Category Archives: frontpage

Election Ahead! What to Look For in a Candidate

Posted on by

By Donald P. Shoemaker

Thomas Jefferson spoke in his first inaugural address (1801) of our need for a “wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

In this spirit, I’ve thought about certain non-partisan values that should characterize good government and the officials who are elected and appointed to its many positions. Here are seven qualities I wish to see as I evaluate those seeking office this election season:

· Frugality – viewing public funds as a limited resource to be prudently handled with great care and not as a constant spring where there is always more to be tapped. It must always be remembered that every tax dollar, regardless of its source and our political good intentions, takes money from people and not from impersonal things.

· Accountability – recognizing that managing public funds and exercising power are solemn trusts. Those who do these things must see themselves as stewards answerable to the people. We believe accountability is due “in the sight of both God and man.” But even if a politician doesn’t think God exists, he knows the citizen does. Accountability also measures actions by their impact on the future long after a term of office has ended.

· Integrity – being people of truthfulness and fairness and good character in light of reasoned principles acknowledged by almost everybody.

· Collegiality – being an effective office-holder through knowing how to work with others, especially those of opposing viewpoints. The collegiate leader earns respect “across the aisle” and knows how to work the political process for reasonable advantage without yielding core values. In short, he knows “half a loaf is better than none.”

· Efficiency – getting the most “bang for the buck” by avoiding wasted time, squandered resources, incompetence and bloated bureaucracy. Jefferson’s call for “suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses” needs to be heeded as never before.

· Productivity – ensuring that resources of funding, time and talent are used for intended and effective purposes and not, as examples, for self-aggrandizement or for programs likely or proven to fail. A good leader regards no program as sacrosanct and regularly evaluates them for both effectiveness and efficiency.

· Accessibility – demonstrating openness to the people they are selected to serve, whether these people are supporters, detractors or indifferent.

With these qualities in place, we may then move beyond them to the issues we cherish and the inevitable partisanship of any election. But without these qualities even our most favored office seekers will be compromised in their missions, to everyone’s damage and cynicism.

What Makes for “Immoral” Leadership?

Posted on by

Mark Driscoll, pastor of mega-church Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington, resigned from leading his church in October. The overseeing board of Mars Hill Church concluded Driscoll had “been guilty of arrogance, responding to conflict with a quick temper and harsh speech, and leading the staff and elders in a domineering manner.” But they were careful to say he had “never been charged with any immorality, illegality or heresy.”

The board’s statement really caught my eye. Think about it for a moment. Without a doubt, “immorality” here is a code word for sexual wrongdoing. The sometimes-prudish New American Standard Bible would at times translate the Greek word porneia (fornication) by the word “immorality” (see 1 Corinthians 6:16-18 and 7:2 in the NASB).

But this will not wash! Pastor Driscoll, it was said, had arrogance, a quick temper, harsh speech and a domineering manner. These all are forms of “immorality.”

Arrogance, temper, domination? “The overseer [pastor, church leader] must be…not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome” and not conceited or overbearing (1 Timothy 3:2-6; Titus 1:7). If, on the contrary, you want to lead Jesus’ way (HWJL – “How Would Jesus Lead?”), read Matthew 20:20-28. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.”

A mega-church pastor once wrote a book on leadership. One of his staff members told me the book should have been titled, Leading By Intimidation!

Harsh speech? The tongue, scripture says, is “a fire, a world of evil among all the parts of the body.” “No man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” With our tongues we bless God and curse people, all made in God’s likeness. “My brothers, this should not be” (read James 3:3-12).

Today “the tongue” includes what we post on (un)social media. Many teens, especially girls, use this form of communication sinfully when they speak with malice and slander and with little regard for truth. One of three teens (32%) have been “cyberbullied”—via mean texts, photoshopped pictures, fake profiles, fight videos, rumors and gossip, embarrassing pictures, threats, and harassment.* All these are forms of sinning by tongue, aka immorality.

No wonder we are told in scripture, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up” (read Ephesians 4:29-32).

The Evangelical world often seem to be fixated on “immorality” in one specific sense, but not on the range of matters the Bible considers immoral. Every Christian leader needs to confess immorality in the light of a wide range of issues and strive for improvement. Only then are we following the realism and personal redemption of 1 John 1:5-10 (“If we claim to be without sin [for example, through narrow definitions], we deceive ourselves… If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive our sins…”)

Let’s stop giving a pass for sins of the tongue and temper, arrogance and domination and conceit, especially when these are manifest by leaders.

* ”Social Media” by Detective Chad Morris, Regional Training Seminar, International Conference of Police Chaplains, October 15, 2014

What Do We Mean By “The Will of God”?

Posted on by

What Do We Mean by
“The Will of God”?

“I’m just waiting now to find God’s will in this matter.”
“Our church is trying to discern what God wants us to do.”

Versions of those phrases are around us all the time in Christian circles. We’ve likely used them ourselves. I have.

But maybe it’s time for rethinking this whole matter of “knowing God’s will.” Here are some verses that will prod us (James 4:13-15 New Int’l. Version):

“Now listen, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.’ Why you do not even know what will happen tomorrow… Instead, you ought to say, ‘If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.'”

I find it helpful to distinguish two “wills” of God:

1. God’s DESIRED or PRESCRIBED will (his moral revelations to us)
2. God’s DETERMINED or PROVIDENTIAL will (what God has set to transpire in the world and in our lives)

An example of the first is in 1 Thessalonians 4:3 – “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified, that you should avoid sexual immorality…”

We acknowledge God’s will in this sense every time we pray the words of The Lord’s Prayer (“Your will be done”) or when we recall the words of Jesus to his Heavenly Father, “Not my will, but yours be done.” We find this “will of God” in Scripture. As free moral agents, we can choose whether we want to be “in God’s will” in this moral sense and we are accountable to God for our choices.

James 4:13-15 (above) is an example of God’s determined, providential will. Its specific details are hardly ever available to us in advance and we are not responsible for knowing them. We will be “in God’s will” in this sense whether we know it or not, or whether we want to be or not.

There is a wide range of issues that are neither forbidden nor commanded by God—that is, not addressed in Scripture. With these issues, there is no absolute “will of God”, that is, no prescribed right or wrong. We are responsible for weighing these issues and making good-sense choices. Issues such as “Should I go to this school or that school, or have this or that career?” or “Should our church have this or that program or building?” are examples.

In this realm of “indifferent things” we must be willing to let others make different choices from our own without regarding them to be “out of God’s will.” And no one should judge us for our choices or try to play the “spiritual trump card”—“I believe this is God’s will for us (and your idea isn’t!).”

So, bottom line, I for one do not try to “discern God’s will” in the realm of his providence. I will live in this realm with prudence and wear my seat belt. I will seek wise counsel, gather information and apply my reason and common sense. I may choose not to travel to certain places—others may choose otherwise. But ultimately, “whatever will be will be.” I will be “in God’s will” and I need to thank him for that, make my plans to the best of my ability, and know that ultimately God is in charge of my life and I am not.

And it would be wonderful if Christians would spend time thinking through how The Ten Commandments (for example) apply to their daily lives rather than trying to discern the will of God that is hidden till it happens.

Evil, Suffering, Tragedy–Proofs on God’s Displeasure?

Posted on by

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 abundance 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 man 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 omissions 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 very thing 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 surely 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.

What is Evangelical Christianity? 10 Helpful Answers

Posted on by

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.

2. “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.)

3. “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.”

4. “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].

5. “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)

6. “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 movement. 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.

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

8. “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.

9. “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.

10. “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

Different Pathways for Each of Us–Lesson from Jesus’ Word to Peter (John 21)

Posted on by

Bible Insight: Different Pathways for Each of Us

IF A MAN DOES NOT KEEP PACE WITH HIS COMPANIONS,
PERHAPS IT IS BECAUSE HE HEARS A DIFFERENT DRUMMER.
LET HIM STEP TO THE MUSIC HE HEARS,
HOWEVER MEASURED OR FAR AWAY.
– HENRY DAVID THOREAU

“JESUS SAID [TO PETER], ‘…WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER YOU DRESSED YOURSELF AND WENT WHERE YOU WANTED; BUT WHEN YOU ARE OLD YOU WILL STRETCH OUT YOUR HANDS, AND SOMEONE ELSE WILL DRESS YOU AND LEAD YOU WHERE YOU DO NOT WANT TO GO.’ JESUS SAID THIS TO INDICATE THE KIND OF DEATH BY WHICH PETER WOULD GLORIFY GOD…
“PETER TURNED AND SAW THAT THE DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS LOVED WAS FOLLOWING THEM… WHEN PETER SAW HIM, HE ASKED, ‘LORD, WHAT ABOUT HIM?’
JESUS ANSWERED, ‘IF I WANT HIM TO REMAIN ALIVE UNTIL I RETURN, WHAT IS THAT TO YOU? YOU MUST FOLLOW ME.’” (JOHN 21:18-22 NIV)

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.

Religious Liberty and Contraception under “Obamacare”

Posted on by

Religious Liberty and Contraception under “Obamacare”
By Donald P. Shoemaker
Pastor Emeritus,
Grace Community Church of Seal Beach
Chair, Social Concerns Committee,
Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches

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.” Be sure to think through this statement carefully!! If the government has a “compelling interest” for burdening religious groups so as to grant women “control over their sex lives, bodily integrity and reproductive capacity”, that would include a duty to pay for ABORTION.

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 federal 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.” 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.

A Christmas Word–Joseph, Quiet Father

Posted on by

By Donald Shoemaker
“Another View” Guest Writer for the Grunion Gazette

Joseph is one of the key players in the Christmas Story. In the story, this adoptive father of Jesus reminds me in one way of my father — a man of quiet spirituality.

My points here will be taken from the first two chapters of the Gospel of Matthew, where Joseph is the active player. By contrast, Mary mother of Jesus is the active player in the birth account found in the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke. Reading both accounts this holiday season is well worth your time.

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 geared to 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 trying to convert others.

So I wondered if there might also be a booklet, “Spirituality for Introverts!” Alas, a call to this church and even to the denomination’s publishing house revealed that no such booklet existed. Why not?

I think I figured it out. This particular Christian tradition is 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 all three stories of his obedience, he obeyed God without saying so much as a word.
First, he obeyed the angel’s word to take Mary as his wife even though he suspected her of adultery. The two were “betrothed” (in that culture a stronger version of “engagement”) when to his sad surprise her pregnancy occurred. One thing he knew: he was not the baby’s father! So she must have been unfaithful to him and he by all rights could divorce her (divorce would end the
betrothal).

But an angel intervened with guidance from God. “Do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20 New International Version).

Their obedience in this part of the story is also seen in how he respected and protected her virginity. “He had no union with her until she gave birth to a son” (Matthew 1:25). Yes, Joseph and Mary are models of sexual propriety to our culture, which badly needs to learn this feature of the Christmas Story.

In his second and third acts of obedience, he showed himself to be a quiet but effective provider and protector of his family.
King Herod was bent on destroying this child whose royal lineage and grand birth announcement posed a threat to his brutal authority. But an angel warned Joseph, “Take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt … for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him” (Matthew 2:13).

After Herod died and that danger passed, Joseph obeyed further guidance from God by returning to Israel and ultimately to Galilee (Matthew 2:21-23) for the sake of the family’s safety.

The stage was set for Jesus to grow up in the very un-royal village of Nazareth in Galilee. In that region three decades later, he would begin his humble ministry as “the people’s Messiah.”

God’s providence was at work in all this. But on the human side much of the credit, if any is to be given, must go to Joseph — quiet, steady Joseph.

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

Being religious doesn’t have to mean being loud. Following the will of God can often be a quiet experience. In this, Joseph models well. Many of us will see ourselves in Joseph, and the rest of us can still learn.

Donald Shoemaker is Pastor Emeritus of Grace Community Church of Seal Beach.

Chuck Smith–My Personal Tribute

Posted on by

Chuck Smith, pastor of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, died on October 3 at 86. Also seen as the founder of the “Calvary Chapel” movement, he should above all be remembered for his pivotal role in the “Jesus Movement*” of the late ‘60’s and early 1970’s.

Now, at that time I was starting my pastoral career in Indiana. We had heard about this movement but we mostly discounted it as weird and certainly not “of God,” with its guitars and hippies and stuff—about what you’d expect to happen in California! In July of 1970 my wife and I moved to Southern California to find ourselves in the middle of this movement as it peaked.

Quite skeptical, I attended a Monday evening worship service in 1971. A mild but very uplifting period of simple and worshipful singing was followed by a l-o-n-g sermon by Chuck Smith on the Book of Revelation. Soon I would learn of his through-the-Bible preaching ministry that was the best thing that could happen for the thousands of converts in this movement. At the end of this service, hundreds stood and embraced, singing “The Lord’s Prayer.” Wonderful!

I should have left when the service ended! But Chuck had said that if any wanted the Holy Spirit in their lives they should stay for what they called “afterglow”. Most of the crowd left. But some of the young adults from my own church stayed, so I and my associate remained and sat in the back.

At the “afterglow” things got strange. A fellow named Lonnie Frisbee (that’s the truth!) sat at the front like a guru and told people weird things like the Spirit might come in through their toes and fingertips. I was relieved when those from my church literally ran out. In spite of this aberration, Chuck personally was always a very moderating force on “Holy Spirit” issues.

Chuck always struck me as an exemplary servant with deep humility and simplicity. Rumor has it that every person on his staff took turns cleaning restrooms. I had a conversation with him one evening when I ran into him at a Christian bookstore. He was carrying out boxes of Bibles.

For the “Jesus” revival, he was the right man in the right place at the right moment. Conservative and yet very open, he molded his ministry to be effective with those God called him to reach. He knew what should be preserved and what should bend or change or be stopped. (When he arrived at his church to find a note posted, “NO BARE FEET”, he threatened to tear out the new carpet rather than reject people. But even he once said it testing him when hippies would put those rubber communion cup holders on their toes!) If you attended a Sunday morning service at Calvary Chapel in the 70’s, you would find the experience like that of any typical Baptist church of the time.

His pastoral model has been a good one to follow in the face of other models (“pastors must be dynamic, visionary, challenging, etc.”) pushed upon us as “the gold standard.” His preaching style was a refreshing contrast to the “felt-need” trendy, truncated preaching that is also a part of this “gold standard.”

I didn’t accept all his ideas. Too much dogmatism on prophecy and its modern fulfillment. And his insistence that “Calvary Chapel” was not a denomination seemed like “preaching to the choir”.

The Jesus Movement brought long-lasting change to the broader church, most obviously in Christian worship. In Chuck’s absence, the Calvary Chapel movement will certainly change, but how we don’t yet know.

I will always give thanks to God for the ministry of this man. And I will honor him highly, for scripture says those who lead well “are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching” (1 Timothy 5:17).

By Donald Shoemaker
Pastor Emeritus, Grace Community Church of Seal Beach, CA

* Wikipedia has a good and concise definition of the Jesus Movement:

The Jesus Movement was a movement in Christianity beginning on the West Coast of the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s and spreading primarily through North America and Europe, before dying out by the early 1980s. It was the major Christian element within the hippie counterculture…

The Jesus movement left a legacy of various denominations and other Christian organizations, and had an impact on both the development of the contemporary Christian right and the Christian left. “Jesus music”, which grew out of the movement, greatly influenced contemporary Christian music…

Baptism, Repentance and Forgiveness

Posted on by

Baptism and Repentance

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
(Acts 2:38 NIV)

Baptism and Communion, two sacraments God has given to his church, have been minimized in many an evangelical church. Someone recently said, “Communion should be called a ‘snack-rament’ the way many observe it!”

In New Testament times, as you see from the Apostle Peter’s words above, repentance, turning in faith to Jesus, and the gift of the Holy Spirit were not separated from baptism.

Acts 2:38 leaves unsettled the question whether baptism is the essential cause of forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Spirit or their accompanying sign. Acts 10:44-48 helps us clear up that question. At the home of Cornelius, the Roman Centurion, the Holy Spirit came on the people before they were baptized, not because they were baptized (read the whole wonderful chapter). Instead, Peter called for baptism because they had received the Holy Spirit.

So baptism is not the effective cause of forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit, but it is not separated from these grace-gifts either (Peter would say, “Not baptizing these converts right away is a failure that opposes the work of God.”). To say it another way, they were “saved” neither through baptism nor without baptism.

Baptism is thus distinguishable from cleansing but not separated from cleansing. As St. Augustine said, “The outward sign of an inward grace.”

When churches and individuals introduce a big time-lapse between conversion and baptism, they bring confusion into the whole dynamic. They may wonder why scriptures on conversions don’t seem to make sense. It’s like exchanging the wedding rings months or years after the ceremony. You can’t say, “With this ring I thee wed.” This confusion may also come if baptism precedes faith and repentance by many years. Hence, “believer baptism”.

And no, you shouldn’t put off baptism just to wait to be baptized in the ocean!

Yet, this time-lapse is what we have allowed to happen. Many churches have the “walk-forward altar call” sacrament-like tradition in the place that baptism should fill. But biblically speaking, it is in our baptism that we make the confession, “Jesus is Lord!”

Let’s get back to the biblical theology and examples and make baptism what it was intended to be—part of the majestic drama of the Holy Spirit we call “conversion.” As Ananias said to Saul (later, as known to us, “The Apostle Paul”), “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his [the Lord’s] name” (Acts 22:16).