party get to refuse her services for religious reasons? Does the Christian dry cleaner get to refuse his services? How about the Christian owner of the limousine service? Or, could it be that since such services are so far removed from the ceremony itself, there is a common recognition of the lack of any religious significance to them?

That same “common recognition” needs to apply to Christian florists, bakers, caterers, and photographers as well. As the culture around us changes, there is no “religious” reason for Christians to refuse such services for same-sex ceremonies. Only the minister’s role in the ceremony is done in the binding authority of the Triune God—everything else is a cultural practice that, however meaningful, does not carry the ministerial significance which would demand a Christian’s refusal to participate.

Personal “ick” Factor

Another unfortunate aspect of the Washington florist’s case, along with the many others out there, is that we are seeing a conflating of a personal “ick” factor with the Bible’s clear teaching on moral and ethical standards. To put it simply: same-sex couples cause an “ick” response that other more “acceptable” sins no longer do, and so a refusal to serve in a same-sex ceremony stems more from personal revulsion than Biblical conviction. Romans 1, a go-to chapter for the sin that homosexuality is, contains a list of the sins the Christians in Rome find around them in their culture. It includes covetousness, envy, deceit, gossip, arrogance, being boastful, and disobedience to parents (Rom. 1:29-30), concluding that “those who practice such things deserve to die” (v. 32).

Clearly, these are issues that our Lord takes very seriously, and yet I have to wonder if Christian florists, bakers, and photographers take this list of sins as seriously as some of them take the sin of homosexuality? Was the teenager refused a corsage for prom because he didn’t respect his parents? Was the neighborhood gossip denied a cupcake? Could the photographer’s conscience just not let her provide that prideful man his headshot? Did the florist ensure that the man wanting to send a dozen roses was doing so for his wife and not for his partner in adultery?

I offer another example, Ezekiel 16:49-50—this is the Word of the Lord: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me.” The “abomination” of Sodom included “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease“—so do Christians refuse service to most middle-class and all upper-class Americans?

The “abomination” of Sodom included not helping “the poor and needy.” Do Christian businesses probe all their clients for adequate service to the poor? Before these questions are dismissed out of hand, why are they not valid and applicable? God’s Word calls them an abomination! Could it be while most Christians acknowledge things such as pride, gossip, and lack of concern for the poor to be sinful, they do not cause the revulsion that same-sex sin tends to cause? Therefore, lacking the passion of revulsion, our consciences aren’t quite so bound when it comes to providing goods and service to those guilty of these “acceptable” sins.

In a short piece such as this, I do not have time to walk us through the entire New Testament, but I would encourage you to at least read through the book of Acts, remembering that the decadent Roman world was full of “ick” for the early Christians. Yet, in the New Testament we see proclamation of the gospel over a calling out of social ills. We see interaction with sinners in the world of commerce by apostles with those being boycotted today (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11, esp. v. 11 “and such were some of you“). As our Western culture deteriorates back into the pagan Roman culture from which Christianity lifted it, we are going to be confronted with more and more “ick.” Let us make sure that we are not motivated to oppose from revulsion more that we are willing to engage sinners, so that we too can, Lord willing, say to them, “and such were some of you.”

Individual Rights vs Corporate Calling

The final reason I believe that the Washington florist, and others like her, are incorrect in their refusal to provide their goods and services to same-sex ceremonies is that they are focused too much on their individual rights and not enough on the corporate mission of God’s people. It is rather hard for us Americans to hear, but our individual rights are not more important than the collective mission of the church! Repeatedly in the New Testament, Christians are called “servants of Christ,” and it can be translated “slaves of Christ.” Slaves have no rights. They serve their master. Similarly, “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

Our master sets the agenda for our lives, and he has given us a mission, a Great Commission, in fact. That mission supersedes our individual rights.

We have an example of this in Acts 16. Paul and Silas are falsely accused before the city magistrates, beaten, and thrown into prison without trial (vv.20-24). The next morning, upon their release, Paul asserts his citizenship rights to demand an official apology (v. 37-39). We can speculate why he did so, but what is not open for speculation was his refusal to assert his rights before he was beaten and incarcerated. It was a terrible injustice for a Roman citizen to be beaten publicly and jailed without a trial, and Paul set aside his rights for what turned out to be the good of the gospel in Philippi.

We should all be willing to set aside our rights for the good of the mission of the gospel. We should be guided by the principle of 1 Cor. 6:7, “Why not rather suffer wrong?” instead of the individualistic principle of “you can’t make me.” Yes, it is a terrible injustice to be forced by discrimination laws to provide a service to someone that repulses us, but perhaps we are called of God to do so for the mission of the gospel. Our rights are not as important as the mission of God, and he is changing the world, not through our boycotts and refusals of service, but through the power of the gospel for the salvation of sinners.

As it stands today, what sort of gospel do these various same-sex couples know from their interactions with the various Christian bakers, photographers, florists, and caterers making the news of late? Even if there has been a history of good relationship and employment of LGBT persons, would not it have been better to eschew discrimination, provide exquisite service, build a relationship, and demonstrate the love of Christ for sinners?

I understand the well-intentioned efforts of Christians to honor God with their work, and I applaud them for it. However, when Christians misunderstand the nature of their work by loading it with all sorts of ministerial freight that it just does not have, they don’t serve the mission of the gospel. When we serve certain sinners but not others because we’ve baptized our “ick” factor as a biblical standard, we are not being the salt and light we think we are. When we slip into asserting our rights instead of living as those “bought with a price,” we do not serve the good news of Jesus Christ.

I hope that Mrs. Stutzman does not lose her livelihood nor her material assets accumulated over a lifetime of faithful service as a florist. I also hope that she will look into her heart and ask the hard question: is her stand based a misunderstanding rather than from biblically justified convictions? I hope she reconsiders and takes the Attorney General’s plea offer. If she does not, she will be the first of many unnecessary closures of Christian businesses. As these issues become more and more prevalent, Christians in the world of commerce are going to need great discernment to live faithfully. Thankfully, the Lord has promised to give it to those who ask (James 1:5), and I hope Christians in the world of commerce do ask!