Merritt, Powers, and Baking Cakes for the KKK

Posted by


Should black Christians who own bakeshops be forced to bake cakes for KKK rallies, because to not do so would marginalize a group of people? Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt are convinced that it would be inconceivable to assume that “society” (as if society has ever been the axis of Christian morality) would think it unconscionable for the black baker to bake such a cake. They write:

“This is why the first line of analysis here has to be whether society really believes that baking a wedding cake or arranging flowers or taking pictures (or providing any other service) is an affirmation. This case simply has not been made, nor can it be, because it defies logic.  If you lined up 100 married couples and asked them if their florist “affirmed” their wedding, they would be baffled by the question.”

It appears as if Jonathan Merritt and Kirsten Powers have identified the boundaries of the Christian conscience. Thank goodness! It’s just too bad that we cannot email the Apostle Paul in order to tell him that he (and apparently Russell Moore) was being a hypocrite when he said:

“Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains.27 If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; 29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? 31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

Christians have always been led by the Holy Spirit to discriminate against participating in what their conscience informs them is wrong. The problem is not with the conscience of the venders; the problem is with a faulty logic that suggests to withhold service from a person because of clearly perceived sinful activity is to withhold service from them because of who they are. This simply is not the case.  Jonathan is right in suggesting that society would think this illogical. Society, which is driven by both Christians and atheists from time to time, has claimed that black people were less than fully human. Society at one point thought Christians ate babies in special ceremonies. Society has thought a lot of things, so I’m not quite sure when a Christian’s subscription to the prominent moral norms of culture was ever a viable means for authenticating the Spirit’s leading in their life.

As far as Jesus goes, we have no biblical proof of Jesus offering a service to anyone in direct cooperation with a sinful act they were committing. If anything, we have Jesus loving them through an admonishment to stop participating in sin after he healed or saved them from immanent death (John 5:14; John 8:1-11). However, we do have biblical narratives that command Christians to resist partaking in eating with someone because the eating of the food would be a symbolic participation in the demonic lie of idol worship. The passage then goes on to say, “Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God!” So, are Jonathan and Kirsten suggesting that the only actions necessary to bring in line with glorifying God are those outside the business realm? It seems a bit odd to me that you have the same Christians saying that every skill one has should be submitting to the glory of God, and then in the next breath saying that using that skill in business really has nothing to do with Christian morals at all. What it sounds like to me is that Jonathan and Kirsten are simply interpreting scripture and the Christian conscience through the lens of socialism and the social justice movement. Not that I am completely opposed to many tenets of socialism or the social justice movement, but those things should not provide the scruples by which I morally engage with society or by which I seek to glorify my God.

The inconsistencies held to by Christians on various moral and cultural topics is an important thing to bring up, and I appreciate Powers and Merritt for doing so. I can stand with Powers and Merritt and wholeheartedly say that it is biblically wrong to resist serving someone in the pluralistic marketplace because of who they believe themselves to be. If that is what Arizona or any other state is doing, then I stand against it. However, there is no biblical basis that I know of for suggesting that it is immoral to resist participating, in any way, with what is perceived by the Christian to be dishonoring to God. I realize that a time is probably coming when many more Christians throughout America will be forced to make a choice as to where their boundary of conscience lies, and when to refrain from involvement in the marketplace. That said, it sure would be nice to have more firm Christian voices, engaged with culture, seeking to empower Christians with more flexibility to use their God given skills within the marketplace without violating their conscience.

Would Jesus ask the black Christian man to use his God given skills, meant to glorify God, to bake the cake for the KKK rally where they celebrate hate? That may be an easy yes to Powers and Merritt, but not to me. My conscience would say, NO! But Jesus would probably have me offer them a piece of cake to eat unrelated to the rally, because we love them.

(All scripture quoted from NASB version)


  1. Thanks for your post. There is a lot of confusion around this issue. Confusion with what the definition of love is within the church. Jesus said, go and sin no more. First Corinthians 13, the love chapter, states that “love rejoices not in wrong doing.” We have all been inspired by the stories of Daniel in the Lion’s Den and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the Fiery furnace. These were examples of individuals that would not violate their conscience, who took the difficult path out of devotion to their God. Our country has a history of respecting the religions belief of our citizens, but this is being threatened. We are witnessing an attempt of forced confessions and not allowing religious convictions being practiced outside the walls of the church. We must not outlaw descent in this country.

  2. Thank you all for your comments. It is a complex issue for sure. The Spirit works in all believers and works at different times in different ways. Thankfully the Spirit does not contradict himself. That doesn’t make it a breeze to discern his guidance at times, but it gives us something to guide our moral lens. “Swalibertarian,” I’m familiar with the 2 Kings 5 passage. It’s used in all sorts of theological arguments to argue whatever point seems the most focused on God’s approval of libertarian freedom. It’s also the only verse of its kind that I know. We had long discussions about it in my missiology class in seminary, and it is my opinion that it is not a strong verse to use as a hermeneutic for reading the rest of scripture, or for making morality judgements in engaging culture.

  3. Thanks for your comments. I was not aware of the Powers/Merritt discussion — i’m sure they represent many, including some Christians. Although it is a difficult issue — it will come to the fore sooner than later. I tend to agree with your response as the Biblical one.

    1. Thanks for taking the time to read it Don. I also appreciate the feedback. It certainly is a difficult issue that needs to be handled with patience and grace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s