[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”949″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_custom_heading text=”“A Piece of My Mind”” font_container=”tag:h1|font_size:50px|text_align:center|color:%232633ef” google_fonts=”font_family:Bitter%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:700%20bold%20regular%3A700%3Anormal”][vc_custom_heading text=”October 2018 Newsletter” font_container=”tag:h1|font_size:30px|text_align:center|color:%232633ef” google_fonts=”font_family:Bitter%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20regular%3A400%3Anormal”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]

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[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”687″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]

“Ethics schmethics—
it’s all manmade!”
– Dr. Jack “Dr. Death” Kevorkian (1928-2011)

Dr. Kevorkian demonstrates his suicide device

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]

In this Newsletter:

ETHICS
Part 2

Was the infamous doctor correct?

Or can ethics rest on something or someone transcendent?

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

50 Years of Ministry—What a Privilege!

1968 – 2018

Leaders of Grace Brethren Church of Elkhart, Indiana in October 1968.

I was newly called to this church to serve as Associate Pastor and was licensed to the Christian ministry. I’m in the middle; Pastor Gordon Bracker is on my immediate left.

I look on October 1968 as the start of my ministry as a pastor. Grace Brethren Church of Elkhart, Indiana, under the pastoral leadership of Gordon Bracker, licensed me to the ministry as I became the Associate Pastor there while a senior at Grace Theological Seminary.

It has been a great 50-year journey. Almost two years in Elkhart, six years at Los Altos Brethren Church in Long Beach, California, eight years teaching theology at Biola University, twenty-eight years as Senior Pastor at Grace Community Church of Seal Beach, California.

Now, since 2012, I’ve served as Pastor Emeritus at Seal Beach. For almost all of these years, my heart has burned with a desire to influence my culture for good, in light of biblical values and teaching.

I thank my wife, Mary, whose patience and support and counsel have benefitted me these fifty years. I thank the Elkhart church and Pastor Bracker, whose “shepherd’s heart” mentored me. I thank the members of the Los Altos church who accepted me and put up with a very young pastor. And I thank the wonderful leaders and members of Grace Community Church in Seal Beach for giving me a fantastic pastoral experience for so many years, till I was “a very young pastor” no more!

I thank God for calling me to the ministry and for giving me, I trust, an ever-open mind. Also, God has given me resilience against all the pressures on what I must do and be in order to build a “great” church when what we really need is more pastoral leadership to build truly “good” churches.

The Meaning and Sources of Ethical Values—Part 2
By Donald Shoemaker

In the September newsletter we looked at two questions:

1. What is Ethics?

“Ethics” is the study of basic concepts and fundamental principles of human conduct. Simply put, it looks at right and wrong.

Whether this can be done without some sort of higher reference point, an ultimate reality, is hotly debated. In my opinion, in the absence of a Creator God who gives us standards to live by, it’s “your word against mine.”

2. What Makes Ethics “Christian”?

To be “Christian,” ethics must start with the confession, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.” It must also affirm the ultimate authority of Holy Scripture.

“Christian Ethics” builds on Creation Ordinances, the Ten Commandments, the Life and Teachings of Jesus, and other biblical themes.

Now we examine other features of ethical values.

What about “Natural Law”?

Simply put, “Natural Law” looks at nature as a source of information enabling us to decide right and wrong. “God gave us two ears and one mouth, thereby giving us a sense of proportion between listening and talking.” That’s very simple Natural Law!

“Natural Law” is a debated concept among Christians. Can certain moral values be discerned by human reason and conscience and by observing the world apart from special revelation (the Bible)? It appears to me that there is a basis for this in scripture. But there are cautions: Natural Law is limited by sin and human propensity for self-justification and often by misapplication of and lack of clarity from nature itself.

Many teachings of the “sage” in the Book of Proverbs are drawn from human observation of consequences (for example, what happens when laziness prevails [Proverbs 24:30-34]).

Amos 1-2 describes God’s judgment on the nations surrounding Judah without making reference to God’s special revelation in the Law. Rather, the wrongs are what we today would call “crimes against humanity” and secular rulers should know these actions are evil even though they don’t know God’s Law.

Sodom and Gomorrah did not possess God’s special revelation. Still, God destroyed these cities for being “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned” and “they did not help the poor and needy” (Ezekiel 16:49). They knew better!

Romans 1:20-32 gives a strong basis for Natural Law, in my opinion. “…since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NIV). In other words, as the late commentator Charles Krauthammer (himself an agnostic) would say, it is more reasonable to conclude from nature that God exists than not.

Romans 1:20 says God’s eternal power and divine nature are knowable. That is, a powerful divine being exists and we are accountable for knowing this. Verses 24-32 give a litany of moral obligations derived from the created order.

Natural Law undergirded the Declaration of Independence and the teachings of Martin Luther King, Jr. Many of our nation’s founders were not Christians by confession, but they did believe in a just and orderly society governed by God-given principles known from nature. In his inaugural address on January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy expressed God’s authority over nations this way: “…the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”

Religious liberty is an important principle drawn from belief in a Creator God. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786) that the Creator could have bound the mind of man had he willed to do so. But instead God created us with freedom of thought and will. The implication was that man must not bind what God created free. Hence, religion must be a voluntary matter and not something mandated by the state.

A Distinction: Biblical Ethics and Christian Ethics

It is important that we distinguish (but never separate) biblical ethics from Christian ethics. Even suggesting this may alarm some, but hear me out.

Biblical ethics strives to unfold what the Bible actually teaches on an issue.

Christian ethics strives to apply Biblical ethics to contemporary situations. To do this, we start with understanding a biblical issue as broadly and best as we can. We move on to understand how Christians have wrestled with the issue through history, with special emphasis on our own cultural past. Then, we strive to articulate a reasonable, viable application to our present-day issue. This process is always open-ended—knowledge grows and positions may change.

Biblical ethics is the foundation; Christian ethics is the structure built on it. If we stop with Biblical ethics, we fail in our duty to be contemporary Christians. If Christian ethics moves off the biblical foundation to a different foundation or floats in the clouds (“Do what the Spirit is saying to your heart today.”), it ceases to be Christian.

Another Distinction: Christian Personal Ethics and Social Ethics

Personal ethics focuses on the “interior life” and our individual spiritual responsibilities. Study the Word, pray without ceasing, live the Spirit-filled life, keep the Beatitudes, be baptized and partake of Communion and be in a church fellowship with other believers—these are matters of personal ethics.

Social ethics addresses how God wants us to interface with the larger (secular, non-theistic or pagan, relativistic) culture and its issues. What does God expect in the realm of business? What are our rights and duties as Christians in America? What should we strive to accomplish? Freedom to have Christian schools? Influence on secular education? Bettering our community? Voting and participating in government at all levels and in all positions? All yes!

Responsible Christian ethics won’t settle for one or the other by itself. Personal ethics alone may lead to cultural withdrawal and quietism. Social ethics alone may replace God with our neighbor (“When you love your neighbor, you love God in your neighbor”). The two categories can overlap.

Applied Ethics: Abortion as an Example

We have no explicit references to abortion anywhere in the Bible. * We do have an ethic that values human life, and extends the protections of human existence to the poor, the immigrant, the disadvantaged, the vulnerable, the helpless. We find principled compassion for people in the depths of their circumstances. We have biblical references that speak of God’s regard for the unborn and of “personhood” characteristics (Psalm 139 and Luke 1:39-45).

Many references from church history show protection for the unborn. In sharp contrast to its culture, the Didache (“The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”, dated +/- 100 AD) taught new believers this: “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2).

We should not expect teaching through the centuries (such as theories of “ensoulment”) to dictate our modern ethic apart from the modern findings of human biology. Modern biological findings about prenatal human life give strong support for application of our “life” ethic to the unborn.

Finally, Christian ethics would strive to apply convictions on abortion to our wider culture. In so doing, we will contend with the current state of the law and societal attitudes. What pro-life ministries we have and what laws we seek or settle for will reflect both our convictions and our need for pragmatism. Simply put, we strive for the Kingdom of God while recognizing we still live under the imperfections of the kingdoms of man.

A Final Word

Christian ethics is an exciting adventure! Let’s ride its wave. In so doing, we will be fulfilling the message of God’s Law and the prophets and doing what Jesus taught us to do: to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

* Exodus 21:22-24 is a unique case requiring separate explanation.
[NOTE: see appendix on the last pages for (1) a simple definition of Natural Law theory;
(2) a footnote: Does Romans 2:14-15 teach Natural Law?; (3) some personal or group projects on Christians ethics; (4) recommended resources.][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

First Amendment Vigilance –
Freedom of Speech & Public Leaders: A Local Case

“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

Disclosure: I am of libertarian sentiment. I am a passionate advocate of
1st Amendment rights, especially free speech and free exercise of religion.

Here’s a free speech issue that popped up in the closely-knit idyllic community of Seal Beach California, where I’ve been privileged to serve in many ways for thirty-five years.

A local public educational leader posted a Facebook comment regarding Nike’s featuring of quarterback Colin Kaepernick in an ad: “When Nike signs an anti-American thug to represent their brand, I will not support, wear, purchase or endorse their product.” (The Nike ad is banal and amoral: “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” As if acting on a cause, whatever it is, is ipso facto honorable. No. The cause must be good.)

Very clearly, these words by this public leader, writing as a private citizen, are constitutionally protected speech. Public officials absolutely do not forfeit their citizenship rights when they speak as private citizens. Any government action that tries to limit such speech would have a hard day in court.

But is this racist hate speech as has been charged? In my opinion, it is inaccurate to call Mr. Kaepernick a “thug”—I’ve seen no evidence of that. Nor do I think this is a racial slur—I’ve seen many thugs and I know this mark of low character knows no racial boundaries.
“Anti-American?” Peaceful protest itself is not anti-American. But what is the specific protest and why is it being done? The explanation is that Mr. Kaepernick and others are protesting racial inequality by kneeling during the National Anthem. In my opinion, one can make that protest in ways much more constructive that do not, on the surface, diss the National Anthem.

If several people turned their backs every time they saw me walking with my wife and said they weren’t insulting us, but really expressing their belief that ministers should not be married, forgive me for not getting the message.

How might this protest energy be more clearly focused? How about full-page thoughtful ads in the sports sections of major newspapers? How about supporting programs that lift people toward success or illumine people about their racial blind spots? *

Back to this public school educator. Prudence and wisdom would dictate that one must be careful not to convey in any way that the words are official “government speech.” Wisdom would say that raunchy words are uncivil and deserve public rebuke. Slanderous words, which these are not, open one to civil liability. In this case I see no wrongdoing.

If someone “takes offense,” that does not make our words improper. There’s a difference between “giving” offense and “taking” offense. “Giving offense” is communicating with the deliberate intention of creating negative reaction. But people can take offense all day long to religious speech or to strong partisan words—that doesn’t make these words uncivil or wrong.

One critic plans to wear Nike items “head to toe” to the next PTA meeting. Good! The best response to free speech you find offensive is more free speech.

America doesn’t need anti-blasphemy laws or any other chilling of free speech. We see far too many instances of free speech, whether religious, political or other, being suppressed and the speaker punished or endangered. Now that’s “anti-American thuggery!”

* I was raised with the concept of “tithing”. Give 10% of your income to God and the work of his church. In this case, I propose that activists donate 10% of their income to further their cause. One thing this would show is the genuineness of their dedication. As Jesus said, “Where your heart is, there your treasure will be also” (Matthew 6:21).[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Bible Insight – Morality and Government Service

“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” – John 8:7

“It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” – John the Baptist to King Herod (Mark 6:18)

“Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice. Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed.
It may be that then your prosperity will continue.” – Daniel to Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:27)

I’m deliberately writing this prior to and without reference to whatever might be determined, or not determined, concerning accusations about Supreme Court nominee John Kavanaugh’s alleged conduct in an incident as a teenager.

Standards for public officials have been changing for years. President Kennedy’s private life was guarded and separated from his public life, which is how things were handled in that political era. Ted Kennedy, whose own adult escapades had cost a woman her life, served on the Senate Judiciary Committee that heard sexual accusations against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, for goodness sake. President Clinton reset the bar while in office, giving future presidents different standards to live down to. Those who voted for Donald Trump knew they were not electing a choirboy.

The pendulums that separate public and private lives and that set the bar for those seeking public office are always in motion. We must beware of judging something from decades ago by the same criteria we want to enforce today.

Jesus’ words in John 8:7 * must give all who sit in judgment pause.

John the Baptist charged King Herod with breaking God’s Law by marrying his brother’s wife. He didn’t tell the king that he was unfit to hold his high position in Roman governance because he had willfully violated God’s Law.

Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar that his evil and pride could be remedied by changing his behavior in matters of morality known by all. “Renounce your sins of the past and practice what is good in the present.”

Professing Christians need to be held accountable to biblical standards. Public officials are accountable to public mores and the laws of the land. Typically, this accountability takes into account the passage of time, the severity of an offense and the culpability of the accused (e.g., whether a minor or not).

Another take-away from John 8:7 is this: “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

Finally, since the allegations involve alcohol excess, let’s all be warned by the “Natural Law” lesson of Proverbs 23:29-35 –

Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
Who has strife? Who has complaints?
Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes?
Those who linger over wine,
who go to sample bowls of mixed wine.
Do not gaze at wine when it is red,
when it sparkles in the cup,
when it goes down smoothly!
In the end it bites like a snake
and poisons like a viper.
Your eyes will see strange sights,
and your mind will imagine confusing things.
You will be like one sleeping on the high seas,
lying on top of the rigging.
“They hit me,” you will say, “but I’m not hurt!
They beat me, but I don’t feel it!
When will I wake up
so I can find another drink?”

* I’m aware of the textual issues of John 8:1-11, namely whether this account is authentically part of John’s Gospel. The scene is very “Jesus-like”.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]My Website: www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

Contact me at: donaldshoemakerministries@verizon.net[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

Appendix for “The Meaning and Source of Ethical Values”

One Simple Definition of “Natural Law Theory”

Natural Law Theory is “the quest to identify moral and political principles that can reasonably be affirmed without appeal to theological claims or religious authority.”
– “Public Morality, Public Reason” by Robert P. George in First Things, November 2006.

* A Footnote on the Epistle to the Romans and Natural Law

Many, many teachers of apologetics will quote Romans 2:14-15 in defense of Natural Law:
“…when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”

But this proof-texting is a misinterpretation of Paul’s words in context. When Gentiles “do by nature” (obey) what God’s law requires, they are doing the deeds that evidence faith that justifies (verse 13). “…it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” This “obedience of faith” is the theme of the entire epistle (1:5). Not all Gentiles “do by nature” what God’s law requires, but those who do so will be saved.

Some Exercises on Christian Ethics:
• Pick a contemporary issue (other than abortion) and answer, “How does biblical ethics shed light on this issue, and what would Christian ethics teach on it?”
• Have you leaned more toward “Personal” ethics or toward “Social” ethics? What can you do to bring balance to your ethical outlook?
• What do you think about “Natural Law”—its legitimacy and ethical conclusions?
• Review the statements on “Creation Ordinances” in Part 1. How does our culture deviate from these? How would you present them to our culture?
• In Part 1, nine ways the Bible guides our ethics are presented. Can you think of additional ways? Which biblical guidance has been most profound in your life and ministry?

Recommended Resources:

Beckwith, Francis J., Do the Right Thing (Jones & Bartlett, 1996)
Grudem, Wayne, Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning
(Release date: June 30, 2018)
Grudem, Wayne, Politics According To the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture (Zondervan, 2010)
Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 2000) See: Part 3-Docrine of Man;
Chapter 31-Common Grace; Chapter 46-The Power of the Church
Horton, Michael S., Beyond Culture Wars (Moody Press, 1994)
Prager, Dennis, Exodus: God, Slavery, and Freedom, (Regnery Faith, 2018)
Rae, Scott B., Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Zondervan, 2009)
Shoemaker, Donald, “God’s Saving Grace and God’s Common Grace,” GraceConnect (Fall, 2015)
Shoemaker, Donald, “The Bible and Christian Social Action,” Grace Magazine (Fall, 2004)
(contact me for a copy of either of these last two articles)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]