MLA's judgment clause against Christian teaching
CHRISTIAN consciences have been a concern since the days of the New Testament. A long time ago, a wise man called Paul the Apostle gave advice to the Christians in Corinth about how to handle their consciences.
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral … But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister, but is sexually immoral … Do not even eat with such people." (1 Corinthians 5:9-11). In Paul's view, your conscience regarding "sexually immoral" people did not stop you interacting with them as normal. It was only when a fellow Christian was sexually immoral that you were supposed to invoke Paul's conscience clause: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" (Verse 12)
An evangelical photographer is free to believe same-sex relationships are immoral, but refusing to photograph a civil partnership ceremony for a non-evangelical couple on grounds of "conscience" is an act of judgment. Paul the Apostle says this is wrong.
Much more recently, another Paul, an MLA not an Apostle, has suggested Christians should judge those outside the Church, to the extent of refusing to do business with them if their moral standards are found wanting. However well-meaning Mr Givan and his DUP colleagues are, it strikes me that no Christian would ever exercise the clause he seeks, as doing so would go against the clear teaching of Christian scripture.
ANDREW McFARLAND CAMPBELL