On the Ashers Bakery judgment

The Ashers Bakery judgment has been published and the bakers are found to have broken equality legislation. The full judgment is worth reading and can be found here. For a helpful, and relatively brief, summary of why this is an astonishing (if somewhat unsurprising) result see Archbishop Cranmer.

It bears saying that the principle of equal service is a good and valid one. Few would disagree that service ought not to be denied to somebody simply because of their sexual orientation or political beliefs. A bakery that bakes standardised cakes ought not to refuse service to an individual simply because they are homosexual, subscribe to a political party whom the service provider does not or support a campaign the service provider does not/cannot. The Asher case, however, was never about the provision of a standard service being denied to somebody because of their religious or political beliefs. Rather, this was a case of somebody being denied a particular service that would have been denied to anybody else requesting that same identical service.

Rather than offer a summary of the whole case (others have done a better job of that already), I rather want to direct your attention to a handful of rather concerning elements of the judgment itself.

Point 39 of the judgment states the defendants must have known the plaintiff was homosexual and/or associated with homosexual people because of his support for gay marriage, the claim he worked for a small volunteer organisation and the stated graphic on the cake including the word 'QueerSpace'. Certainly there are plenty of heterosexual people that support gay marriage and there is no particular reason for the defendants to have any knowledge of what 'QueerSpace' actually is or does. The presumption of the judge was that this service was denied because the plaintiff was homosexual. However, point 7 of the judgment states quite clearly that the plaintiff 'had previously purchased items at this branch of the 1st Defendant Company'. Were it the case the defendant was denied service because of his homosexuality - which, according to the judge, was 'abundantly clear' - it is virtually impossible to account for the previous provision of service.

Point 41 of the judgment quotes a number of cases that make concerning statements regarding the nature of discrimination. One judgment avers 'discrimination... is something subtle insidious or hidden' while another states motive and purpose have no basis in judgments on discrimination. point 42 then goes on to argue that the necessary comparator is not a heterosexual person purchasing the same cake but a person of undisclosed sexual orientation purchasing a pro-traditional marriage cake. The comparison is laughable. The very cause of discrimination was not the sexual orientation of the person purchasing the cake, which was not known to the defendants and the judgment offers no great evidence they were aware of such orientation, but the message contained on the cake. Equally, even were the judgment correct on this point, it beggars belief that the previous service to this same individual was then not considered as evidence his sexuality had nothing to do with the refusal of service. As the bakery stated throughout, there have been a number of other cakes that were deemed indecent or offensive that they also refused to bake.

Point 43 acknowledges that the bakery 'cancelled the order as they oppose same sex marriage'. It is something of a logical leap to then find, as in Point 46, 'the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have unlawfully discriminated against the Plaintiff on the ground of his sexual orientation'. The prior service of the plaintiff, the provision of cakes bearing no specific political slogans, speaks against this. Moreover, acknowledging that it is indeed the message to which they object in no way implies discrimination against the individual. It, not implicitly, but explicitly implies a refusal to assert political and/or religious slogans and opinions that the service provider themselves do not hold and cannot in good conscience state.

Points 53-60 seek to establish that the Plaintiff held a political opinion and was discriminated against on these grounds. On balance, I suspect the judge is correct in asserting this is a political opinion and is almost certainly correct that the defendants knew the Plaintiff's political opinion on gay marriage (as per their letter and the specific writing on the cake itself). However, it is patently not the case that the political opinion held by the Plaintiff was the basis of discrimination. The purpose of the legislation is to stop the refusal of a standard service to those who hold specific political opinions. However, it is not the purpose of the legislation to coerce service providers to create material and products that actively promote political beliefs and opinions contrary to those they campaigned against. Again, had the bakery refused to serve the Plaintiff a standard cake simply because he supported gay marriage, this would legitimately fall foul of the law. That they refused to bake a cake bearing a political slogan to which they themselves object and campaigned against ought to be outside the scope of this legislation.

Point 64 of the judgment is, frankly, ludicrous. It states 'if the Plaintiff had ordered a cake with the words "support marriage" or "support heterosexual marriage" I have no doubt such a cake would have been provided. It is the word gay to which the 2nd and 3rd Defendants took exception'. That is patently not true. It is the campaign in favour of gay marriage to which they took exception. Now, whatever one's views on gay marriage, it is surely inappropriate to force anybody to produce materials and products which actively promote a position and/or campaign to which they themselves specifically disagree. For example, would it be right for a homosexual baker to produce a cake saying "no to gay marriage" despite campaigning in favour for it? It strikes me that would be just as unfair as the case we are discussing.

The absurdities of this judgment are not hard to discern. For one, the defendants have been found guilty of refusing to bake a cake which supports a position that is currently unlawful. In other words, they have been found guilty of standing up for the existing law of their province. 

It has also been deemed illegal to not provide services and products which directly contravene the views and opinions of the service provider. Now, service providers are compelled to produce products and provide services in favour of campaigns to which they themselves specifically campaigned against.

Further, Asher's Bakery were found to have discriminated against a legitimate political opinion. Though gay marriage is currently not legal in the province, it is certainly not illegal to hold the view that gay marriage ought to be legalised. Such a judgment, however, means a BNP member who requests a cake from a Jewish baker bearing the slogan "Hitler: the best leader we never had" would be compelled to produce such a product on the grounds that to do otherwise would be to discriminate against a political opinion that is not illegal to hold.

The bakers' religious views were found to be moot in this case. As such, religious believers will be compelled to offer products and services to those who request blasphemous, religiously offensive or religiously unconscionable products. If an EDL supporter (holding a political view) asked a muslim baker to produce a cake with a picture of Mohammad and the caption "false prophet" underneath (a religious view), would they be compelled to make such a cake on the grounds to do so is to discriminate against political opinion?

There is no doubt that most agree political opinion, sexual orientation and religious beliefs should not be a basis for withholding products and services. Such a position was always intended to stop those who supported one political party, were of one particular sexual orientation or religious belief from refusing to provide services to a person of any other. What they were never intended to do was compel people with deeply held beliefs and convictions to provide services and products specifically advocating and promoting views contrary to their own that would involve the suppression of conscience. It does not take a genius to see a distinction between refusal to serve a gay man because he is gay (evidently wrong) and refusal to provide a product bearing a slogan supporting a position which you have spent some time campaigning against. As far as I can tell, Ashers Bakery were seeking that distinction. Their service of the Plaintiff and their refusal to bake a particular product (rather than serve the man at all) speak to this. One can only hope an appeal judge recognises this too.

British values, EDOs and whether we'll keep our church buildings

Now they are free of their Liberal Democrat shackle, the Conservative government will press ahead with plans to scrap the human rights act and introduce Extremism Disruptions Orders (EDOs) based upon "British Values" (whatever those are supposed to be). I previously commented on EDOs here. However, there are a few new features that warrant comment.

David Cameron states:

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.

This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values. (Source: Guardian)

It is, therefore, apt for Politics Home to state 'David Cameron is promising to introduce a bill in his first Queen’s Speech that will give authorities stronger powers to clamp down on radical groups and individuals – even if they have not broken the law.'

The Guardian claims the measures are intended to give the police 'power to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual'. Harmful is defined as a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress. The measures will allow for bans on broadcasting and requirements to submit to the police in advance any proposed speech and any web, social media, or print publications. Extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places are also in view. The bill will also contain new powers to close premises "where extremists seek to influence others".

All of this is done in the name of promoting the heretofore undefined concept of "British values". When pressed on this idea, we are told British values incorporate such novelties as freedom of speech and tolerance of others. This either means we have our British values mixed-up or such measures are not really in the name of British values. For, it seems strange to defend free speech and tolerance by denying free speech and tolerance to all views but state prescribed orthodoxies. If free speech and tolerance are truly British values, that should surely extend to speech we find hateful and unpleasant. Indeed, what room is there for the exercise of tolerance if we are never faced with opposing views we must tolerate? Throwing people in prison for expressing unorthodox views - whatever they may be - is a strange approach to tolerance and free speech. Dare I say, it isn't really tolerant at all.

The major problem with these limits on free speech is that they are the slippery slope to repression and authoritarianism. Though judgment may begin at the house of radicalised Islamist terrorists and sympathisers, it very quickly narrows in to those who hold a whole raft of views outside of mainstream thought. Theresa May has already alighted upon those who oppose gay equality legislation as "extremist". Whatever your views on that particular issue, it is surely not right to criminalise those who disagree (unless they have violent thoughts towards those who don't share their views and plan to act upon them). It has political ramifications too. Judgment will begin with those archetypal extremists in the BNP but will soon narrow to take in UKIP, the hard-right of the conservative party any number of "extremist" left-wing parties and the hard-left of the Labour party. 

The rhetoric being employed in favour of this legislation is precisely the same as that used to try and suppress those movements most people today see as vital moments in history. At one time, the Chartists, the Suffragettes, the Labour movement, the Civil Rights movements of America and Northern Ireland, those fighting apartheid in South Africa, those asking for Home Rule for Ireland, just about any independence movement and any number of other significant historical movements have been labelled "extremist" or some similar epithet. 

I am not suggesting those being radicalised by Islamists sit within this same company. However, two things should be said. First, it is the unstated consequences of this legislation that will inevitably impact the newer movements that could potentially sit amongst such historic company. Secondly, some of these historical movements - often church-based dissenting movements - sought to enshrine the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech in British law. For several hundred years those rights have been broadly recognised. It is, therefore, immense folly to claim to uphold British values - especially the values of freedom of speech and religion that were won primarily by dissenting churchmen - whilst simultaneously eroding the freedom of those very people to exercise those rights. Threatening prosecution and the removal of buildings for stating views that do not accord with state orthodoxy is a return to medieval rule whereby the governing religion is not Protestant or Catholic but a secularism that isn't fully realised and still hides behind a veneer of the more palatable facets and labels of Christendom.

The way in which the limits on free speech have been applied over recent years is well documented. Street preachers have been the ones who faced the brunt of these pernicious laws and the militancy of those who are desperate to find offence in the things of faith being presented in the public square. Unfortunately, street preaching has fallen out of favour in many Christian circles. I don't know whether it is out of fear of man, embarrassment of the mode, a lack of belief in the power of the gospel and the folly of preaching or something else altogether. Whatever the reason, it sometimes felt as though many unwilling to engage in such public proclamation sat idly by whilst those brave enough to do it faced the ire of the law. It was as though many viewed police involvement as the comeuppance of those foolish enough to engage in such outmoded practices.

As I have argued throughout my posts on free speech, what was being done to evangelists on the street was soon to come home to roost in church buildings. And such is coming to pass. EDOs are specifically designed to root out "extremism in all its forms" and grants powers to close down buildings and venues in which "hate speech" (as yet to be properly defined) is propagated. This was a potential Martin Niemöller moment, and I'll leave it to you to decide how we fared on that front. The offence being taken on the street is now going to be taken in the church. In fact, offence needn't even be taken in the church. Sermons and studies placed online, or even "extremist" views being taught in principle could spell the end of our church buildings and venues and/or the vetting of our sermons and studies.

One can only hope the government sees sense and changes course. If not, this may be an issue on which the church will have to suffer if it is to remain faithful to the word of God. We can nevertheless rest assured that the church of Jesus Christ was not built on the back of state sponsorship and nice church buildings. The early church did quite well without well disposed primary schools offering them a nice venue on a Sunday. What we need, as much now as then, is a work of the Holy Spirit and deep belief in sufficiency of the scriptures. It takes God's word and a work of his Spirit to bring revival. Perhaps we need to lose some of our buildings before we fully realise that.

The results are in. So what now?

The votes have been counted and the government is in. The UK has elected a Conservative majority government and the people of Scotland have overwhelmingly voted Scottish Nationalist. The Labour party are coming to terms with a woeful performance that saw the loss of several big beasts and the obliteration of their presence in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats - the biggest losers on the night - are dealing with the near annihilation of their nationwide support. The election was not nearly as close as anybody predicted and we have seen the resignation of, not one but, three party leaders.

Whether you voted Conservative, Labour, SNP or the ominously labelled 'other', we must all face this question: what do we do now? Whether you are pleased or despondent, here are three things to bear in mind.

We must pray for our leaders

You don't have to like them, you don't have to agree with them and you certainly didn't have to vote for them. What the Bible does insist we do is pray for them (1 Tim 2:1-3; Jer 29:7). Even [insert most hated party here] are capable of making right decisions some of the time. Even [insert most hated party here] can work for the good of the people some of the time. Where [insert most hated party here] do not appear to be working in the best interests of all the people, or appear to be pressing ahead with whatever folly we wish they wouldn't, surely that is all the more reason to pray for them! Let's remember -whether we are in favour or not - to bring our leaders before the Lord in prayer.

God is still sovereign

Indeed, what would be the point of praying otherwise? Scripture is clear that God is the one who sets and removes leaders (Dan 2:21) and they are ultimately under his control (Jn 19:10f; Rom 13:1). God has established the leaders we have and put them in place. 

Romans 13:4, 6 go further still and tell us - even in the face of what appears to be the case - governments are God's ministers for good. Before we cast this off as trite nonsense and begin getting het up by all the terrible things we know [insert hated party here] are going to do, let's remember Paul was no stranger to the less amicable face of government. Nor was he so stupid as to ignore history (especially recent history of Antiochus IV Epiphanes). Paul wasn't being trite. He recognised rulers are put in place by God and work only according to his sovereign will. No matter how terrible they may seem at times, they generally seek to work for the good of the people and - even where they do not - are only permitted in such action because it serves the ultimate, sovereign purposes of God.

Government is fleeting

The book of Daniel is dedicated to these twin truths: (1) God is in control; (2) all kingdoms and rulers are fleeting. No matter how powerful (or bad) kings and rulers may appear, they are here today and gone tomorrow (or, here today and gone in five years).

Whether we see the next 5 years as a trial to be endured or a blessing from Heaven, it is so because God said it would be. In 5 years time, we will have new leaders and a new government which will be viewed in the same way. In each case, they are there because God put them there. What is for sure is they will not be there forever. We either see this as a time of blessing on our country or one to be worked through. However we see it, it is not forever. God sets the rulers but he also removes them too.

Four reasons I would restrict communion to church members

It is probably worth noting from the outset, I pastor a church that currently practices an open table. Though this is not where I sit by conviction, as I'm sure you've gathered from the title of the post, this is not a matter of first-order importance for me. The members are aware of my position and it inevitably makes its way into my teaching as (I understand) particular texts demand but I submit to the church on this issue. However, let me offer a handful of reasons why I believe we ought to restrict communion to confirmed members of the church (1).

Communion symbolises unity with the body

1 Cor 10:17 makes clear that one of the central purposes of communion is to express our unity with one another. Given communion is an ordinance administered by the local church, we are specifically expressing unity with the visible body of believers with whom we are gathered at the moment of partaking, not the entire catholic church. There is something flawed about our concept of unity if we argue we are unified by taking communion but not so much that we dare join the local church in membership. In what world are we united with the body if we will not join in membership with it? Can we really proclaim with a clear conscience before God, and the watching world, that we are, in actual fact, one with the very people we refuse to join?

Communion symbolises association with God's people

Outside of membership, the church ordinances make no sense. 1 Cor 12:13 tells us that baptism marks our union with Christ and entrance into his church. It is the initial step in publicly associating with Jesus and his people. The Lord's Supper, likewise, is the ongoing statement that we continue to associate with Christ and his people. Again, it seems a funny form of public association to proclaim in the communion that we are joined together whilst simultaneously making clear on paper, in the church membership records, that we aren't as united as we claim. If we can't assent to the church doctrinal basis or find some problem with the church, how can we proclaim ourselves one with them in communion? If we can assent to the doctrinal basis and we find no problem with the church, why on earth will we not join in membership and then proclaim our oneness through communion after we have made clear our unity in membership?

Communion demands the ability to "discern the body"

Paul's warning to the Corinthian church makes clear that the one eating and drinking judgment upon themselves is the one who fails to "discern the body" (1 Cor 11:27ff). That v29 mentions eating and drinking but only talks of "discerning the body" suggests that Paul is no longer talking about Christ's physical body but the body of believers. There are two ways to take this verse: (1) Paul is saying Christians should act like Christ when they come together; or, (2) Paul is saying we must examine our unity with this local body before we can partake.

On either view, a case can be made for requiring membership. Just as Christ associates with his body, if we are to imitate Christ we ought to associate with his people. Alternatively, on that first view, if Paul's main emphasis is on being selfless and Christlike, rather than selfish, that may have wider applications to building up the body and joining in membership. On the second view, we are pressing similar ideas to points #1 and #2 above. In either case, "discerning the body" must involve knowing the people around us and being involved with them. At the very least, it involves a sense of knowing who is a part of the body and this is usually determined by membership of the local church. Standing outside of the membership makes this command either difficult or nonsensical. 

Communion acts as a membership control

As already noted, baptism is the means of admitting people to the church and communion is the sign of continuing fellowship with the local body. Through these ordinances, the church signifies that it considers those who receive baptism to be saved and those who take the Lord's Supper to be continuing in the faith and in good standing with the fellowship. It is most difficult for the church to affirm these things in those with whom they have no ongoing fellowship. Equally, it is strange (at best) for the church to affirm such things in non-members even where they are regular. 

One primary sign of continuing in the Christian life is ongoing fellowship with God's people. If the church has refused membership to an individual, it is usually because they cannot detect a clear testimony, the person doesn't affirm the doctrinal basis or they are in some open unrepentant sin. In any case, there is a question over that person's spiritual state. Likewise, it says something to the church leadership if an individual is in regular attendance at church but will not commit in membership. It is difficult for the church to affirm continuance in the Christian faith. It is equally hard, if not impossible, for the church to affirm its unity with this person because they will not join in union with the church itself.

Notes

1. In the case of visitors, I would permit those in membership with their home church to partake

Four questions to ask about prayer

Last night was our corporate church prayer meeting. Our usual format is to have a short time in the word and using that time as a prompt to our prayers. Having been helped by Tim Keller's book on prayer in which he notes Martin Luther's method of meditating upon the word to prompt his prayers, we decided to take Luther's lead.

Luther asks four key questions of any given text:

1. What does the text demand of me?
2. How does this text lead me to praise or thank God?
3. How does this truth lead me to confess and repent?
4. How does this truth prompt me to appeal to God?

Given our limited time in the text, we decided to apply this fourfold method to the passage we most recently heard preached: Daniel 4 (you can listen to that here).

Using Luther's method, we had a excellent opening time of prayer. We knew what the text demanded of us because we had heard it preached days before (q1 amounted to a brief sermon recap). The rest of time helped us apply that truth in a number of different ways and led to a helpful time of praise, confession and supplication.

It's well worth using as a method in your own quiet times and personal prayers.