Category Archives: frontpage

County Clerk in KY and Same-sex Marriage Licenses

Posted on by

What I’m writing today (Sept. 2) reflects one day of pondering and the situation as I understand it. More pondering or more facts could revise my thoughts.

I’m heavily influenced by Thomas Jefferson’s statement, “No provision in our constitution ought to be dearer to man, than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

Government at all levels should strive to accommodate conscience rights as much as possible while still furthering its legitimate purposes.  For example, providing for the national defense is of the highest constitutional order, but conscientious objectors are exempt from service even though that means others many have to serve and put their lives at risk in the stead of the CO’s.  Arguing from the greater to the lesser, this same protection should apply to much more ordinary matters.

“Reasonable accommodation” of religious beliefs in workplace situations is a well-established principle. It is not an absolute, but it is strong.

Only extremists would argue that government should always compel, or that conscience must always prevail.  But I’ll push the meter as much as can justly be done in the direction of freedom of conscience, no matter what the issue.

I don’t know the Kentucky situation well.  Is this one county clerk the only one in the region who can say yes or no?  Are there alternatives, or are the applicants just trying to have a crusade against this one person?  Areas like LA, by contrast, would have many other clerks available, I’m sure.  This is from the Washington Post (Monday, Aug. 31):

“In her defense, her lawyers described Davis in a court filing as ‘a professing Apostolic Christian who attends church worship service multiple times per week, attends weekly Bible study, and leads a weekly Bible study with women at a local jail.’ It says she fasted and prayed for weeks before deciding that she would not issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

“Her lawyers say there are more than 130 locations around the state where same-sex couples can get licenses, including seven counties neighboring Rowan. They also argue that other steps could be taken to accommodate Davis’s religious beliefs.

“For example, a clerk from a neighboring county could be deputized to issue licenses in Rowan County. The state could remove all references to a clerk’s name on marriage licenses. Or lawmakers could overhaul the way Kentucky licenses marriages.”

In this case, the particular clerk has been able to serve her task without conscience issues until same-sex marriage became a protected right.  So this is a new feature to her role, and I can understand her angst and conflicted conscience.  Imagine a doctor or nurse in the ob-gyn specialty who is dedicated to saving nascent human life and who believes abortion is murder but then is pressured by a hospital to participate in abortion.  Mostly their consciences are protected, but there have been many challenges.  Even clergy, now conscience-protected, have reason for concern.  According to a Barna poll in July, “There is a substantial minority among Americans under 40 (26%) who believe the law should compel religious institutions and clergy members to perform same-sex weddings.”

When same-sex marriage was legalized in California in 2008, the Long Beach Press-Telegram editorialized with this assurance: “Conservative religionists have nothing to fear. Their religious practices and their personal definition of marriage are intact.”  The ink wasn’t even dry on that editorial when Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo demanded that the county registrar not allow employees who are uncomfortable with gay marriages to excuse themselves from officiating at such ceremonies.

The Kentucky clerk has two primary options—resign or fight on.  Both have weighty implications for her and her family. I’ve counseled many an individual over workplace conflicts involving conscience.  Each has to be individually considered.  What is being ordered or forbidden?  Is this a core issue or a peripheral one?  What are the options and recourses, both legal and non-legal?  Is the issue bigger than one individual, to where staying on is needed to fight a larger cause?  Are there alternatives that might achieve a “win/win” (an important question and an appropriate quest in a diverse society—the Washington Post quote above suggests there are)?  Usually I’d recommend resignation, but by no means always.  If this clerk stands fast, she must bear the consequences, though I expect she would receive a lot of support.

Now, here’s a situation that is comparable, I think, but more troubling because of the high government position involved. The California Attorney General takes an oath of office that says (emphases mine):

“I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”

Kamala Harris took that oath but then refused to “defend…the Constitution of the State of California” as reported:

SAN FRANCISCO (March 26, 2013) — Attorney General Kamala D. Harris issued the following statement on today’s Proposition 8 arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court:

“I declined to defend Proposition 8 because it violates the Constitution. The Supreme Court has described marriage as a fundamental right 14 times since 1888. The time has come for this right to be afforded to every citizen.”

Now, she may be right about what the court says about marriage and the Constitution—five justices seem to agree. But her job isn’t to make that judgment but to defend a provision of the California Constitution in court.  It is a simple syllogism:

  1. Major Premise: The A/G must defend the CA Constitution
  2. Minor Premise: Proposition 8 is part of the CA Constitution
  3. Conclusion: Therefore the A/G must defend Proposition 8

She was reaching for her conclusion before there was one. In citing Supreme Court decisions, she should have looked back to 1878 (Reynolds), when the court ruled against the Mormons and said bigamy was not a right. Following her refusal to defend the state constitution, the court found that the proponents of Prop. 8 lacked standing before the court.

I can be neutral on both cases, but still believe that both the Attorney General and the County Clerk in KY are arguing conscience above law.

From a biblical standpoint, the argued position is that the laws of the state must be honored and obeyed but in a time of conflict the Law of God supersedes the law of the state (Acts 4:19). This principle is exemplified often in the Bible, such as when an order forbidding certain prayers was made during the Persian rule and Daniel, a government official, violated it (Daniel 6:6-10). As a Christian, my confession, “Jesus Christ is Lord!” is not subject to compartmentalization and cannot be confined to some sacred space surrounded by stained glass windows.

If I had to advise at this moment, I’m not sure what I would say though I might lean toward advising resignation. Frankly, I predict she will continue to lose any legal action she takes. However, if she and her counsel see the presence of larger issues, I’d allow that she should remain and take the consequences. I’m disappointed that efforts at accommodation are not going forward because it appears that other options do exist, and accommodation is consistent with a free society. Sadly and with regret, I find that in matters like this, many activists are practicing a “take no prisoners” modus operandi.

Donald Shoemaker

September 2, 2015

King Ahab and Naboth–A Bad King, A Bold Preacher, and a Prime Piece of Property

Posted on by

“A Bad King,
A Bold Preacher and
A Prime Piece of Property”

By Donald Shoemaker

[NOTE: This biblical story that I tell has relevance anytime evil attempts to trample good, oppression suppresses helpless victims, or the power of the government is used to force people of religious conviction to violate their consciences. I think of it when questionable instances of “eminent domain” occur. The story is from the Old Testament—1 Kings 21.]

Please listen to my August 23, 2015 sermon on this topic:
http://www.gracesealbeach.org/media.php?pageID=28

Once upon a time, far away in the little kingdom of “Israel,” there lived a wicked king named Ahab. His wife was Queen Jezebel. She was even more wicked than he was!

One day the wicked king looked out his palace window and saw a piece of property that belonged to a simple, good working-class man named Naboth. Ahab thought to himself, “I’d like to have that property! I’d make better use of it than Naboth ever would.” Since Ahab was the king, anything he took for himself would be for “public use” * of course.

So one day he asked Naboth if he would sell the property. “I’ll even pay you the full market price,” the king said. But Naboth said no. Why should he give up this land, which was his family land for generations?

Ahab was very, very sad—so sad that he pouted. When the wicked queen saw him pouting she really let loose with her tongue at him, so meddlesome and henpecking she. “Is this how the king of Israel acts? Cheer up! I’ll get you that land!”

So she brought some false charges against Naboth. Naboth was found guilty and put to death. Then the wicked queen told the king that Naboth was dead. Ahab was very happy. He took Naboth’s property by eminent domain and made it his own.

Ahab and Jezebel thought this was the end of the matter and they would enjoy their new property and live happily ever after. But God saw what had happened and he was really angry. He sent a preacher named Elijah to confront the wicked king and queen.

Now, Ahab didn’t really want to listen to this preacher. “Religion and government are separate things!” he believed. He didn’t think this preacher should try to influence what the government does at all.

Elijah didn’t care what the king thought! He wouldn’t keep quiet because he knew God wanted him to speak. So he told the king he was a very bad man—a murderer and a thief. He had no right to take this simple man’s property. Elijah said that God would bring death on him because of his wicked deeds—and on the wicked queen too. He even said that what the king did put a stain of sin on the whole land.

Everything the preacher said came true! Ahab died in battle and Jezebel was put to death by her own servants. She died right where Naboth died!

The little kingdom of “Israel” was a better kingdom once the wicked king and queen were gone. But the world has still not learned its lesson.

* “Public use” – According to the 5th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, any property taken by the government through what we call eminent domain is for “public use.” A very unfortunate U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2005 allowed that “public use” could include forcing land away from one private owner and passing it to another private owner, who would then (hopefully) develop it, creating jobs, bring in more tax money, etc. The case was Kelo v. City of New London. Critics said the decision obliterated the distinction between “public use” and “private use.” In this case the results were horrible and utterly unproductive.

Renewing Worship

Posted on by

Needed: A Renewed Paradigm for Worship

By Donald P. Shoemaker
Pastor Emeritus
Grace Community Church of Seal Beach, California

I’ve been an enthusiastic worshipper since I was a toddler (my mother told me I sang really loud). I began planning and leading worship when I was 17. The church’s worship and music ministry was one of my key areas of responsibility during my 28 years as a senior pastor.

Here I want to set forth guidance to move worship ministries away from some tendencies I’ve observed in recent years. I try to be creative on several points but make no claim to originality. In fact, I hope most ideas are quite old and enduring.

A Truly Worshipping Congregation

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

In Touch with Our Christian Heritage

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

The Word of God in Worship

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

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

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

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

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

Giving in Worship

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

Technology in Worship—Dine with a Long Spoon

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

Expository Sermons as a Work of Art

The Message should unfold and apply the meaning of Scripture to the people so they can see what was there all along. While the expository pastor has training and tools available that the rest of us don’t have, sermons should not create an unhealthy dependence on the speaker to know what God is saying.

Sermons should usually be under 30 minutes—it takes more work to create a tight sermon than an extended one, but it will be a better sermon. Organize the sermon as if it were a work of artistry, and then maybe it will become one!

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

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

A Real, Live Pastor

John 3:16 doesn’t say, “God so loved the world that he beamed down his son”! Instead, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14 NIV).

The pastor who speaks should be there in flesh and blood, not electronically delivered like a hologram. Pastors, we should not think more highly of ourselves than we ought to think. We are not indispensible celebrities! The people need true interaction with the pastor during and after the sermon, not an impersonal non-encounter with someone who isn’t there.

And no fleeing out the side door for privacy right after the benediction! I preached three sermons on Sunday mornings for fifteen years, and I know a pastor can guard his energy without avoiding personal time with the people.

Worship Aesthetics

Worship settings don’t need to be extravagant, but they shouldn’t be bland and utilitarian either. The place of worship is sacred space, removed from the “common settings” of the rest of the week. It’s not another “Home Depot”! Worship is a vestibule to the Celestial. In “The Gathering”, we are a holy temple of God, a dwelling place for God’s Spirit.

The visible word should tastefully and purposefully surround worshippers in the worship location through artistic display and symbols, and (yes) even in the windows.

The Eucharist in Worship

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

Shepherding the Flock in Worship

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

These renewal points come from my general knowledge—change isn’t needed everywhere. The points are a work in progress, so input is invited.

(c) 2014 Donald P. Shoemaker

(Don has been in Christian ministry for over 46 years, 38 in pastoral work and eight as a theology professor at Biola University. After 28 years, he retired as senior pastor of Grace Community Church in Seal Beach, California in 2012 and now serves the church as pastor emeritus. He can be reached at: shoemaker@gracesealbeach.org.)

The Ten Commandments–A Brief Helpful Introduction

Posted on by

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

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

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

1. They were given by God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. They were “covenant expectations”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By all means, learn and live The Ten Commandments!

Threat to Religious Freedom in San Francisco

Posted on by

Threat to Religious Freedom in San Francisco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Forgive us our trespasses” and conditional forgiveness

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture addresses this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Remorse – “I am truly sorry.”

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

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

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

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

Religious Freedom Laws Needed–and More Civility As Well

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death in Ferguson & New York City–Some Ethical Reflections

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No big protests for him.

From Vandalism to Love: Thanksgiving Story from Ferguson, Missouri

Posted on by

Natalie Dubose of Ferguson, Missouri is a business owner with a cake shop and a bakery dream.

“My shop, which had it’s grand opening this summer was vandalized in the [November 24] riots. My main windows were smashed and bakery damaged. I’m beside myself, but with the holidays, can’t stop working. I’m very busy cleaning and trying to repair my business. I’m also trying to catch up on baking cakes for Thanksgiving!”

When we heard of this, my wife and I discussed sending a gift to Natalie. Well, that won’t be necessary. Thanks to generous people in this good nation, $227,000 has been contributed for Natalie’s business by over 7,000 people.

We now have another outlet for a Thanksgiving donation. But we thank God for generous people and for Natalie’s determination!

A Thanksgiving Prayer

Lord, we thank you for the goodness of our people

and for the spirit of justice 
that fills this nation.
We thank you for the beauty and fullness of the 
land
and the challenge of the cities.
We thank you for our work and our rest, 
for one another and for our homes.
We pray and give thanks through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
— From: Catholic Household Blessings and Prayers

Religious Liberty Challenge: “Houston, We Have a Problem!”

Posted on by

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

Quenching Religious Expression in the Name of Equality

Whichever side one is on as to the “transgender” issue, what happened in October in Houston, Texas should concern all who support religious liberty.

Long story short, a petition was submitted to the city to call for a voter referendum that would repeal a recent amendment to the city’s equal rights ordinance. The amendment allowed “transgendered” people access to the rest room of their “gender identity”. When the referendum petition was rejected, several groups filed a lawsuit against Houston.

In response to this, attorneys for the city subpoenaed a large number of documents from five pastors—“all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to [the equal rights ordinance], the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

The results of this great overreach of government power would be at least two: (1) an intimidating, chilling effect on the messages and legal activism of churches, and (2) much difficulty for churches to fulfill the subpoenas—churches are generally unequipped or staffed for this kind of demand.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State said that, while a subpoena would be in order when there is a reasonable suspicion of wrong, such wrongdoing is not an issue in this case. “The targeted pastors are not even parties to the lawsuit, and the scope of the subpoenas is striking broad. This has the look of a fishing expedition.” The ACLU of Texas agreed: “The government should never engage in fishing expeditions into the inner workings of a church, and any request for information must be carefully tailored to seek only what is relevant to the dispute.” The Interfaith Alliance said, “As long as a sermon is not inciting violence, the government has no business getting involved in the content of ministers’ sermons.”

That’s three left-wing voices supporting religious liberty in this case!

For now, the city has backed down (rather unrepentantly) from its power display—first by narrowing the request and then by dropping it altogether. Nonetheless, keep alert because “Vigilance is always the Price of Liberty.”

[Sources: “Friendly Atheist” blog; Websites of Americans United and the ACLU;
“The Volokh Conspiracy”, October 16 and 29, 2014; Houston Chronicle, October 29]