One day, the master and
his disciples were walking through the vales of South Wales and came upon a
group gathered around an artist in one of the small towns. The artist was creating a portrait of someone
famous out of coal. On display were
other portraits made from tomato catsup, chocolate, lipstick and so forth. There was even a picture made from marmite on
toast! His incredible and creative
talent was evident to all the bystanders.
As the disciples moved on, they heard someone mention that the artist
was homosexual and that he supported a charity opposed to bullying, since he
himself had at one time been bullied for his sexuality.
Later that day, the
disciples began to discuss an American legal case that was in the news. An artistic cake designer was being sued for
not making a cake for a homosexual wedding.
The disciples discussed the similarities between the two men. Like the artist that the disciples had seen
that day, he was a ‘food artist.’ The
customers for whom he baked and decorated cakes were not persons buying some necessary
food items from the grocers, they literally were commissioning him to create
art for a celebration. Both artists
chose their commissions, were sought after for their creativity, and made
statements, negative or positive, through their art. Both were opposed to something and expressed their
convictions through their art: one was opposed to the bullying of homosexuals
and created art to make this statement, the other was opposed to homosexuality
and refused to accept commissions to create wedding cakes for homosexuals. While both used food in their art, neither of
them were engaged in providing food for sustenance.
The disciples then
discussed differences between the food artists.
One difference between the two food artists was that one actively
created art for his cause whereas the other more quietly declined to produce
art for causes he did not support, not only homosexuality but also such things
as witchcraft. The disciples agreed that
the other artist would no doubt also refuse to produce art against his
convictions if the matter ever arose. Another
difference was that people actually ate the cake artist’s creations. A third difference was that the cake artist’s
creations typically had the function of supporting a celebration, and therefore
he, too, was drawn into the celebration of his clients. That gave him the greater reason to refuse
commissions for celebrations that were against his convictions. Perhaps the major difference—the real
difference that angered people—was that he refused to support the culture’s
recently adopted social agenda of promoting same-sex marriage. In the cake maker’s father’s or grandfather’s
generation, or any other previous generation in human history until, perhaps, one
gets all the way back to the era of Sodom, the cake maker would not have been
told by law to make cakes for homosexuals.
The disciples concluded
their discussion by agreeing that the court’s forcing the American cake maker
to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding would be like forcing the Welsh food
artist to create a portrait of a choir boy for a known pedophile priest. As one of the disciples put it, ‘Governments
have no right to make people use their artistic gifts against their
consciences.’ The master, who had been
listening to this intriguing discussion, spoke up.
‘You are right to
mention conscience. This is not just a
matter of rights or of artistic freedom.
True, the cake maker’s rights are suppressed. True, the West has a long history of fighting
for freedom of expression, especially when it comes to artistic expression, for
in the suppression of what we find offensive lurks the power to suppress
everything not according to our liking. Ultimately,
however, this is a matter of conscience.
In societies where people are constrained to do what their consciences forbid,
the government has become god in a way that not even God cares to behave. If God were coercive, He would bring an end to
sin here and now. But He is, instead,
loving and patient, wooing rather than whipping people to Himself. And God loved
the world in this way, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have
eternal life. There is no place for love
or belief in coercion. But evil systems
have no place for love or faith and instead use the law and punishment to
squash any dissent from others’ consciences.
Not only must one do what the totalitarian state says, but one must also
desire whatever the totalitarian state says is good.’
The disciples’ weighed
the master’s words. Then the master
said, ‘This matter is like the farm boy who believed that the weather vane was
a compass. His father had placed a
weather vane in the shape of a cock on top of the barn, and it swung one way or
the other, depending on which way the wind was blowing. The cock always faced into the wind. His little boy, however, had it in mind that
the cock always pointed north. One blustery
autumn day, a big wind blew from the west, and the farm boy went down to the
pond to tell the ducks it was time to fly south for the winter. He pointed in the opposite direction that the
weathercock was facing—east. ‘You must
fly that way,’ he stated firmly. The
ducks pointed with their wings to the south.
‘You naughty ducks,’ said the farm boy, and he caught the ducks one by
one until he had them all penned inside the barn. ‘Now,’ said the boy, ‘will you fly in the
direction I tell you to fly, for I am the farm boy, and I know where you should
fly?’ The ducks refused. They said that, deep inside themselves, they
knew the right direction to fly, no matter which way the wind was blowing. So, the farm boy was mad at the ducks, and he
took a hedge clippers and clipped their wings so that they would obey him. But the ducks could not now fly at all.’
Then the master asked
his disciples, ‘When the farmer comes to the barn and sees what his boy has
done to the ducks, what do you think he will do?’ The disciples contemplated the scene for a
little while. Then Peter spoke up, ‘I
suppose,’ he said, ‘that the farmer will explain to his little boy that ducks
are not very smart and can’t tell directions by wind compasses as well as he
can!’ To his fellow disciples he added, ‘In
any case, surely it is always easier to fly with the wind to your back. Obstinate ducks!’ Then he winked at the master, who grabbed his
head in his hands and just shook it left to right, groaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment