by Rev. Eric Folkerth

I keep thinking about the recent case of the “Christian Website Designer“ and the LGBTQ community.

What has me most annoyed is that a superficial media narrative is playing right into deep divisions in our nation; and observers everywhere —commentators on all sides of this case— are picking up this superficial narrative as if it’s “Gospel truth.”

At the heart of this lazy reporting and assumed narrative is the phrase: “Christian Web Designer Lorie Smith.“

Almost every story I am reading refers to the person involved in this case in this way.

— As if “Christian Web Designer” is an actual recognized and credentialed profession, practiced by every Christian everywhere in exactly the same moral way.

— As if all “Christian Website Designers” are uniform in their views on the LGBTQ community.

— As if there is some “code of ethics” —a Christian Squarespace Hippocratic Oath— that every “Christian Website Designer” signs on to that somehow prevents them from serving a lesbian couple.

The facts overlooked by this media gloss is that there are THOUSANDS…maybe hundreds of thousands… of “website designers who happen to be Christian” who would happily build a website for a gay couple.

Let’s talk about this and take back the narrative, shall we?

I mean, feel free to be frustrated with her and with her beliefs. But also, zoom out and be sure we all understand the full picture. My sense is that “website designers who happen to be Christian and would serve an LGBTQ couple” fall out into at least TWO broad groups…

The first set of “website designers who happen to be Christian” and would happily build a website for a gay couple. Their religious faith does not teach them to shun queer folks, and therefore they have no “religious objection” to serving them.

They are likely among the significant numbers of American Christians who now support sex marriage.

Let’s be very clear that growing numbers of Christians *do* support same sex marriage. Public opinion polls show that *majorities* of American Catholics, American Mainline Protestant, and American Orthodox Christians all “strongly support” same sex marriage (Pew Poll).

In our own mainline protestant tradition —United Methodism— 80% of our churches are remaining within the UMC…where it is assumed by almost all observers that harmful anti-gay language will soon be removed. That means roughly twenty percent of our churches have left for the conservative GMC, where it’s likely some prohibitions against gay folks will be retained.

You can quibble with all sorts of details in what I’ve said in the previous sentence. But I’m just inviting you to see how the experience of UMC disaffiliations *fully supports* the assertion that a majority of mainline protestants now “strongly support” same sex marriage…and therefore my claim that there are a significant number of “website designers who happen to be Christian” who would serve a queer couple without religious qualms.

There’s likely a *second set* of “website designers who happen to be Christian” who would also still serve an LGBTQ couple. These are Christians who might have a “religious objection” to same sex marriage, but who would serve a queer couple anyway.

These are Christians who take Jesus’ admonition to love and serve even those who we disagree with, following a very clear admonition of Jesus himself. Blogger Jessica Kantrowitz wrote about these folks in her remarkable blog “Bake For Them Two.”

Kantrowitz —writing back in 2015 about the last cultural flashpoint case involving a “Christian cake baker”— reminds us of Jesus’ teaching that:

“If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”

Most Christians just assume this is a general admonition to “go above and beyond.” In point of fact, Kantrowitz shows this teaching directly refers to a specific Roman law of Jesus’ time…a law which said that any citizen could be conscripted to carry the pack of a Roman soldier for one mile.

(Military could also demand your family’s food or demand to stay at your home…)

So, Jesus’ admonition —applicable to anyone who would follow him— is that not only should his followers uphold what they might see as an unjust civil law, but that they should go *above and beyond* serving those who demand it.

In other words, then, when it comes to “Christian cake bakers,” Kantrowitz says Christians should not only not refuse to bake a cake, but should instead: “Bake for them two.”

Speaking directly to this second group of “website designers who happen to be Christian” who might have a “religious objection,” Kantrowitz implores:

“Christians should be the FIRST people baking cakes — for everyone who asks us. We should be known for our cake baking. People should be saying, ‘There go those crazy Christians again, baking cakes for everyone. They just won’t quit!’”

Obviously, “Christian Web Designer Lorie Smith” does not follow this admonition. Which puts her in a third category of “website designers who happen to be Christian.” These are Christians who have a religious objection to same sex marriage. And now the courts have ruled in her favor in this new case.

But make no mistake —as we’ve just seen— her views are not the only “Christian view.” Far from it. Which is what makes the media narrative that tags her as a “Christian Website Designer“ so maddening.

Zooming out, there’s an incredibly dangerous slippery slope here, when we lift up one small group’s religious views and create law that upholds them. A recent meme I saw perfectly describes this slippery slope:

“Sorry, I can't sell you those condoms because I'm Catholic. You'll have to go to register 5.

But she's Muslim, so she can't sell you that ham. You'll have to go to register 8.

But he's Mormon, so he can't sell you that Coke. Try register 2, maybe.

But she's a Jehovah's Witness so she won't sell you that birthday card.“

Is this where we’re headed?

This kind of further Balkanization of our society, aided and abetted by narrow and literal religious views?

Let’s pray not! Everyone should be free to practice their faith in the confines of their homes, in safety of their sanctuaries, and according to the dictates of their conscience. But applying specific religious prohibitions to *all* Americans in the name of Jesus is Christian Nationalism, not Christianity.

And this Christian pastor will always speak against it.

So, friends, I’m offering you “perspective” today. In the future, when you hear the phrase “Christian Web Designer Lorie Smith,” I’d simply urge you to consider how many other “website designers who happen to be Christian” do not share her view. Understand how this media representation is a lazy way of dumbing down the complexity of American society today.

My sense is that we’re all blindly parroting this view, following the media’s lead, which of course dumbs down ALL of our cultural discourse regarding law, religion, and culture, in America.

————————

But one closing note for you, about “Christian Web Designer Lorie Smith.”

1. She probably claims to take a literal, or semi-literal, view of scripture with respect to the “clobber verse” about same sex relationships in Leviticus.

2. As you can see clearly in this Fox News photo…she has a tattoo.

To be clear, I am neither a Biblical literalist, nor anti-tattoo. (I have one!)

But I am anti-proof-texting.

So, in closing I’ll point out —to “Christian Web Designer Lorie Smith” and all of those in her third group of “website designers who happen to be Christian”— that the VERY SAME CHAPTER where the anti-gay verse is found also has another verse that says “don’t get tattoos.” And the “prohibition” against both is the EXACT SAME kind of prohibition.

Therefore…if you believe Leviticus condemns same sex marriage, then you also have to believe it also condemns tattoos the exact same way. (This is the harsh logic of all Biblical literalism...)

They can CLAIM all they want that their view is the “Biblical view” and that they take the Bible literally.

But me thinks they’re all something of a hypocrite to their own allegedly strongly held Christian convictions.

I’m just sayin’.