Last week, I wrote an article concerning Alistair Begg’s advice to a grandmother in his congregation concerning whether or not to go to a trans wedding of her grandson. My purpose in that post was not to share my view but simply to parse the issues at play. You can read that piece here.

I followed that up with another post outlining why I think some of the arguments against Begg’s position were poorly made. In particular, I think reference to the weaker brother in the particular case at hand were badly misplaced. You can read that post here.

In between those two posts, we also recorded a podcast episode on this issue as well. The particular concern we had in mind was thinking through the issue at hand and how to view Begg in light of his comments. Essentially, is this a watershed moment for him? Is he outlining a totally unbiblical view? If he is, or we land differently to him on it, what does that mean for him and his teaching ministry more broadly? You can listen to that podcast episode here.

In all of those things, I kept my own view to myself. I was more concerned with how we think through the issue than making a particular case about what I would do or counsel myself. I was similarly concerned with how we view another believer who up to now has been seen as nothing but a godly brother who proclaims the Word faithfully who might land differently to some of us on this issue. I was similarly keen to do a bit of theological triage on his comments. What exactly has he said, what is he affirming and not affirming, where exactly does his counsel fall? Again, you can read and listen to the previous posts and podcast episode to see what I think about all of that. But I was keen for my personal view not to be the point of interest, but rather to (as best as possible) dispassionately consider the issue at hand and how to view Begg in light of his comments.

Having done all that, it seems fair enough now to share what my personal view is on the matter at hand. Before I do that, I want to reiterate that I stand by everything I said in the previous posts and podcast episode. You will have to read what I said there to understand the context of what I am going to say now. All I am doing today is sharing my personal view of what I would do in the circumstances or how I would counsel somebody coming to me asking the same question about attending a gay or trans wedding of a family member or friend. As I mentioned in the podcast episode, this is question is by no means unique to gay or trans weddings. It applies to any wedding – including ones following what we might consider illegitimate divorces or resulting from extra-marital affairs – that we similarly might be invited to attend.

As I previously mentioned, the core issue at hand is whether our attendance at such an event is to affirm it in and of itself or whether it is possible to attend without affirming or celebrating the act. On that very narrow question, my personal view is that in the overwhelming majority of cases you cannot credibly accept a wedding invite – particularly one that involves a reception and evening celebration – without celebrating what is on display. My instinct is to say, in the ordinary run of things, attending a celebratory event is to celebrate the event.

We have to ask why we have been invited in the first place. Even if we are convinced we have been clear about our position in our own mind, we have to think about what we will convey to others about our position too. Will our attendance be seen as celebrating along with the couple? Perhaps worse, will our attendance be seen as setting aside our biblical conviction simply because of the person involved? I struggle to see how we escape either conveying that we are actually celebrating what we don’t think should be celebrated or that we are happy to set aside biblical convictions such that we convey we have higher priorities than seeking to be faithful to what we believe the Lord Jesus asks of us. On that basis, I would find it hard to counsel somebody to attend.

I do, however, take seriously the pastoral implication that Begg evidently takes seriously too. Namely, we don’t want to reinforce a sense of judgementalism nor that we hate the people involved. My personal conviction is that we should take the risk of meeting with those who invite us and explaining that we do love them, we do want the best for them but we cannot celebrate this particular decision. Along with Begg, though contrary to him because I would do this specifically on the basis that I would not attend because I cannot celebrate what is on display, I might countenance buying the person a gift nonetheless. Not as a affirmation of what is happening but as a sign of love and concern for them in light of the clear line that we cannot celebrate the event and therefore won’t be able to attend. I would also try my level best such as they were still willing to meet with them in other settings, invite them over for meals, spend time with them even as a couple, in settings that are not celebrating the specific union itself. I would be very keen to try and keep the lines of communication open.

There are, of course, many other situations we have to consider. What of a Christian photographer providing a service? What of a baker providing wedding cakes? Legally, provision must not discriminate and, as far as the law is concerned, if you provide wedding services you must provide them without discrimination. My personal view is that you are not affirming a wedding or particular marriage if you are baker who sells cakes to anyone or a photographer who takes photos for anyone. You are not being invited to the wedding to celebrate; you being paid to provide a service. My personal conviction is that it is acceptable to sell wedding cakes to those getting married whoever they may be and to photograph weddings whoever they are for. I don’t think you are in any way affirming or celebrating the marriage by doing these things, certainly not in the way you are if you are being invited as a guest for the purpose of celebrating together.

No doubt someone will throw up the Asher’s bakery case. I supported their right not to bake that particular cake. However, it bears saying they were not asked to provide a wedding cake. They were asked to bake a cake bearing a particular political slogan with which they firmly disagreed. The issue in that case was not that they would not bake any cake for that particular person, or even a particular event, but that they wouldn’t make that specific cake for anyone. Ashers were being forced to affirm views they did not hold. It was case of compelled speech. Simply providing an off the shelf wedding cake for a gay marriage (for example) would not be to affirm anything in particular, certainly no more than selling a birthday cake to someone who would serve it at a birthday party that might make a Christian very uncomfortable at the goings on if they were invited. But I don’t think bakers (or anyone else) ought to be required to know exactly how and where their products will be used after sale, whether at weddings or any other event. The key issue, in my opinion, is what are we being forced to affirm. My view is that providing a service is not to affirm anything. Being forced to make an affirming message that contravenes your own convictions is to be compelled to affirm what you do not affirm.

So, in short, my particular view is that it is legitimate to provide services for people with whom we deeply disagree. I do not think a Christian plumber working in a Muslim person’s house is in any way affirming the beliefs of the person whose house they are working in. I don’t think bakers and photographers and even wedding planners are affirming the choices or union of those who are paying them to utilise their services for an event. However, I think being invited as a guest to an event that is specifically put on to celebrate the very thing itself is another matter. The sole issue – as I laid out in my earlier posts – is to do with what we are actively affirming. This is some of how I work out what I think we are and are not affirming in different scenarios.

Nevertheless, I want to return to the point I made originally. Clearly I disagree with Alistair Begg’s counsel (but I didn’t want that to have any bearing on what I was previously saying). So how should I view him? Has he erred? Only inasmuch as I don’t agree with him on what I consider to be a matter of wisdom and prudence. Is he beyond the pale now? No, I don’t think so. He lands in the same place as I do on how to view the issue, on the rightness and wrongness of the issue and is pastorally concerned about the relationships involved (just as I am) on the issue. Where we disagree is on a matter of wisdom about how to best apply these principles.

I think we shouldn’t go to a gay or trans wedding because going will affirm what we cannot affirm. I think we should work as hard as possible to find other ways and means of showing our love for those who will inevitably be upset at our decision. I think it provides us a gospel opportunity to lovingly set out our view on the issue, why it matters but, just as importantly, how such a view does not diminish our love and care for our family member or friend. Begg thinks we should, for the sake of the gospel, make our convictions clear and go regardless because that will be a better witness. We disagree over the application of biblical principles, over a matter of wisdom, not biblical fidelity, and over whether we are actually affirming something or not. We have the same concerns but land in different places. I do not think it is a fellowship breaking, test case for orthodoxy that means he can no longer be considered faithful or godly.

The two issues at stake are these: (1) are we affirming by going or not? (2) Is this is an issue of wisdom or a matter of biblical fidelity? I disagree with Begg on (1) but I think it is a matter of wisdom in light of our agreed biblical principles. I don’t agree with his approach, but I appreciate my answer is as much a matter of wisdom as his. The Bible doesn’t draw a straight line on this question and we have to parse the issues and come to a view with which we are comfortable before the Lord. What I am presenting here is not the biblically mandated position. I am outlining what I consider to be a wise, faithful position given the issues at play. But I am loath to baptise my application on this issue and add a little ‘Jesus says’ where he hasn’t. That is the stuff of pharisaism and we really ought to be very wary of putting words in Jesus’ mouth that he hasn’t actually said, no matter how convinced we are about the wisdom of our position.