Evil, Suffering & Tragedy—
Proofs of God’s Displeasure?

A self-styled member of the clergy told the Seal Beach City Council and all others listening on March 24 that the city’s neglect of the homeless led to the “Salon Massacre” in October, 2011—Orange County’s worst mass murder, eight innocent lives. Had city officials listened to advocates of services for the homeless, “God would have been unjust to allow that massacre in this city. ” Read on…

Bible Insight:

“Who has understood the mind of the Lord?
or instructed him as his counselor?
Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge
or showed him the path of understanding?”
– Isaiah 40:13-14

Do our moral actions or inactions bring identifiable judgments from God? Does anyone have the right to tell us, “Thus saith the Lord!” when tragedy strikes?

Biblically speaking, bad things happen for many reasons or (to our finite understanding) for no reason at all. Sometimes tragedy strikes those who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sometimes punishment can come from God for violating his commandments. This can be seen in the Law of Moses (see Deuteronomy 30:15-20 for summary promises of blessing and judgment; the warnings are common throughout the Mosaic Law as found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). Warnings are also common in the prophetical writings (for great examples, read the first two chapters of Amos).

Other scriptures speak of the natural consequences of the choices we make, good or bad. I highly recommend reading the Book of Proverbs to see literally hundreds of moral truisms (generalizations) on the consequences of conduct.

“The prudent see danger and take refuge,
but the simple keep going and suffer for it.” (27:12)
“Those who work their land will have abundant food,
but those who chase fantasies will have their fill of poverty.” (28:19)
“Drunkards and gluttons become poor,
and drowsiness clothes them in rags.” (23:21)

But still other scriptures make it clear that many things that happen to us are not subject to moral cause-and-effect equations. The greatest example is from one of the oldest works of literature—the Book of Job. If you have never read this Old Testament book with its splendid poetry, treat yourself to it!

Job was a good and honorable man, wealthy and blessed. Then he was struck with a rapid series of disasters: (1) great evil: his animals were stolen and his servants killed by marauding bands; (2) great tragedies: fire destroyed his sheep and killed more servants, and a wind collapsed his son’s house and all his children were killed; (3) great suffering: he himself was covered with painful sores from head to toe. Yet Job retained his trust in God, in the face of no answer to the question why.

Enter his three friends. Most of the remainder of the book is the poetic arguments back and forth between Job and his “counselors.” They are sure that Job’s own conduct must have brought God to bring these disasters his way. Job’s protests are judged as proof of his blindness to his own deeds and his willful failure to understand the moral cause-and-effect equation.

Obedience brings blessing and sin brings punishment—it’s as simple as that! “Blessed is the man whom God corrects; so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty” (Job 5:17). That’s the theory—alive today—set forth by Job’s “counselors.”

Certainly God has compassion for the poor and homeless and calls on us for compassion as well. “Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God” (Proverbs 14:31).

But poverty is complex and can have many causes: oppression, natural and economic happenings, choice and slothfulness among others. How we respond to poverty must take the range of causes into consideration. And the solutions need to be efficient, effective ones that will lift a person up rather than reinforce the circumstances.

So the moral cause-and-effect linkage between a failure to provide housing for the homeless and a mass murder is fallacious in the extreme.

How can one prove that, in the case at hand, God demands local housing as the solution for the homeless? Over many years I’ve known many of these men and women through talking with them on the street, providing meals for them, and welcoming them to church. Many will not change their situations. They “come and go.” Some will ask money from others while spurning truly helpful assistance. Alcoholism runs deep. Housing alone isn’t the answer.

Why would God punish the innocent for the wrongful omission of others, if indeed there was omission? Who is qualified to draw the connection?

And who can claim to know the mind of God and be the voice of God, to speak “thus saith the Lord” and lecture others? Again, over the years I’ve had many visitors come to church and tell me God sent them here today to give me a message. I will tell them I don’t want to hear it.

I hope and pray that the consciences of good citizens will not be troubled by preaching that draws a cause-and-effect between sin and suffering. And I pray that people’s minds will not become jaded and critical of Christian people and churches who are struggling to understand and speak and practice the true will and love of God in a world full of challenges and difficulties.

Other theological and philosophical issues:

• Is God “unjust” if he doesn’t intervene to prevent an “undeserved massacre”? And aren’t there many examples of this evil in the world today? Theologically speaking, it is impossible to charge God with injustice, since he is the source of all justice and justice is defined by his character. Abraham’s rhetorical question before God was right: “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25).
• A distinction between what God “allows” versus what God “ordains” when used to exculpate God from responsibility—this won’t fly. If God foresees an action (like mass murder) and possesses the power to forestall it but instead permits it, how can saying God “allowed it but didn’t ordain it” excuse him from moral culpability? If I’m standing beside a small child who will very likely run out into a busy street unless I restrain him, and if I do not act to restrain him when it is within my knowledge and power to do so, how could I be exempt from a moral claim of negligence? Personally, I think this matter is insoluble with regard to God’s knowledge and action or inaction. The Bible seems to let the question rest.

Religious Liberty Vigilance – Battle of the Cross

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
– 1st Amendment (Our “First Freedom” in the Bill of Rights)

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must…undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
– Thomas Paine

“By this conquer” – Message in the vision of Constantine (312 AD)

I don’t know what Constantine really saw that day. I do have a problem whenever God is enlisted to provide endorsement to actions of the state. Especially since Jesus declared to the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,
“My kingdom is not of this world”
(John 18:36).

Religious endorsement of secular power or secular endorsement of religion is one thing. Recognition of religious heritage in a context that recognizes other features of heritage is something else. Thus, I fully endorse the decision of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to restore a cross onto the county seal.

In 1957, liberal Democrat Kenneth Hahn proposed a redesign of the seal to recognize the diverse heritage of the county.

Beside the cross and in the middle of the seal was a prominent image of Pomona, goddess of agriculture and abundance. That’s didn’t seem to concern “church and state separationists” the way a tiny cross did. So, fearing a lawsuit by the ACLU, county supervisors surrendered without a fight and approved a new seal in 2004.

The new seal featured an Indian woman (in a servile role, according to critics) and the likeness of the San Gabriel Mission, sans cross (which some said really made it look more like a Taco Bell). It also eliminated politically incorrect oil derricks.

But in January 2014 two supervisors added liberal supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas to the cause and still another seal with a small cross on top of the mission was approved 3-2. The Los Angeles Times gave a hand-wringing editorial on February 7, “County supervisors voted last month to add a Christian cross, an unmistakable symbol of one religious faith, to the county seal, an official symbol of government. Blending the Christian symbol into the government one signals an impermissible intertwining of church and state. It practically begs for a lawsuit.”

Does this “favor” one religion over others? Would a “reasonable observer” see it as an “endorsement of religion”? If so, what about Pomona? Or Minerva, goddess of wisdom, on the California seal? Don’t these “endorse” paganism? Don’t think that’s a dead faith these days. Common sense, please!

No, I agree with Supervisor Don Knabe, who says the new seal was adopted for historical correctness, not political correctness. Radical secularists relax!

Note: the Ventura County seal has two crosses! One is on Mission Buenaventura, the other on the likeness of Father Junipero Serra, founder of the mission, who also is holding a Bible!

Good News from Grace

www.gracesealbeach.org

Grace Community Church of Seal Beach
138 8th Street (at Central in “Old Town”)

Good Friday Communion Services at Noon and 7:00 p.m.

Easter Sunday Services at 8:00, 9:30 and 11:00 (traditional style), 9:30 and 11:00 (contemporary style)

Don’s Upcoming Ministries

April 5 at 8:00 a.m. – Sing the National Anthem at the opening of Seal Beach’s 5/10K race.

May 4 – Speak in Morning Worship Services at Grace Community Church of Seal Beach
(8:00, 9:30 and 11:00)

www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

How Is the Bible Regarded in America?

This study analyzed the Bible mindedness of the top 100 cities by population across the U.S. in 2013. Bible mindedness was calculated based on combined levels of regular Bible reading and residents’ belief in the Bible’s accuracy. – American Bible Society
www.americanbible.org/features/americas-most-bible-minded-cities

10 Most Bible-Minded Cities (all in the South but one)

• Chattanooga, Tennessee
• Birmingham, Alabama
• Roanoke/Lynchburg, Virginia
• Springfield, Missouri
• Shreveport, Louisiana
• Charlotte, N. Carolina
• Greenville/Spartanburg, S. Carolina/Asheville, N. Carolina
• Little Rock, Arkansas
• Jackson, Mississippi
• Knoxville, Tennessee

10 Least Bible-Minded Cities (7 in New England or New York)

• Providence, Rhode Island/New Bedford, Massachusetts
• Albany, New York
• Boston, Massachusetts
• San Francisco, California
• Cedar Rapids, Iowa
• Buffalo, New York
• Hartford/New Haven, Connecticut
• Phoenix, Arizona
• Burlington, Vermont
• Portland, Maine

California Cities

• Bakersfield (21st)
• Sacramento/Modesto (66th)
• Fresno (70th)
• San Diego (72nd)
• Los Angeles (73rd)

What Is Evangelical Christianity?
10 Helpful Answers

I have been an Evangelical Christian almost all my life. Recently I had the opportunity to talk about Evangelical Christianity at the LDS Institute of Religion adjacent to Cal. State U. in Long Beach. To ponder, organize and present the convictions, plusses and minuses of the movement I’ve embraced was a very good exercise for me. Below is a summary of my 2-hour talk.

Message of the Month—Evangelical Christianity

1. “Evangelicalism” is all about “giving out the ‘Good Word'”.
   It is a declarative, conversionist, very mission-minded movement.

The word “Evangelical” comes from the idea of sharing an “Evangel” with the world.

“euangelion” (ευαγγελιον) – “The ‘Evangel’, the ‘Good News'”
“euangelizo” (ευαγγελιζω) – “To evangelize, announce the Good News”
“euangelistes” (ευαγγελιστης) – “Evangelist, preacher of the Good News”

Not all faiths are conversionist, but Evangelicalism certainly is. We urge people to embrace the “Good News” of Jesus. We take our marching orders from Jesus and the apostles:

“Go and make disciples of all the nations…” (Matthew 28:19)

“I am not ashamed of the gospel [euangelion], because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes…” (Romans 1:16)

The Book of Acts and the earliest history of Christianity show how evangelism by a small band of Jesus’ followers could extend a movement to where it became a significant presence in the Roman Empire in just about 35 years.

1. “Evangelicalism” is “Christ-centered” and “cross-centered”.

Jesus is the Son of God, the Word made flesh, the Christ sent by God. Jesus died on the cross as a satisfaction for sin—no Evangelical can budge on these. These are crucial and non-negotiable.

“If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

“I want to remind you of the gospel [euangelion] I preached to you… By this gospel you are saved… For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins…he was buried…he was raised on the third day…” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

The message of the cross is central, not incidental and certainly not deniable or disposable. Through the cross Jesus, the Lamb of God, takes away the sins of the world. The benefits of his death are appropriated through faith in the message. (The meaning and value of the death of Jesus on the cross extends beyond “taking away the sins of the world” but this idea is central to the message.)

1. “Evangelicalism” holds the Scriptures (66 books of the Old and New Testaments) in the highest regard as “inspired of God”, the final authority in faith and obedience.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 – All Scripture is “inspired” (“God-breathed”) and thus “profitable” for instruction, correction, and preparing people to serve God in the world.

The exact nature of “inspiration” (how it “worked”), how “inspiration” affects interpretation of biblical information (e.g., poetry as opposed to narrative, the role of culture), how the Bible interacts with secular disciplines—these are issues open for discussion. But for Evangelicals, the Bible as the Word of God is a “given.”

1. “Evangelicalism” is confessional.

Evangelicals, some to a greater degree and others to a lesser degree (but never to a “tiny” degree), all recognize the need to confess acceptance of certain doctrinal matters. Some may recite The Apostles Creed or The Nicene Creed in worship services. For others, doctrine is affirmed in a more informal manner. To deny a crucial doctrine puts one outside the pale of Evangelical Christianity. [See the Nicene Creed and the Statement of Faith of the National Association of Evangelicals at the end of this newsletter].

1. “Evangelicalism” has great variation in its movement (these terms may overlap).

• Baptists (typically independent-minded and against state involvement in religion, emphasizing the baptism of believers only)
• Holiness (Wesleyan, from the Methodist tradition)
• Pentecostals (a Holy Sprit-focused movement that started in 1906)
• Fundamentalists (typically separatist toward society and even other Evangelicals, but much of this movement has changed)
• Creedal Protestant denominations (such as evangelical Lutherans with a small “e”, like the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ or the Missouri Synod)
• Sacramentalists and non-Sacramentalists (some believe baptism and communion actually convey the grace they signify; others see symbolism)
• Conservative and Charismatic Roman Catholics
• Evangelical groups within mainline denominations
• Movements (the “Jesus Movement”, the “Charismatic Movement”, Revivalists, Restorationists, Separatists, Churches of the “End Times”)
• Evangelical “para-church” organizations (university campus ministries, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Prison Fellowship, Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision, Community Bible Study, a huge number of educational enterprises)

2. “Evangelicalism” has many leaders but no official spokesmen, many movements without any central authority.

Many mega-churches and independent ministries may make their leaders prominent, but this is not typical. No one can officially speak for the moment. There are some key voices (the late Charles Colson, Billy Graham, Rick Warren). There are some key theologians (such as Wayne Grudem, Michael Horton, Donald Bloesch).

But there is no central voice or authority or disciplining body. Accountability falls on local churches, denominations and even ad hoc arrangements. This is sometimes good, sometimes bad. But overall I prefer it this way.

1. “Evangelicalism” has had more than its share of crooks, con artists, charlatans and crackpots, along with aberrant teachings (such as the “prosperity gospel”).

2. “Evangelicalism” increasingly has a cooperative spirit, subject to its commitment to its creeds and values.

An apocalyptic “Why bother with this world?” attitude is less prominent today than in the past. Evangelicals have typically not been “joiners” in social causes, working with people of other faiths or secular people. But this has been changing. For me, the doctrine of “Common Grace” is a basis for such cooperation.

But Evangelicals will not cooperate if core convictions might be compromised. This is especially true when it comes to worship services that are not distinctively Christian. The Nicene Creed is my personal measuring stick for participation in worship services.

1. “Evangelicalism” has had a long and significant tradition of Social Reform though it has sometimes “gone into hiding”.

Evangelical social consciousness in the past included working to end slavery, the temperance (prohibition) movement, and women’s suffrage (right to vote). Many revivalists were strong in social transformation, for example, John and Charles Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Billy Sunday.

Sadly, Evangelical withdrawal from cultural influence after the bruising “Fundamentalist-Modernist” battles of the early 20th Century led most to “sit out” the Civil Rights struggle, and this is a large blemish on our movement to this day.

Contemporary social issues in Evangelicalism include: Pro-life issues (this unites all Evangelicals), “God and Country”, family and marriage, religious liberty, persecution of religion around the world, political oppression, just peace in the Middle East including a free state of Israel, immigration reform, and human trafficking.

It would be naïve and inaccurate to say all Evangelicals feel passion on all these areas and they certainly don’t always agree. It is also wrong to label all Evangelicals as part of the “Religious Right” because their politics extends across the spectrum.

1. “Evangelicalism” sets its sights on “The Kingdom of God”.

The prayer of the church was taught to us by Jesus: “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (The Lord’s Prayer, Matthew 6:10).

Most Evangelicals see both a present and future tense in God’s kingdom rule. To the extent God’s kingdom can be seen today (through the spread of the “Evangel”, living out the principles of Jesus and through Christian convictions and compassion), Christians are active in its advance.

But we must be under no illusion that the Kingdom of God will be built by Christians in this present age. Scripture is clear on that. Evangelicals believe that the Second Coming of Jesus will usher in the age of complete justice and peace.

Recommended Reading

• AN EVANGELICAL MANIFESTO
  

  A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment (2008)

• Evangelical Catholicism by George Weigle
• The Faith by Charles Colson

© 2014 Donald P. Shoemaker

Religious Liberty Vigilance

– Arizona’s Religious Exemption Bill

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” – 1st Amendment (Our “First Freedom” in the Bill of Rights)

“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, 1786)

It was not one of America’s better days. Arizona Senate Bill 1062*. Arizona’s legislature passed it, people protested it, the governor vetoed it, the media exploited it. Even some of the bill’s supports thought it poorly written and overly broad. Americans watched it all unfold.

Apart from all the negative labeling**, there were the twisting and sensationalizing by the news media and the intemperate and inaccurate comments by people on both sides. Perhaps we can calm down and take a few moments to consider what SB 1062 really said and what to do next.

The bill would have permitted a person, corporation or other institution to “opt out” on a business transaction if he/she/it had a bona fide religious objection. Critics feared it could be broadly used to permit discrimination.

SB 1062 didn’t mention same-sex marriage, although supporters should honestly admit that was the “hot button” issue. It did bring to the surface a matter of deep concern amongst people of religious conviction—a concern welling up more and more: “What’s happening to religious liberty in America?” Many viewed this as the opportunity to reassert this liberty!

SB 1062 expressed the same criteria for the right to an exemption from a law that limited the free exercise of religion as was set forth in the federal “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA) in 1993. Under the RFRA, the government must not substantially burden the free exercise of religion unless it could establish: (1) it had a compelling state interest in doing so (a high standard), and (2) it was burdening free exercise in the least restrictive way.

SB 1062 required those seeking an exemption to demonstrate that their conviction was (1) based on a religious belief, (2) the belief was sincerely held and (3) the particular action would impose a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion.

Let’s recognize that religious liberty is under increasing challenge, right now by the “Obamacare” mandates. There are real reasons for concern. Our current president doesn’t seem to value religious liberty as did his immediate predecessors, Presidents Clinton and Bush. When you hear government officials speak of “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion”, that is not likely a slip of the tongue. It is a narrowed understanding of the freedom. True freedom of religion is not just the right to believe. It must include the right to live out the “ought’s” and the “ought not’s” of one’s faith.

A sizeable minority of Americans doesn’t even favor the First Amendment’s protection of liberties. How many Americans can even name these liberties?

I challenge Americans of good will to calm down and work together to craft a model law allowing religious liberty exemptions from laws that provoke a need for them.

*The text of Arizona SB 1062 can be read at:
www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.htm

**Labeling of opponents (an ad hominem argument) instead of constructively responding to them is a very unfair yet effective political tool. Often this labeling assigns motives to others. Who is an expert in judging the motives of others?

“An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument… The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).” (Source: The Nizkor Project)

Don’s Upcoming Ministries

Lead and speak at the Ash Wednesday Service

Grace Community Church of Seal Beach

7:00 p.m. March 5

The Season of Lent

A time many Christians devote to self-examination, confession of sin, sacrificial deeds, special occasions of worship and thanksgiving to God for forgiveness of sin and the power of the cross. All leading up to the Easter climax of the Empty Tomb.

“A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.” (1 Corinthians 11:28 NIV)

“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:8-9)

May your Lenten Season be rich in meaning!

www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, 
the only Son of God, 
eternally begotten of the Father, 
God from God, Light from Light, 
true God from true God, 
begotten, not made, 
of one Being with the Father. 
Through him all things were made. 
For us and for our salvation 
he came down from heaven: 
by the power of the Holy Spirit 
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, 
and was made man. 
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; 
he suffered death and was buried. 
On the third day he rose again 
in accordance with the Scriptures; 
he ascended into heaven 
and is seated at the right hand of the Father. 
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, 
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, 
who proceeds from the Father and the Son. 
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. 
He has spoken through the Prophets. 
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. 
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. 
We look for the resurrection of the dead, 
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Statement of Faith of the National Association of Evangelicals

• We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
• We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
• We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
• We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
• We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
• We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
• We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

– 1st Amendment (Our “First Freedom” in the Bill of Rights)

Religious Freedom Day – January 16

Once again it was my privilege to present a proclamation for Religious Freedom Day before the Long Beach City Council.

Here is the full text of my proposal. The actual adopted wording on the one-page proclamation is in italics. I encourage all who read this and cherish its principles to (1) have your own community make a similar proclamation and (2) work for its implementation in your community organizations.

WHEREAS our nation’s founders recognized the importance of religious freedom and secured this liberty in the words of the First Amendment, declaring that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and

WHEREAS the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, our country’s first legal safeguard for religious liberty, was adopted on January 16, 1786; and

WHEREAS in January of each year since 1994 the President of the United States has issued a Proclamation on the importance of religious liberty, which in 1994 recognized “our government did not create this liberty, but it cannot be too vigilant in securing its blessings;” and

WHEREAS the free exercise of religion has undergirded the social efforts of many Americans, notably Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose birthday on January 15 we commemorate each year; and

WHEREAS the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18) declares, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” including the right “to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance;” and

WHEREAS religious freedom now faces challenges, persecution and coercion, violent and non-violent, at home and around the world; and

WHEREAS our country has embraced a tradition of religious liberty that has prevented religious domination, conflict and persecution and nurtured an environment where religion has flourished and where people have been left free to choose which faith they shall follow or none at all;

NOW, THEREFORE I, Bob Foster, Mayor of Long Beach…on behalf of the City of Long Beach, California, do hereby declare January 16, 2014 to be “Religious Freedom Day” in our community.

We encourage city government, community groups, schools and places of worship to reaffirm their devotion to the principles of religious freedom and educate and reflect on the importance of religious liberty so it may continue secure as part of our nation’s fabric.

We encourage citizens and government to be mindful of the principles of religious liberty in their decisions, attitudes and actions.

On this day let us give thanks for this precious right that has so profoundly shaped and sustained our Nation, and let us strengthen our efforts to share its blessings with oppressed peoples everywhere.

Verbal Statement in Favor of a
Religious Freedom Day Proclamation

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom documents 15 countries as practicing particularly severe violations of religious freedom.

The Commission defines “particularly severe” violations as ones that are “systematic, ongoing, and egregious,” including acts such as torture, prolonged detention without charges, disappearances, or other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons.

Sometimes this suffering is due to the oppressive dominance of a single religion. Other times it comes from a secular, anti-religious government. North Korea is by far the worst. But the list also includes:

Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan, followed by Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vietnam.

And these are just the worst ones. Thankfully, our country is different.

Through the genius of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and other founders who imbedded religious freedom in the Bill of Rights as our “first liberty”, our country is different.

The First Amendment assures that government cannot dominate religion, either by adopting one faith as our official one or by preventing the free exercise of religion by those who embrace a religious faith. Note that the First Amendment bestows the freedom to exercise one’s faith, not just the freedom to hold to a faith.

January 16 is a singular day in the cause of religious liberty, for it was on this day in 1786, 228 years ago, that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was adopted.

I also observe that Martin Luther King’s birthday is tomorrow—January 15. His exercise of his religious principles undergirded the Civil Rights Movement.

So I speak in support of the City of Long Beach designating January 16 as Religious Freedom Day. And I urge us all to be thankful for this precious right that has so profoundly shaped and sustained our Nation. Let us strengthen our efforts to teach and practice this right at home and share its meaning with oppressed peoples everywhere.

Holding steadfast to religious freedom

Guest Commentary by Donald P. Shoemaker
Pastor Emeritus, Grace Community Church of Seal Beach

[This Commentary appeared on January 16, 2014 in the Los Angeles Daily News, Long Beach Press-Telegram and several other newspapers in the greater Los Angeles area. Brackets indicate words edited out of the printed material for space. I believe the deleted sentences under the fourth and fifth freedoms are important. – DPS]

We who live in Southern California know how urban sprawl has pushed wildlife from native environments. Sometimes the wildlife push back and return to areas they once had to themselves. Enlightened policies have created areas that protect wildlife and provided safe accommodation when wildlife venture back to where they once lived.

Take this thinking and consider how government sprawl has encroached into spheres once regarded as religious. Matters like contraception, once a private matter or between individuals and their religion, are now provided by government mandate and religious organizations are told to comply.

In these cases, government has become the urbanizer and religion pushes back and demands accommodation. In fact, the more a government promotes its own utopian social ideals, the more there will be conflicts between the state and religions that have their own visions of the ideal. [This is one reason authoritarian governments suppress and control religion and totalitarian systems try to eradicate it.]

Today is Religious Freedom Day by presidential proclamation. The date recognizes the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, our country’s first legal safeguard for religious liberty, adopted on January 16, 1786. [Well worth a read,] this document by Thomas Jefferson ensured freedom of conscience instead of religion imposed by the state.

Our nation has strong debates among people of good will over how and when either a religious or a secular position should prevail. I offer here my own thoughts for a truly libertarian understanding of religious freedom.

First, religious freedom means the freedom to speak your convictions, even on controversial religious or moral matters, without government repercussions. This in turn will have a leavening effect on society’s own sense of tolerance of those who express values outside the current mainstream or the thinking du jour.

Second, it means freedom to persuade others to convert to your faith and the freedom to convert from one faith to another faith or to profess no formal religion at all—all without punishment, retaliation or pressure.

In affirming this, we are a light to nations that ban religious conversions or oppress those not of the majority faith and relegate them, at best, to second-class status.

Third, religious freedom bestows a right to hold any political or governmental office regardless of your religious beliefs. Religious tests are banned by the U.S. Constitution (Article 6, Paragraph 3). But we’ve often seen religion or its moral convictions raised as a political barrier. Remember the dispute over John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism and recent concern over Mitt Romney’s Mormonism.

A fourth freedom is the right not only to believe as you choose but also to practice the moral tenets of your faith. This means doing what faith demands and refusing what others demand when it violates faith’s convictions.
[KEY POINT: This freedom isn’t just for clergy. It extends to laypeople as they carry out their personal and vocational activities.]

Freedom to practice your faith is not unlimited the way freedom to believe is. But once a person establishes that a practice or a prohibition rises from his or her belief system, the burden of proof should shift to the government. No conduct based on religious convictions should be restricted by the government unless it proves a compelling state interest that justifies a limit on religious liberty. This is a vital [and highly relevant principle] in light of the current debate over whether religious organizations opposed to contraception should nonetheless be required to provide that coverage in one form or another.

Finally, religious freedom means government should not tax what is dedicated to God and necessary to the furtherance of faith or mission. This includes houses of worship, land dedicated to religious purposes, hospitals, schools and more. [The U.S. Supreme Court (in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 1970) has noted that society gains significant benefit from the presence and services of religious organizations exempt from taxation.]

As we observe Religious Freedom Day, we honor our nation’s legacy of religious independence by upholding our right to exercise our beliefs free from prejudice or persecution.

We also remember that religious liberty is not just an American right. It is a universal human right to be protected here at home and around the globe.

Bible Insight: The Greatest Freedom of All

“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
“If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” – John 8:32, 36

“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” – 2 Corinthians 3:17

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” – Galatians 5:1

In contrast to religionists who would heap burdens and guilt on people, Jesus came with the liberating word, “My yoke is easy and my burden light” (Matthew 11:30). He announced once that he was here “to set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18). How does the work of Jesus for us and in us set us free?

1.   He provides forgiveness of sin and subsequent peace with God to those who have broken God’s law (which is all of us).

“Since we have been justified [become right with God] through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1).

2.   He sets us free from the struggle of trying to save ourselves.

“A righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known… This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe… For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:21-24).

3.   He frees us from guilt, lest we wonder if we are truly forgiven or not.

“Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies” (Romans 8:33).

4.   He sets us free to obey God’s will with a new dynamic and perspective.

“What the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did, by sending his own Son…that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us” (Romans 8:3-4).

5.   He sets us free from the judgment of others in matters indifferent to God.

“One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables*… One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind… Why do you judge your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Romans 14:2, 5, 10).

6.   sets us free to enjoy life and serve others with the flexibility needed to live differently in diverse situations.

“Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible… To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:19, 21-22).

7.   His work of redemption touches us body, soul and spirit so that one day we will stand with him completely renewed and ready to live with him forever.

As we struggle with the infirmities of our flesh, we embrace God’s promise: “We ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we are saved” (Romans 8:23-24). The Apostle Paul calls this “the glorious freedom of the children of God” (verse 21).

Christian Liberty—seek it, embrace it, cherish it, teach it, protect it, live it, serve others through it, thank God for it.

*This does not refer to those who are “veggies by choice” but to those who are “veggies by law”—those who think this dietary decision is mandated by God. But God’s rule doesn’t work that way, “for the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17).

For an interesting and greatly influential presentation of Christian freedom, read Book 3, Section 19 of the Protestant reformer John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. Click the site and then download the format you desire (pdf recommended).
www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes

Don’s Upcoming Ministries

“What Does It Mean to Be ‘Evangelical’?”
Don will speak on this topic as part of the “Religion 101” series sponsored by the South Coast Interfaith Council.

7:00 p.m., Thursday, February 27
LDS Institute of Religion, 6360 E State University Drive, Long Beach

“Ash Wednesday Communion Service”
Grace Community Church of Seal Beach
Wednesday, March 5 at 7:00 p.m.

Promise of New Life

Seeing this tree blossom now reminded me how the early February blossoms on this same tree filled me with emotion 42 years ago!

Mary and I, with our infant daughter, had spent three very wintry weeks in Ohio facing my father’s final illness, death and funeral. As we turned into our neighborhood after a three-day, 2500-mile drive home, these blossoms awaited us, reminding us of the New Life that follows life’s Great Winter.

For past issues and other information, please go to my Website:
www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

A New Year

This is the beginning of a brand new year.
God has given us this year to use as we will.
We can waste it or use it for good.
What we do with this year is very important
because we will have exchanged a year of our lives for it.

When next year comes this year will be gone forever,
leaving something in its place we have traded for it.
We should want it to be gain, not loss; good, not evil; success, not failure,
in order that we will not forget the price we paid for it.
(author unknown)

“Prophets are Good for Business”

(Applying Biblical Principles to Work Situations)

Eager to Serve

“Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does” – Ephesians 6:7-8 NIV *

John Luther, member of Grace Community Church of Seal Beach, California, is a man of encouragement and always eager to serve. John doesn’t compartmentalize his Christianity. He takes these qualities to work with him as well. He is a pilot for Delta Airlines.

Before a recent flight, as he walked down the aisle from the cockpit to exit the plane for the visual inspection, he offered to hang up a passenger’s coat.

Turns out this passenger was one of Delta’s vice presidents and, at that time, he thanked John for serving others and representing the company so well.

Soon thereafter, the VP wrote a letter to all the heads of Delta including the CEO, to say that John was the perfect example of what all Delta pilots should be like to their customers.

Keep up the great work and example, John. Many of us need to take a fresh look at our attitudes and how we live out our faith in the workplace.

* This text falls within “household codes” (Ephesians 5:22-6:9 and Colossians 3:18-4:1)
and addresses the duty of household servants. It can be applied to employment situations only with caution and with an understanding of the differences between master-servant and employer-employee relationships (for example, the latter may be governed by contracts, policies and employment laws). Though the situations differ, the qualities of heart should be the same. No contract, policy or law can legislate these.

Religious Liberty Vigilance – Religious Liberty and Contraception under “Obamacare”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

– 1st Amendment (Our “First Freedom” in the Bill of Rights)

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must…undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” – Thomas Paine”

A couple’s personal, private decisions on contraception should be just that—personal and private.

If they belong to a religious community, they need to consider that religion’s teachings, at least if they seriously claim to be part of that faith community.

This couple would likely not want the government to have any directive in this matter. And in decades past most would not have expected the government (taxpayers) to pay for their contraception decision, or force others like religious colleges to pay for what they decide.

Fast-forward to “Obamacare” and contraception is now being treated as if it is a sacrament, a Secular Eucharist dispensed freely by government grace.

The administration’s original highhandedness (the statement by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on January 20, 2012) that would have run roughshod over religious scruples has morphed a lot, but there are still issues. At one end, the government would exempt “houses of worship”—a slender concession. At the other end, debates and court decisions mushroom over the mandate to secular businesses owned by people with religion-based objections to contraception—people trying to lead their businesses in the light of their values. In the middle are religion-based institutions other than churches—schools, hospitals, social agencies, etc.

That these institutions, absent a compelling state interest, should be able to implement policies reflecting their core moral values is, to me, a clear right. Enter Americans United for Separation of Church and State. One would think by its title this group would not want the government to boss the affairs of religious organizations, thereby breaching “the wall of separation”. But no, AU is seeking to intervene in behalf of students at the University of Notre Dame to ensure that their health plan gives access to contraceptives.

AU asserts, “Even if the University’s religious exercise were substantially burdened by the challenged regulations, there is a compelling interest for the imposition of that burden, namely, providing the affected women with access to contraception and the consequent control over their sexual lives, bodily integrity, and reproductive capacity” [emphases mine].

The key words here are “substantially burdened” and “compelling interest for the imposition of that burden.” This argument would override religious protection provided by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993).

I find it interesting and frustrating that AU argued quite differently in 2002 when it opposed Catholic Charities (Catholic Charities of Sacramento vs. Superior Court) in a similar case about insurance coverage of contraceptives. AU argued then that the 1999 California statute requiring contraceptive coverage “should not be deemed to impose a ‘substantial burden’ on the exercise of religion because CC can opt to pay a stipend for contraceptive coverage rather than purchasing the coverage itself and can still issue statements and disclaimers against the use of contraception” [emphasis mine]. CC could also comply with the law by simply not offering prescription drug coverage at all, the California Supreme Court said! Not a good thought!

I’ll let legal experts debate Obamacare’s contraception mandate. I’ll continue to pray and work for a libertarian understanding of religious freedom.

I conclude here with, first, the observation that AU’s defense of separation of church and state is very often a veneer for the pursuit of its own liberal agenda. Second, AU has trotted out a letter signed by 1000 clergy that demands equal access to contraception. At the end of its blog labeling these signers “conscientious clergy” AU says, “This is not a theocracy, no matter what the Religious Right and its allies say.” Come now! It is not theocratic to let a religious institution define and live out its own creed and mission.

I’ve thought a lot about these verse since hearing a sermon at church on the 21st chapter of John’s Gospel.

Jesus has many different pathways for his followers to travel. He had one for Peter. He had a different one for John. The path Jesus had for John was for Peter, well, none of his business. His business would be his own pathway, which would be arduous enough. If we focus as we should on the challenges and opportunities of our own pathway, we won’t have time or desire to meddle in and judge the pathways of others.

Many different factors will affect the path we trod. Our background and family upbringing. A tragedy, a serious illness or untimely death may fully refocus us. Our personalities—are we more introvert or extrovert?

Some of us grew up in the Christian faith and our “conversion” is really a personal confirmation of what we have accepted all along. Others may have a dramatic conversion that initiates a significant redirecting of life. Don’t impose your “born again experience” on others.

Some of us progress spiritually through the regular, weekly worship and instruction of the church, including its sacramental life. While this option should never be forsaken (I’m adamant about that!), others of us may have a more personally nurtured journey or progress through more informal ways. Today’s trend seems to be away from big-church stuff to smaller venues. Some (me) prefer robust worship; others like the contemplative. Can’t the Spirit of God fill both? Isn’t either subject to error or abuse?

My mother’s deep walk with God came from (or led to—I’m not sure which) listening to radio preachers and old gospel music that would now drive me nuts. She was subjective and somewhat mystical in her faith; I was academic and rationalist in mine. Ne’er the twain shall meet—at least not in our family—and I could not find my pathway under her tutelage. She rose with the rooster to have her “daily quiet time” while I’ve taken solace that even on the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit waited till 9:00 a.m.

Don’t impose your notion of “being discipled” on someone else. Maybe that person gets his “being discipled” primarily from corporate worship, hearing the Word and receiving the Eucharist and isn’t into the “one on one” track.

Spiritual gifts? Your spiritual gift probably isn’t mine, and the gift(s) we have will mold our convictions on what ministry priorities ought to be. We’ll have healthy debates over the church budget. I think that if the church nurtures a wide variety of spiritual gifts and encourages their ministry, its priorities will balance out to what they ought to be.

What’s there to say about all this? Don’t judge or seek to supervise your brother and sister as they walk their own pilgrim pathways. “What is that to you? You follow me” – Jesus.

Don’s Upcoming Ministries

Friday, January 10—Speak on the Experiences and Lessons of the 2011 Salon Meritage Massacre in Seal Beach. Sponsored by “Area C Chaplains Partnership” (serving several San Fernando and San Gabriel Valley agencies). Meeting is at the Burbank Police Department.

Good News from Grace

www.gracesealbeach.org

• January 5 – We recommit ourselves to God in a meaningful “walk up” Communion Service as we begin the New Year.
• 12 weeks of excellent Leadership Training commences on January 12.

Message of the Month—Shopping for Toys?
“Let Boys and Girls Be Boys and Girls”

Is the resocialization of your son and daughter coming to your nearby toy store? Maybe so, if pressure groups have their way. One such group is “Let Toys Be Toys”. It wants to remove any hint of “gender bias” in the way toys are sold—a form of sexism that limits children’s interests. (How about a campaign to equalize shelf space for men’s and women’s toiletries at stores?)

Here is a sign of their success (news item):

Take a stroll through a local Toys “R” Us and you’ll see aisles clearly drawn with pink and blue. The boys’ toys drill and jab, girls’ toys primp and clean. It feels familiar now, but in a decade, that division may have gone the way of the restaurant smoking section.

In a recent announcement that has rippled across the Atlantic, Toys “R” Us in the United Kingdom pledged to stop organizing their merchandise by gender and to designate new standards for in-store signage. That means dramatically more images of boys and girls enjoying the same toy.

Now, if this were a marketing decision based on their research of customer preferences, I’d have no problem. But this appears to be pressure-driven.

If “Focus on the Family” or the Religious Right were campaigning for girls aisles and boys aisles, many would yell with some justification that this is imposing your own morality and worldview on others. Yes, and so it is with “Let Toys Be Toys.”

“So God created man in his own image…male and female he created them.”
(Genesis 1:27)

“At the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” – Jesus
(Mark 10:6)

The Patriarchs of Israel are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jacob and Esau were twin brothers, born to Isaac and Rebekah. At that point all things in common ceased. Esau was born looking like a red hairy garment. He grew up to be a rough man, a skilled hunter who enjoyed being out on the land. Jacob was a smooth-skinned guy, content to quietly stay home. Esau was daddy’s boy; Jacob was mama’s boy. Read of this dysfunctional family in Genesis 25-27.

Put Esau and Jacob as children together in a room with some toys and I doubt you’d see them playing with the same toys.

So I don’t want to be too dogmatic when it comes to “boy’s things” and “girl’s things.” Still, the creation of humanity as male and female and the affirmation of this distinction by Jesus point to a “givenness”, a “groundedness” if you please, in what we are as either male or female. Male and female are equal but they are not the same. “Maleness” and “femaleness” are linked to what we are physically; they don’t float above our physical being. They are not primarily social constructs. Boys and girls will still play with toys traditionally theirs.

With California schools preparing to accommodate students whose “gender identity” differs from the gifts of nature, the issue is much bigger than toy aisles.

Recommended Reading:

• The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers (Simon & Schuster, 2000). See chapter 3, “Guys and Dolls”, on how some would reconstruct gender.
• Evangelical Catholicism by George Weigel (Basic Books, 2013). Modern “Gnosticism” teaches the “utter plasticity of the human condition.” Nothing is given in men and women; all is malleable (p. 44).

www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

Message of the Month (Angelic guest contributor) –
“The Meaning of the ‘Holiday'”

Bible Insight: “Joseph—Quiet Father, Quiet Servant of God”

“Joseph [Mary’s] husband was a righteous man.”

“An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.'”

“When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.” (Matthew 1:19, 20, 24 New Int’l Version)

This is one of three scriptures in the Nativity (Christmas) Story when Joseph obeyed the will of God—all without saying a single word.

I voted once at a nearby church and while there I looked over its literature rack. One pamphlet caught my eye: “Spirituality for Extroverts.”

Now, I spent some years in churches that were very much for extroverts. Their spirituality and worship were loud, expressive, and demonstrative. I found that my generally more reserved ways could be looked down on as, well, somewhat low in spirituality. I also found that many Christians expected you to be very much an extrovert when it came to evangelism.

So I wondered if there might also be a booklet, “Spirituality for Introverts”! Alas, a call to this church revealed that no such booklet existed. Why not? I determined that this particular Christian tradition was known for its quiet, subdued worship. If anything, that booklet was needed there to encourage the more exuberant ones that they could be accepted as “spiritual” too!

Joseph “wrote the book” on godly, quiet spirituality. In every account of his obedience, he obeyed God without saying so much as a word.

Now, I’m sure there were times when Joseph did speak. My point is, the Christmas story shows him to be a deeply righteous, devout and obedient man and to be all those things without words. Some today are like Joseph.

Let this be a lesson to all and an encouragement to those who need it!

“Prophets are Good for Business”
(Applying Biblical Principles to Work Situations)

Keep Thanksgiving
Free of Commercialism

Sabbath-keeping (Part 5)

Thanksgiving was likely first observed in America in 1621 by Pilgrims and Native Americans. In our new nation President George Washington, at the request of Congress, designated the last Thursday of November as “a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

While definitely a day with religious overtones, it has been widely observed as a time for gratitude by people of many faiths or no faith.

When I think of religious roots to Thanksgiving, I think of “Sukkot”, the biblical Feast of Booths or the Festival of Ingathering, when the Hebrews would set aside seven days after the harvest of grain and grapes to celebrate the generosity of God (Deuteronomy 16:13-15). Both the first day and the day after the feast (day eight) were Sabbath days—days without work, days reflecting the idea that both work and rest are good for humankind, given and protected by the command of God (Leviticus 23:33-35).

Thanksgiving has been kept amazingly free of secular commercialism. In 1939, President Roosevelt moved the observance up a week from its traditional day as the last Thursday of November, thinking the economy would benefit from more shopping days before Christmas. Not only was there a big uproar, there was no proof that the change brought any seasonal financial benefit.

Sadly today more and more retail stores are encroaching upon Thanksgiving by backing up the mad-rush shopping of “Black Friday” into Thanksgiving Thursday. Major retailers like Wal-Mart, Target and Toys R Us are trying to one-up competitors by opening earlier on Thanksgiving than before, and others like Macy’s, Penney’s and Staples are opening on Thanksgiving for the first time. “Now Thanksgiving is slowly becoming just another shopping day,” the Associated Press reported.

This commercializing of the day also means more people will have to work in lieu of time spent with family and the celebration meal. While this may be voluntary for many, I know it is not optional for some retail workers.

I’m generally not a fan of boycotts, but I’d sure support a refusal to either work or shop on Thanksgiving unless really necessary. I’d like to see proof that this commercial desecration of Thanksgiving Day actually proves to be a net financial gain to merchants. Even if it does, profits should not be our god.

There is wisdom and merit in the traditional American heritage of this day and in the ancient Festival of Ingathering. Unencumbered by the usual daily demands, we can rest and enjoy company we love. We can prepare and celebrate a feast of thankfulness and make a generous gift to feed others in need. We can bow our heads in deep gratitude for our precious American liberties.

And (with thoughts taken from Acts 14:17) in prayer and song we can honor God, who has shown his kindness to us by giving rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, providing us with plenty of food and filling our hearts with joy.

(From the November 28, 2013 Seal Beach Sun newspaper, with slight edits)

Don’s Upcoming Ministries

December 10 (6:30 p.m.) and December 13 (9:30 a.m.)
– Speak to women’s Bible study groups at Grace
Community Church of Seal Beach
Topic: Acts 11 (Let Gentiles into the Church?)

Christmas Eve Services at Grace Community Church
(5:00, 6:30, 8:00) – Sing “O Holy Night” (duet)

Religious Liberty Vigilance – “The 12 Rules of Christmas”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

– 1st Amendment (Our “First Freedom” in the Bill of Rights)

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must…undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” – Thomas Paine

Seems that every Christmas there are issues over manger displays on public property and over what can be done or said in public schools. I’m indebted here to The Rutherford Institute, whose attorneys have compiled “The Twelve Rules of Christmas” (used by permission). These points help to clear up misunderstandings over what can or cannot be done in celebrating this holiday:

1. Public school students’ written or spoken personal expressions concerning the religious significance of Christmas (e.g., T-shirts with the slogan, “Jesus Is the Reason for the Season”) may not be censored by school officials absent evidence that the speech would cause a substantial disruption.
2. So long as teachers are generally permitted to wear clothing or jewelry or have personal items expressing their views about the holidays, Christian teachers may not be prohibited from similarly expressing their views by wearing Christmas-related clothing or jewelry or carrying Christmas-related personal items.
3. Public schools may teach students about the Christmas holiday, including its religious significance, so long as it is taught objectively for secular purposes such as its historical or cultural importance, and not for the purpose of promoting Christianity.
4. Public school teachers may send Christmas cards to the families of their students so long as they do so on their own time, outside of school hours.
5. Public schools may include Christmas music, including those with religious themes, in their choral programs if the songs are included for a secular purpose such as their musical quality or cultural value or if the songs are part of an overall performance including other holiday songs relating to Chanukah, Kwanzaa, or other similar holidays.
6. Public schools may not require students to sing Christmas songs whose messages conflict with the students’ own religious or nonreligious beliefs.
7. Public school students may not be prohibited from distributing literature to fellow students concerning the Christmas holiday or invitations to church Christmas events on the same terms that they would be allowed to distribute other literature that is not related to schoolwork.
8. Private citizens or groups may display crèches or other Christmas symbols in public parks subject to the same reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that would apply to other similar displays.
9. Government entities may erect and maintain celebrations of the Christmas holiday, such as Christmas trees and Christmas light displays, and may include crèches in their displays at least so long as the purpose for including the crèche is not to promote its religious content and it is placed in context with other symbols of the Holiday season as part of an effort to celebrate the public Christmas holiday through its traditional symbols.
10. Neither public nor private employers may prevent employees from decorating their offices for Christmas, playing Christmas music, or wearing clothing related to Christmas merely because of their religious content so long as these activities are not used to harass or intimidate others.
11. Public or private employees whose sincerely held religious beliefs require that they not work on Christmas must be reasonably accommodated by their employers unless granting the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
12. Government recognition of Christmas as a public holiday and granting government employees a paid holiday for Christmas does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I wish all of my readers a most joyous Christmas!

– Don Shoemaker

“Shadow” – one of the Shoemaker pets says, “Merry Christmas from the Shoemaker household.”