Little Neros & A Pinch of Incense

From Polycarp.net:

Polycarp's greatest contribution to Christianity may be his martyred death. His martyrdom stands as one of the most well documented events of antiquity. The emperors of Rome had unleashed bitter attacks against the Christians during this period, and members of the early church recorded many of the persecutions and deaths. Polycarp was arrested on the charge of being a Christian -- a member of a politically dangerous cult whose rapid growth needed to be stopped. Amidst an angry mob, the Roman proconsul took pity on such a gentle old man and urged Polycarp to proclaim, "Caesar is Lord". If only Polycarp would make this declaration and offer a small pinch of incense to Caesar's statue he would escape torture and death. To this Polycarp responded, "Eighty-six years I have served Christ, and He never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?" Steadfast in his stand for Christ, Polycarp refused to compromise his beliefs, and thus, was burned alive at the stake.

A pinch of incense. That's it. That's the price. But he couldn't do it, and was put to death for his stubborn refusal to abandon his Christian beliefs. And he's not the only one. Throughout the ages, there have been many, many Christians who would prefer the most excrutiating death over the most trivial denial of Christ. One would almost think we have a martyrdom fetish.

* * *

My favorite quote from Fr. Barron (5:33):

Nero, in his time maybe, was a big deal; he was the Roman Emperor, the king of the world. Nero, exercising this arbitrary authority, he puts to death this Galilean fisherman. Who would have guessed that 2000 years later: Nero, he's just an ancient memory; Nero's palace is in ruins; Nero's empire, long gone? But the successor of Peter is right there. I mean, he lives in the apostolic palace. I saw him when I was in Rome. He came out for the Sunday blessing and I saw him. The Empire that has grown from those early Christian roots now spans the whole world and includes well over a billion people.

A reflection of Mary's Magnificat maybe? "He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble."

* * *

All this brings me to the New Mexico Supreme Court's recent decision in Elane Photography v. Willock. In the decision, the NM Supreme Court held that photographer Elaine Huguenin and her husband engaged in discrimination by refusing to offer a pinch of incense to photograph a same-sex "marriage" "ceremony". In a concurrence to the opinion, Justice Richard C. Bosson wrote that the Huguenins "now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.... At is heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others…. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship."

If compromising the Christian faith—even the slightest bit—is, in fact, the price of citizenship, then consider this my formal renunciation of any worldly citizenship. But,

What struck me most when I read the opinion was the sheer short-sighted, conceited, historically ignorant arrogance of the Justices. Perhaps they think they're kings of the world. Perhaps they thing that their decisions are binding for all time to come. Perhaps they are simply unaware that, in 2000 years, their empire will be long gone, their courthouse in ruins. Perhaps they think they've discovered the secret formula for suppressing Christianity that Nero didn't know. Perhaps they don't know that Christ's Church will endure beyond their clueless persecution.

Either way, they have placed themselves in a distinguished company that includes several Roman emperors.

To the New Mexico Supreme Court, I say: Christians have willingly suffered heinous deaths for things far more trivial than celebrating sexual perversions. What, exactly, do you hope to accomplish? What, exactly do you expect? Do you think Christians are just going to knuckle under and offer the pinch of incense? And are you willing to go as far as the others in your distinguished company if they do not?

* * *

Friend Devin periodically—and rightly—complains about the more hateful sects of Protestantism, when they cross the line from objecting to sexual deviance to disparaging persons, asking why they don't hate the sin, but love the sinner.

One thing I found most interesting about Elane Photography v. Willock is that it, quite simply, makes this illegal, when the sinner is a member of a protected group: "We agree that when a law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that law similarly protects conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation." They cite the SCOTUS decision in Lawrence v. Texas which says, "When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination." Justice O'Connor continued: "While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay
persons as a class.” And I suppose laws against theft and arson are targeted at kleptomaniacs and pyromaniacs as classes.

In other words, legally, hating the sin means hating the sinner. Perhaps if we want Christians to maintain the distinction, we shouldn't punish it in law.

* * *

Lastly, an unrelated meme: