Tough Decisions by Motte Brown on 11/30/2006 at 6:32 PM

Today on Boundless, Matt Kaufman writes about a recent event in Texas in which a Christian owned landscaping business refused to work with a homosexual couple. It's worth reading and considering what you would do if in a similar position. As Matt notes, other believers in good conscience could have chosen differently. But I wonder how many of us would have been brave enough to send an email explaining why like Todd and Sabrina Farber.

Upon learning of the relationship when one of the men referred to his "partner," Todd decided to turn down the job. Sabrina wrote the potential clients a straightforward e-mail honestly explaining why. Its contents don't take long to read:

I am appreciative of your time on the phone today and glad you contacted us. I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work with homosexuals.

Best of luck in finding someone else to fill your landscaping needs.

All my best,

Sabrina.

When my wife and I were shopping for landscapers, we had one guy simply tell us he was too busy and another said our yard was too big. I wonder if the Farbers were tempted to use a similar excuse or simply say "no thanks." I'm not sure I would have risked the ridicule they ultimately endured for a clear conscience. However you feel about the decision they made, it's hard to criticize the way they handled it. And sometimes that's the most important thing.

Tough Decisions by Motte Brown on 11/30/2006 at 6:32 PM

Today on Boundless, Matt Kaufman writes about a recent event in Texas in which a Christian owned landscaping business refused to work with a homosexual couple. It's worth reading and considering what you would do if in a similar position. As Matt notes, other believers in good conscience could have chosen differently. But I wonder how many of us would have been brave enough to send an email explaining why like Todd and Sabrina Farber.

Upon learning of the relationship when one of the men referred to his "partner," Todd decided to turn down the job. Sabrina wrote the potential clients a straightforward e-mail honestly explaining why. Its contents don't take long to read:

I am appreciative of your time on the phone today and glad you contacted us. I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work with homosexuals.

Best of luck in finding someone else to fill your landscaping needs.

All my best,

Sabrina.

When my wife and I were shopping for landscapers, we had one guy simply tell us he was too busy and another said our yard was too big. I wonder if the Farbers were tempted to use a similar excuse or simply say "no thanks." I'm not sure I would have risked the ridicule they ultimately endured for a clear conscience. However you feel about the decision they made, it's hard to criticize the way they handled it. And sometimes that's the most important thing.

Comments

[1. Emily said the following at 8:02 PM on Nov 30:]

1

My big problem with Matt's article is it starts off with a single incident and ends up in a sweeping condemnation of "gay activists" who want to redefine marriage. What's the relevance of that to the story? It's not as if the two gentlemen that the Farbers decided to drop have taken to the airwaves to use their unfortunate publicity to advocate for gay marriage -- if anything, they are two people who were understandably upset about being discrimated against, but I hardly see why that merits Matt's tangent about how "gay activists" (what a silly term) are trying to redefine the family.

Moreover, I imagine that the conservative Christian media would be up in arms if it were the Farbers being discrimated against for their Christian beliefs. I think it's just a sad story, and that the Farbers could have been a much greater witness had they just taken the business of two men who have been in a committed relationship for nearly a decade. Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors -- the Farbers couldn't even bring themselves to make a harmless gay couple's lawn look nice (and get paid for it)? I don't understand how far this "serious moral reason" that Matt says the Farbers were employing ought to extend; I wonder if they've ever provided service to parents with children out of wedlock, for example. I generally really enjoy reading Boundless, but articles like this (i.e. those that display a glaring insensitivity towards men and women who God created gay, since most evidence points to homosexuality being largely genetic) really make me question if the editors are only paying lip-service to loving all God's children.

[2. Jo said the following at 8:04 PM on Nov 30:]

2

When people do stuff like this, how are they demonstrating God's love to unbelievers? Many people are already against christians due to the judgemental and condeming attitudes some of them have. What makes me sad, is all the people who are going to get the wrong idea about this and distance themselves from God. Yes, we are entitled to stand up for what we believe in but we should also keep in mind the repercussions of our actions. If anyone wants to join me in praying for those who will become angry at God and Christians over this please do.

[3. Samuel PG said the following at 9:09 PM on Nov 30:]

3

In response to Emily, I may be wrong, but it seems as if your problem with Kaufman's article was not so much his tangential leap, but instead its apparent "glaring insensitivity towards men and women who God created gay, since most evidence points to homosexuality being largely genetic"

It is this problem that I would like to deal with. I, along with many others, dispute the claim that homosexuality is largely genetic, but even granting for the sake of argument that it is does not require us to celebrate or even condone of homosexuality. Boundless does not seem to be claiming that it is sinful to experience homosexual attraction but that acting out on such attraction is sinful. Even if homosexuality is genetic, it does not become good.

There is great evidence that people can be genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but alcoholics are still responsible for having given in to their conditions. All humans, of course, have a predisposition to sin in many ways but that does not excuse our sin. If a heterosexual couple were to give in to their genetic predispostion to copulate before they were bound in marriage it would not be excused.

I agree that we should love homosexuals and respect them as fellow human beings created in God's image, but out of our love for them we should not be willing to call sin holy. That would be as loving as telling someone with a cancerous tumor not to worry about it because it was natural. God bless

[4. Abby said the following at 9:31 PM on Nov 30:]

4

Jo, I join you in that prayer. Matt's article made me cry for its complete lack of compassion toward the lost and dying sinners watching Christians behave this way. Would it be acceptable for a Christian paramedic to watch two gay men bleed to death, refusing to treat their injuries for fear of "conferring legitimacy upon their relationship"? No? Why not? If Christian landscapers can turn their back on homosexual human beings and be applauded for it, why not Christian paramedics?

So much of Christianity in America has turned into pure politics. It's heartbreaking. The question "What Would Jesus Do?" should be the most relevant and guiding principle for every believer.

Jesus would've done their yardwork. For free. Then He would repair the roof, have dinner with them, and wash their feet. He gave us a great example of how to behave with sinners.

What do we do? We try to score political points.

The actions of that company -- and the response of an organization like Focus, which, LIKE IT OR NOT, represents Christianity in the eyes of much of our country -- presents a hateful, rejecting face to a lost and broken world.

I pray that God will forgive us. I pray that those homosexual men, and all the others who hear about this and are hurt and rejected by this kind of hatefulness, will somehow meet believers who can pierce through their pain and share with them the Gospel.

[5. JoAnna said the following at 10:00 PM on Nov 30:]

5

"They were trying not to confer acceptance on an inherently illegitimate relationship. For Christians, that's a responsibility — a matter of simple duty." -- quote from Mr. Kaufman's article

The bottom line here is that we must trust God's truth, revealed to us in His infallible Word, the Bible. God says, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) This does not mean that homosexuals cannot be saved -- the next verse says that "such were some of you; but you were washed" -- but that someone who consistently does these things, and is hardened in them and unrepentant, is not a Christian. One can be saved from sin (which homosexuality and homosexual acts are), but no one is ever saved for the purpose of continuing in sin. (See Romans 6:2)

To stand for God's Truth, and to live out what we believe, we must condemn homosexuality -- just as we should condemn fornication, idolatry, stealing, coveting, etc. -- for they are all sins. Yet we must communicate the truth in love and with a humble attitude -- as passages such as 2 Timothy 2:25 and 1 Peter 3:15 tell us. Still, we are to speak with firmness as well, for we have the knowledge that God's Words are absolutely true (which is something we can say about no mere man) and that He will, in His time, manifest Himself as the proof of His authenticity to the unbelieving world when He returns to judge.

Our God is love -- He and His character and actions are the definition of true love. But let us be careful that we do not impose our own faulty image of love on God. One definition of love that He gives is in John 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep my commandments." And again, 1 John 5:2 "By this we know we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments." Calvary was indeed the picture of God's great love for man. But think of this -- it was also the picture, the measure, of God's great hatred for sin; He hates sin so much and sin is so terrible, that He could not (to be true to His character & holiness) simply forgive it without the penalty being paid. If we take sin lightly, in our own lives or someone else's, we also take the Cross and His death lightly.

Far too many people today have an incorrect image of God as a fuzzy, warm Being who somehow will accept them no matter how much they sin against Him. This is untrue; God is great and He is loving, but He is holy and perfect as well. Sin, any sin, destroys everything that is good and beautiful in the world and relationships -- and God loves what is good and beautiful. To restore what has been destroyed, He condemns the destroyer (sin) and has provided redemption through the paying of sin's penalty by the death (and resurrection) of His Son, Jesus Christ. Let us be very careful lest we present to the world a perverted concept of God. For if they do not tremble before His holy Law, how will they ever understand the need for His grace?

[6. Kel said the following at 10:06 PM on Nov 30:]

6

In his article, Kaufman does not present a Biblical view of judgment. The Bible is very clear about the Christian's response to the sin of those outside the church in I Corinthians 5: 9-13

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."[b]

[7. Chris Krycho said the following at 10:16 PM on Nov 30:]

7

Conflating gardeners with paramedics is not a valid comparison, as ought to be clear after some consideration. The Christian worldview requires us to do all we can to save life. It does not require us to do all we can to make other people's lawns prettier, particularly if we have a conviction that we may be able to let people know that there is a better way by standing on our convictions. The Farbers may well have stories of people whose lives have been changed by their stand. Or they may not. They are accountable to God, not to any human judge; and if they stand on convictions that He has given them via His spirit, that is enough.

I think it's important to understand what love really is, and also to ask not, "What would Jesus do?" -- we can't know that -- but rather "What did Jesus do?" since we have a record of that. What did he do? He ate with tax collectors and prostitutes. After he had called them out of their sin and they had repented. He did not excuse sin. He did not do people's work for free (and, one should note that the advice of the New Testament includes such sage wisdom as "people who don't work shouldn't eat").

Love is not being tolerant of any and all deviancies. Love is calling sin what it is, while noting that there is a better way. That's not politics. It's completely apolitical. I agree that the church as a whole needs to be condemning sexual immorality in general -- and I would say that large sections of it are, but right now it is the homosexual question that is most active, and that is thanks to gay activists who are pressing for the normalization of their behavior -- and more than simply normalization, actual recognition on the same level as marriage. NOT because Christians are making a fuss.

As for the genetic thing, it's irrelevant -- though many scientists strongly dispute the claim that it is entirely genetic (including the man whose work is most often cited as proving that homosexuality is genetic). That it has been reported as true by media does not make it so; a careful reading of psychological and biological journals makes it very clear that the verdict is not in on homosexuality. The general consensus among scientists at this point -- insofar as there is one -- is that it is a combination of general predisposition and environmental factors. Not one or the other. As Samuel PG pointed out above, however, it doesn't matter. I have a natural proclivity as a human male to "spread my seed," so to speak roughly from the time I turn 14 on. I have strong aggressive instincts hardwired into me. I am fiercely competitive. None of those things matter before the law in the sense of excusing or reducing culpability for actions I commit; and certainly they do not function as excuses before God for my unrighteous behavior.

Let me put it this way:if this were any other subject, we'd agree that telling someone the truth -- in love, yes, but the truth neverthless -- is the best thing. Here, because of the way that gay activists have reshaped the debate, telling someone that acting out homosexuality is wrong is suddenly a hate crime. Is telling someone that murder is wrong a hate crime? Is telling someone that polygamy is wrong a hate crime? Is love actually being "tolerant" in the modern sense, or is it being up front about what right and wrong are? The modern liberal (and by that I mean ideological and theological liberalism, not necessarily political liberalism, though all of the above tend to go hand in hand [which I consider unfortunate for political liberals]) interpretation of love falls far short.

Love does not allow people to continue in things that are bad for them. It is not hate to tell someone they are wrong and there is a better way -- if it is, then we all ought to stop proclaiming the gospel right now, because that is its message.

Perhaps it's time we remember Paul's description of the cross -- "to the Jews an offense, and to the Gentiles a mystery."

We need to demonstrate love and compassion -- but we also need to be aware that the Biblical definitions of those two words are very, very different from what modern culture defines them as.

[8. Howell said the following at 11:48 PM on Nov 30:]

8

While I don't doubt the motivations of the couple, a far more Christ-like response would have been to take the job at their regular rate and talk with the homeowners about their lifestyle choice. I say Christ-like because then they would be getting criticism from both sides just like Jesus often did.

"They were trying not to confer acceptance on an inherently illegitimate relationship. For Christians, that's a responsibility — a matter of simple duty." -- quote from Mr. Kaufman's article

I take issue with this supposition. How does mowing someone's lawn confer acceptance? It is a Christian's responsibility to be loving. This concern with "confering acceptance" is based in worrying what people think other than the actual homeowners. We, as Christians frightened of the world, often prefer to cast the sinners out rather than have a discussion that might not be pleasant.

[9. Abby said the following at 7:08 AM on Dec 1:]

9

Chris, perhaps paramedics versus gardeners is a bad example. What about locksmiths? Would it be acceptable for a Christian locksmith to refuse to help a gay couple get back into their house or car? Would that be "conferring legitimacy upon their relationship?"

Try to picture Jesus telling two human beings, made in His image, "I choose not to work with homosexuals. Best of luck in finding someone else to let you back into your house."

The modern-day idolatry of concepts like "Christian worldview" and conservative political positions is going to land many, many, many people in hell. How are sinners to come to repentance when the only face of Jesus they see is Christians who refuse to do business with them?

If Christians received an e-mail saying, "We choose not to do business with Christians," these same commenters would be livid, and lawsuits would result.

Guess what? Religion is a choice. Discrimination based on religion is prohibited by law, but with the exception of Judaism (and possibly one or two others I can't think of at the moment), one is not born a member of any faith. One must choose it. If this sort of behavior is legally permissible, how long until the same arguments turn around and apply to us?

All of this is rhetoric. Here is what actually matters: two human beings who have been presented with the gospel of rejection, of we-choose-not-to-associate-with-you, all in the name of the humble Savior who ate with prostitutes and washed His disciples' feet. If they end up in hell, a large group of Christians will share the blame. What will Jesus say? "Thanks for standing up for me by not cutting those queers' yards?" or "I gave you an opportunity to show my love to two lost, broken, and dying people, and you rejected them -- in My name! Why?"

[10. Jonathan said the following at 8:15 AM on Dec 1:]

10

I can't pretend that this is a clear-cut situation; certainly valid points of view have been expressed as to how we as Christians should relate to our fellow sinners.

However, I really respect the Farbers' decision and I think there are some points to consider. First, the Farbers run their own business, so they can deny business to someone if they choose. That doesn't necessarily make it right, it just is their right. Obviously there are forces out there who would gleefully punish the couple for their stand. We should be glad they have the freedom (at least in Texas) from being punished through the law for that stance, right or wrong.

Second, consider that their website did include the link to a petition against gay marriage, so there was a potential conflict of interest if they had done business with the gentlemen. This might be a long shot, but in theory someone could have run with such a story, claiming they were hypocrites for taking money from the gentlemen but denying them a "right" to marry, blah blah blah...

I'm also reminded of a "Way of the Master" episode that pointed out that there isn't anything "special" about homosexuality as a sin; it's simply one branch of sexual sin. Now, suppose the Farbers were asked to do landscaping for the Playboy mansion (I know: this was in Texas, but just suppose). Would our reactions, pro and con, be the same? Maybe, but remember Mr. Farber stated "he had grown increasingly 'grieved' to see the lives they were living." At the very least, we have to respect what was a difficult decision.

Obviously I haven't said anything about what the Christ-like thing to do in this situation. All I can say is it's a complicated situation and I pray we will use discernment to decide for ourselves.

[11. Robert J Espe said the following at 9:37 AM on Dec 1:]

11

I think it is worth pointing out that the homosexual couple in question was not actually harmed in any way. They simply had to find another company to do their landscaping (I can't imagine that was very difficult)

However, for the first time in a long time, they may have actually taken notice of someone's disapproval, which was not combined with hate, no matter how hard some would like to paint things that way. That may have been worthwhile (and let's be honest about the odds of caring what the landscaper working for you thinks of your lifestyle while they are doing the job)

The couple's logic was simple (and this is what makes it different from the paramedic example): For either of those people to come out of their sin, they would have to get rid of that house, charging them for landscaping it does nothing to facillitate that.

Also, consider if instead of a homosexual couple, it was a couple, or a person who represented a sin of concern to you (could be young people living together, an abortion doctor, or someone who mismanages their land, take your pick). Working for them, endorses what they do (the term collaborator comes to mind)

So while there is a place to get to know someone, there is also a place to say, "I don't hate you, but I won't condone what you are doing, and this job wouldn't exist except for your sin." That isn't hate. And if a private business didn't want to do business with me because I am a Christian, I would respect their decision.

[12. Chris Krycho said the following at 10:20 AM on Dec 1:]

12

Abby, that's a better example, but it still falls short. In that case there is an urgent need. It's also likely the sexuality of the couple in question wouldn't even be something the locksmith would be aware of in that short a span of time, unless the couple in question were actively broadcasting it.

I think where you're wrong is to suggest that holding to a Christian worldview is idolatry. Certainly putting politicians on a pedestal -- regardless of their affiliation -- is folly, but I think it's important to remember that we need to be actively engaging our culture for its betterment, on topics from marriage to abortion to our interaction with the rest of the world. If you don't believe me, believe the early Christians, who assumed they had a mandate to do precisely that, to work thoroughly counterculturally against homosexuality, abortion, etc. (One should probably also note that the early Christians were warring against some of the same sins we are today.) Clearly they felt that the message of Christ required it of them -- and they would know, especially those who were taught by Paul and the other apostles.

And again, you need to remember your Biblical history. Jesus ate with former prostitutes, and He washed the feet of those who followed Him. Yes, we need to be a servant of those around us who need the gospel -- and there is a desperate need -- but we also need to remember to "come out, be separated, and touch not the unclean thing," as well as the aforementioned (by another poster) command not to associate with those engaging in sexual immorality.

For people espousing love and tolerance, those who disagree with the Farbers are certainly not demonstrating a loving attitude in response to them, which is ironic given than Jesus' command is that we love one another, not the world. I'm not saying that we ought not reflect Christ's love to the world -- we should -- but we have an equal responsibility to love one another, because as He said in John, "By this will the world know that you are my disciples: that you love one another." I think we all need to make sure that we have that attitude toward the Farbers first and foremost, regardless of whether we agree with their actions in this case or not.

[13. Patrick said the following at 6:54 PM on Dec 1:]

13

I think it's a mistake to defend the Farbers. Suppose the couple in question had not been gay but instead actively denied the divinity of Christ (surely a clearer sin than engaging in a long term gay relationship). Would you seriously defend someone who wrote, "I'm sorry, but I don't choose to work with Jews/Muslims/Buddhists?" Would you see that as anything other than an incredibly poor representation of Christ to the world? What exactly is the difference between refusing to garden for a gay couple and refusing to garden for a rabbi?

[14. Abigail said the following at 6:04 PM on Dec 2:]

14

The Bible tells us plainly that homosexual behavior is a sin. I'm not defending it or trying to lessen that, but I do think the article doesn't take into consideration that homosexuals are still people. My boyfriend is serving in the US Military in Iraq right now, and I bet the two homosexual men who were denied the service from the Farber's landscaping company felt like I do when someone criticizes the war or the American troops. Sure, I know war-bashers aren't intentionally slamming the man I love, but that is definitely what it feels like to me! I think those two men had every right to be upset, and that the Farbers failed to extend Christian charity to these two men who desperately need the Savior.

I also think it was incredibly rude of them to deny service in such a manner without having a written policy prior to the situation coming up. I wouldn't agree with such a policy, but at least that would have been more fair to the potential clients.

When the Bible talks about being seperate from sexually immoral people, it is usually talking about people who claim to be believers and yet continue in a life of sin. I don't think the Farber's had a Biblical reason for this decision. They didn't have to become best friends with these men or ask them to babysit their children, but they certainly could have landscaped without compromising the gospel.

To be honest, I've lost a lot of respect for Boundless because of the way you guys have supported this story.

[15. kuriaartso said the following at 10:41 AM on Dec 4:]

15

Abigail, my fiance has also served a year in Iraq and is currently over there working as a civilian, so I can sympathize with how you feel about people bashing the war. But the tone of Sabrina's reply would be the equivalent of someone saying, "I don't agree with the war, and therefore I choose not to enlist" and leaving it at that. I may not agree with it, but I don't feel attacked.

[16. Carrie said the following at 6:22 PM on Dec 4:]

16

"They were trying not to confer acceptance on an inherently illegitimate relationship. For Christians, that's a responsibility — a matter of simple duty." -- quote from Mr. Kaufman's article

I have to strongly disagree with this. There are numerous examples where Jesus sat with sinners, conversed with them, shared meals with them, all for the purpose of revealing Himself to them to bring them into relationship with Him. Anyone remember the woman at the well (John 4)? She'd been in adulterous relationships and was a Samaritan which was double iniquity in the Jew's eyes. Yet Jesus sat with her at a well (which was a public place where everyone could see), and conversed in the open with her and revealed Himself as Messiah and Savior.

I do not condone the homosexual lifestyle. I do not think it is genetic and I know it is a sin in the Lord's eyes. However, is it not just as grievous to the Lord when we do not reach out to the "least of these"? Matthew 25 (Being in prison doesn't have to mean literal prison. It means spiritual as well. And isn't that what sin is?)

I think this provides an opportuity for all people to call themselves Christians to take a look at what the word really means. And to look to Jesus, who is supposed to be ressurecting in us and allow Him to lead us in our ministry.

As for the word "love" that everyone keeps on tossing around, love is Blood. The Blood of Jesus first of all and in His blood there is a call to sacrifice, not only for our brothers and sisters but for our neighbors. Yes, Jesus commanded us to love one another, but remember the greatest commandments. To love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, body and soul and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus Himself said that the Law and the Prophets hang on these. He never specified who your neighbor was. Your neighbor just might be the homosexual next door.

[17. Robert J Espe said the following at 8:22 AM on Dec 5:]

17

I think something is being missed here. There is a difference between interacting to witness, and building up a symbol of sin.

It would be a good thing to talk to your homosexual neighbors, it would be good to eat with them. But it isn't logically inconsistent to then not landscape their yard.

What if you were a general contractor? You could build homes for, and eat with people who run strip clubs or abortion clinics, but I don't think anyone would say a Christian should build strip clubs or abortion clinics as a witness. This is the same here, but the other way around, because it is the home that stands for the sin in question. The same could be said for an unwed couple. Love them, eat with them, but don't build a home God says they can't have.

[1. Emily said the following at 8:02 PM on Nov 30:]

1

My big problem with Matt's article is it starts off with a single incident and ends up in a sweeping condemnation of "gay activists" who want to redefine marriage. What's the relevance of that to the story? It's not as if the two gentlemen that the Farbers decided to drop have taken to the airwaves to use their unfortunate publicity to advocate for gay marriage -- if anything, they are two people who were understandably upset about being discrimated against, but I hardly see why that merits Matt's tangent about how "gay activists" (what a silly term) are trying to redefine the family.

Moreover, I imagine that the conservative Christian media would be up in arms if it were the Farbers being discrimated against for their Christian beliefs. I think it's just a sad story, and that the Farbers could have been a much greater witness had they just taken the business of two men who have been in a committed relationship for nearly a decade. Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors -- the Farbers couldn't even bring themselves to make a harmless gay couple's lawn look nice (and get paid for it)? I don't understand how far this "serious moral reason" that Matt says the Farbers were employing ought to extend; I wonder if they've ever provided service to parents with children out of wedlock, for example. I generally really enjoy reading Boundless, but articles like this (i.e. those that display a glaring insensitivity towards men and women who God created gay, since most evidence points to homosexuality being largely genetic) really make me question if the editors are only paying lip-service to loving all God's children.

[2. Jo said the following at 8:04 PM on Nov 30:]

2

When people do stuff like this, how are they demonstrating God's love to unbelievers? Many people are already against christians due to the judgemental and condeming attitudes some of them have. What makes me sad, is all the people who are going to get the wrong idea about this and distance themselves from God. Yes, we are entitled to stand up for what we believe in but we should also keep in mind the repercussions of our actions. If anyone wants to join me in praying for those who will become angry at God and Christians over this please do.

[3. Samuel PG said the following at 9:09 PM on Nov 30:]

3

In response to Emily, I may be wrong, but it seems as if your problem with Kaufman's article was not so much his tangential leap, but instead its apparent "glaring insensitivity towards men and women who God created gay, since most evidence points to homosexuality being largely genetic"

It is this problem that I would like to deal with. I, along with many others, dispute the claim that homosexuality is largely genetic, but even granting for the sake of argument that it is does not require us to celebrate or even condone of homosexuality. Boundless does not seem to be claiming that it is sinful to experience homosexual attraction but that acting out on such attraction is sinful. Even if homosexuality is genetic, it does not become good.

There is great evidence that people can be genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but alcoholics are still responsible for having given in to their conditions. All humans, of course, have a predisposition to sin in many ways but that does not excuse our sin. If a heterosexual couple were to give in to their genetic predispostion to copulate before they were bound in marriage it would not be excused.

I agree that we should love homosexuals and respect them as fellow human beings created in God's image, but out of our love for them we should not be willing to call sin holy. That would be as loving as telling someone with a cancerous tumor not to worry about it because it was natural. God bless

[4. Abby said the following at 9:31 PM on Nov 30:]

4

Jo, I join you in that prayer. Matt's article made me cry for its complete lack of compassion toward the lost and dying sinners watching Christians behave this way. Would it be acceptable for a Christian paramedic to watch two gay men bleed to death, refusing to treat their injuries for fear of "conferring legitimacy upon their relationship"? No? Why not? If Christian landscapers can turn their back on homosexual human beings and be applauded for it, why not Christian paramedics?

So much of Christianity in America has turned into pure politics. It's heartbreaking. The question "What Would Jesus Do?" should be the most relevant and guiding principle for every believer.

Jesus would've done their yardwork. For free. Then He would repair the roof, have dinner with them, and wash their feet. He gave us a great example of how to behave with sinners.

What do we do? We try to score political points.

The actions of that company -- and the response of an organization like Focus, which, LIKE IT OR NOT, represents Christianity in the eyes of much of our country -- presents a hateful, rejecting face to a lost and broken world.

I pray that God will forgive us. I pray that those homosexual men, and all the others who hear about this and are hurt and rejected by this kind of hatefulness, will somehow meet believers who can pierce through their pain and share with them the Gospel.

[5. JoAnna said the following at 10:00 PM on Nov 30:]

5

"They were trying not to confer acceptance on an inherently illegitimate relationship. For Christians, that's a responsibility — a matter of simple duty." -- quote from Mr. Kaufman's article

The bottom line here is that we must trust God's truth, revealed to us in His infallible Word, the Bible. God says, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) This does not mean that homosexuals cannot be saved -- the next verse says that "such were some of you; but you were washed" -- but that someone who consistently does these things, and is hardened in them and unrepentant, is not a Christian. One can be saved from sin (which homosexuality and homosexual acts are), but no one is ever saved for the purpose of continuing in sin. (See Romans 6:2)

To stand for God's Truth, and to live out what we believe, we must condemn homosexuality -- just as we should condemn fornication, idolatry, stealing, coveting, etc. -- for they are all sins. Yet we must communicate the truth in love and with a humble attitude -- as passages such as 2 Timothy 2:25 and 1 Peter 3:15 tell us. Still, we are to speak with firmness as well, for we have the knowledge that God's Words are absolutely true (which is something we can say about no mere man) and that He will, in His time, manifest Himself as the proof of His authenticity to the unbelieving world when He returns to judge.

Our God is love -- He and His character and actions are the definition of true love. But let us be careful that we do not impose our own faulty image of love on God. One definition of love that He gives is in John 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep my commandments." And again, 1 John 5:2 "By this we know we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments." Calvary was indeed the picture of God's great love for man. But think of this -- it was also the picture, the measure, of God's great hatred for sin; He hates sin so much and sin is so terrible, that He could not (to be true to His character & holiness) simply forgive it without the penalty being paid. If we take sin lightly, in our own lives or someone else's, we also take the Cross and His death lightly.

Far too many people today have an incorrect image of God as a fuzzy, warm Being who somehow will accept them no matter how much they sin against Him. This is untrue; God is great and He is loving, but He is holy and perfect as well. Sin, any sin, destroys everything that is good and beautiful in the world and relationships -- and God loves what is good and beautiful. To restore what has been destroyed, He condemns the destroyer (sin) and has provided redemption through the paying of sin's penalty by the death (and resurrection) of His Son, Jesus Christ. Let us be very careful lest we present to the world a perverted concept of God. For if they do not tremble before His holy Law, how will they ever understand the need for His grace?

[6. Kel said the following at 10:06 PM on Nov 30:]

6

In his article, Kaufman does not present a Biblical view of judgment. The Bible is very clear about the Christian's response to the sin of those outside the church in I Corinthians 5: 9-13

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."[b]

[7. Chris Krycho said the following at 10:16 PM on Nov 30:]

7

Conflating gardeners with paramedics is not a valid comparison, as ought to be clear after some consideration. The Christian worldview requires us to do all we can to save life. It does not require us to do all we can to make other people's lawns prettier, particularly if we have a conviction that we may be able to let people know that there is a better way by standing on our convictions. The Farbers may well have stories of people whose lives have been changed by their stand. Or they may not. They are accountable to God, not to any human judge; and if they stand on convictions that He has given them via His spirit, that is enough.

I think it's important to understand what love really is, and also to ask not, "What would Jesus do?" -- we can't know that -- but rather "What did Jesus do?" since we have a record of that. What did he do? He ate with tax collectors and prostitutes. After he had called them out of their sin and they had repented. He did not excuse sin. He did not do people's work for free (and, one should note that the advice of the New Testament includes such sage wisdom as "people who don't work shouldn't eat").

Love is not being tolerant of any and all deviancies. Love is calling sin what it is, while noting that there is a better way. That's not politics. It's completely apolitical. I agree that the church as a whole needs to be condemning sexual immorality in general -- and I would say that large sections of it are, but right now it is the homosexual question that is most active, and that is thanks to gay activists who are pressing for the normalization of their behavior -- and more than simply normalization, actual recognition on the same level as marriage. NOT because Christians are making a fuss.

As for the genetic thing, it's irrelevant -- though many scientists strongly dispute the claim that it is entirely genetic (including the man whose work is most often cited as proving that homosexuality is genetic). That it has been reported as true by media does not make it so; a careful reading of psychological and biological journals makes it very clear that the verdict is not in on homosexuality. The general consensus among scientists at this point -- insofar as there is one -- is that it is a combination of general predisposition and environmental factors. Not one or the other. As Samuel PG pointed out above, however, it doesn't matter. I have a natural proclivity as a human male to "spread my seed," so to speak roughly from the time I turn 14 on. I have strong aggressive instincts hardwired into me. I am fiercely competitive. None of those things matter before the law in the sense of excusing or reducing culpability for actions I commit; and certainly they do not function as excuses before God for my unrighteous behavior.

Let me put it this way:if this were any other subject, we'd agree that telling someone the truth -- in love, yes, but the truth neverthless -- is the best thing. Here, because of the way that gay activists have reshaped the debate, telling someone that acting out homosexuality is wrong is suddenly a hate crime. Is telling someone that murder is wrong a hate crime? Is telling someone that polygamy is wrong a hate crime? Is love actually being "tolerant" in the modern sense, or is it being up front about what right and wrong are? The modern liberal (and by that I mean ideological and theological liberalism, not necessarily political liberalism, though all of the above tend to go hand in hand [which I consider unfortunate for political liberals]) interpretation of love falls far short.

Love does not allow people to continue in things that are bad for them. It is not hate to tell someone they are wrong and there is a better way -- if it is, then we all ought to stop proclaiming the gospel right now, because that is its message.

Perhaps it's time we remember Paul's description of the cross -- "to the Jews an offense, and to the Gentiles a mystery."

We need to demonstrate love and compassion -- but we also need to be aware that the Biblical definitions of those two words are very, very different from what modern culture defines them as.

[8. Howell said the following at 11:48 PM on Nov 30:]

8

While I don't doubt the motivations of the couple, a far more Christ-like response would have been to take the job at their regular rate and talk with the homeowners about their lifestyle choice. I say Christ-like because then they would be getting criticism from both sides just like Jesus often did.

"They were trying not to confer acceptance on an inherently illegitimate relationship. For Christians, that's a responsibility — a matter of simple duty." -- quote from Mr. Kaufman's article

I take issue with this supposition. How does mowing someone's lawn confer acceptance? It is a Christian's responsibility to be loving. This concern with "confering acceptance" is based in worrying what people think other than the actual homeowners. We, as Christians frightened of the world, often prefer to cast the sinners out rather than have a discussion that might not be pleasant.

[9. Abby said the following at 7:08 AM on Dec 1:]

9

Chris, perhaps paramedics versus gardeners is a bad example. What about locksmiths? Would it be acceptable for a Christian locksmith to refuse to help a gay couple get back into their house or car? Would that be "conferring legitimacy upon their relationship?"

Try to picture Jesus telling two human beings, made in His image, "I choose not to work with homosexuals. Best of luck in finding someone else to let you back into your house."

The modern-day idolatry of concepts like "Christian worldview" and conservative political positions is going to land many, many, many people in hell. How are sinners to come to repentance when the only face of Jesus they see is Christians who refuse to do business with them?

If Christians received an e-mail saying, "We choose not to do business with Christians," these same commenters would be livid, and lawsuits would result.

Guess what? Religion is a choice. Discrimination based on religion is prohibited by law, but with the exception of Judaism (and possibly one or two others I can't think of at the moment), one is not born a member of any faith. One must choose it. If this sort of behavior is legally permissible, how long until the same arguments turn around and apply to us?

All of this is rhetoric. Here is what actually matters: two human beings who have been presented with the gospel of rejection, of we-choose-not-to-associate-with-you, all in the name of the humble Savior who ate with prostitutes and washed His disciples' feet. If they end up in hell, a large group of Christians will share the blame. What will Jesus say? "Thanks for standing up for me by not cutting those queers' yards?" or "I gave you an opportunity to show my love to two lost, broken, and dying people, and you rejected them -- in My name! Why?"

[10. Jonathan said the following at 8:15 AM on Dec 1:]

10

I can't pretend that this is a clear-cut situation; certainly valid points of view have been expressed as to how we as Christians should relate to our fellow sinners.

However, I really respect the Farbers' decision and I think there are some points to consider. First, the Farbers run their own business, so they can deny business to someone if they choose. That doesn't necessarily make it right, it just is their right. Obviously there are forces out there who would gleefully punish the couple for their stand. We should be glad they have the freedom (at least in Texas) from being punished through the law for that stance, right or wrong.

Second, consider that their website did include the link to a petition against gay marriage, so there was a potential conflict of interest if they had done business with the gentlemen. This might be a long shot, but in theory someone could have run with such a story, claiming they were hypocrites for taking money from the gentlemen but denying them a "right" to marry, blah blah blah...

I'm also reminded of a "Way of the Master" episode that pointed out that there isn't anything "special" about homosexuality as a sin; it's simply one branch of sexual sin. Now, suppose the Farbers were asked to do landscaping for the Playboy mansion (I know: this was in Texas, but just suppose). Would our reactions, pro and con, be the same? Maybe, but remember Mr. Farber stated "he had grown increasingly 'grieved' to see the lives they were living." At the very least, we have to respect what was a difficult decision.

Obviously I haven't said anything about what the Christ-like thing to do in this situation. All I can say is it's a complicated situation and I pray we will use discernment to decide for ourselves.

[11. Robert J Espe said the following at 9:37 AM on Dec 1:]

11

I think it is worth pointing out that the homosexual couple in question was not actually harmed in any way. They simply had to find another company to do their landscaping (I can't imagine that was very difficult)

However, for the first time in a long time, they may have actually taken notice of someone's disapproval, which was not combined with hate, no matter how hard some would like to paint things that way. That may have been worthwhile (and let's be honest about the odds of caring what the landscaper working for you thinks of your lifestyle while they are doing the job)

The couple's logic was simple (and this is what makes it different from the paramedic example): For either of those people to come out of their sin, they would have to get rid of that house, charging them for landscaping it does nothing to facillitate that.

Also, consider if instead of a homosexual couple, it was a couple, or a person who represented a sin of concern to you (could be young people living together, an abortion doctor, or someone who mismanages their land, take your pick). Working for them, endorses what they do (the term collaborator comes to mind)

So while there is a place to get to know someone, there is also a place to say, "I don't hate you, but I won't condone what you are doing, and this job wouldn't exist except for your sin." That isn't hate. And if a private business didn't want to do business with me because I am a Christian, I would respect their decision.

[12. Chris Krycho said the following at 10:20 AM on Dec 1:]

12

Abby, that's a better example, but it still falls short. In that case there is an urgent need. It's also likely the sexuality of the couple in question wouldn't even be something the locksmith would be aware of in that short a span of time, unless the couple in question were actively broadcasting it.

I think where you're wrong is to suggest that holding to a Christian worldview is idolatry. Certainly putting politicians on a pedestal -- regardless of their affiliation -- is folly, but I think it's important to remember that we need to be actively engaging our culture for its betterment, on topics from marriage to abortion to our interaction with the rest of the world. If you don't believe me, believe the early Christians, who assumed they had a mandate to do precisely that, to work thoroughly counterculturally against homosexuality, abortion, etc. (One should probably also note that the early Christians were warring against some of the same sins we are today.) Clearly they felt that the message of Christ required it of them -- and they would know, especially those who were taught by Paul and the other apostles.

And again, you need to remember your Biblical history. Jesus ate with former prostitutes, and He washed the feet of those who followed Him. Yes, we need to be a servant of those around us who need the gospel -- and there is a desperate need -- but we also need to remember to "come out, be separated, and touch not the unclean thing," as well as the aforementioned (by another poster) command not to associate with those engaging in sexual immorality.

For people espousing love and tolerance, those who disagree with the Farbers are certainly not demonstrating a loving attitude in response to them, which is ironic given than Jesus' command is that we love one another, not the world. I'm not saying that we ought not reflect Christ's love to the world -- we should -- but we have an equal responsibility to love one another, because as He said in John, "By this will the world know that you are my disciples: that you love one another." I think we all need to make sure that we have that attitude toward the Farbers first and foremost, regardless of whether we agree with their actions in this case or not.

[13. Patrick said the following at 6:54 PM on Dec 1:]

13

I think it's a mistake to defend the Farbers. Suppose the couple in question had not been gay but instead actively denied the divinity of Christ (surely a clearer sin than engaging in a long term gay relationship). Would you seriously defend someone who wrote, "I'm sorry, but I don't choose to work with Jews/Muslims/Buddhists?" Would you see that as anything other than an incredibly poor representation of Christ to the world? What exactly is the difference between refusing to garden for a gay couple and refusing to garden for a rabbi?

[14. Abigail said the following at 6:04 PM on Dec 2:]

14

The Bible tells us plainly that homosexual behavior is a sin. I'm not defending it or trying to lessen that, but I do think the article doesn't take into consideration that homosexuals are still people. My boyfriend is serving in the US Military in Iraq right now, and I bet the two homosexual men who were denied the service from the Farber's landscaping company felt like I do when someone criticizes the war or the American troops. Sure, I know war-bashers aren't intentionally slamming the man I love, but that is definitely what it feels like to me! I think those two men had every right to be upset, and that the Farbers failed to extend Christian charity to these two men who desperately need the Savior.

I also think it was incredibly rude of them to deny service in such a manner without having a written policy prior to the situation coming up. I wouldn't agree with such a policy, but at least that would have been more fair to the potential clients.

When the Bible talks about being seperate from sexually immoral people, it is usually talking about people who claim to be believers and yet continue in a life of sin. I don't think the Farber's had a Biblical reason for this decision. They didn't have to become best friends with these men or ask them to babysit their children, but they certainly could have landscaped without compromising the gospel.

To be honest, I've lost a lot of respect for Boundless because of the way you guys have supported this story.

[15. kuriaartso said the following at 10:41 AM on Dec 4:]

15

Abigail, my fiance has also served a year in Iraq and is currently over there working as a civilian, so I can sympathize with how you feel about people bashing the war. But the tone of Sabrina's reply would be the equivalent of someone saying, "I don't agree with the war, and therefore I choose not to enlist" and leaving it at that. I may not agree with it, but I don't feel attacked.

[16. Carrie said the following at 6:22 PM on Dec 4:]

16

"They were trying not to confer acceptance on an inherently illegitimate relationship. For Christians, that's a responsibility — a matter of simple duty." -- quote from Mr. Kaufman's article

I have to strongly disagree with this. There are numerous examples where Jesus sat with sinners, conversed with them, shared meals with them, all for the purpose of revealing Himself to them to bring them into relationship with Him. Anyone remember the woman at the well (John 4)? She'd been in adulterous relationships and was a Samaritan which was double iniquity in the Jew's eyes. Yet Jesus sat with her at a well (which was a public place where everyone could see), and conversed in the open with her and revealed Himself as Messiah and Savior.

I do not condone the homosexual lifestyle. I do not think it is genetic and I know it is a sin in the Lord's eyes. However, is it not just as grievous to the Lord when we do not reach out to the "least of these"? Matthew 25 (Being in prison doesn't have to mean literal prison. It means spiritual as well. And isn't that what sin is?)

I think this provides an opportuity for all people to call themselves Christians to take a look at what the word really means. And to look to Jesus, who is supposed to be ressurecting in us and allow Him to lead us in our ministry.

As for the word "love" that everyone keeps on tossing around, love is Blood. The Blood of Jesus first of all and in His blood there is a call to sacrifice, not only for our brothers and sisters but for our neighbors. Yes, Jesus commanded us to love one another, but remember the greatest commandments. To love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, body and soul and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus Himself said that the Law and the Prophets hang on these. He never specified who your neighbor was. Your neighbor just might be the homosexual next door.

[17. Robert J Espe said the following at 8:22 AM on Dec 5:]

17

I think something is being missed here. There is a difference between interacting to witness, and building up a symbol of sin.

It would be a good thing to talk to your homosexual neighbors, it would be good to eat with them. But it isn't logically inconsistent to then not landscape their yard.

What if you were a general contractor? You could build homes for, and eat with people who run strip clubs or abortion clinics, but I don't think anyone would say a Christian should build strip clubs or abortion clinics as a witness. This is the same here, but the other way around, because it is the home that stands for the sin in question. The same could be said for an unwed couple. Love them, eat with them, but don't build a home God says they can't have.