Author Archives: admin

May 2015 Newsletter

Posted on by

“A Piece of My Mind”

May 2015 Newsletter from Donald Shoemaker

What Happened in Indiana? Religious freedom laws needed — and more civility too!

www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

 We’ve all heard the acrimony over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed in Indiana in March along with the “fix it” legislation that followed, which supposedly “clarified” the new law.

The whole situation created a legal and social climate totally unnecessary.
And the protection of religious liberty is arguably worse than before.

I wrote a Guest Commentary in the Long Beach Press-Telegram that was published on April 5. Please read it in this Newsletter.

Bible Insight – God’s Providential Care

1“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.” – Jesus (Matthew 10:28-31 English Standard Version)

My wife and I have lovely front and back yards (mostly thanks to her hard work!). Roses and orchids and fountains and oranges and seasonal flowers—and many hummingbirds.

It is most pleasant to sit and watch the hummingbirds come and drink from the feeders or service the flowers. Sparrows and mockingbirds and bees and butterflies abound too. As we watch them, we think of God’s watchful care for them—and for us.

Recently I went into the backyard and picked up the remains of a little hummingbird. When birds die, they “fall to the ground” as Jesus described.Jesus’ point is: God cares for even these little creatures of his. Nothing happens without his providential attention.

Here Jesus uses what we call in logic “an argument from the lesser to the greater.” If God cares for the little birds (which he does), how much more doesn’t he care for each one of us—each of us made in God’s image and so much more valuable than a tiny bird, for as Jesus said we “are of more value than many sparrows.”(Some might charge Jesus with being a “speciest” here!)

God’s watchful care for us begins even before we are born (Psalm 139:13-16).

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,2
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written,
every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

And when we face persecution for our faith, we should trust our heavenly father, who cares for us, and not fear our accusers and persecutors. That’s the key lesson from Jesus’ words. (He teaches the same lesson from the thought that God numbers our hairs—again, God is interested in the little things of our lives. With me, this is quicker counting than it used to be.)

At the end of our lives, God is still there to care (Psalm 23:4):

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for you are with me…3

“God, I thank you for reminding me of important lessons—the value of little lives and the great value of people—each time I watch your little creation!”

(Hummingbird and butterfly pictures are from our yard.)

5“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

“No provision in our constitution ought to be dearer to man, than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”
– Thomas Jefferson

Religious freedom laws needed — and more civility too: Guest commentary

By Donald P. Shoemaker

PUBLISHED APRIL 5, 2015, LONG BEACH PRESS-TELEGRAM

NOTE: I am adding more information and opinion in bracketed italics throughout this article. The original commentary by itself is available at my Website: www.donaldshoemakerministries.com/blog/?p=512

Great political unity, left and right, religious and secular, led to passage of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. President Clinton signed it into law after it passed Congress with only three no votes.

[The three “no” votes were in the Senate: Robert Byrd (D-WV), Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Harlan Mathews (D-TN).]

The law simply said that the government could not substantially burden one’s free exercise of religion even if the burden was caused by a rule of general applicability, unless the government could show the rule furthered a compelling state interest and did so in the least restrictive way.

[The “compelling state interest” test sets a high threshold—in this case it is“a governmental interest of the highest magnitude that cannot otherwise be achieved without burdening the exercise of religion.” It was applied in earlier U.S. Supreme Court decisions involvingan employee’s right to observe the “Sabbath” (Sherbert v. Verner) and the right of Amish parents to decide their children’s education (Wisconsin v. Yoder).]

Why was RFRA needed? Because of the widely criticized U.S. Supreme Court decision Smith v. Oregon in 1990. The court ruled that the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion didn’t extend to neutral laws of general applicability that happened to affect religious practices, only to laws directly targeting religious practices.

[One attorney specializing in religious liberty cases told me at the time that this decision rendered the “free exercise” clause in the First Amendment “dead language.” Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He called the higher compelling state interest test a “luxury” we cannot afford and acknowledged this would put at a disadvantage those religious practices not widely practiced. I consider his decision to be very “statist”.

Justice O’Connor wrote a concurring opinion, but said that the reasoning in the majority decision was faulty. She added that laws of general application were more likely to burden religious belief than laws actually targeting religion.

Justice Blackmun gave, in my opinion, a stirring and compelling dissent: He argued that the “compelling state interest” and “least restrictive means” tests were “over the years painstakingly…developed…to test the constitutionality of a state statue that burdens the free exercise of religion.” “Until today, I thought this was a settled and inviolate principle of this Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence.”]

[It is interesting that just three years later, in 1993, a city ordinance that directly targeted a religious practice came before the Court. The Courtunanimously struck down an ordinance banning ritualistic animal sacrifices by the Santeria religion (Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah).]

The RFRA was passed to counter this decision. But in 1997 the Supreme Court overturned RFRA’s application to state and local statutes. In response, 20 states with more to come have passed their own versions of RFRA to support religious liberty at state and local levels.

[These state laws largely drew their wording from the original federal RFRA. Indiana’s law went beyond the federal law in a couple of ways, such as including a company, corporation, religious institution and other entities in the definition of a “person.” Legal articles differ on whether these were substantial expansions. But they certainly became part of the objections from businesses and the heated protests against Indiana’s law!]

[The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, passed in 2000, was another response to the overturning of RFRA. It gave property dedicated to religious purposes certain protections against local zoning restrictions. It also sets forth a broad understanding of what “religious exercise” is: “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”

Based on this religious land use law, an LGBT-affirming church in Bellflower, CA won a $1,750,000 settlement with the city on April 13, 2015. This ended the city’s insistence that the church provide a large number of parking spots while the city exempted a mortuary and a fire museum from the same parking regulation.]

What has happened to take us from the unity of 1993 to the acrimony of today? Why the intense opposition to Indiana’s new law? I offer two opinions and three proposals toward civility (but no longer unity).

First, I have watched erosion of support for religious liberty along with a growing lack of understanding of how important religious beliefs are to their adherents. Religion isn’t just an add-on that can be easily shelved. It is a sense of the Ultimate that goes to the core of one’s identity and conduct. Consciences formed by religious faith should not be burdened by the state (to require what faith forbids, or to forbid what faith requires), except in rare circumstances.

[Note the quote from Thomas Jefferson above. By “rare circumstances” I mean issues where the government can satisfy the “compelling state interest” test.

Negative secular reaction to the Supreme Court’s “Hobby Lobby” decision in 2014 is a prime example of eroding support for religious liberty. This decision was based on RFRA, not on First Amendment rights. Hobby Lobby is wholly owned by a deeply religious family who claimed the contraception mandate in Obamacare would obligate them to violate their core religious beliefs.

Additionally, we often hear government leaders speak of “freedom of worship” rather than the more expansive concept of “freedom of religion,” which certainly must include the right to live out your faith in the public arena. Exemptions to government edicts are talked about for “houses of worship” and clergy but not for other religious entities like church owned/operated schools, hospitals, and social agencies. Nor are religious laypeople given the exemptions that clergy have. Are they less “religious”?]

Second, LGBT issues were not on the table when the original RFRA was passed. The interfacing of these issues with many traditional religious beliefs has not been gentle, to say the least. Both sides are wary of the other. And those with religious convictions contrary to same-sex marriage are now moved to prevent violation of their own consciences.

[This is not to say that there were no LGBT issues at that time. Remember the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy? But I doubt there was any reference to LGBT issues when the original RFRA was passed.]

Now I have three proposals for navigating these troubled waters with civility. The first is a call for clarity. Have critics and proponents of Indiana’s RFRA taken the time to read it? To read dispassionate analyses? The acrimony of recent days has been long on harsh polemic and short on clarity.

The second is a call for conversation. Are we talking to the other side and learning what each side’s concerns and understandings are? Or are we convinced we already know all the facts and what motivates the other side? An anti-gay sign, “God is your enemy,” and a sign held up in Indiana saying, “God and Muhammad are not real — your hate is,” are conversation stoppers, not promoters of civil discourse.

[Who can speak likehe or she is an expert on the motives in the hearts of others? Arguments that are “ad hominem”—labeling the person rather than addressing the issue—should be challenged as such whenever they are used.]

I’m an evangelical Christian with deep concerns over freedom of conscience issues. I can articulate these. I can also listen to perceptions others have about religious domination and laws they see as promoting discrimination.

A call for candor is third. However religious freedom laws address discrimination, the fact is these laws provide a defense that says, “Not so fast! The free exercise of my faith is being burdened and you have hurdles you must achieve before it can be limited.” Proponents should acknowledge this.

Critics should not charge that RFRA is a blank check for wide discrimination by those who merely use religion as a veneer. Nor should they ignore the burdening of the free exercise of religion taking place, probably to a degree the nation’s founders never intended.

The need for restoration of religious freedom shouldn’t exist, but it does. Robust religious liberty is our heritage. It must flourish alongside disagreement, neither suppressing nor being suppressed by the other.

Donald P. Shoemaker is pastor emeritus of Grace Community Church of Seal Beach

Don’s Recent &Upcoming Ministries

4“Lord, I Need Your Help to Forgive!”

You may listen to my sermon on the forgiveness petition of “The Lord’s Prayer”, delivered at Grace Community Church of Seal Beach on March 22, at:

http://www.gracesealbeach.org/media.php?pageID=28

April 15 – Lead a discussion on clergy-congregant relationships at the Long Beach Religious Leaders Association

April 28 (6:30 p.m.) and May 1(9:30 a.m.) – Speak at women’s Bible study groups at Grace Community Church on Matthew 28:16-20 (the “Great Commission” Jesus gave)

Johann Sebastian Bach’s Mass in B-Minor

5Magnificent 75-voice chorale, splendid chamber orchestra, superb soloists—such was the treat when the Long Beach Chorale and Chamber Orchestra presented Bach’s majestic, Christ-honoring work on April 18-19.

Thanks to these fine singers and musicians for the excellence. As for Bach himself, I say as he would say,

“Soli Deo gloria—to God be the glory.”

A very blessed and joyous springtime to all.

And a prayer of thanks for our mothers on May 10!

“A woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.”

– Proverbs 31:30

www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

 

April 2015 Newsletter

Posted on by

“A Piece of My Mind”

March 2015 Newsletter from Donald Shoemaker

Advancing Christian Faith and Values, Defending Religious Liberty for All, Supporting Civility and the Common Good through Preaching, Teaching, Writing, Activism and Reasoned Conversations

www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

Easter’s Message – Suffering and Hope

“[Jesus] humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place…” – Philippians 2:8-9

Easter gives a message of great hope. But the season also speaks of humility, sacrifice and death. The glory awaits us in the future; the sacrifice is now.
We must not forget this order. We don’t get a pass on faithfulness today.

1Christian martyr and true German patriot Dietrich Bonhoeffer knew this lesson. In The Cost of DiscipleshipBonhoeffer wrote: “Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”

Bible Insight – “Forgive us our sins”

“Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors.”
“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” – Matthew 6:12, 14 & 15 (English Standard Version)

This remarkable prayer request in The Lord’s Prayer asks God to liberate us from one of the greatest human burdens—“How can I be forgiven for all the wrongs I have done?” These wrongs are summed up in the confession of The Book of Common Prayer, “We have not loved [God] with our whole heart;we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.”

The request to be forgiven is not a free “get out of jail” pass. It places an obligation on the person praying. We are asking God to forgive us up to the level of our willingness to forgive others. It would be hypocritical of us to ask God to do more for us than we are willing to extend to others. So the prayer obligates us to forgive even as it beseeches God to grant us forgiveness. (Read a powerful story Jesus told on this point in Matthew 18:23-35.)

American Evangelical Christianity widely teaches that forgiveness should be unconditional. * “As soon as someone wrongs you, immediately forgive that person in your heart.” The point is, forgiveness is something you do for yourself (a therapeutic act so you will feel better), rather than something you do for others (a relational act so reconciliation may occur). Look at these slogans, which are posted as Bible thoughts on forgiveness for goodness sake:

2    3

The slogans and their “therapeutic forgiveness” have an important point to make. Why let someone’s wrong against you tear you up inside and fill you with bitterness? Why give this person a double victory?

Scripture addresses this:

“Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.” – Ephesians 4:31

This indeed must be done, for these negatives can ruin us. But to deal with them is different from forgiving others. Forgiving others is done so relational “shalom” might occur—interpersonal healing, restoration and peace.

Forgiveness is discussed in the next verse (Ephesians 4:32):

“Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”

God forgives us “in Christ”. In this dynamic God’s forgiveness is very conditional—dependent on the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world, and dependent on our embracing of God’s offer of forgiveness.

“The tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.” – Jesus (Luke 18:13-14)

Here’s what Jesus said about conditionalforgiveness of others:

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” – Luke 17:3-4

God’s conditional forgiveness is taught later in the New Testament (1 John 1:9):
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.”

What reasonable steps of contrition should we expect to see before forgiveness can be granted and a wholesome situation of “shalom” restored? I suggest at least these four signs if someone is serious about being forgiven:

1. Remorse – “I am truly sorry.”

2. Repentance – “From the heart I confess to you that I did wrong.”

3. Restitution– “I am willing to do what I must to make things right.” (This point should be kept flexible—it is as much an accountability lesson for the offender as it is a payment to the person wronged.)

4. Resolve–“By God’s strength, I will not do this again.” (Fact is, we may. That’s what requires the “seven times a day” forgiveness Jesus taught. But the resolve needs to be sincerely made.)

* A “forgiveness” quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer (top page): “”Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance.”

4Good News from Grace

www.gracesealbeach.org

It was my privilege to speak at Grace Community Church of Seal Beach on March 22, with the sermon “Lord, I Need Your Help to Forgive!”

You may listen to this sermon at:

http://www.gracesealbeach.org/media.php?pageID=28

Good Friday Communion Services at Grace Community Church: Noon (in cooperation with 1st United Methodist Church) and 7:00 p.m.

Easter Morning Services: 8:00, 9:30 (2 services) and 11:00 (2 services)

Reflect on the meaning of Jesus’ death and celebrate his resurrection at gatherings where these are truly believed and made central in people’s lives.

5“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 compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”
– Thomas Jefferson (Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom)

Threat to Religious Freedom in San Francisco

Good for Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco! He actually believes that a Catholic school should teach and practice what that religion believes.6

Many parochial schools have wandered from this and allowed the goal of giving a good educationreplace the goal of inculcating the teachings and values of the sponsoring church. The parents don’t mind a crucifix on the wall so long as faith and values aren’t stressed. A pastor or bishop who tries to turn the school back to its proper mission is in for headaches and opposition—in this case from the teachers’ union and politicians.

Archbishop Cordileone wants teachers who will stand for those teachings, not apologize for them, and do so with compassion.“We don’t want kids mouthing what we tell them to say. We want them to believe it. But to believe it they need living, breathing examples of people that are fulfilled living this, and they exist!”

That a religious school should be free in America to teach the faith and values it embraces should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, it isn’t.

Politicians, in disregard of the separation of church and state, have come out against the archbishop:
• The 11-person Board of Supervisors of San Francisco has unanimously approved a resolution opposing the archbishop’s policy.
• Eight California lawmakers have written a letter of opposition.

What an intrusion into religious conviction and expression! Turn the tables and imagine this—what if nineteen bishops high-pressured San Francisco’s government one way or the other on some non-religious issue? Listen and you will hear loud howling on how the “wall of separation” is being violated! *

In a written reply, the archbishop challenges the legislators, asking them:
“Would you hire a campaign manager who advocates policies contrary to those that you stand for, and who shows disrespect toward you and the Democratic Party in general?”

Joan Desmond asks in the National Catholic Register, “What is the primary mission of a Catholic high school?” All churches, Protestant or Catholic, need to ask this question about their educational institutions. If they have wandered ‘off mission’ they must be called back and held accountable.**

And the government’s job is to support their freedom to do so, not erode it.

* Actually the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion. It safeguards the right of the citizens (including citizens who act collectively such as througha church) to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

* *If the church did allow its schools to slip “off mission” and “off message”, this is a warning to all religious schools. Much easier to keep strong in message and values than to let these things get diluted over the years and then try to restore them. Still, restore them they must (they needn’t choose between good values and good education). Otherwise, close the schools, save your money, and let the public system or secular private schools do the task of education.

From Michael Josephson –

“Whether it’s sports, business or politics, whenever we divorce issues of competence from issues of character, we create a class of amoral professionals who think they’re exempt from common standards of honor and decency. This discredits and demeans the moral standing of everyone involved.

Our Prayer for Good Friday (Matthew 6:9-13 ESV)

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.

Your kingdom come,
your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread,

and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.”

Friends and Colleagues,

Here are some items I hope you will find of interest in my April Newsletter:

Easter’s Message – Suffering and Hope. Dietrich Bonhoeffer understood that being a follower of Jesus means suffering is often our lot in life now. Hope is fully realized in the life to come. That’s a lesson from Good Friday and Easter.

Bible Insight – “Forgive us our Sins.” This request in The Lord’s Prayer seems so simple. But the condition attached to it makes it a serious challenge. Does the Bible, after all, teach conditional or unconditional forgiveness? If conditional, what are these conditions?

Religious Liberty Vigilance – Threat to Religious Freedom in San Francisco. As the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco works to restore the centrality of church beliefs and values in Catholic parochial schools, he is being severely opposed—by politicians! Why would they interfere in church matters this way?

You may listen to my March 22 sermon on the “Forgiveness” petition in The Lord’s Prayer by following this link: http://www.gracesealbeach.org/media.php?pageID=28

I pray for a meaningful Good Friday and Easter for you, and every best wish for a joyous spring season.

Don

PS – Feel free to forward this Newsletter to others. More free signups welcome! And if, for any reason, you no longer wish to receive it, simply reply with the word “UNSUBSCRIBE” in the Subject line and I will quickly honor your request.
www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

The Ten Commandments–A Brief Helpful Introduction

Posted on by

“The Ten Commandments”
(See Exodus 20:2-17)

ABC news correspondent Ted Coppell once said, “What Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai were not the Ten Suggestions, they are Commandments. Are, not were. The sheer brilliance of the Ten Commandments is that they codify, in a handful of words, acceptable human behavior. Not just for then or now but for all time.”

The Ten Commandments are presented to us in Scripture this way:

1. They were given by God.

“And God spoke all these words…” (Exodus 20:1)

Like it or not, if you strip the presence of the “God who speaks” from the ethical values of the Ten Commandments, they lose moral power. Ethics without God is just one man’s (or philosophy’s) opinion against another’s.

2. They were given by God to his chosen people.

“Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, ‘This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel’” (Exodus 19:3)

While the whole human race benefits by obeying these commands, and while a society benefits when these commands are inculcated into its culture (respect for life, respect for parents, respect for property, etc.), as a “set of commands” they are an inseparable feature of God’s covenant relationship to his people. Thus, a secular society misses the point if it tries to post The Ten Commandments in public classrooms or on monuments as a moral code.

3. They were given by God to his chosen people whom he had saved by his grace.

“You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself” (Exodus 19:4).

The people were to obey these commands not so they gain salvation, but because they have already experienced salvation (deliverance from slavery). The Ten Commandments, properly understood, cannot be pitted against the forgiving grace of God and life under the grace of God.

4. They were “covenant expectations”.

“Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession…a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:5-6; see 1 Peter 2:9).

Israelites were to obey the commandments not as a condition for entering a special relationship with God, but to continue in the blessings and benefits of that relationship. Departing from the commandments means hardship, loss, pain and bondage—no matter how good things once were when the commands were held high.

5. They are further explained in “case law” – how they should apply in specific situations. (See especially Exodus 21-23)

“A thief must certainly make restitution” (Exodus 22:3). Imagine how this principle would impact the cause of justice if it were widely applied!

“If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed. But if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2). Not all killing is murder—people may justifiably defend lives and property. But you cannot kill a thief in just any situation.

“Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally…he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death” (Exodus 21:12-14). This shows many principles: (1) when a society executes a murderer, that act of killing is not itself an act of murder; (2) if a killing is unintentional, the person who caused the death is not treated as a murderer; (3) premeditated murder is the primary prohibition in the commandment “You shall not kill”.

Telling the truth? “Do not spread false reports… When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit” (Exodus 23:1-2). “Do not bear false witness” is obeyed through nurturing a strong passion for truth.

Respecting property rights? Obedience to the “do not steal” commandment has its positive side: you must do what you can to restore property that the owner has lost—even if you don’t particularly like the guy (“your enemy”)! See Exodus 23:4.

6. Human nature tries to justify breaking the commandments through moral chicanery, tricks, traditions, qualifications and justifications.

“God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’… But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Jesus’ teaching on observing Law over tradition in Matthew 15:4-6).
7. In Bible times, prophets and teachers of the Law (supremely Jesus) applied The Ten Commandments to new situations and called for them to be kept sincerely and correctly from the heart. Every generation of those who claim to know God has to apply them to new situations without departing from their original intent.

The Ten Commandments must be applied afresh even as people find new and creative ways to break them. In fact, in our rapidly changing world, they need to be renewed each decade, to see if we are keeping them as God intended.

By all means, learn and live The Ten Commandments!

Threat to Religious Freedom in San Francisco

Posted on by

Threat to Religious Freedom in San Francisco

Good for Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco! He actually believes that a Catholic school should teach and practice what that religion believes.

Many parochial schools have wandered from this and allowed the goal of giving a good education replace the goal of inculcating the teachings and values of the sponsoring church. The parents don’t mind a crucifix on the wall so long as faith and values aren’t stressed. A pastor or bishop who tries to turn the school back to its proper mission is in for headaches and opposition—in this case from the teachers’ union and politicians.

Archbishop Cordileone wants teachers who will stand for those teachings, not apologize for them, and do so with compassion. “We don’t want kids mouthing what we tell them to say. We want them to believe it. But to believe it they need living, breathing examples of people that are fulfilled living this, and they exist!”

That a religious school should be free in America to teach the faith and values it embraces should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, it isn’t.

Politicians, in disregard of the separation of church and state, have come out against the archbishop:
• The 11-person Board of Supervisors of San Francisco has unanimously approved a resolution opposing the archbishop’s policy.
• Eight California lawmakers have written a letter of opposition.

What an intrusion into religious conviction and expression! Turn the tables and imagine this—what if nineteen bishops high-pressured San Francisco’s government one way or the other on some non-religious issue? Listen and you will hear loud howling on how the “wall of separation” is being violated! *

In a written reply, the archbishop challenges the legislators, asking them:
“Would you hire a campaign manager who advocates policies contrary to those that you stand for, and who shows disrespect toward you and the Democratic Party in general?”

Joan Desmond asks in the National Catholic Register, “What is the primary mission of a Catholic high school?” All churches, Protestant or Catholic, need to ask this question about their educational institutions. If they have wandered ‘off mission’ they must be called back and held accountable. * *

And the government’s job is to support their freedom to do so, not erode it.

* Actually the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion. It safeguards the right of the citizens (including citizens who act collectively such as through a church) to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

* * If the church did allow its schools to slip “off mission” and “off message”, this is a warning to all religious schools. Much easier to keep strong in message and values than to let these things get diluted over the years and then try to restore them. Still, restore them they must (they needn’t choose between good values and good education). Otherwise, close the schools, save your money, and let the public system or secular private schools do the task of education.

“Forgive us our trespasses” and conditional forgiveness

Posted on by

“Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors.”
“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” – Matthew 6:12, 14 & 15 (English Standard Version)

This remarkable prayer request in The Lord’s Prayer asks God to liberate us from one of the greatest human burdens—“How can I be forgiven for all the wrongs I have done?” These wrongs are summed up in the confession of The Book of Common Prayer, “We have not loved [God] with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.”

The request to be forgiven is not a free “get out of jail” pass. It places an obligation on the person praying. We are asking God to forgive us up to the level of our willingness to forgive others. It would be hypocritical of us to ask God to do more for us than we are willing to extend to others. So the prayer obligates us to forgive even as it beseeches God to grant us forgiveness. (Read a powerful story Jesus told on this point in Matthew 18:23-35.)

American Evangelical Christianity widely teaches that forgiveness should be unconditional. * “As soon as someone wrongs you, immediately forgive that person in your heart.” The point is, forgiveness is something you do for yourself (a therapeutic act so you will feel better), rather than something you do for others (a relational act so reconciliation may occur). Look at these slogans, which are posted as Bible thoughts on forgiveness for goodness sake:

The slogans and their “therapeutic forgiveness” have an important point to make. Why let someone’s wrong against you tear you up inside and fill you with bitterness? Why give this person a double victory?

Scripture addresses this:

“Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.” – Ephesians 4:31

This indeed must be done, for these negatives can ruin us. But to deal with them is different from forgiving others. Forgiving others is done so relational “shalom” might occur—interpersonal healing, restoration and peace.

Forgiveness is discussed in the next verse (Ephesians 4:32):

“Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”

God forgives us “in Christ”. In this dynamic God’s forgiveness is very conditional—dependent on the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world, and dependent on our embracing of God’s offer of forgiveness.

“The tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.” – Jesus (Luke 18:13-14)

Here’s what Jesus said about conditional forgiveness of others:

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” – Luke 17:3-4

God’s conditional forgiveness is taught later in the New Testament (1 John 1:9):
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.”

What reasonable steps of contrition should we expect to see before forgiveness can be granted and a wholesome situation of “shalom” restored? I suggest at least these four signs if someone is serious about being forgiven:

1. Remorse – “I am truly sorry.”

2. Repentance – “From the heart I confess to you that I did wrong.”

3. Restitution – “I am willing to do what I must to make things right.” (This point should be kept flexible—it is as much an accountability lesson for the offender as it is a payment to the person wronged.)

4. Resolve – “By God’s strength, I will not do this again.” (Fact is, we may. That’s what requires the “seven times a day” forgiveness Jesus taught. But the resolve needs to be sincerely made.)

* A “forgiveness” quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “”Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance.”

Religious Freedom Laws Needed–and More Civility As Well

Posted on by

By Donald P. Shoemaker
PUBLISHED 4/5/15, LONG BEACH (CA) PRESS-TELEGRAM

Great political unity, left and right, religious and secular, led to passage of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. President Clinton signed it into law after it passed Congress with only three no votes.

The law simply said that the government could not substantially burden one’s free exercise of religion even if the burden was caused by a rule of general applicability, unless the government could show the rule furthered a compelling state interest and did so in the least restrictive way.

Why was RFRA needed? Because of the widely criticized U.S. Supreme Court decision Smith v. Oregon in 1990. The court ruled that the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion didn’t extend to neutral laws of general application that happened to affect religious practices, only to laws directly targeting religious practices.

The RFRA was passed to counter this decision. But in 1997 the Supreme Court overturned RFRA’s application to state and local statutes. In response, 20 states with more to come have passed their own versions of RFRA to support religious liberty at state and local levels.

What has happened to take us from the unity of 1993 to the acrimony of today? Why the intense opposition to Indiana’s new law? I offer two opinions and three proposals toward civility (but no longer unity).

First, I have watched erosion of support for religious liberty along with a growing lack of understanding of how important religious beliefs are to their adherents. Religion isn’t just an add-on that can be easily shelved. It is a sense of the Ultimate that goes to the core of one’s identity and conduct. Consciences formed by religious faith should not be burdened by the state (to require what faith forbids, or to forbid what faith requires), except in rare circumstances.

Second, LGBT issues were not on the table when the original RFRA was passed. The interfacing of these issues with many traditional religious beliefs has not been gentle, to say the least. Both sides are wary of the other. And those with religious convictions contrary to same-sex marriage are now moved to prevent violation of their own consciences.

Now I have three proposals for navigating these troubled waters with civility. The first is a call for clarity. Have critics and proponents of Indiana’s RFRA taken the time to read it? To read dispassionate analyses? The acrimony of recent days has been long on harsh polemic and short on clarity.

The second is a call for conversation. Are we talking to the other side and learning what each side’s concerns and understandings are? Or are we convinced we already know all the facts and what motivates the other side? An anti-gay sign, “God is your enemy,” and a sign held up in Indiana saying, “God and Muhammad are not real — your hate is,” are conversation stoppers, not promoters of civil discourse.

I’m an evangelical Christian with deep concerns over freedom of conscience issues. I can articulate these. I can also listen to perceptions others have about religious domination and laws they see as promoting discrimination.

A call for candor is third. However religious freedom laws address discrimination, the fact is these laws provide a defense that says, “Not so fast! The free exercise of my faith is being burdened and you have hurdles you must achieve before it can be limited.” Proponents should acknowledge this.

Critics should not charge that RFRA is a blank check for wide discrimination by those who merely use religion as a veneer. Nor should they ignore the burdening of the free exercise of religion taking place, probably to a degree the nation’s founders never intended.

The need for restoration of religious freedom shouldn’t exist, but it does. Robust religious liberty is our heritage. It must flourish alongside disagreement, neither suppressing nor being suppressed by the other.

Donald P. Shoemaker is pastor emeritus of Grace Community Church of Seal Beach

March 2015 Newsletter

Posted on by

“A Piece of My Mind”

March 2015 Newsletter from Donald Shoemaker

Advancing Christian Faith and Values, Defending Religious Liberty for All, Supporting Civility and the Common Good through Preaching, Teaching, Writing, Activism and Reasoned Conversations

www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

 

“The moment your past becomes more exciting than your future, is the day you start to die.”
– Coach John Wooden

“Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.”
– The Apostle Paul, looking forward in his own Christian experience and ministry (Philippians 3:13-14 NIV)

 

Religious Liberty Vigilance –

“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

“No provision in our constitution ought to be dearer to man,
than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprizes of the civil authority.”
– Thomas Jefferson

 

Atlanta’s Fire Chief Dismissed over his Religious Views on Sexual Behavior

Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran

I take no pleasure in writing these words. And my intent is to write with the greatest of care and sensitivity. But what I say needs to be said—and said and said again. Once again we see a sign that our society is moving from being a free society to a “correct” society.

(Former) Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran serves as a deacon in his Baptist church. He self-published a book titled “Who Told You that You Are Naked?” (a take from God’s question to Adam in the account found in Genesis 3 about Adam and Eve eating the “forbidden fruit”). The book was based on lessons he had given to men’s groups at his church. In the book, Cochran expressed traditional biblical understandings of sexuality and marriage and spoke against other understandings, including same-sex unions.

I have not read the book. Nor can I speak to the charges that:

  • Cochran did not receive approval to publish the book from the city’s ethics officer (he said he received verbal clearance to publish);
  • Cochran spoke to the media on the issue during his 30-day suspension, in violation of an order not to do so (he said he didn’t);
  • Cochran distributed copies of his book to some members of the fire department (he said he gave copies to a group of Christians).

For these, Mayor Kasim Reed fired Chief Cochran in January. These are all “the mayor said/the chief said” matters. The fired chief sees religious discrimination; the mayor says the chief’s judgment, not his religion, led to his dismissal. This much I will say:

  1. Whatever may be true about the mayor’s opinion, I have no doubt the chief’s opinion is correct. He has been punished for expressing his religious views.
  2. It is odious and unacceptable that any government employee who writes on a religious topic should have to consult with and get prior approval from a government official. * This “prior restraint” censorship violates the deeply-held principle of separation of church and state. The Supreme Court once said, “The law knows no heresy,” and courts have said again and again that the state has neither the right nor the qualifications to judge religious teachings.
  3. Even if the mayor was correct and the chief was in error in any of the above charges, this calls for reprimand, not removal.
  4. The key issue is not what the chief’s religious views are on hotly debated sexual topics. It is whether or not he can do his job. Only if the first prevents the second is there a basis for government action. And the burden of proof should rest on the state, not on the person with religious convictions. **

On this point, I find this statement by Americans United for Separation of Church and State absolutely ludicrous: “No one is saying Cochran doesn’t have a right to his beliefs, despicable though they are. But his beliefs called his ability to do his job into question. What if a local gay bar were on fire? Would Cochran do his best to make sure the fire department responded quickly? Given his obvious bias toward gays, it’s hard to say.”

No, it’s not “hard to say”!!! Put it this way. Suppose the chief strongly believed, as many people of religious conviction do, that married couples should be “one in faith” rather than divided over religion. Then suppose he said, “I will not hire any firefighter whose home has mixed religious beliefs in it,” and, “If their home catches on fire, they had better look for help elsewhere.”

Such dereliction of duty should get one fired. But public servants know that you never treat the public this way.

After the murders of newspaper workers in Paris, CBS news anchor Scott Pelley made this exceptional commentary at the end of a broadcast (Jan. 9):

  • Someone asked us today if the French magazine acted irresponsibly, publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed. “Couldn’t all of this been avoided if Charlie Hebdo had been more sensible?”
  • …Why are freedom to publish and freedom to speak absolute? Because there is no democracy without journalism.
  • …Silence is the end of freedom.

That’s right. Freedom of speech, freedom to publish, and freedom to believe as you choose and then to exercise those beliefs—all are foundational to our constitutional democracy. Without them, liberty is lost.

  • * Obviously, a government employee who expresses a religious or controversial opinion is speaking for himself and not for the government entity where he works. This needs to be clearly understood and sometimes needs to be stated. A government agency may require advance approval of outside employment, but this must not extend to a judgment about the religious content of a written work or speech.
  • ** If the accused demonstrates that his convictions arise from sincerely-held religious beliefs, the government should have the burden to demonstrate that these beliefs clearly prevent him from doing his job, that it has a compelling state interest in restricting his free exercise of religion and that there are no lesser means of discipline that would accomplish the state’s legitimate ends.
 

Don’s Upcoming Ministries

March 3 – Speak at the Long Beach Rescue Mission’s 7:00 p.m. Chapel Service

March 21 – Sing the National Anthem at the start of Seal Beach’s 5/10K Race (8:00 a.m.).

March 22 – Speak on the “forgiveness” petition of The Lord’s Prayer in Sunday Morning Worship Services at Grace Community Church of Seal Beach (8:00, 9:30, 11:00)

April 19 – Speak to the High School ministry at Grace Community Church on Acts 17:16-34, the Apostle Paul’s message in Athens on Mars Hill (9:30 a.m.)

 

Bible Insight – “The Ten Commandments”

(See Exodus 20:2-17 at the end of this newsletter)

ABC news correspondent Ted Coppell once said, “What Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai were not the Ten Suggestions, they are Commandments. Are, not were. The sheer brilliance of the Ten Commandments is that they codify, in a handful of words, acceptable human behavior. Not just for then or now but for all time.”

The Ten Commandments are presented to us in Scripture this way:

  1. They were given by God.

    “And God spoke all these words…” (Exodus 20:1)

    Like it or not, if you strip the presence of the “God who speaks” from the ethical values of the Ten Commandments, they lose their moral power. Ethics without God is just one man’s (or philosophy’s) opinion against another’s.

  2. They were given by God to his chosen people.

    “Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, ‘This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel'” (Exodus 19:3)

    While the whole human race benefits by obeying these commands, and while a society benefits when these commands are inculcated into its culture (respect for life, respect for parents, respect for property, etc.), as a “set of commands” they are an inseparable feature of God’s covenant relationship to his people. Thus, a secular society misses the point if it tries to post The Ten Commandments in public classrooms or on monuments as a moral code.

  3. They were given by God to his chosen people whom he had saved by his grace.

    “You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself” (Exodus 19:4).

    The people were to obey these commands not so they gain salvation, but because they have already experienced salvation (deliverance from slavery). The Ten Commandments, properly understood, cannot be pitted against the forgiving grace of God and life under the grace of God.

  4. They were “covenant expectations”.

    “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession…a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:5-6; see 1 Peter 2:9).

    Israelites were to obey the commandments not as a condition for entering a special relationship with God, but to continue in the blessings and benefits of that relationship. Departing from the commandments means hardship, loss, pain and bondage—no matter how good things once were when the commands were held high.

  5. They are further explained in “case law” – how they should apply in specific situations.
    (See especially Exodus 21-23)

    “A thief must certainly make restitution” (Exodus 22:3). Imagine how this principle would impact the cause of justice if it were widely applied!

    “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed. But if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2). Not all killing is murder—people may justifiably defend lives and property. But you cannot kill a thief in just any situation.

    “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally…he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death” (Exodus 21:12-14). This shows many principles: (1) when a society executes a murderer, that act of killing is not itself an act of murder; (2) if a killing is unintentional, the person who caused the death is not treated as a murderer; (3) premeditated murder is the primary prohibition in the commandment “You shall not kill”.

    Telling the truth? “Do not spread false reports… When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit” (Exodus 23:1-2). “Do not bear false witness” is obeyed through nurturing a strong passion for truth.

    Respecting property rights? Obedience to the “do not steal” commandment has its positive side: you must do what you can to restore property that the owner has lost—even if you don’t particularly like the guy (“your enemy”)! See Exodus 23:4.

  6. Human nature tries to justify breaking the commandments through moral chicanery, tricks, traditions, qualifications and justifications.

    “God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’… But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Jesus’ teaching on observing Law over tradition in Matthew 15:4-6).

  7. In Bible times, prophets and teachers of the Law (supremely Jesus) applied The Ten Commandments to new situations and called for them to be kept sincerely and correctly from the heart. Every generation of those who claim to know God has to apply them to new situations without departing from their original intent.

The Ten Commandments must be applied afresh as people find new and creative ways to break them. In fact, in our rapidly changing world, they need to be renewed each decade, to see if we are keeping them as God intended.

By all means, learn The Ten Commandments!

 

A Tribute to Pro-Life Activist
Dr. John Willke—

Obstetrician John Willke and his wife, Barbara, became the voices of the pro-life movement when they wrote the Handbook on Abortion. First published in 1971 and with 1.5 million sold, it became “The Text” for pro-life activism (I won’t say, “The Bible of the Pro-life Movement” because the Bible is the Bible of the Pro-life Movement).

In 1972, when Protestant Evangelical pro-life convictions were nominal to non-existent, I gave a sermon on abortion that proved to be seminal and grew into a booklet called Abortion, the Bible and the Christian. Dr. Willke often promoted this booklet, and it was published by the tens of thousands.

He was a selfless, caring, wise, focused leader. I worked with him personally in 1980, the year he became President of the National Right to Life Committee and I was General Chairman of its national convention at the Anaheim Convention Center. I observed him as a devout Roman Catholic Christian who refused to compartmentalize his faith inside church walls (in its earliest years, the Right to Life movement was almost all devotedly Catholic).

John died February 20 at the age of 89. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine on February 21 praised Willke as a worldwide leader in the right to life movement who brought great passion to the mission to protect the unborn.

 

Appendix – The Ten Commandments

Highly recommended: Listen to the free 11-part study (5 minutes each) of The Ten Commandments by Dennis Prager.
Connect to: www.prageruniversity.com

Exodus 20:2-17 © New International Version

2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 “You shall have no other gods before me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

February 2015 newsletter

Posted on by

“A Piece of My Mind”

February 2015 Newsletter from Donald Shoemaker

Advancing Christian Faith and Values, Defending Religious Liberty for All, Supporting Civility and the Common Good through Preaching, Teaching, Writing, Activism and Reasoned Conversations

www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

 

Thoughts on the Ethics of Abortion 42 Years after Roe v. Wade (January 22, 1973)

 

When they were living, my aunt and uncle resided in a fine California retirement community. During a visit with them, I was taken by my uncle on a tour of the community’s nearly completed state-of-the-art facility for Alzheimer patients.

We looked inside one room that would soon house a patient. There was no mirror in the bathroom for there was no need for a mirror. The patient who would eventually stay there would not know who he or she is.

Relatives of the patients would be able to visit with them in a comfortable sitting area. But there would be no depth of communication, for the Alzheimer patient eventually has no capacity for an “I-Thou” relationship.

As this disease takes its toll, connection with the past and present is lost. All sense of futurity is gone.

When my uncle and I tried to leave we discovered we had a problem! There was no way to open the facility’s door from the inside without knowing a special code. This is needed because Alzheimer patients no longer have a sense of “here” or “there” and must be protected in their movements lest they wander aimlessly and into danger. We located a construction worker who let us out.

The best of care will be provided for these dependent patients. And so it should be, for the spark of human dignity remains in them. As Christian teaching would affirm, they yet retain, in spite of their physical brokenness, the Image of God.

Since my visit to that care facility I have often thought of the issue of “personhood” and how a debate on human personhood and abortion has raged for five decades since permissive abortion laws were first put on the books in the 1960’s. Originally designed for “those truly tough cases,” the laws triggered an abortion avalanche and were themselves swept away by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in January 1973.

“Right to Life” advocates have argued for a biological understanding of personhood. Human life, it is said, begins at conception and ought to be respected and protected from violent assault from then until natural death.

Personhood is tied to the biological fact of being human, one of “us” rather than an “it” or one of “them.” Right to Life advocates have argued for the full personhood of unborn humans or at least that enough claim to personhood exists for the life of the unborn to be worthy of protection.

Others have seen personhood as a developing value throughout the prenatal state. In this case, our unborn have a greater and greater claim to life and protection and any termination of their existence requires increasing grounds for justification the longer they exist in utero. As a result, these people join with the “Right to Life” advocates in wanting to ban late-term abortions.

Defenders of permissive abortion laws, of course, do not see matters that way. Personhood is connected to socializing capabilities, or perhaps to intellectual capacities (or these defenders may simply ignore the personhood issue).

Philosopher Mary Ann Warren argued that there are five traits central to the concept of personhood which we can summarize as (1) consciousness, (2) reasoning, (3) self-motivated activity, (4) the capacity to communicate and (5) the presence of self-concepts and self-awareness. Not all of these need be present for a “person” to exist, but a measure of them must exist and a being that lacks all of them is certainly not a “person” in a moral sense.

Medical ethicist Joseph Fletcher (who popularized “Situation Ethics”) had a long list of personhood criteria, including self awareness, time consciousness, a sense of futurity, a sense of the past, the capability of relating to others, communication and control of existence.

Criteria like these clearly exclude the unborn from the realm of “persons.” Thinking this way, one can rationalize abortion as an acceptable practice secured, as the Court saw it, by a “right to privacy” to be found in the “penumbra” of the U.S. Constitution.

What may surprise others but which should not escape the notice of rationalizers like these is that post-partum infants aren’t “persons” by this standard either. Nor are the comatose and others who lack self-awareness and self-control. Infants lack a moral claim to personhood and therefore are disposable, although we may value them for their potential and charm or for other utilitarian reasons. (One medical ethicist used the term “proximate persons” for infants ages 0-2 years.)

At the extreme edge of the scientific and ethical horizon, a justification could be made for cloning human life and harvesting body parts to serve the rest of us who have successfully achieved our personhood, at least in the eyes of those who control things.

Which brings me full circle to the excellent care facility for Alzheimer patients. By the thinking that has prevailed to give us abortion, these patients are not persons. Unlike the unborn, their futurity and their social and intellectual potential are gone. As their disease has progressed, they have gradually but surely lost all claim to the care and love and protection personhood would afford.

In Roe v. Wade, the court threw up its hands and professed agnosticism on the issue of when personhood begins. Incredibly, it then proceeded to adopt a particular view of personhood (you have value at birth) and imposed a model of prenatal “trimesters” and a permissive latitude that, in effect, have given us abortion on demand. The court never allowed the open public debate and legislative deliberation on this issue that is appropriate in a democratic society.

When the Supreme Court ruled on doctor-assisted suicide in 1997, this practice did not receive the constitutional “green light” its advocates had hoped for. One might have expected the court to declare a right to assisted suicide on the same “right to privacy” grounds that gave us abortion on demand. But the court saw the need to guarantee “an earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality and practicality of physician-assisted suicide [that should take place] in a democratic society.”

That statement may have been the closest thing we will hear from the court that sounds like an apology for Roe v. Wade. Rather than resolving the great debate over abortion rights, Roe v. Wade fueled the most acrimonious polarization of our time which shows no signs of abating now forty-two years later.

(This essay is a revision of an opinion column published in the Long Beach Press-Telegram in 1998.)

Bible Insight

Sticks and Stones
May Break My Bones,
But Words Can REALLY Hurt Me!

 

If you want a month of really profitable Bible reading, take the month of March to read daily one of the 31 chapters in the Bible’s “Book of Proverbs”.

What is the Book of Proverbs? It’s a collection of moral principles on many common issues that help us navigate ethically and honorably in a difficult, sometimes unfair world. Even more, I believe it is a collection God endorses and wants us to know to be wise. One of the key themes of Proverbs is speech—what’s good and not so good. What do we say that either brings help, healing and integrity to a situation or brings bitterness, strife and injustice?

Here are some of the speech counsels we get from Proverbs. After each statement, I give the chapter and verse in Proverbs where you can find it.

    Gossip and Slander

  • A perverse person stirs up conflict,
    and a gossip separates close friends. (16:28)
  • A gossip betrays a confidence,
    but a trustworthy person keeps a secret. (11:13)
  • Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips
    and spreads slander is a fool. (10:18)
    Contentious Words that stir up trouble

  • As charcoal to embers and as wood to fire,
    so is a quarrelsome person for kindling strife. (26:21)
  • Starting a quarrel is like breaching a dam;
    so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out. (17:14)
    Truth and Lies

  • The Lord detests lying lips,
    but he delights in people who are trustworthy. (12:22)
  • A fortune made by a lying tongue

    is a fleeting vapor and a deadly snare. (21:6)
    Too Much Talking, Period!

  • When words are many, sin is not absent
    But he who holds his tongue is wise. (10:19)
  • Do you see someone who speaks in haste?
    There is more hope for a fool than for him. (29:20)
  • Those who guard their mouths and their tongues
    keep themselves from calamity. (21:23)
  • The one who has knowledge uses words with restraint,
    and whoever has understanding is even-tempered. (17:27)
  • The words of the reckless pierce like swords,
    but the tongue of the wise brings healing. (12:18)
    Gracious and gentle words

  • Gracious words are a honeycomb,
    sweet to the soul and healing to the bones. (16:24)
  • A gentle answer turns away wrath,
    but a harsh word stirs up anger. (15:1)

The Bible says our tongues, though small among our bodies’ members, are the hardest part of the body to control (James 3:1-12). With it we bless God one moment and the next moment turn around and curse our neighbor. With encouragement, prayer, Bible reading and God’s grace and power, let’s learn to control the tongue more and more.

Don’s Upcoming Ministries

February 18 – Lead “Ash Wednesday” service at Grace Community Church of Seal Beach (7 PM)

March 22 – Speak in Sunday Morning Worship Services at Grace Community Church of Seal Beach (8:00, 9:30, 11:00)

 

What Our President Should Tell Raul Castro

[Published in the Long Beach Press-Telegram on Dec. 30, 2014]

Cuban President Raul Castro has made it clear that diplomatic relations with the United States will mean no change in his country’s Communist structure, speaking as if the two political systems are moral equivalents and equally embraced by the people.

Now is the time for President Obama to lead with his words in the tradition of John F. Kennedy, who at the Berlin Wall compared democratic rule to East German Communism. “Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in.”

Here’s a text for our president. “America is not perfect in its democracy. But it is good and its democratic ideals are deeply imbedded in our nation’s soul. It is a government of the people and by the people. The Cuban people on the other hand have not lived as free people. They know nothing about free elections and little about a free economy. Our two governments are not moral equivalents.

“Someday soon the Cuban people should be allowed to freely choose its leaders and the systems it wants, and its rulers should abide by the will of the people. We do not seek to impose change, but we will strongly speak for change and we look forward to the day when the Cuban people will be truly free.”

– Donald P. Shoemaker

Appendix – Richard Nixon on Relations with Cuba

Richard Nixon’s last book, Beyond Peace, was published by Random House in 1994, the year of his death. In it, Nixon looked at the world through the prism of total realism and pragmatism found in his views on international affairs.

Here are his words about Cuba and the United States (pages 137-38):

In the case of Cuba, much of the pressure to keep our economic embargoes in force derives from the long-standing belief, particularly among many in the Cuban exile community, that this is the best way to bring a swift end to the cruel and destructive Castro regime. It is true that the collapse of the Soviet government and the subsequent cutoff of Soviet economic subsidies have put heavy new pressures on Castro. The privation is brutal. Economic conditions on the island, bad before, have become far worse. His police state has nevertheless maintained its iron grip.

The plain fact, painful though it may be to face, is that after thirty-five years of Castro’s rule, the hard line against him has failed to get rid of him. It is time to shift the central focus of our policies from hurting Cuba’s government to helping its people. It is unlikely that Castro, an isolated survivor of the Soviet world, could again mount a serious subversive threat in this hemisphere, even if Cuba’s economy improves. Meanwhile, the condition of his people is desperate and growing worse. They need food, they need the basic essentials of everyday life, they need the rudiments of a functioning economy, and they need freedom.

The unique nature of the relationship between the United States and Cuba gives us a special responsibility toward its people. As long as it seemed reasonable that severe economic pressures would help them overthrow the Castro dictatorship, it was appropriate to maintain those pressures. As long as Castro was part of a global network of communist aggressors, the embargo strengthened international security. But that network has vanished, and our best service to the Cuban people now would be to build pressure from within by actively stimulating Cuba’s contacts with the free world. What has worked in China now has the best chance of working in Cuba.

This means we should drop the economic embargo and open the way to trade, investment, and economic interaction, while insisting that ideas and information be allowed to flow as freely as goods. Today’s global economy is essentially a market economy. Where the market system penetrates, it carries along the seeds of political and economic reform. We should put the challenge squarely to Castro: If he wants his people to prosper, then let him open the door to goods and ideas. If he insists on keeping it shut, it will be clear beyond question that only his fear of freedom stands in the way of his people’s escape from privation. If he opens it, then he opens it also to the winds of freedom.

January 2015 newsletter

Posted on by

“A Piece of My Mind”

January 2015 Newsletter from Donald Shoemaker

Advancing Christian Faith and Values, Defending Religious Liberty for All, Supporting Civility and the Common Good through Preaching, Teaching, Writing, Activism and Reasoned Conversations

www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

 

I turned 70 in December. Time for a new picture!

Louis Zamperini—The Rest of the Story

My wife Mary and I visited the Wrigley Mansion in Pasadena the day before the Grand Marshal of the 2015 Rose Parade was announced. We could see the temporary construction where it would be made the next day, but everyone was hush-hush about the announcement.

Louis Zamperini would be the Grand Marshal! Olympic runner, World War II hero lost at sea and presumed dead, survivor of a brutal prison camp. He would later struggle with alcohol and spousal abuse and flashback nightmares. Injuries from his prison camp abuse dashed his hope of running in a future Olympics. And he plotted his return to Japan to find and kill his worst prison camp tormenter.

Zamperini died last summer at the age of 97. “Unbroken” has just been released about his life. We saw the movie December 26.

The story’s opening centers on the plane crash into the Pacific that left Zamperini stranded at sea for 47 days. It flashes back to his childhood and Olympic experience and then moves forward to his lengthy POW experience in Japan. It concludes with the war’s end and his reunion with his family—at Long Beach, California’s airport, no less!

Zamperini’s promise to God (should he survive his ordeal) and his later religious conversion are tastefully mentioned. But for many viewers, including me, a postscript is needed.

 

The fabric of his life was deteriorating severely; his marriage hung by a thread. But in 1949 a young evangelist named Billy Graham arrived in Los Angeles for a crusade that extended to eight weeks and catapulted Graham to fame.

Zamperini’s wife pled for him to attend with her. He went, kicking and screaming so to speak, but insisted he would walk out when the “invitation” was given at the end of Graham’s sermon. Instead, he walked forward and responded to the invitation to give his life to Jesus Christ.

And the rest of his life was transformed. That night, at the time his heavy drinking would typically begin, he poured it all down the drain. His nightmares ended. He later went to Japan to forgive his wartime tormenters (the worst one refused to meet him). He built a ministry for youth who were troubled as he once was. At 80, he carried the torch at Nagano, Japan (near the site of his POW camp) before the 1998 Winter Olympics!

 

A New Year’s Resolution for the Christian Community—Let’s Adopt…

A Renewed Paradigm for Worship

I’ve been an enthusiastic worshipper since I was a toddler (my mother told me I sang really loud). I began planning and leading worship when I was 17. In the points below I try to be creative but make no claim to originality. In fact, I hope most ideas are quite old and enduring. These renewal points come from my general knowledge—change isn’t needed everywhere. The points are a work in progress, not the final word, so input is invited.

A Truly Worshipping Congregation

Give worship back to the congregation. Stop the stage-centered professionalism. Get the congregation singing, not just standing—engaged and not mere passive onlookers. Lower the volume, if necessary, so that people can joyfully hear themselves sing. Make the congregation active participants in worship “with heart and soul and voices” (“Now Thank We All Our God” by Martin Rinkart, 1636). Worship can be high quality without being so orchestrated.

In Touch with Our Christian Heritage

Renew worship connection with our rich Christian heritage even as we also sing good current compositions. Put the people in touch with the saints of the past—their struggles, suffering, spirituality, successes and songs. The Holy Spirit didn’t first arrive with “Jesus Music” in the 1960’s!

The Word of God in Worship

Integrate the Word of the Lord into worship more thoroughly. People need to hear the Scriptures read. If we Evangelical Protestants consider ourselves “People of the Word”, why is there more reading of Scripture in a Roman Catholic Mass than in the typical Evangelical service?

The Word Proclaimed and The Word Explained (Example: Acts 2:14-42)

We must see the distinction between Proclamation of the Word to non-believers and Instruction in the Word to believers—both necessary and complementary. As you plan the worship experience, remember that its primary purpose is to instruct and build up of believers in faith and life. While non-Christians should be invited and, when present, not made to feel like awkward strangers, the worship hour should be distinguished from other occasions that have as their primary purpose drawing non-believers to hear the Word of Salvation and confess Jesus as Lord.

Expository Sermons as a Work of Art

The Message should unfold and apply the meaning of Scripture to the people so they can see what was there all along. While the expository pastor has training and tools available that the rest of us don’t have, sermons should not create an unhealthy dependence on the speaker to know what God is saying. Sermons should usually be under 30 minutes—it takes more work to create a tight sermon than an extended one, but it will be a better sermon. Organize the sermon as if it were a work of art, and then maybe it will become one!

“Less” is often “More” (Ecclesiastes 5:1-2; Habakkuk 2:20)

Musical instrumentation in all its variety is marvelous in worship. But don’t forget places for silence, softness and quality a cappella singing. Spoken words are not always necessary and, when they are, few are better than many.

Giving in Worship

Don’t forget the giving opportunity within the worship service. Other avenues for giving (payroll deductions, on-line giving, etc.) have a growing place, but must not supersede a time to give in the worship service.

Technology in Worship—Dine with a Long Spoon

Technology must always be the servant of worship, never its lord. People should leave worship thinking, “I’ve met God today!” Not, “Wow!” Ask these questions when using technology: “Does this feature really enhance worship? Does it point us straight to Jesus? Or does it detract and distract from him?”

Humor Has a Place—Keep It There! (Ask those “tech” questions again!)

Lightheartedness and laughter have their place in worship, when done with purpose. But the service must never get frivolous and must always lift us above ourselves to God. Humor is one thing, trying to be funny another.

A Real, Live Pastor (John 3:16 doesn’t say God in love beamed down his son.)

The pastor who speaks should be there in flesh and blood, not electronically delivered like a hologram. Pastors, we should not think more highly of ourselves than we ought to think. We aren’t indispensible celebrities! The people need true interaction with the pastor during and after the sermon, not an impersonal non-encounter with someone who isn’t there. No fleeing to the office after services either—you can keep your energy and still meet people!

Worship Aesthetics

Worship settings don’t need to be extravagant, but they shouldn’t be bland and utilitarian either. The place of worship is sacred space, removed from the “common settings” of the rest of the week. It’s not another “Home Depot”! Worship is a vestibule to the Celestial. In “The Gathering”, we are a holy temple of God, a dwelling place for God’s Spirit. The visible word should tastefully and purposefully surround worshippers in the worship location through artistic display and symbols, and (yes) even in the windows.

The Eucharist in Worship

The Communion (the Eucharist) should be a regular feature of renewed worship—even weekly. Communion isn’t “fast food”. Enough time must be given to ponder the Cross, God’s grace and our need for repentance. Pastors should declare the good news of forgiveness in the Communion.

Shepherding the Flock in Worship

Pastors should actively lead their people into worship, within worship, and out of worship. This means a pastoral role for the Call to Worship, the Pastoral Prayer, and the Benediction. The people should be led in petitionary and intercessory prayer. Appropriate prayer and anointing of the sick with oil should be provided by the elders of the church.

© 2014 Donald P. Shoemaker

Death in Ferguson & New York City

  1. New York City contributed to Eric Garner’s tragic and unnecessary death with its “holy war” on tobacco, similar to the war it attempted on soda (imagine a street vendor resisting arrest and being taken down for selling illegal “big gulp” drinks). Absurdly high taxes are an invitation to many to bootleg cigarettes on the street. Still, there should be little wrong in what Mr. Garner was doing—perhaps warranting nothing more than a ticket. There’s a caveat in legislation, “Don’t pass a law without thinking someone might get killed over it” because that might well happen someday, somewhere. We are simply over-regulated, and in this case a price was paid. NYC should learn!
  2. No person should resist arrest—EVER. At that point, police cannot back down. It greatly heightens the danger level, besides leading to worse charges.
  3. Eric Garner’s case is very different from Michael Brown’s case in Ferguson. Mr. Brown had already, just minutes prior, demonstrated his propensity and willingness to do bodily harm through his strong-armed robbery and battery against a convenience store owner (all captured by a store camera).
  4. The constant mantra-like use of the adjective “unarmed” needs to be reconsidered. Sometimes it isn’t relevant. Someone with a fake weapon is “unarmed”. Someone using a child as a hostage and threatening to twist its neck is “unarmed” and yet lethal force may be justified. One’s body can be a weapon, especially in a close-range situation (as Mr. Brown demonstrated at the store and at the police car).
  5. My judgment is that “justice” was pre-determined by many, regardless of the specifics of the Ferguson incident. Many good, sincere and concerned people saw the incident as parabolic—pointing to moral issues beyond the actual incident. With a parable, truth is in the lesson to be learned, not in the specifics of the story. The story is shaped to support the truth-principle it conveys. The problem I have is this: in parables the people who are doing right or wrong are nameless and figurative. The Ferguson incident has names and faces and details open to examination. It is not a parable, but a reality situation where conclusions and justice must be based on actual facts.
  6. My comments above (#5) do not at all mean there shouldn’t be some serious examination of relationships between residents and law enforcement in many communities. For that matter, war-like vehicles and tactics belong in the hands of the military (in this case, the National Guard) and not in the hands of community law enforcement.
  7. Officer Darren Wilson resigned from the Ferguson police force and obviously cannot return to his home, the address of which was released. What he can do in the future is, as his attorney said, “anyone’s guess.” He should receive a retirement stipend since he is unable to perform his duties as a law enforcement officer. This is a regrettable prospect, but many have received retirement from law enforcement with less justification than this.

An important concluding word—these thoughts are not shared in a vacuum. I speak with a high degree of personal memory. In 2010 a neighbor of mine was shot and killed by police in Long Beach, California for pointing a garden hose nozzle that appeared to be a pistol when he was drunk and approached by the police. I conducted his funeral.

No big protests for him.

Don’s Upcoming Ministries

January 6 – Present and Support a Religious Freedom Day (January 16) Proclamation before the Long Beach City Council

February 18 – Lead “Ash Wednesday” service at Grace Community Church of Seal Beach (7 PM)

March 22 – Speak in Sunday Morning Worship Services at Grace Community Church of Seal Beach (8:00, 9:30, 11:00)

 

A Happy, Productive, Meaningful New Year to All!

Death in Ferguson & New York City–Some Ethical Reflections

Posted on by

Death in Ferguson & New York City–Ethical Reflections on the Deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner

1. New York City contributed to Eric Garner’s tragic and unnecessary death with its “holy war” on tobacco, similar to the war it attempted on soda (imagine a street vendor resisting arrest and being taken down for selling illegal “big gulp” drinks). Absurdly high taxes are an invitation to many to bootleg cigarettes on the street. Still, there should be little wrong in what Mr. Garner was doing—perhaps warranting nothing more than a ticket. There’s a caveat in legislation, “Don’t pass a law without thinking someone might get killed over it” because that might well happen someday, somewhere. We are simply over-regulated, and in this case a price was paid. NYC should learn!

2. No person should resist arrest—EVER. At that point, police cannot back down. It greatly heightens the danger level, besides leading to worse charges.

3. Eric Garner’s case is very different from Michael Brown’s case in Ferguson. Mr. Brown had already, just minutes prior, demonstrated his propensity and willingness to do bodily harm through his strong-armed robbery and battery against a convenience store owner (all captured by a store camera).

4. The constant mantra-like use of the adjective “unarmed” needs to be reconsidered. Sometimes it isn’t relevant. Someone with a fake weapon is “unarmed”. Someone using a child as a hostage and threatening to twist its neck is “unarmed” and yet lethal force may be justified. One’s body can be a weapon, especially in a close-range situation (as Mr. Brown demonstrated at the store and at the police car).

5. My judgment is that “justice” was pre-determined by many, regardless of the specifics of the Ferguson incident. Many good, sincere and concerned people saw the incident as parabolic—pointing to moral issues beyond the actual incident. With a parable, truth is in the lesson to be learned, not in the specifics of the story. The story is shaped to support the truth-principle it conveys. The problem I have is this: in parables the people who are doing right or wrong are nameless and figurative. The Ferguson incident has names and faces and details open to examination. It is not a parable, but a reality situation where conclusions and justice must be based on actual facts.

6. My comments above (#5) do not at all mean there shouldn’t be some serious examination of relationships between residents and law enforcement in many communities. For that matter, war-like vehicles and tactics belong in the hands of the military (in this case, the National Guard) and not in the hands of community law enforcement.

7. Officer Darren Wilson resigned from the Ferguson police force and obviously cannot return to his home, the address of which was released. What he can do in the future, as his attorney said, is “anyone’s guess.” He should receive a retirement stipend since he is unable to perform his duties as a law enforcement officer. This is a regrettable prospect, but many have received retirement from law enforcement with less justification than this.

An important concluding word—these thoughts are not shared in a vacuum. I speak with a high degree of personal memory. In 2010 a neighbor of mine was shot and killed by police in Long Beach, California for pointing a garden hose nozzle that appeared to be a pistol when he was drunk and approached by the police. I conducted his funeral.

No big protests for him.