By now we’ve heard of NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s effort to ban the big soft drink slurps in the interest of health.  Many see this as an important step toward better health.  Others see it as an overreach by “Big Brother” or the “nannie state.”

Daniel Lieberman, professor of evolutionary biology at Harvard, had this interesting twist in an opinion piece in the NY Times on June 6:

“Lessons from evolutionary biology support the mayor’s plan: when it comes to limiting sugar in our food, some kinds of coercive action are not only necessary but also consistent with how we used to live.

“We humans did not evolve to eat healthily and go to the gym; until recently, we didn’t have to make such choices. But we did evolve to cooperate to help one another survive and thrive. Circumstances have changed, but we still need one another’s help as much as we ever did. For this reason, we need government on our side, not on the side of those who wish to make money by stoking our cravings and profiting from them. We have evolved to need coercion.”

First, let’s remind ourselves that evolution contains no ethical values.  Indeed, to extend the evolutionary concept of “survival of the fittest” into intentional policies leads to horrible effects.  The Judeo-Christian doctrine of human beings as “God’s image” gives us an ontological value untouched by weakness, dependency, wantedness or survivability.  Evolutionary thought cannot provide such value to humanity nor dare it try (or it is untrue to itself), for we are animals and nothing more.

So, to arrive at the notions of “cooperation” and “thriving” and “helping” with a teleological goal in mind requires the importation of ethical values from some kind of thought system other than evolution or any other kind of science.  (Ultimately, that “thought system” is religious, but I won’t go there right now.)

Second, to coerce people is to judge that your own value is not only superior to that of others, but important enough that you will exert power against others—they will see it your way or else!  That’s quite a power, and we generally feel that only the “government of the people” should have it and should use it only in compelling cases.  “Don’t pass a mandate you aren’t willing to kill over” is not a bad caution.

Third, where will this end?  Proceeding from the lesser to the greater, if compelling conduct on soft drinks is a valid use of government power, how many more issues more important than too much sugar should lead to government coercion?  How about coercion in favor of “good” religion and against “bad” religion?  How about coercion in any area where government money is involved (which is just about everywhere)?

Liberty gets messy, but I’d sure rather live under the free and realistic thoughts of Jefferson and Madison than under the loving coercion of the mayor.  I hope his effort loses its “phizzzz”!

Prepared by Donald Shoemaker

Chair, FGBC Social Concerns Committee

June 27, 2012

Theme Scripture (suggestion)

“Seek the welfare [shalom] of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.”
– Jeremiah 29:7 ESV

Other relevant scriptures: Isaiah 1:10-16; Isaiah 58; Micah 6:6-9;
Matthew 5:43-46; Matthew 22:15-22; Luke 10:25-37; Romans 13:1-7;
1 Timothy 2:1-4; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:9-17

Authorization

Your church should establish a clear, written basis for social concerns ministry in one or more places in its major documents: Constitution, Bylaws, Purpose Statement, Objectives, Goals, etc.

Example: Constitution of Grace Community Church of Seal Beach

Article 2, Section 1: Purpose – Our church exists to worship God, to build Christian faith and fellowship and to impact our world for Christ.

Article 2, Section 2: Objectives (#3) – Witness: To serve humanity by practicing local evangelism and worldwide missions and by promoting social justice and humanitarian ministries.

Mission Fulfillment

• Disciple the congregation through teaching, leadership, and examples on our biblical social responsibilities and opportunities in today’s world (sermons and featured ministries help achieve this)
• Be involved in good deeds in the community and elsewhere (“Serve the City” projects)
• Support local and worldwide ministries engaged in helping people (rescue missions, pregnancy aid ministries)
• Support ministries that “do justice” from a biblical perspective (such as International Justice Mission)
• Encourage good citizenship (voter registration and reminders, action on issues)
• Build goodwill in the community and work with others in efforts that manifest love of neighbors and bring positive benefits (blood drives)
• Stand up for religious liberty for all (freedom of conscience issues)
• Diligently consider moral issues that arise at the local, state and federal levels and formulate positions and encourage activism in the church family when the church’s Elders (or other pastoral leadership body) deem an issue rises to a biblical level and warrants a church response. This is best accomplished through the collegiate decision of a governing body rather than by the decision of an individual.
• Network with other individuals or organizations outside the church to work for the common good (local Chamber of Commerce)
• Bear tasteful and appropriate witness to biblical values that touch on society (maintaining a “presence” outside an abortion facility)
• Encourage a spirit of prayer in the church for all who are in authority, that we might live peaceful and quiet lives in godliness (regular prayer in worship services)
• Motivate and organize members with appropriate passion and giftedness to form a “Social Concerns Committee” in the church that will focus on “mission fulfillment.”
• Keep interested members aware of quality resources (periodicals, speakers, books [such as Miroslav Volf, A Public Faith—How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good]).
• Ensure that all activism is in accord with applicable ordinances and state and federal law, unless the church’s Elders determine that the ordinance or law itself violates the law of God

“War on Women” or “War on Religion”?

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) said in a statement April 27 that Catholic bishops and the Religious Right are “waging what can only be described as a ‘War On Women’.”

AU styles itself as “a non-partisan organization dedicated to preserving church-state separation to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.”

In reality, much of the time its stated mission of “ensuring religious freedom” is a veneer covering a leftist agenda.  The cases it highlights on its home page (au.org) are 8-0 in opposition to perceived “right wing” threats as opposed to “left wing” threats.

AU once described its understanding of when government can override religious freedom this way:

“The government should be permitted to infringe on religious liberty only in extremely rare instances where a clear and compelling government interest is demonstrated.”

This is excellent.  Thus, it’s hard to understand how AU can fight the Catholic Church’s claim it should not be required to providing contraceptive coverage in its health insurance for employees.  The government simply cannot claim a “compelling state interest” (a very high fence***) in this case, in my opinion.

Speaking at an April 29 “Unite Against the War on Women” rally at the U.S. Capitol, Rob Boston (as reported on the AU Website) framed the debate this way:

“In order for religious freedom to be preserved, we are told, the most private and intimate decisions of others must be curtailed – indeed, their very health care must be subjected to unwanted sectarian intrusion,” I told the crowd.  “This is the twisting of words like pretzels.  It is an attempt to wrap a theocratic power grab in the noble garment of religious liberty.  It must not be allowed to stand.”

So, the conviction that religious liberty should prevent Catholic institutions from being coerced by the government is “a theocratic power grab”?  Talk about twisting words like pretzels!

He adds, “Our beef, I said, is not with religion.  It’s with zealots who seek to turn houses of prayer into houses of right-wing politics.”  Now, that’s a strange way to describe American bishops in the Roman Catholic Church, whose social agenda is usually liberal.  How about the abundance of zealots who turn houses of prayer into houses of left-wing politics, as we will see often in this election year?

Which is it?  A “War against Women” (AU says it can “only be described” this way) or a “War against Religion”?  Actually neither, and civil discourse isn’t helped by putting a declaration of war into the mouths of one’s opponents.  This is a skirmish, but one with important implications.

Here in California, more and more urban expansion into wilderness areas sometimes pits residents against wildlife that is simply trying to live in its environment as it always has.  Preservationists try to protect this wildlife so it can live and thrive as before.

Government expansion is more and more working its way into areas of life previously seen as belonging to religion and governed by religious convictions.  Religious groups that resist are simply trying to live in their sphere as they always have.  Religious liberty advocates try to protect them so they can thrive as before.  The clash between church and state wouldn’t be there in many cases if government didn’t impose new demands on religion that conflict with core convictions or impose burdens that make the free exercise of religion more difficult to practice.

That’s called the “wall of separation” – keeping government out of the affairs of the church, as the First Amendment intended.

And that’s how I frame this current war, no, this current skirmish and debate!

Donald Shoemaker

***A “strict scrutiny” test requires that the government establish a “compelling state interest” and show that its action is “narrowly tailored” and is the “least restrictive means” to achieve that interest.  The “strict scrutiny” legal test is the highest of three standards used to review laws and government policies.  The following is taken from legal dictionary.thefreedictionary.com and Nolo’s Plain English Law Dictionary.

The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny.  When employed, it usually results in a court upholding the constitutionality of the law, because the test gives great deference to the legislative branch.

The heightened scrutiny test considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives.

The strict scrutiny test is the most rigorous form of judicial review.  Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional.  The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional.  To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.  If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.

Donald P. Shoemaker: Watergate’s Charles Colson transformed lives and ideas

(Op-ed in the Los Angeles Daily News & the Long Beach Press-Telegram, April 25, 2012)

“If this is to be a government of laws and not of men then those men entrusted with enforcing the laws must be held to account for the natural consequences of their own actions. Not only is it morally right that I plead to this charge but I fervently hope that this case will serve to prevent similar abuses in the future.”

So said soon-to-be prisoner 23227, aka Charles W. Colson, at Alabama’s Maxwell Correctional Facility in 1974. Special counsel to the president and hatchet man for the Nixon administration, he loved to hear Mr. Nixon say, “Chuck can get it done.” Time Magazine reported in 1974 that “Of all the assorted characters in the sordid Watergate cast, Charles Colson was widely viewed in Washington as the wiliest, the slickest operator.”

Between his departure from the White House and his guilty plea for obstruction of justice, Mr. Colson experienced a dramatic conversion to Christianity. Sparked by his friend, Raytheon President Tom Phillips, and C.S. Lewis’ book “Mere Christianity,” Colson turned the page in his collapsing life on Aug. 12, 1973, as he sat in his car that night and, by his own account, cried like a baby.

Colson emerged from prison determined to speak out for prison reform and oppose the incarceration of nonviolent offenders who instead should re-enter society productively and pay restitution for their wrong. He established Prison Fellowship, now a worldwide ministry to prisoners.

Each Christmas season, Prison Fellowship’s “Project Angel Tree” provides gifts to children of prisoners. He ministered in prisons every Easter Sunday for the 34 years before his sudden illness this Easter season that led to his death on April 21. Colson would lead this ministry for almost 40 years and spin off other projects such as, in 2009, The Colson Center for researching and promoting a Christian worldview.

Colson was often identified with the religious right and has been described as its last prominent spokesman. True, he did embrace many of the religious right’s agenda items, but he also stood apart in significant ways.

One was his refusal to embrace the call to elect “godly Christian leaders.”

He knew the proclivity to both good and evil in politics. Sometimes we must vote for the lesser of two evils.

He warned, “We made a big mistake in the ’80s by politicizing the Gospel. We ought to be engaged in politics, we ought to be good citizens, we ought to care about justice. But we have to be careful not to get into partisan alignment.”

In 2011 he declared that the war in Afghanistan had long ceased to be a “just war” by the classical definitions. He reasoned that “nation-building” failed the “just cause” test and the conflict did not have the reasonable likelihood of success.

On illegal immigration, he upheld the rule of law against both those in the country illegally and those who employed them. But he also laid down the challenge: “Christians must work to see that the immigration debate generates light instead of heat. We must insist that the illegal-immigration issue be addressed without treating millions of Americans, many of whom have died protecting our country, as a kind of fifth column. That is the very least we can do if we are obedient to God’s command to welcome strangers.”

Colson possessed a brilliant legal mind and spoke accordingly. Evangelical Christianity benefited greatly from this outsider who challenged our patterns. His perceptive, nuanced weighing of the issues should make us all more reflective. He mentored a generation of Christian leaders and workers and, in the opinion of this writer, was their best contemporary model for thoughtfulness and good deeds.

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

Most of us will not be surprised to learn that New England’s five states, led by Vermont, are the least religious states.  Add Washington, Nevada, Oregon, Alaska and New York to the mix.

Nor are we surprised that the “Bible Belt” states, led by Mississippi, are the most religious.  Add Utah (2^nd place).

Where does California fit?  It was “average” but not much higher than New York.

Those of us who grew up (in my case, Ohio) where Christian thinking and values were rather “assumed” by the religious and non-religious alike have to adjust our approaches and ministries accordingly.

Where Bible influence is still strong, we can speak about God, Jesus, the Bible (maybe the King James Version!), right and wrong, Jesus’ return and the judgment and have a rather wide consent to what we say.  We may also find that certain “religious/cultural” rules we don’t especially like to keep still apply here.

If we are in a secular environment where non-belief is strong and minds are vacant as to Bible knowledge, we have to adjust accordingly.  We may find very few “religious/cultural” rules but perhaps a certain secular “correctness” is expected instead.

This biblical pattern will guide us (1 Corinthians 9:20-22 NIV):

• To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews.  To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
• 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.
• To the weak I became weak, to win the weak.
• I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

My first pastoral opportunity took me from a conservative area of Indiana, where a biblical consensus still existed, to highly-secular California.  I struggled as we all should, as I worked to internalize and apply the above pattern.  Our confidence in the reliability of the Bible and the power of the Holy Spirit to open minds does not change.  Our approach, our explanations and examples and arguments, our choices on non-moral lifestyle matters do change.  At least if we want to be effective.

Let’s all work hard at this if we wish to be relevant where God has placed us to be an influence for him!

[source: gallup.com/poll/153479/mississippi-religious-state]