“A Piece of My Mind”
August 2023 Newsletter
Advancing Christian Faith and Values,
Defending Religious Liberty for All,
Supporting Civility and the Common Good
through Preaching, Teaching, Writing,
Activism and Reasoned Conversations
Religious Liberty Vigilance – The Supreme Court
What Happened & What Should Happen?
““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
– 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The recent term of the U.S. Supreme Court is surely regarded as momentous by almost all observers—for it or against it. Two decisions in particular should be seen as victories for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Groff v. DeJoy – You need to spend more than nickels and dimes.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination by an employer against an employee due to the latter’s religion. “Religion” includes “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief…”
An employer must show “that he is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”
The case involved a postal worker’s objection, based on his religious convictions, to being required to work on Sundays. At issue was the 1977 case Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. That case came up with the bizarre notion that “undue hardship” meant incurring costs more than “de minimis” expense. Imagine a business being required to make improvements to satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act only up to the point of “bare minimum” expenditures. Who would understand “undue hardship” so minimally?
A unanimous Supreme Court rejected the “de minimis” standard and returned the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration. “Undue hardship” means what it says and courts must resolve such cases in light of its common sense application.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis – Can government compel speech?
Lorie Smith produces custom websites for weddings. But because of her religious convictions she posted a statement that she would only speak messages consistent with her faith. So she declined to design a website for a same-sex marriage. Colorado’s antidiscrimination law prohibited her posted statement and required her to create websites celebrating same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs displaying messages with which the designer disagrees. This judgment was based on the “free speech” provision of the First Amendment, which guarantees “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.” The decision was not based on the “free exercise” of religion provision in the First Amendment.
The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States…have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all will encounter ideas that are “misguided, or even hurtful.” …Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and com- plex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment. [Syllabus, p. 6]
I suggest that any who might be refused services by Ms. Smith say this to her:
“I strongly disagree with your policies which, you say, rise from your religious convictions. In fact, I absolutely won’t give you my money and will happily take my business elsewhere. Nonetheless, I strongly support your right to speak your conscience and exercise your faith.”
All who embrace a robust understanding of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment have cause to celebrate these decisions.
NOTE: My words on these two cases are summaries only. Please consult the actual texts of the court’s decisions and articles discussing them for more detailed facts and analyses.
What’s Next for Religious Liberty?
Has the time come for the Supreme Court to overturn its Smith v. Employment Division decision of 1990, which ruled that the First Amendment didn’t protect religious practice when the effect of a law of generally applicability burdened the free exercise of religion.
Should the court return to a test established in Sherbert v. Verner (1963)? The test argued that government had to demonstrate a compelling state interest before it could justify burdening on someone’s religious beliefs or practices. Government was also required to employ the least restrictive means possible to meet its legitimate goal.
I would welcome this move.
Back the Badge
“You shall not steal.” – Exodus 20:15 (The 8th Commandment)
“When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong.” – Ecclesiastes 8:11
“As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind – to safeguard lives and property, to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder… “ – Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
As a citizen who cares for my community and as a Christian who believes God has established human authorities to commend what is good and punish wrongdoers (Romans 13:1-5), I am appalled by the growing disregard for law and for the property of others. I grieve with law enforcement personnel who have dedicated their lives to “safeguard lives and property” and “protect…the peaceful against violence or disorder” and who then find their hands tied.
Bold and aggressive shoplifting, without consequences, has become the crime du jour, perpetrated oftentimes by youthful offenders.
In my neighborhood, “TARGET is the Target.”
Adolescent teens from a nearby middle school “arrive at the store by bicycle every day, within 10 minutes of school ending, followed by dozens of more students walking to the grocery department.” Witnesses have reported “students riding their own scooters or the store handicap electric carts, throwing store items at each other, running around, yelling and screaming, and of course stealing.” This has been happening since the store started ignoring petty thefts. (Source: the weekly local Beachcomber, June 30, 2023) *
There is plenty of blame to go around, and it is well deserved:
1. The Parents, who are not instilling moral values and monitoring their children’s whereabouts and conduct when they leave school.
2. The California Voters (and non-voters who are complicit by their passivity), who passed Proposition 47 in 2014, which among other nefarious things made theft of items valued under $950 a misdemeanor.
3. The “Woke” District Attorney in Los Angeles County, who will not prosecute misdemeanors. Hence, why should local authorities bother to investigate the petty thefts? This D.A. is thus telling the perpetrators they have nothing to fear, whereas the Bible says, “If you do wrong, be afraid” for the authorities will punish the wrongdoer (Romans 13:4-6).
4. The State Legislature, for considering Senate Bill 553 (passed and now before the Assembly), which prohibits “the employer from maintaining policies that require employees who are not dedicated safety personnel to confront active shooters or suspected shoplifters.” (I must say I’m not against the intention of this provision. Considering the risks, I would not want my teenager working for minimum wage to be required to engage thieves. I just don’t like all the bill’s mandates.)
5. The Store Management, which facilitates bad conduct by turning its back and eyes away from what’s happening. Trained security and surveillance cameras and a determination to summon police and push for prosecution of offenders would quickly “spread the word!” Do the management and the corporate suits over it not realize the impact of bad conduct on shoppers, who know they will see higher prices and feel intimidation and lack of safety if they are present at these heists?
6. The School District, which does not take responsibility for “students” still under its legal control who have disruptive behavior and cause economic harm.
IF the parents had to go to the police station to pick up their teenagers after their arrest, and IF the store management made it clear it will take the parents to civil court to recover the value of the stolen goods plus punitive damages, and IF the public realizes that toleration of petty crimes will lead to growing disregard for authority and to greater crimes, THEN we will see improvement.
Will conditions be better this fall when classes resume?
Will law enforcement be allowed to do the job it is trained to do,
and be appreciated and honored when it does its job?
* My councilman reported to me that cooperative efforts by the police department, the store management and the school district are now working to address this problem.
Bible Insight –
“Does God Really Care What I Wear to Church?”
“Guard your steps when you go to the house of God.” *
– Ecclesiastes 5:1 ESV
“God doesn’t care what I wear to church. He looks at my heart.” So goes a common mantra. But “common” and “correct” are two different things.
Better to say, “God knows my heart, so when I go to worship I’m open before him—there is nothing I can hide. And God also cares how I look.”
As we live through the warmest days of summer, what I’m sharing here is timely. Some will read this and think I’m showing my years. Not really, for the teaching is far older than I am. Compared to the age of the teaching I’m giving here, I’m an embryo!
What about my apparel at church? I can remember when “Sunday Best” meant that people dressed up to go to church. That’s still true in some places. I’m very comfortable going to my church dressed casually. After all, the southern California church where my wife and I have belonged for 46 years is in a beach community and just a block from the Blue Pacific! Would we expect “Sunday Best” at a “Service on the Sand”?
During my pastoral career I’ve seen a trend grow (some say it is now receding, thank God) to create a church experience that’s “market-driven,” giving people what they want and not making anyone feel out of place. So our places of worship may resemble secular places like auditoriums or big-box stores, and it’s OK to dress at church just like we choose to dress anywhere else in public.
Our church facility was used once for a memorial service for an elderly man who had lived in a local retirement community. Almost all the men present wore coats and ties. The young guest pastor who officiated at the memorial wore shorts. Is something missing here?
*I understand the New Testament to teach, in this “post-temple” era, that the “house of God” is the gathering of believers, not a physical place, though a place dedicated to worship deserves respect too. We don’t let “just anything” take place in a worship facility.
Some Biblical Teaching about Clothing
What was the first thing God did (not said) because Adam and Eve sinned?
“The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21). It appears that clothing has definite importance to God.
Under Moses, God gave instructions on how priests must be dressed as they performed the worship of God (Exodus 28), even down to their underwear: “Make linen undergarments as a covering for the body, reaching from the waist to the thigh. Aaron and his sons must wear them whenever they enter the Tent of Meeting or approach the altar to minister in the Holy Place…” (28:42-43). The priests were to wear several “holy garments” for “glory and beauty,” for covering (modesty), dignity, symbolism and to build respect for their ministry.
The teachings get even worse by modern thinking! “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5). This scripture differentiates the two genders by their dress. Either this scripture can be tossed aside, or it’s as relevant as a scripture can be!
You say, “Yeah, but all this is under the Law!” Yes, and so is “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) and “Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute” (19:29) and “When a foreigner lives with you in the land, do not mistreat him” (19:31). Remember, Jesus came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (by keeping it at its deepest levels) and Jesus taught us not to break the Law or teach others that it’s OK to break it (Matthew 5:17-20).
I accept the understanding that parts of Moses’ law are civil (governing Israel as a nation), or ceremonial (atonement law that, once fulfilled in Jesus, is not literally perpetuated), or moral (still binding on us). But God doesn’t give us a color-coded Bible that clearly marks out the three, so much is open to discussion. For sure, we can’t just casually brush off these teachings by saying, “That was under the Law.”
When we leave the Old Testament and get to the New Testament do we find all references to dress in worship cancelled in favor of “heart worship” (as if proper Old Testament worship wasn’t from the heart)? Not at all. Here is one important scripture on how we should appear before God in worship.
“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.” – 1 Timothy 2:8-10
Paul speaks on proper decorum for worship.* He assumes that “lifting up of hands” would be commonplace (Psalm 28:2; 63:4). What must be equally common is the sincerity of this outward act (or any outward act, like walking forward to receive Communion or putting money in the offering plate). “Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart” (Psalm 24:3-4). Godly living and the absence of bad speech or attitudes is essential, or else the outward act of “lifting hands” is hypocritical and phony—an action by a spiritual show-off!
Nor does God approve of physical show-offs! “Respectable apparel” shows modesty and self-control. What is “immodest” attire? I can’t exactly define it** and cultural norms may apply. Paul has 1st century attire in the Roman world in mind. If immodesty appalled him then, what would he say about today’s immodesty?
I call for neither legalistic rules nor permissiveness in what we wear to church.
I call for principled and reasonable modesty, especially for worship leaders. And it’s a call for us all to give more thought than our culture gives when it comes to our decorum as we worship together in the presence of a Holy God.
Why? Because we must “worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for ‘our God is a consuming fire.’” (Hebrews 12:28-29)
* I think the guidance for “men” and “women” is practically interchangeable in these verses. Certainly Paul wouldn’t allow men (but not women) to wear immodest apparel. And women’s hands should be “holy” too, when they raise their hands in prayer.
** Perhaps Justice Potter Stewart’s words apply. He said in a pornography case before the Supreme Court in 1964 that he couldn’t define it but “I know it when I see it.”
“The Lord’s Prayer” Petition 6 –
“Lord, I need you to keep me from evil!”
“Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil”
– Matthew 6:13 ESV
In review, the Lord’s Prayer has six petitions. Three pertain to God and his glory; three pertain to ourselves and our needs. We need (1) physical provisions (“daily bread”), (2) restored relationships (“forgiveness”) and (3) moral strength (“deliverance from evil”).
Temptation is as old as the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3). Since Jesus lived as “one of us,” he faced temptations—temptations greater than we will ever face. We learn from his victories. And we are guided by his instructions on prayer.
1. With this Petition we pray:
“God, direct us through LIFE’S TESTINGS.”
Right off the bat, this petition has a problem: why would God ever will to lead us into temptation? We are clearly taught in James 1:13-14 that God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone. Instead, each of us is tempted when we are enticed by our own evil desires.
So temptations come from within. They don’t come from God. Yet God does “test” us in a sense, and we certainly “test” God, living in ways that dare him to discipline us.
Matthew 4:1 – “Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.” Jesus was genuinely tempted in matters of physical need (hunger), an offer that would compromise his character in order to achieve glory without suffering, and the offer of dramatic protection in a case of reckless behavior. He was not role-playing. Jesus resisted temptation not by being a “Man of Steel” off of whom the darts of the devil just bounced harmlessly. He resisted by drawing on the proper application of the Scriptures—a resource available to us all.
Here are some suggestions for understanding this point:
• God permits testing (often for unknown reasons—the godly man Job was never given the answer to “Why did God allow this to happen?”)
• God’s purpose is not to destroy but to strengthen. He permits testing for our growth, not failure.
• God knows our limit and draws the line before it (1 Corinthians 10:13).
• Even when we fail a temptation, God will use that to make us better and to serve him more effectively (Luke 22:31).
• Never walk knowingly into temptation after praying to be delivered from it.
2. With this Petition we pray:
“God, protect us from the DEVIL and his TRAPS.”
The Greek can be translated either “…from evil” or “…from the evil one.”
• We all should be in prayer about any sin in our lives that often afflicts us. What is a temptation for one may not be a temptation for another.
• A prayer to be strong against the Devil is always important as well.
“Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.” – 1 Peter 5:8-9
• We should pray for one another so we may be:
– Strong in the face of temptation (avoiding over-confidence)
– Strong in the face of adversity (overcoming persecution)
– Strong in the face of opportunity (achieving honorable success)
3. With this Petition we pray for one another:
“God, guide us through our weaknesses by your grace.”
• Keep us from pride and presumption and carelessness.
• Keep us from a spirit of entitlement: what we think we have a right to (this leads to envy, jealousy, strife, cheating, stealing).
• Show us the “way of escape” from a temptation we are facing.
• Give us extraordinary strength when we must go through an extraordinary testing.
• Help us learn from the past so we won’t fall into the same failures again.
O Thou that helpest our infirmities,
allow us not to enter into temptation;
to be overcome or suffer loss thereby;
but make a way for us to escape,
so that we may be more than conquerors, through thy love,
over sin and all the consequences of it.
– Prayer by John Wesley
Still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe.
His craft and power are great,
and armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.
Did we in our own strength confide,
Our striving would be loosing,
Were not the right man on our side
The man of God’s own choosing.
Dost ask who that may be?
Christ Jesus, it is He!
– “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” by Martin Luther
www.donaldshoemakerministries.com
Don has been a member of the clergy in the Long Beach, California area since 1970. He now serves as Pastor Emeritus of Grace Community Church of Seal Beach (where he was senior pastor 1984-2012) and as Senior Chaplain of the Seal Beach Police Department (2001+). He previously was an assistant professor of Biblical Studies at Biola University (1976-84) and chaired the Social Concerns Committee in the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches from 1985 to 2019.
His graduate work includes a Master of Divinity from Grace Theological Seminary, a Master of Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary with a concentration in Christian ethics, and a Doctor of Ministry from American Baptist Seminary of the West (now Berkeley School of Theology) with a concentration on the Charismatic Movement. His law school studies included a course on the First Amendment. He and his wife Mary have been married for over 56 years. They have two children and six grandchildren.
© 2023 Donald P. Shoemaker