The past few weeks have seen a spike in the attention given to Christians in the wedding-service industry who wish to refrain from providing their services to same-sex weddings.
The first response people often have is to conflate this specific refusal of service with the complete refusal of all services seen in the Jim Crow Era against African Americans. I covered this in a previous blog post – showing why that comparison is inaccurate.
Today I wanted to look at two other questions people ask about the issue:
- Is this refusal of service unloving?
- What level of involvement is acceptable for conscientious Christians?
This will involve dipping our toes into moral philosophy. This realm of philosophy is geared toward making explicit what we all feel in our consciences when confronting moral dilemmas. It helps draw useful distinctions between what a person can and cannot ethically do.
So let’s dive in.
[Disclaimer: It is quite possible that you, dear reader, have no problem with same-sex weddings. The purpose of this essay is to explore the principles of moral philosophy using Christian opposition to same-sex weddings as an example. That's what's important in this essay. I could have used any other hypothetical and nothing would change.]
To Love is to Obey?
Some people have accused these Christian bakers, photographers, florists, and chapel owners of being – of all things - unchristian. Why? Because their refusal to cooperate in a same-sex wedding is seen as unloving.
The argument sounds like this:
“Jesus ate with sinners, associated with tax collectors, and did not discriminate against people. Refusing service to these weddings is not following in the loving example of Jesus.”This argument can be made to sound persuasive when it is dressed up in the right way. But stripped down to its barest components the assertion is:
“If you really love someone, you’ll do anything that person asks. Even if you think it is wrong.”
Stated like that, the argument would not be persuasive to anybody. Yes, Jesus told us to love everybody. However, Jesus also told us to avoid sin like the plague and to never, EVER give a bad example to others:
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!
If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.” – Matthew 18:6-9So if a Christian really believed that he was doing something unethical by participating in the wedding, he is bound in conscience to refuse.
This often leads to the next question:
“Look, even if the baker or photographer doesn’t agree with what’s going on – that’s no reason to refuse services. It’s not like THEY are the ones getting gay-married. How on earth could he be doing something wrong?
And who else has to refuse services? The guy who changes the lightbulbs in the venue? The guy who sells the napkins? The maker of the buttons on the tuxes?”
And that… is actually a good question. So let's address it:
- Is the Christian correct in thinking he ought not participate in these events?
- What are the limits to how much one may associate with actions he disagrees with?
Accomplices:
Let’s take the example of a common occurrence in some parts of the world: A drive-by shooting.
Who incurs the moral guilt of this action?
First and foremost you have the shooters; they are the ones who actually commit the evil deed. But are they the only ones? No. Also at fault is the driver. He participated in the crime as well.
But it doesn’t stop there. Varying levels of moral guilt are incurred by the following people:
- The person who ordered the hit.
- The people who helped plan the hit.
- The people who supplied the weapons knowing what they’d be used for.
- The people who hid the perpetrators from the police afterward.
- The people who praise the perpetrators for their crime.
All of these people would be moral accomplices to the crime.
So if you want to keep your conscience clear, it’s not enough not to be the shooter. You want to limit your cooperation with evil deeds and to avoid supporting them in any way you can.
The same principle applies to Christians when contemplating their participation in same-sex weddings*. They’d naturally want to limit their involvement in the event.
However, not all types of cooperation are the same. They vary in both degree and in kind. The fella who changes the oil in the car used in the drive-by shooting is different from the guy who picked out the target.
So now let’s draw out these distinctions and give them some names.
Formal Cooperation:
Formal cooperation is the highest form of being a moral accomplice. This takes place when you promote, participate in, or publicly approve of an evil action - sharing the motivations and intent of the actual perpetrators.
Let’s run through a few examples.
Case 1: The Celebrator
Let us suppose that you are friends with the CEO of a large corporation. He does a ton of terribly unethical business moves in order to maximize profits for the year. Then he gives himself a juicy bonus to top things off.
Suppose he throws a big party to celebrate a banner year. You show up, clink glasses, and congratulate him for his many accomplishments. Are your hands still clean?
In that case you have publicly represented his evil deeds as being worthy of celebration. Further, you have encouraged him to repeat these actions in the future. So... no. You’ve done something wrong.
Case 2: The Alibi Man
Now imagine your friend is planning to cheat on his wife. He's working out a rendezvous with the "other woman" and calls you - asking if you can help provide an alibi. Now what?
By agreeing to provide that cover, you would be participating in the evil which is being committed. You would be an accomplice.
Case 3: The Instigator
Last example: You have one teenager whose parents don't really care what he does on a Saturday night. He convinces another kid to lie to his own parents (who do care) about where he is going - so they can do drugs together.
Even if the first kid isn't the one who tells the requisite lies - he is formally participating in those lies by encouraging them.
Back to the Wedding:
How does this apply to the participation in same-sex weddings? Who would fit this bill?
Well, into this category I'd put... the photographer, the DJ, and the attendees.
These people are not passive witnesses to the events of a wedding. They are not there as objective journalists. Rather, their job is to participate in the celebration and give all appearances that the event is worthy of happy commemoration.
Further, at some parts the photographer actually directs the action. She'll tell the participants to kiss, to hold one another romantically, and so on. If the photographer knew that she was witnessing an illicit sexual union, she would indeed be encouraging people to do something she knows to be wrong.**
Material Cooperation:
The aptly named “Material Cooperation” takes place when you are not directly participating in a deed, nor are you necessarily approving of it, but your material support does nonetheless help make it possible.
Now, sorting through this category can quickly become a tangled web. An imaginative person could trace long lines of material causation from any person to nearly any event. If you were looking at some non-profit organization that does evil things, a person could ask,
“What about the person who buys cheese from the store which is owned by the corporation which supports the organization which does the bad stuff?”So when looking at material cooperation, we have to further distinguish between “proximate material cooperation” – which you ought NOT willingly engage in - and “remote material cooperation” – which you CAN licitly engage in.
This is done by weighing a few criteria:
- How crucial is the material support in the commission of the evil deed?
- How many degrees of separation are there?
- How likely is your material contribution to give the impression that you approve of the deed?
Let’s give some examples:
Proximate Material Cooperation:
Imagine you work at a hardware store and someone comes in to buy a length of rope. As he approaches the counter, he announces his intent to commit suicide with the rope. Suddenly you’re going to feel a bit uneasy about selling him this product.
Why? Because that rope is the implement which will accomplish the suicide. Plus, you’re selling it to the same fella who plans to carry out the act. This is proximate cooperation… and you should not sell him the rope – except under duress with protest.
To shift this over the gay-wedding scenario… who might be engaging in this type of cooperation? It is difficult to say, but I would propose that the person who rents out the venue. That transaction makes the whole event possible.
Remote Material Cooperation:
A ton of things fall into this category. Let’s think of a few examples:
- Paying taxes to a government engaged in an unjust war.
- Shopping at a store whose parent-company supports some evil cause.
- Selling fastener to a company which makes the machines for another company which assembles bombs.
In all these cases the material contribution to the act itself is small and there are layers of separation.
So who would this apply to in the gay-wedding case?
Into this category I would put the people who often get the attention for their refusal to participate: The wedding cake bakers and the sellers of flower arrangements.
Those contributions are not critical to the wedding itself and are fairly anonymous. Thus, I don’t think these people actually have to refuse their services. If they are providing the same, morally neutral foodstuffs – they can indeed cooperate.***
I hope this jaunt through moral philosophy has been helpful. Thank you for joining me.
---------
*[Note: This is not to say the two are of equal gravity. We’re talking about how we navigate ethical principles, not saying these situations are the exact same.]
**[Note: This wouldn't just be the case in same-sex weddings. This would be the case in polyamorous marriages and even (if the people in question believe what Jesus said about divorce) with someone having a second marriage after divorce.]
***[Note: That said, while I believe that sound reflection would show that they can sell their wares, I understand their motivations and would defend their character until the cows come home.]
No comments:
Post a Comment