“Joseph—God’s Quiet Follower”
A Christmas Thought from Don Shoemaker

I’m a relatively reserved person—worship and talking about my faith included.

But for much of my life I’ve been in Christian circles where being demonstrative in worship is expected. And you also are expected to witness boldly to others of your faith. If you don’t do these things, well, you just aren’t very spiritual.

It can sure give you a sense of spiritual inferiority, especially when religious Great Ones around you, spiritual Übermenschen (supermen) show you and tell you what you must do to be properly religious.

Then I looked in the Christmas Story and saw a man named Joe—Ordinary Joe. A man quietly faithful to God in his own way. No spiritual huffing and puffing, just simply and quietly faithful.

When Mary became pregnant and Joseph knew he wasn’t “the man”, he was going to divorce her quietly. But an angel visited Joseph to change his mind. He should take Mary as his wife. “When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife” (Matthew 1:24 NIV).

When King Herod threatened Jesus’ life, Joseph again obeyed an angel: “Take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt.” “So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt” (2:14).

Finally in Matthew’s nativity account, once Herod was dead Joseph obeyed the angel’s word that it was time to go back (2:19-21).

In Luke’s account, Joseph—again without a word—travelled with very-expectant Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem to obey the Roman government’s distasteful registration requirement (Luke 2:1-7). In his quiet way, he helped bring to pass the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, King David’s city—the event that would shake the world.

Days later, he and Mary “took Jesus to church”—presenting him at the Temple in dedication to God as the Law of Moses required (2:21-39). Quiet and faithful Joe.

Joseph is a key figure in both Matthew’s and Luke’s nativity accounts. What impressed me as I considered him was that he could be an obedient disciple without (in all the Bible’s depictions of him) uttering a single word.

I am refreshed by the story of Joseph. We need guys like him in the church and in our lives. Ordinary Christians. I imagine many of you are refreshed by his story also as you ponder it.

A Joyous Christmas, everyone!

Don

Heaven Ahead? How Right is Wright?
By Donald Shoemaker

Onward to the prize before us! Soon His beauty we’ll behold;
Soon the pearly gates will open, We shall tread the streets of gold.
When we all get to heaven, What a day of rejoicing that will be!

That Gospel Song was a favorite of mine in my young Christian experience and I still enjoy singing it, while making some mental adjustments for its rather loose eschatology (theology of the future).

“Scholars on the right and left increasingly say that comforting belief in an afterlife has no basis in the Bible and would have sounded bizarre to Jesus and his early followers.” (All references come from the column “What’s Heaven?” in the Long Beach Press-Telegram, May 19, 2012.  This blog is not intended to be a scholarly assessment of Wright’s overall position on this topic, which he has expressed elsewhere as well.)

Watch out whenever a caption starts, “Scholars say…” It implies a consensus that may not exist and puts those who disagree into the position of low-level thinkers.

The article focuses on the “heaven theology” (or lack thereof) of N. T. Wright, an outstanding scholar who teaches on early Christianity and the New Testament at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Two statements reflecting his understanding:

• In classic Judaism and first-century Christianity, believers expected this world would be transformed into God’s Kingdom—a restored Eden where redeemed human beings would be liberated from death, illness, sin and other corruptions.
• First-century Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah also believed he inaugurated the Kingdom of God and were convinced the world would be transformed in their own lifetimes. This inauguration, however, was far from complete and required the active participation of God’s people practicing social justice, nonviolence and forgiveness to become fulfilled. Once the Kingdom is complete…the bodily resurrection will follow with a fully restored creation here on earth.

I won’t claim parallel knowledge with N. T. Wright on early Christianity, but I do want to make some responses. I do agree, “We are so fortunate in this generation that we understand more about first-century Judaism than Christian scholarship has for a very long time.” Thus, for example, the Epistle to the Romans must be re-examined in light of better understanding of Judaism.

First, the above perspective (build the Kingdom, then the resurrection and presumably the return of Jesus will follow) is known as “Post-millennialism” [always two “l’s” and two “n’s”!!]. That was hardly the prophetical outlook of the early church, which was more “Pre-millennial” (the return of Christ will usher in the Kingdom). I find it hard to reconcile the statement that early believers “were convinced the world would be transformed in their own lifetimes” with the thought that the church would do the “far from complete” transforming in that short a period, especially considering the world circumstances at that time. It more befits Christian missional thinking in the Western world of the 19th Century.

Second, while social justice themes are very pronounced in the OT Law and Prophets, one searches the New Testament and finds considerably less emphasis in the Gospels and other writings than in the OT’s theocratic material. I say this as one with a strong passion for social justice and with a strong desire to move away from the evangelical non-involvement I’ve seen most of my life. Themes of “social justice, nonviolence and forgiveness” are mostly in the Sermon on the Mount and the church has always struggled with its interpretation. I find “peace church” thinking on justice, nonviolence and forgiveness sometimes inspiring, other times inadequate and maybe harmful (concentration camps were liberated by soldiers with guns, not pacifists with candles).

Third, as to Heaven, I concur with Wright and observe an over-playing of “heavenly thoughts” in much of contemporary Christianity, such as in Gospel music as exemplified above. In this regard, here are my perspectives on a lot of contemporary evangelical thought on this topic:

• The body tends to be diminished in the future plan of God, as if it’s something of no consequence or even bad. It is as if “out of the body” existence is preferable, whereas the Apostle Paul made “no big deal” of such a possibility (2 Corinthians 12:1-4) and the body is held in high regard, though needing transformation (1 Corinthians 6:13-14, 15:50-53). It’s time to admit to the inadequacy of “I’ll fly away, O glory!”
• Confusion and a mixing of teaching exist between our understanding of life after death (in theology, “the intermediate state”) and life after resurrection (“the eternal state”). Details about heaven are drawn from biblical passages on the eternal state and transported into our understanding of the intermediate state. (I once heard a pastor speak of a recently-deceased saint this way: “She is now glorified!” This is borderline heresy and almost makes the resurrected state a redundancy.)
• “Heavenly thinking” has directed us away from our two-kingdom citizenship responsibilities. Christians have washed their hands of the present world and told the oppressed to look up and wait rather than strive. After all, “This world is not my home; I’m just a-passin’ through. My treasure is laid up somewhere beyond the blue!”
• Our understanding of heaven is influenced by “hymnbook theology” (sadly, sometimes an oxymoron), even as the church has been influenced by Dante* and other extra-biblical depictions of the hereafter. Hymns should reflect good theology, not perpetuate idealized notions of the Christian life (as I write this, I joyfully listen to “Third Day” sing “[The Apostles] Creed”!!).

All that said, may we gain no understanding of the pre-resurrection “hereafter”?
I think we can:

• “Today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:42 NIV). By itself this promise would be problematic, but other NT texts support us seeing the traditional understanding of the afterlife in Jesus’ words.
• “We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:7-8). This preference is not because of disembodiment, which is not desirable, but because we are “with the Lord.” Even better is being “with the Lord” while in the body (“We do not wish to be unclothed, but to be clothed” – v. 4).
• In a delightfully provoking heavenly scene full of imagery, John sees “under the altar the souls of those who had been slain” (martyrs). “They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, …until you judged the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?’ …They were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed.”  Notice: (1) these martyrs have a contemporary existence with saints suffering on earth, (2) they have at least a measure of knowledge of what is happening on earth, (3) they pray to God for him to intervene in behalf of the suffering saints, and (4) they are told to “wait a little longer” (till all is completed by the Second Advent—Revelation 6:9-11). Hmmmm…
• Clearest of all, “To me, to live is Christ and to die is gain…I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body” (Philippians 1:21-24). To introduce the resurrected state here as a third option is to do damage to the text. Paul was torn “twixt the two”: (1) to stay in the body and serve Christ or (2) to depart from the body through death and be with Christ.

So, here’s the truth of it all…

• We await Jesus’ return and, with no illusion that we will transform the world into the Kingdom, we fulfill our assigned tasks and do what we can (we do “polish the brass on a sinking ship” because God told us to!).
• Should we die before Jesus returns, we will be apart from our bodies and be “with Christ” in an existence otherwise mostly undefined.
• Whether in the body or apart from the body, we await the return of Jesus, who will transform our bodies and fit them for his eternal Kingdom, for which we pray and, in measure, strive to realize in the “here and now”.

So, hold off on “pearly gates” (“gates of pearl”) until the New Jerusalem arrives. “Heaven” is best put in two words: “with Christ”. How can we improve on that?

Donald Shoemaker
May, 2012

*I have to say, Dante’s fascinating depiction of Hell tries to reflect the Bible’s understanding of different levels of “accountability” and that judgment is based on works, even though one whose name is not in the “Book of Life” is cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:11-15).

Dante’s “Hell” goes down nine levels [from my 2008 sermon on Revelation 20:11-15]:

• The most desirable level is “Limbo”. It contains the souls of infants who died without baptism, pagans who lived pretty good lives, moral philosophers, and noble leaders.
• The least desirable one (the 9th level down), is the coldest place in Hell, where the warmth of God’s love is completely lacking. The worst of the worst are there, including Satan and people who lived treacherous lives—treachery against everyone—family, nation, humanity, God—terrorists are there. Ebenezer Scrooge would have gone there too, had he not turned his life around.
• The 8th level down (next to the worst) intrigues me. It’s the place where corrupt politicians go, along with businessmen and others who cheat people and commit fraud. Financial bandits on Wall Street will make themselves at home there! These crooks will be afflicted by devils with gross names like “Evil Claw” and “Bad Dog.” Not good—not good at all! So, Washington, Wall Street—take heed and repent!
• One Website had a test you could take to see which level would be yours. I took the test, submitted it, and got the answer back: “We are unable to process your answers.” So, I guess you might say, “I’ve been left in Limbo!”

– end –

Commentary by Donald P. Shoemaker

Long Beach Press-Telegram & Los Angeles Daily News (Nov. 2, 2012)

In 1960 a Roman Catholic was running for president and fundamentalists were producing pamphlets such as “The Pope for President.”

I went to hear a Pentecostal pastor’s sermon, “Why I Won’t Vote for a Roman Catholic for President.” I didn’t know at the time, nor did he I’m sure, that the sermon broke the rules.

October 7 was Pulpit Freedom Sunday when more than 1,500 pastors agreed to introduce political statements into their sermons as an act of civil disobedience to challenge the IRS rule forbidding the practice. That rule forbids tax-exempt 501(c)3 organizations from supporting or opposing any candidate seeking an elected office.

This election season two Roman Catholic parishes have opposed Barack Obama’s re-election, and the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State have called for IRS investigations against them and others. On the other side of the spectrum, we’ll likely see Democratic candidates at church gatherings getting warm support.

It is important to remind ourselves that the IRS rule doesn’t rise from a constitutional principle. If anything, the U.S. Constitution would argue against it, with its First Amendment guarantees on free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to assemble and hear what some in government might not like.

No, the rule is relatively recent, rising in 1954 from a legislative amendment introduced by then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson, who was being bothered by some pesky opponents in his re-election bid.

The amendment became law, and the wording became part of the tax code. At the time of its introduction it went undebated, so its intended reach is not known. But since the senator was receiving religious support in his re-election bid, it is unlikely he ever intended that it become a hammer against election intervention by religious groups.

Why shouldn’t a pastor be able to speak legally from religion-shaped convictions if he or she believes voting for a particular candidate is a sin?

Why shouldn’t priests, who are convinced that new health mandates will force religious institutions to violate core values, voice opposition to candidates they perceive as threatening to their liberties?

Why shouldn’t a liberal cleric be able to call for defeat of conservative candidates?

Fine, critics say, if churches want to give up their tax-exempt status they can say anything they want. But this penalty is an unhealthy chilling of free speech. In our society, giving up tax exemptions would be economically devastating to most congregations and religious ministries [many of which society greatly depends upon].

In more than four decades of preaching I have strongly worked to make the church a politics-free zone.

But should I have the right to make an exception if I judged a candidate to be a blatant threat to religious liberty or to the religious values I hold? What if a local politician was out to punish a religious viewpoint or was hostile to religion in general (not far-fetched possibilities)?

Indeed, I should have the right to speak out.

But the general principle is sound and important. It keeps our message on track and undiluted. It does not drive people from the church through unnecessary partisanship.

The bottom line is that the IRS restriction was badly birthed and should be laid to rest. In the meantime, those of us who speak for our faiths should not look to the tax code to either dictate the bounds of our proclamation or tutor us how to stay on the right religious track.
__________

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

[Note: A candlelight remembrance was held near the Seal Beach pier the evening of October 11 in memory of the eight deaths and one serious injury at Orange County’s worst mass murder.]

It was my privilege to be senior pastor of Grace Community Church here in Old Town for 28 years, until this past January. It has been my privilege to be a minister in the area these past 42 years.

In 1970, just four months into my pastorate in Long Beach, this young pastor was called the evening after Christmas to come to downtown Long Beach, where one of our church members and his father had been murdered in the store they owned.

Little could I have imagined—less than three months before my retirement at my church in Seal Beach I would be called to the Salon Meritage following the terrible killings and trauma there.

The peaceful community of Seal Beach has been changed forever. I thank God for every opportunity he has given me to be of service to the victims’ families and to our community in the aftermath of that tragedy.

We may ask ourselves and others, including ministers, about why God would permit this to happen. I’ve long given up on the “Why?” question when it comes to God’s ways. I simply don’t know, and when I don’t know it’s better not to speak.

But at the human level I can answer the “Why?” questions.
• Because one man chose to break the commandment, “Thou shalt not murder.”
• Because one man did not “love his neighbor as himself.”
• Because one man did not regard the Golden Rule as worthy of practice: “Do unto others what you would have others do unto you.”

Now, one year removed from this event, many of us still cry out to God in the words of the biblical psalmist if we feel God is distant:

Why, O Lord, do you stand far off?
Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?

And the answer returns to us:

But you, O God, do see trouble and grief.
The victim commits himself to you;
you are the helper of the fatherless.

You hear, O Lord, the desire of the afflicted;
you encourage them, and you listen to their cry.

In this spirit we gather as the close-knit community of Seal Beach to remember, to pray, to reach out and comfort one another, to be God’s hands of mercy and peace.

By Donald Shoemaker
Senior Chaplain, Seal Beach Police Department
Pastor Emeritus, Grace Community Church

First Lutheran Church in Mansfield, Ohio—Our Visit in August, 2012

First English Lutheran Church of Mansfield was founded in 1832. Its present edifice was built in the 1890’s (for $40,000!!!). As a child I attended this church in the late 40’s and early 50’s with my parents.

My mother and I left it in the mid-50’s, joining others who thought the church too “modernist” and who went to the growing and vibrant Grace Brethren Church instead. First Lutheran disaffiliated from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) in 2010 and is now affiliated with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), a solidly biblical, confessional denomination committed to “The Great Commission.”

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 Mary and I attended morning worship while we were in town. The ambience of the sanctuary is always compelling—the Gospel Story surrounds you before you hear it once again. The people were warm and friendly. The pipe organist was excellent and the hymns and liturgy uplifting. Pastor Paul Larson gave a fine expository message on our spiritual battle and armor (from Ephesians 6). The hymns were on this theme—I haven’t sung “Onward Christian Soldiers” for years.

A contemporary service also meets during the same hour. The pastor speaks in both services. These two worshipping bodies meet together whenever there is a 5th Sunday of the month.

The church is located in the center of Mansfield. Its attendance is a fraction of what it was sixty years ago. That part of town has “seen its day,” but the church is centrally located minutes from anywhere in the city and has plenty of parking.

We were delighted to attend. The church should have a great future. We pray God’s ongoing blessing on this church family. (see: www.felc-mansfield.org)

I’m privileged to chair the Social Concerns Committee in my denomination, the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches.  One task I have is writing resolutions for our annual conference.  The following resolution on IMMIGRATION was passed by the conference.  My prayer is that this will motivate many—in my denomination or not, Christian or not—toward meaningful change.

Immigration

 Recognizing that:

1. All people are made in the Image of God,
2. Respect for the rule of law is essential in a civil society,
3. Secure borders are the right and need of every nation,
4. Israel was frequently reminded by God that she should show mercy to the immigrant because she, too, was once an oppressed and exploited people,
5. The prophets in Scripture demanded special compassion to the exploited and vulnerable, including the “alien in the land”,
6. Our nation is populated by people from a multitude of cultures and lands, and
7. The presence of undocumented immigrants in this country (and in our churches) is a fact and a complex issue not easily resolved,

(1) We therefore call on our churches to give prayer, thought, discussion and action toward addressing the problem of the undocumented immigrant in a God-honoring way.

(2) We recognize the divisive and controversial nature of this debate and we encourage dialogue in the churches that is respectful, open-minded and solution-focused.

(3) We further call on our churches to be the “reconciling presence of Christ” in the midst of a broken system that creates rancor, resentment, racism, selfishness, fear, exploitation, danger and disregard for law.

(4) We call on our society and elected leaders to rise above political posturing and rancor to work toward a solution on immigration that:

1. Respects the God-given dignity of every person,
2. Rejects the nativism that ignores the love of God for all and our country’s history of immigration and openness to the foreigner, as captured in the words enshrined on the Statue of Liberty,
3. Protects the unity of the immediate family and seeks the best interests of native-born children of undocumented immigrants,
4. Respects the rule of law,
5. Holds employers accountable for ensuring the legal status of workers,
6. Creates secure national borders,
7. Ensures fairness to taxpayers,
8. Develops a generous and fair “guest worker” program,
9. Protects all immigrants from exploitation and violence, and
10. Establishes a pathway toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents or citizens—a pathway that both achieves justice and loves mercy.

We recognize that meaningful solutions to this problem are not easily reached.  We also recognize the solutions must come through a determined will to reach them and cannot be ignored time after time, year after year.

Babies, Grown-ups & Pastoral Change

By Donald Shoemaker

(First written on Sunday, July 15, 2012)

Spiritual babies in the church will have loyalties to certain people and groups and what they represent.  Some will look to the Senior Pastor, others maybe to the youth or music ministries, others to the person who brought them to Christ or deeply touched them some other way.

Nothing wrong with that, so long as this baby feature is coming from a baby.  But it should not continue on in the spiritual journey into the time when we ought to be grown up.  A spiritual grown-up will look past individuals and groups to see the whole church and how each of these leaders and all these groups contribute to the whole.  A Christian stuck in spiritual babyhood may still cling to the ministry of an individual and fuss or even fade away when that individual isn’t there as before.

As a “rule of thumb,” if one is still devoted to certain individuals or groups and not to the whole church after three years along the spiritual journey, spiritual growth has been stunted and babyhood has continued too long.  I take this from what Paul expected of the Corinthian church—and how it had fallen short—when he wrote1 Corinthians (1:10-17 and 3:1-15 especially).

Thus, now six months into my post-senior-pastor mode, I take great delight and satisfaction to see how church life at Grace Community Church of Seal Beach, California is flourishing.

Contrary to some expectations and models, our church shows itself grown up in the face of pastoral changes.  It isn’t hanging on to the pastor’s shirttail after 28 years of a good shepherd/sheep relationship.  It is willing to support new leaders recognizing, after all, we’re all on the same team with the same goals.  Its willingness to avoid petty quarreling and pull for the good of the church and look beyond this-or-that pastoral individual is seen in the attendance, enthusiasm, giving, service, dedication and overall spirit of the church!

Ponder some words from the Apostle Paul’s valuable lesson (1 Corinthians 3:1-9 New International Version):

“Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly —mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it.  Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly.  For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly?  Are you not acting like mere men?  For when one says, ‘I follow Paul,’ and another, ‘I follow Apollos,’ are you not mere men?

“What, after all, is Apollos?  And what is Paul?  Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.  I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.  So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.  The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor.  For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field…”

All church leaders are “servants” fulfilling God’s assignments and working for a common purpose.  God, not any man, makes the church grow healthfully.  This is how I prayed and worked for it to be.  This is what I saw as I observed at church this Sunday.  Let these good times roll!

www.donaldshoemakerministries.com

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.