ABCs of ATT: Governmental Gun-trusion
Yet again, senseless gun violence left its unsuspecting victims bereaved, bloodied, stunned, and inconsolably shaken; some less fortunate moviegoers didn’t survive this month’s deadly attack in Aurora, Colorado. It stands to reason that high-profile incidents, as this, demand public debate regarding gun ownership and safety.
Given a documentable, nationwide pattern of annual gun abuse in America’s schools, it’s becoming increasingly indefensible to argue that mass shooting incidents are “rare.” Sharing the frustration of most, and parroting increasingly popular belief, my hairdresser offered his solution: “Guns shouldn’t be legal.” He added, “We need to confiscate them all.”
Compelling as this sounds, attorney Phyllis Schlafly notes that, despite widespread misconceptions, gun control will not reduce firearms violence. Case in point: Passed five years before the Columbine massacre, the last significant federal gun law (Assault Weapons Ban, 1994) failed to abate subsequent gun rampages.
Obvious Solution
While there’s no easy solution, there is an obvious one. Benito Mussolini understood that, to restore public order, it’s necessary to issue a categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. The result he described as “satisfactory.” But for whom?
In 1788, George Mason warned “to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Hitler agreed. One of his first acts was to confiscate firearms from Jews. In Hitler’s view, "the most foolish mistake … would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.” Purporting "all political power comes from the barrel of a gun,” Chairman Mao insisted “the communist party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."?
In contrast, when ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution established the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, a right “not to be infringed." Not by Hitler; not by Mao; not even by the President of the United States.
Terrorism on the Taxpayer’s Dime
Wearied by gun violence, often in normally peaceful communities, many believe instead that guns belong in the hands of authorities alone. Political correctness tramples common sense when Second Amendment naysayers accept that government can be trusted; but “we, the people” can’t.
Fostering this politically correct mindset, today’s public schools force children to endure realistic, very intense, and deeply traumatizing drills in preparation for potential gun attacks. Sometimes unbeknownst even to teachers, men in full military gear point guns, then fire blank rounds, at unsuspecting kids. Disturbingly, “children’s war games,” as this, are being mandated at the state level from coast to coast—annually, monthly, or several times a year.
Sometimes parents and teachers are notified in advance; sometimes not. Imagine the terror of finding local roads closed and emergency vehicles surrounding your child’s school and, then, discovering that your kid had been terrorized, shot at, instructed to feign gun injuries, forcefully relocated (some, temporarily housed elsewhere) away from parents with whom they’ve been denied cell phone contact.
Good Guys—or Bad?
Just when you think it can’t get any worse, you learn that in Muskegon County, Michigan, students and teachers are told that imaginary homeschoolers placed and detonated a bomb on a school bus. In New Jersey, they heard that “pretend” gunmen were "The New Crusaders"—specifically, rightwing, fundamentalist Christians who don't believe in separation of church and state.
Children under siege learn quickly that seemingly harmless neighbors and friends aren’t to be trusted, and government knows best. It’s been said, “When facts, truth and reality don't matter, critical thinking is an unnecessary skill.” Then again, facts, truth and reality DO matter. Think Castro, Qaddafi, Stalin, Idi Amin, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot. To this list, I add the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
In June, a Greeley, Colorado woman filed a lawsuit—a legitimate one, in my view. While looking for a previous tenant who had left the address more than a year earlier, armed ATF agents violently stormed her home—without a warrant—broke down her son’s bedroom door, slammed her against a wall, then handcuffed and pointed multiple machine pistols at her eight-year old son and her. Upon emptying her purse for ID, the intruders realized she was not the person they were after. Those charged with protecting instead terrorized mother and child and, then, left the two unnerved and forever traumatized. No apologizes offered.
When the Indiana Supreme Court ruled “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry” by gun-wielding police officers, the court admitted it was overturning hundreds of years of law going back to the Magna Carta, not to mention U.S. Supreme Court decisions. While authorities have a job to do, terrorizing unarmed, law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be one of them.
Infringement by Design
Even so, American citizens have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms; moreover, they have a right to defend themselves against crime and tyranny. Nevertheless, modern liberals believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans pose more of a threat than, say, nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese. Forget the Reds; gun-toting civilians must be stopped.
Someone’s got to do something, and Obama’s just the man to do it! Ostensibly to fight against terrorism, insurgency, and international crime syndicates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced that the Obama Administration is working with the United Nations on a globally enforceable Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to regulate firearms and prevent their exportation.
Global Gun-trusion Under Fire
The ATT has been met with a firestorm of opposition. But, never fear: "Urban myth" tester, Snopes.com, has a word for viral e-mails that allege this treaty provides a "legal way around the Second Amendment." That word is "scarelore."
But what’s “scary” isn’t always “lore.” Guess who holds the conference’s top, elected post? You got it: Iran. The same Iran that (1) imposes (to quote Ahmadinejad) “burning in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury” on “anybody who recognizes Israel” and (2) supplies Syria with weaponry to massacre its own civilians. Yes, that Iran.
With Iran tasked to devise a treaty to regulate global trade of conventional arms, it’s no big stretch to imagine how the ATT scheme will unfold. First, it will require countries to inventory and, then, register all guns. Eventually, guns previously owned by private citizens will be banned. In the end, a newly created international gun registry will set the stage for full-scale gun confiscation. Urban myth? I think not.
“Scarelore” or “Scheme-antics”?
When nations of the world meet in New York this July 27, 2012, Hillary will be among the treaty’s likely signers. A goodly number of U.S. Senators oppose ATT—double the number needed—but that won’t stop her. If a ratification vote destines the treaty for defeat, why, then, would she sign? Be sure Hillary has a trick up her sleeve—namely, the Vienna Convention to which the United States is signatory.
According to the convention, an international treaty is enforceable unless (1) rejected by the Senate or (2) renounced by the President. With Obama’s reelection, four and one-half years of gun control will become established law; and U.S. District Courts will rule accordingly. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the ATT would wield power of a constitutional amendment. So: Bye-bye, Second Amendment.
Frankly, I don’t feel any safer for it.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2004/09/22/anti-homeschooling_bigots_strike_again
WND EXCLUSIVE Published: 06/05/2012 at 8:55 PM. http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/atf-agents-point-gun-at-8-year-old/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/un-arms-treaty-iran/2012/07/10/id/444942?s=al&promo_code=F6DE-1&utm_source=WEEKLY+WRAP-UP +7%2F20%2F12&utm_campaign=7%2F20%2F12&utm_medium=email
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Fallacies of Logic
When Issues Ignite Ire
Part 2: Fallacies of Logic Do Not a Fair Fight Make
Especially throughout this season of campaigning for the highest office in the land, emotions run deep; and folks don’t always see eye to eye. Passionate exchanges are inevitable, even within the faith community. While engaging allies or adversaries, our charge as believers is to employ clear thinking, alongside conviction, because fallacies of logic do not a fair fight make.
Straw Man Fallacy
One way of strengthening a weak position is to respond in advance to the anticipated arguments of one’s opponents. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and, then, knocks it down.
Consider, for example, a four-year legal fight in Washington State in which two individual pharmacists and a family-owned pharmacy could be forced out of their profession solely because of their religious beliefs. You see, plaintiffs correctly view moral choice as their constitutional right under the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution. They cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B or Ella because they believe human life begins at the moment of fertilization; and both drugs operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo.
Opponents insist that for plaintiffs to exercise conscientious objection is to deny a woman her right to reproductive health. This is especially true, defendants argue, in the case of rural patients seeking Emergency Contraception. Reasonable as it sounds, this simply is not so. Even in remote, rural areas, resources are available to patients through Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), the prescribing physician, social services, the internet, and/or third party delivery services—e.g., collaborative agreements, remote telepharmacy programs, automated dispensing machines, and/or balancing systems for owners of pharmacy chains.
It can’t be emphasized enough that, with or without referrals, there’s no documented access problem for any drug in the State of Washington (Plan B included). A patient’s need for timely delivery is met effectively by “alternative” facilitated referral.
Summarily dismissing right to conscience, President Obama announced in January 2012 that most religious employers must provide full medical insurance coverage for contraceptives, including abortion-causing drugs like Plan B and Ella. Thereafter, the President “softened” his position; but Andrew Jackson understood what our current administration is slow to grasp: “As long as our government … secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.”
False Dichotomy Fallacy
This election year, another popular fallacy is that of false dichotomy in which the arguer sets up a situation to look like there are only two viable choices when, in reality, many more exist. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that only one remains—namely, the one the arguer posed in the first place.
For example, worshippers at Congregation Kol Shalom on Bainbridge Island in Washington are told, rightly so, that amid “all the howling” on both sides of the issue, few take the time to see what the Bible actually says about same-sex marriage. I agree with the Rabbi, “Reflective Bible study doesn’t come easily.” However, it would seem, his treatment of scripture is more “defective” than it is “reflective.”
In a special article printed in the Seattle Times (21 January 2012), the Rabbi explains what he believes the Bible to say about the matter. First, he distinguishes between the Christian Bible and Hebrew Scriptures. Of the Torah’s nearly six thousand verses, the Rabbi offers two that prohibit a man from lying with another man, as he lies with a woman.
Significantly, in presenting his case on behalf of gay marriage, the Rabbi fails to reference Genesis 19:5-11, 24, 25; Deuteronomy 22:5; 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 22:46; or Judges 19:22; and he dismisses altogether applicable New Testament references.
Instead, he selects two Bible verses, which he presents as comprehensive. The first, Leviticus 18:22, reads, “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman.” According to Leviticus 20:13, to do so is a capital offense. Both, of course, cinch the biblical case opposing gay marriage; but these reasonably clear references apparently don’t qualify as definitive in the Rabbi’s view.
Begging the Question
The Rabbi sets up a situation to appear as if the Bible’s treatment of the subject is limited when, in fact, that is not the case. Then, he commences to “beg the question.” An argument that begs the question asks the reader simply to accept the conclusion without providing real evidence. The argument relies either on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion ("being circular" or "circular reasoning"), or it simply ignores an important (but debatable) assumption upon which the argument rests—namely, that the Leviticus references expressly forbid gay marriage.
Rampant Rationalization
Next, the Rabbi rationalizes that, in prohibiting homosexuality, God fails to explicitly prohibit lesbianism. “If the Bible is to be our guide,” he adds, “we’ll be hard-pressed to find a reason to forbid women from marrying women.”
In attempting to strengthen his original position, the Rabbi introduces doubt by posing a provocative version of the serpent’s question to Eve, “Hath God said?” Literally, the Rabbi explains, a man isn’t supposed to “woman-lay.” Perhaps the Bible simply prohibits certain sexual positions (like the missionary position?), or maybe God doesn’t want sex between men to be patterned after sex between a man and woman—i.e., as an act of conquest.
Tellingly, the Rabbi grabs at straws by admitting same-sex marriage “hadn’t been invented back then.” In this, he unwittingly accepts its having been birthed from a human (carnal) mind—not as part of God’s plan outlined in the Book of Genesis. Finally, he offers the real crux of the issue: To prohibit same-sex marriage would be as successful as folks today attempting to stop Facebook. In other words, just go with the flow.
Once sanitizing homosexual marriage as inevitable, the Rabbi sanctions it as reflective of loving one another and treating others with dignity and respect. He reasons that, while we’re together on the journey of life, we must be nice and get along.
In this, Rabbi Mark S. Glickman presents a viewpoint popularly held among the religious left. For the sake of consensus, he precipitously dismisses Bible truth for “unnatural selection.” By posing the puzzling question (“Hath God said?”), the Rabbi suggests (wrongly so) that God is more “nice” than He is sovereign.
Problem is, being “nice” doesn’t qualify as fruit of the spirit, and the Bible doesn’t explicitly command adversaries to “get along.” Nor does either solve the same-sex marriage issue. No one argues that traditional marriages are free from attack. Many end in divorce. However, homosexual relationships are not the answer just because the practice is increasingly accepted in a culture that has lost spiritual mooring.
Whereas 85% of married women remain true to their marriage vows for lifetime, and 75% of married men do likewise, numerous studies show that male homosexual relationships are most accurately measured in months rather than years. Specifically, a Netherlands study published in AIDS pinpointed the "duration of steady partnerships" to be 1.5 years. In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male live-in relationship lasts between two and three years; and a Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men further found that only 2.7% of homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime (Paul Van de Ven et al). These facts undermine any argument attempting to equate gay marriage with marriage in the biblical tradition.
Tradition Under Fire
Forget that the Constitution never gave final say on constitutional matters to the Supreme Court. By February 2011, President Obama had instructed the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), which legally prohibits federal recognition of so-called same-sex marriages.
G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Any man who is cut off from the past … is a man most unjustly disinherited.” Throughout the course of history, marriage between one man and one woman has been the most fundamental institution of the whole of civilization. It represents the traditional building block of human society.
Embracing a homosexual neighbor or co-worker is not the same thing as normalizing homosexual marriage. For Lawrence v. Texas to protect sodomy under the Constitution’s so-called “right to privacy” demonstrates what a great Christian statesman, Lord Shaftesbury, famously argued: What is morally reprehensible cannot be politically right. Morality is more than a strategy for self-development, and the right to marriage is more than the right to state-defined benefits.
Serving as the prologue to homosexual marriage in America, this 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling was the prelude, as well, to legally sanctioned polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.” Justice Antonin Scalia adds, the decision “effectively decrees the end of all moral legislation.”
Consequences of Moral Confusion
Arguably, our nation’s principles of ethical behavior and criminal justice are firmly rooted in Bible truth. Indeed, founders granted freedom conditionally, based upon a citizen’s constant exercise of religious responsibility.
Unfortunately, America today houses two irreconcilably opposing cultures. One is Bible based; the other, decidedly not. Unless and until our national mind is cleared of the cobwebs of fuzzy thinking, history is destined to repeat itself: Once a society forfeits moral absolutes, totalitarian power inevitably moves in to fill the vacuum and, then, to order resulting chaos.
Notable historian Arnold Toynbee fingered a clear indication of declining civilization: It’s when the elites mimic vulgarity and promiscuity of a “dominant minority” representing what he describes as “society’s bottom-dwellers.”
Unless Christians expose fallacies of logic, sexual “rights” will triumph over free expression of religion; academia will altogether silence politically incorrect speech; and ministers will be punished for preaching the Bible. In other words, the “grand experiment” we call America will have failed.
1. Stormans v. Selecky, a landmark case handled by the Becket Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects the
religious liberty of all faiths. Also on the legal team are lawyers Kristen Waggoner and Steve O’Ban with Seattle-based
law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. Plaintiffs are challenging the Washington State Pharmacy Board ruling that, despite religious objections, pharmacies must forfeit their prerogative to facilitated referral and stock/dispense early abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella.
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified effective 15 December 1791, follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
3. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13.
4. Romans 1:26-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7,10.
5. Galatians 5:22-23—The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
6. Charles Colson. “Addressing Sexual Dis-Integration.” The Sky is Not Falling: Living Fearlessly in These Turbulent Times: 2011, p.51.
Part 2: Fallacies of Logic Do Not a Fair Fight Make
Especially throughout this season of campaigning for the highest office in the land, emotions run deep; and folks don’t always see eye to eye. Passionate exchanges are inevitable, even within the faith community. While engaging allies or adversaries, our charge as believers is to employ clear thinking, alongside conviction, because fallacies of logic do not a fair fight make.
Straw Man Fallacy
One way of strengthening a weak position is to respond in advance to the anticipated arguments of one’s opponents. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and, then, knocks it down.
Consider, for example, a four-year legal fight in Washington State in which two individual pharmacists and a family-owned pharmacy could be forced out of their profession solely because of their religious beliefs. You see, plaintiffs correctly view moral choice as their constitutional right under the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution. They cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B or Ella because they believe human life begins at the moment of fertilization; and both drugs operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo.
Opponents insist that for plaintiffs to exercise conscientious objection is to deny a woman her right to reproductive health. This is especially true, defendants argue, in the case of rural patients seeking Emergency Contraception. Reasonable as it sounds, this simply is not so. Even in remote, rural areas, resources are available to patients through Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), the prescribing physician, social services, the internet, and/or third party delivery services—e.g., collaborative agreements, remote telepharmacy programs, automated dispensing machines, and/or balancing systems for owners of pharmacy chains.
It can’t be emphasized enough that, with or without referrals, there’s no documented access problem for any drug in the State of Washington (Plan B included). A patient’s need for timely delivery is met effectively by “alternative” facilitated referral.
Summarily dismissing right to conscience, President Obama announced in January 2012 that most religious employers must provide full medical insurance coverage for contraceptives, including abortion-causing drugs like Plan B and Ella. Thereafter, the President “softened” his position; but Andrew Jackson understood what our current administration is slow to grasp: “As long as our government … secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.”
False Dichotomy Fallacy
This election year, another popular fallacy is that of false dichotomy in which the arguer sets up a situation to look like there are only two viable choices when, in reality, many more exist. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that only one remains—namely, the one the arguer posed in the first place.
For example, worshippers at Congregation Kol Shalom on Bainbridge Island in Washington are told, rightly so, that amid “all the howling” on both sides of the issue, few take the time to see what the Bible actually says about same-sex marriage. I agree with the Rabbi, “Reflective Bible study doesn’t come easily.” However, it would seem, his treatment of scripture is more “defective” than it is “reflective.”
In a special article printed in the Seattle Times (21 January 2012), the Rabbi explains what he believes the Bible to say about the matter. First, he distinguishes between the Christian Bible and Hebrew Scriptures. Of the Torah’s nearly six thousand verses, the Rabbi offers two that prohibit a man from lying with another man, as he lies with a woman.
Significantly, in presenting his case on behalf of gay marriage, the Rabbi fails to reference Genesis 19:5-11, 24, 25; Deuteronomy 22:5; 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 22:46; or Judges 19:22; and he dismisses altogether applicable New Testament references.
Instead, he selects two Bible verses, which he presents as comprehensive. The first, Leviticus 18:22, reads, “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman.” According to Leviticus 20:13, to do so is a capital offense. Both, of course, cinch the biblical case opposing gay marriage; but these reasonably clear references apparently don’t qualify as definitive in the Rabbi’s view.
Begging the Question
The Rabbi sets up a situation to appear as if the Bible’s treatment of the subject is limited when, in fact, that is not the case. Then, he commences to “beg the question.” An argument that begs the question asks the reader simply to accept the conclusion without providing real evidence. The argument relies either on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion ("being circular" or "circular reasoning"), or it simply ignores an important (but debatable) assumption upon which the argument rests—namely, that the Leviticus references expressly forbid gay marriage.
Rampant Rationalization
Next, the Rabbi rationalizes that, in prohibiting homosexuality, God fails to explicitly prohibit lesbianism. “If the Bible is to be our guide,” he adds, “we’ll be hard-pressed to find a reason to forbid women from marrying women.”
In attempting to strengthen his original position, the Rabbi introduces doubt by posing a provocative version of the serpent’s question to Eve, “Hath God said?” Literally, the Rabbi explains, a man isn’t supposed to “woman-lay.” Perhaps the Bible simply prohibits certain sexual positions (like the missionary position?), or maybe God doesn’t want sex between men to be patterned after sex between a man and woman—i.e., as an act of conquest.
Tellingly, the Rabbi grabs at straws by admitting same-sex marriage “hadn’t been invented back then.” In this, he unwittingly accepts its having been birthed from a human (carnal) mind—not as part of God’s plan outlined in the Book of Genesis. Finally, he offers the real crux of the issue: To prohibit same-sex marriage would be as successful as folks today attempting to stop Facebook. In other words, just go with the flow.
Once sanitizing homosexual marriage as inevitable, the Rabbi sanctions it as reflective of loving one another and treating others with dignity and respect. He reasons that, while we’re together on the journey of life, we must be nice and get along.
In this, Rabbi Mark S. Glickman presents a viewpoint popularly held among the religious left. For the sake of consensus, he precipitously dismisses Bible truth for “unnatural selection.” By posing the puzzling question (“Hath God said?”), the Rabbi suggests (wrongly so) that God is more “nice” than He is sovereign.
Problem is, being “nice” doesn’t qualify as fruit of the spirit, and the Bible doesn’t explicitly command adversaries to “get along.” Nor does either solve the same-sex marriage issue. No one argues that traditional marriages are free from attack. Many end in divorce. However, homosexual relationships are not the answer just because the practice is increasingly accepted in a culture that has lost spiritual mooring.
Whereas 85% of married women remain true to their marriage vows for lifetime, and 75% of married men do likewise, numerous studies show that male homosexual relationships are most accurately measured in months rather than years. Specifically, a Netherlands study published in AIDS pinpointed the "duration of steady partnerships" to be 1.5 years. In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male live-in relationship lasts between two and three years; and a Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men further found that only 2.7% of homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime (Paul Van de Ven et al). These facts undermine any argument attempting to equate gay marriage with marriage in the biblical tradition.
Tradition Under Fire
Forget that the Constitution never gave final say on constitutional matters to the Supreme Court. By February 2011, President Obama had instructed the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), which legally prohibits federal recognition of so-called same-sex marriages.
G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Any man who is cut off from the past … is a man most unjustly disinherited.” Throughout the course of history, marriage between one man and one woman has been the most fundamental institution of the whole of civilization. It represents the traditional building block of human society.
Embracing a homosexual neighbor or co-worker is not the same thing as normalizing homosexual marriage. For Lawrence v. Texas to protect sodomy under the Constitution’s so-called “right to privacy” demonstrates what a great Christian statesman, Lord Shaftesbury, famously argued: What is morally reprehensible cannot be politically right. Morality is more than a strategy for self-development, and the right to marriage is more than the right to state-defined benefits.
Serving as the prologue to homosexual marriage in America, this 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling was the prelude, as well, to legally sanctioned polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.” Justice Antonin Scalia adds, the decision “effectively decrees the end of all moral legislation.”
Consequences of Moral Confusion
Arguably, our nation’s principles of ethical behavior and criminal justice are firmly rooted in Bible truth. Indeed, founders granted freedom conditionally, based upon a citizen’s constant exercise of religious responsibility.
Unfortunately, America today houses two irreconcilably opposing cultures. One is Bible based; the other, decidedly not. Unless and until our national mind is cleared of the cobwebs of fuzzy thinking, history is destined to repeat itself: Once a society forfeits moral absolutes, totalitarian power inevitably moves in to fill the vacuum and, then, to order resulting chaos.
Notable historian Arnold Toynbee fingered a clear indication of declining civilization: It’s when the elites mimic vulgarity and promiscuity of a “dominant minority” representing what he describes as “society’s bottom-dwellers.”
Unless Christians expose fallacies of logic, sexual “rights” will triumph over free expression of religion; academia will altogether silence politically incorrect speech; and ministers will be punished for preaching the Bible. In other words, the “grand experiment” we call America will have failed.
1. Stormans v. Selecky, a landmark case handled by the Becket Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects the
religious liberty of all faiths. Also on the legal team are lawyers Kristen Waggoner and Steve O’Ban with Seattle-based
law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. Plaintiffs are challenging the Washington State Pharmacy Board ruling that, despite religious objections, pharmacies must forfeit their prerogative to facilitated referral and stock/dispense early abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella.
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified effective 15 December 1791, follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
3. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13.
4. Romans 1:26-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7,10.
5. Galatians 5:22-23—The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
6. Charles Colson. “Addressing Sexual Dis-Integration.” The Sky is Not Falling: Living Fearlessly in These Turbulent Times: 2011, p.51.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Be Angry, but Sin Not
When Issues Ignite Ire
Part 1: Be Angry, but Sin Not
Whether self-described as “right” or “left,” “faith-based” or “secular,” “conservative,” “liberal,” or “moderate,” those engaged in the political process poise themselves for battle. Unfortunately, the voice of reason is too often sidestepped. As agenda-driven politicians lick their chops in anticipation of a pending presidential election, scathing rhetoric escalates all the more.
With this in view, I’m reminded that Jesus was no stranger to “telling it like it is.” However, in characterizing Pharisees as “white-washed tombs” and “a brood of vipers,” He never succumbed to conspiratorial plotting, pride, hatred, or lies. Only fools engage in slander, and Jesus was no fool!
Following His example, Bible honoring Christians must speak out boldly without fear of ridicule or, in extreme cases, persecution. But, frankly, as a Christian, I’m sometimes at a loss. Wisdom dictates that a “soft answer turns away wrath,” but I’m often befuddled as to how best to broach flammable issues that, by their very nature, ignite ire.
Navigating Strategically Set Land Mines
True, our adversaries draw from an arsenal of dubious political tactics; but tit for tat hardly becomes a Christian. Before jumping into the fray, we best examine our own motives and the accuracy of our information. Both should remain above reproach.
Given the postmodern mindset, ceding to “common ground”—i.e., the lowest common denominator—is deemed necessary. Not so for Christians. Simply by choosing the narrow way less commonly traveled, and by acknowledging moral absolutes, fundamentalists bear the unfair label of being somehow divisive.
In navigating strategically set land mines, Christians must remain ever mindful that postmodern ground rules forbid “adversarial processes”—e.g., proclaiming Bible truth. Given the dialectic process, ends always justify means. Accordingly, in Sustainable Values, Ross McCluney calls for a new, more liberal core set of “universal” values distinguished by imagination, ambiguity, and “evolving truth.”
To uphold Bible truth, Christians must challenge what’s wrong, not go along with it. Otherwise, rugged individualism will take its final bow to consensus, and “gray” thinking will trump absolutes. Hence, for Bible honoring Christians, the art of “collaboration” goes beyond difficult. It can be downright impossible.
The Civility Card Tactic
George Orwell explained: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Even when its presentation is diplomatic, this revolutionary act is tagged “uncivil.” Count on it. Playing the civility card is intended to silence one’s opponent, and it does a great job of it. Once accused of incivility, the faint hearted wilt and fade so as not to appear bullish. In response, opponents skillfully steer the sheepish into conceding core convictions about traditional family, national patriotism, religious dogma, and the like.
Opportunistic Outrage
Shifting accountability from self to others, many tacticians feign “outrage” over moral failings of their adversaries. As Christians, we’re to “judge nothing before the time until the Lord come.” That is to say, while Christians rightly exercise and act upon spiritual discernment, they mustn’t usurp God’s position as Supreme Judge. Furthermore, before attempting to remove a speck from another’s eye, they first must remove the log from theirs.
When it comes to politics, however, Christian activists sometimes fall prey to bouts of opportunistic outrage when, instead, they should strive more diligently to be irreproachable workmen who honor the Bible, “all men,” and dignitaries for whom they are commanded to pray.
Our purpose, as Christians, isn’t to prove others wrong. Rather, we’re to seek truth and, with meekness and due reverence, give account for our findings. In so doing, we remain fully aware of our personal limitations and strive to avoid nonproductive wrangling over dogma intended to advance some church-, philosophical-, or political- agenda. Apart from God’s calling, we mustn’t presume to teach others lest, by our own errors and shortcomings, we lead them astray.
“Iron sharpens iron,” and that’s a good thing. However, in wielding the sword of truth, believers mustn’t go so far as to disembowel their fellows! Divide and conquer is the Devil’s work. He’s the consummate accuser. Christians aren’t.
Hot Button Christianity
Because their respective worldviews are altogether incompatible, Christians simply won’t see eye-to-eye with secularists. In the Book of Amos, we learn that two cannot walk together except they’re agreed; nonetheless, the basis of fellowship with other believers is not so much agreement when it comes to highly disputed or complicated theology. Rather, it’s founded on shared, saving knowledge of Jesus Christ—distinguished by sound biblical belief and shameless confession of one’s faith.
Curious, isn’t it, that in the Gospels Jesus posed over 300 questions and, when asked some 183 questions, He answered only three of them [Don Everts and Doug Schaupp, I Once was Lost (IVP, 2008)]. Jesus wasn’t uninformed or confused. Rather, we glean from this observation that Christianity is not entirely a “tucked-in-tight religion.”
Nonetheless, unity is achievable if, when hot button issues arise, zealots avoid becoming unduly blinded by their own biases. It’s true, there are “deal breakers” rendering compromise impossible; but we’re likely to catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. By following Christ’s example of asking probing questions to expose folly, we’re more likely to accomplish this without capitulating our values and standards.
The Ploy of Stereotyping with Impunity
By taking moral stands, supporters of life (over abortion) and traditional marriage (over gay relationships) are not necessarily hateful. But to special interest groups focused on targeted political agendas, you’d never know it! Such groups accuse principled religionists of phantom phobias and, then, fashion negative stereotypes to belie believers’ rich heritage of abolishing the slave trade, defending human rights, practicing charity, and founding hospitals and schools.
By stereotyping with impunity, opponents undermine traditional values and break ground for rampant secularism, sexual perversion, genderism, Afrocentrism, and radical environmentalism. So powerful are special interest groups that theirs have become, in effect, a fourth branch of government characterized by unchecked power funded through earmarks.
While biblical perspective for holding government in check includes sphere sovereignty, subsidiarity, balance of power, and God’s transcendent law, too many have come to believe that emissaries of an all powerful Nanny State must act for the common good by curbing religious zeal and silencing moral absolutism—this, to foster utopian dream of an illumined, collectivist world order.
My Point?
A secularist who believes that “ends justify means” is expected to play the civility card, feign outrage at moral failings of others, and fashion fallacious stereotypes that discredit opponents. But Christians are held to a much higher standard. In no way are faith-driven citizen activists “just another special interest group” pleading for some self-serving agenda. When issues ignite ire, Christians rightly manifest indignation at what’s wrong, yet their charge is to “sin not.” Believers are commanded to love their enemies and pray for those who abuse or falsely accuse them.
In fighting “the good fight of faith,” believers mustn’t faint. Nor must they engage adversaries with arrogance, hostility, or deceptive practices. Theirs is a spiritual fight in which principled moral positions evade partisanship. Uniquely, their war targets forces of darkness, not the people deceived by them.
There exists a natural order that government “under God” is compelled to respect and uphold. For Christians, “politics is the high calling of ensuring that government protects the pre-political institutions and preserves the moral order.” Standing for truth demands nothing less than absolute integrity.
1. Prominent and influential, Pharisees were a closely organized separatist group at the time of Christ.
2. Psalm 31:13,101:5; Proverbs 11:9; Jeremiah 9:4.
3. Proverb 10:18.
4. Proverbs 15:1.
5. 1 Corinthians 4:5.
6. 1 Corinthians 2:15.
7. Matthew 7:3-5.
8. 2 Timothy 2:15.
9. 1 Peter 2:17
10. Jude 8.
11. 1 Timothy 2:2
12. Acts 17:11.
13. 1 Peter 3:15.
14. 2 Timothy 2:24.
15. 2 Timothy 2:24; 1 Timothy 6:20.
16. James 3:1.
17. Proverbs 27:17.
18. Revelation 12:10.
19. Romans10:9; 2 Timothy 3:16.
20. Marvin Olasky. “Complicated Truth.” World: April 23, 2011, p.84.
21. Ephesians 4:13.
22. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Andrew_M._Miller.
23. Dutch statesman Abraham Kuyper coined the term “sphere sovereignty” to assert that individuals, families, churches, schools, and businesses owe their origin, not to government, but rather to God, before whose face they live. Accordingly, their rightful structures and functions come from Him.
24. Subsidiarity insists that nothing is rightly done by larger, more complex organizations when a smaller one closer to issues at hand can handle it.
25. Ephesians 4:26.
26. Matthew 5:44.
27. 1 Timothy 6:12.
28. Ephesians 6:12.
29. Charles Colson. “The Value of Virtuous Government.” The Sky is Not Falling: Living Fearlessly in These Turbulent
Times: 2011, p.140.
Part 1: Be Angry, but Sin Not
Whether self-described as “right” or “left,” “faith-based” or “secular,” “conservative,” “liberal,” or “moderate,” those engaged in the political process poise themselves for battle. Unfortunately, the voice of reason is too often sidestepped. As agenda-driven politicians lick their chops in anticipation of a pending presidential election, scathing rhetoric escalates all the more.
With this in view, I’m reminded that Jesus was no stranger to “telling it like it is.” However, in characterizing Pharisees as “white-washed tombs” and “a brood of vipers,” He never succumbed to conspiratorial plotting, pride, hatred, or lies. Only fools engage in slander, and Jesus was no fool!
Following His example, Bible honoring Christians must speak out boldly without fear of ridicule or, in extreme cases, persecution. But, frankly, as a Christian, I’m sometimes at a loss. Wisdom dictates that a “soft answer turns away wrath,” but I’m often befuddled as to how best to broach flammable issues that, by their very nature, ignite ire.
Navigating Strategically Set Land Mines
True, our adversaries draw from an arsenal of dubious political tactics; but tit for tat hardly becomes a Christian. Before jumping into the fray, we best examine our own motives and the accuracy of our information. Both should remain above reproach.
Given the postmodern mindset, ceding to “common ground”—i.e., the lowest common denominator—is deemed necessary. Not so for Christians. Simply by choosing the narrow way less commonly traveled, and by acknowledging moral absolutes, fundamentalists bear the unfair label of being somehow divisive.
In navigating strategically set land mines, Christians must remain ever mindful that postmodern ground rules forbid “adversarial processes”—e.g., proclaiming Bible truth. Given the dialectic process, ends always justify means. Accordingly, in Sustainable Values, Ross McCluney calls for a new, more liberal core set of “universal” values distinguished by imagination, ambiguity, and “evolving truth.”
To uphold Bible truth, Christians must challenge what’s wrong, not go along with it. Otherwise, rugged individualism will take its final bow to consensus, and “gray” thinking will trump absolutes. Hence, for Bible honoring Christians, the art of “collaboration” goes beyond difficult. It can be downright impossible.
The Civility Card Tactic
George Orwell explained: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Even when its presentation is diplomatic, this revolutionary act is tagged “uncivil.” Count on it. Playing the civility card is intended to silence one’s opponent, and it does a great job of it. Once accused of incivility, the faint hearted wilt and fade so as not to appear bullish. In response, opponents skillfully steer the sheepish into conceding core convictions about traditional family, national patriotism, religious dogma, and the like.
Opportunistic Outrage
Shifting accountability from self to others, many tacticians feign “outrage” over moral failings of their adversaries. As Christians, we’re to “judge nothing before the time until the Lord come.” That is to say, while Christians rightly exercise and act upon spiritual discernment, they mustn’t usurp God’s position as Supreme Judge. Furthermore, before attempting to remove a speck from another’s eye, they first must remove the log from theirs.
When it comes to politics, however, Christian activists sometimes fall prey to bouts of opportunistic outrage when, instead, they should strive more diligently to be irreproachable workmen who honor the Bible, “all men,” and dignitaries for whom they are commanded to pray.
Our purpose, as Christians, isn’t to prove others wrong. Rather, we’re to seek truth and, with meekness and due reverence, give account for our findings. In so doing, we remain fully aware of our personal limitations and strive to avoid nonproductive wrangling over dogma intended to advance some church-, philosophical-, or political- agenda. Apart from God’s calling, we mustn’t presume to teach others lest, by our own errors and shortcomings, we lead them astray.
“Iron sharpens iron,” and that’s a good thing. However, in wielding the sword of truth, believers mustn’t go so far as to disembowel their fellows! Divide and conquer is the Devil’s work. He’s the consummate accuser. Christians aren’t.
Hot Button Christianity
Because their respective worldviews are altogether incompatible, Christians simply won’t see eye-to-eye with secularists. In the Book of Amos, we learn that two cannot walk together except they’re agreed; nonetheless, the basis of fellowship with other believers is not so much agreement when it comes to highly disputed or complicated theology. Rather, it’s founded on shared, saving knowledge of Jesus Christ—distinguished by sound biblical belief and shameless confession of one’s faith.
Curious, isn’t it, that in the Gospels Jesus posed over 300 questions and, when asked some 183 questions, He answered only three of them [Don Everts and Doug Schaupp, I Once was Lost (IVP, 2008)]. Jesus wasn’t uninformed or confused. Rather, we glean from this observation that Christianity is not entirely a “tucked-in-tight religion.”
Nonetheless, unity is achievable if, when hot button issues arise, zealots avoid becoming unduly blinded by their own biases. It’s true, there are “deal breakers” rendering compromise impossible; but we’re likely to catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. By following Christ’s example of asking probing questions to expose folly, we’re more likely to accomplish this without capitulating our values and standards.
The Ploy of Stereotyping with Impunity
By taking moral stands, supporters of life (over abortion) and traditional marriage (over gay relationships) are not necessarily hateful. But to special interest groups focused on targeted political agendas, you’d never know it! Such groups accuse principled religionists of phantom phobias and, then, fashion negative stereotypes to belie believers’ rich heritage of abolishing the slave trade, defending human rights, practicing charity, and founding hospitals and schools.
By stereotyping with impunity, opponents undermine traditional values and break ground for rampant secularism, sexual perversion, genderism, Afrocentrism, and radical environmentalism. So powerful are special interest groups that theirs have become, in effect, a fourth branch of government characterized by unchecked power funded through earmarks.
While biblical perspective for holding government in check includes sphere sovereignty, subsidiarity, balance of power, and God’s transcendent law, too many have come to believe that emissaries of an all powerful Nanny State must act for the common good by curbing religious zeal and silencing moral absolutism—this, to foster utopian dream of an illumined, collectivist world order.
My Point?
A secularist who believes that “ends justify means” is expected to play the civility card, feign outrage at moral failings of others, and fashion fallacious stereotypes that discredit opponents. But Christians are held to a much higher standard. In no way are faith-driven citizen activists “just another special interest group” pleading for some self-serving agenda. When issues ignite ire, Christians rightly manifest indignation at what’s wrong, yet their charge is to “sin not.” Believers are commanded to love their enemies and pray for those who abuse or falsely accuse them.
In fighting “the good fight of faith,” believers mustn’t faint. Nor must they engage adversaries with arrogance, hostility, or deceptive practices. Theirs is a spiritual fight in which principled moral positions evade partisanship. Uniquely, their war targets forces of darkness, not the people deceived by them.
There exists a natural order that government “under God” is compelled to respect and uphold. For Christians, “politics is the high calling of ensuring that government protects the pre-political institutions and preserves the moral order.” Standing for truth demands nothing less than absolute integrity.
1. Prominent and influential, Pharisees were a closely organized separatist group at the time of Christ.
2. Psalm 31:13,101:5; Proverbs 11:9; Jeremiah 9:4.
3. Proverb 10:18.
4. Proverbs 15:1.
5. 1 Corinthians 4:5.
6. 1 Corinthians 2:15.
7. Matthew 7:3-5.
8. 2 Timothy 2:15.
9. 1 Peter 2:17
10. Jude 8.
11. 1 Timothy 2:2
12. Acts 17:11.
13. 1 Peter 3:15.
14. 2 Timothy 2:24.
15. 2 Timothy 2:24; 1 Timothy 6:20.
16. James 3:1.
17. Proverbs 27:17.
18. Revelation 12:10.
19. Romans10:9; 2 Timothy 3:16.
20. Marvin Olasky. “Complicated Truth.” World: April 23, 2011, p.84.
21. Ephesians 4:13.
22. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Andrew_M._Miller.
23. Dutch statesman Abraham Kuyper coined the term “sphere sovereignty” to assert that individuals, families, churches, schools, and businesses owe their origin, not to government, but rather to God, before whose face they live. Accordingly, their rightful structures and functions come from Him.
24. Subsidiarity insists that nothing is rightly done by larger, more complex organizations when a smaller one closer to issues at hand can handle it.
25. Ephesians 4:26.
26. Matthew 5:44.
27. 1 Timothy 6:12.
28. Ephesians 6:12.
29. Charles Colson. “The Value of Virtuous Government.” The Sky is Not Falling: Living Fearlessly in These Turbulent
Times: 2011, p.140.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Slippery Slope Politics
Right to Free Exercise
Part 2, Slippery Slope Politics
Part 1 Revisited
Once again, a four-year legal fight in Washington State has landed in a federal courtroom. In the end, two individual pharmacists (Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler) and a family-owned pharmacy (Ralph’s Thriftway in Olympia) could be forced out of the pharmacy profession solely because of their religious beliefs. Yes, in America.
The plaintiffs view moral choice as their constitutional right under the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution. They cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B or Ella because they believe human life begins at the moment of fertilization; and both drugs operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo. This dilemma, they’re told, is best resolved through a new line of work. But plaintiffs disagree.
The Pharmacy Board found no evidence that anyone in the State had ever been unable to obtain Plan B (or any other time-sensitive medication) in a timely fashion because of religious objections. Yet conscientious objectors alone have been singled out for refusing to dispense drugs to which they morally object.
FacilitatedReferrals, Yes!
Conscientious Facilitated Referrals? No Way!
It can’t be emphasized enough that, with or without referrals, there’s no documented access problem for any drug in the State of Washington (Plan B included). A patient’s need for timely delivery is met effectively by “alternative” facilitated referral. In fact, a survey initiated by the Pharmacy Board revealed that 85% of the responding pharmacies knew of others within a five-mile radius of their own. Were hospitals and other delivery options listed on that survey, the percentage would be even higher.
Facilitated referral is a time-honored practice that oftentimes better serves patients since it’s potentially faster. Even in remote, rural areas, resources are available to patients through Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the prescribing physician, social services, the internet, and/or third party delivery services—e.g., collaborative agreements, remote telepharmacy programs, automated dispensing machines, and balancing systems for owners of pharmacy chains.
If timely, non-restrictive access were truly a "right," as opposed to a convenience, as the State would have us believe, then all pharmacies would be forced to operate 24/7 under threat of
government enforcement. For now anyway, this isn’t the case.
Non-Neutral, Special Interest Politicking
The Washington State Pharmacy Board argues that rules are “neutral” and “generally applicable.” But this is not the case. In 2006, the State Board of Pharmacy unanimously voted to support a rule protecting pharmacists’ right of conscience until, that is, the Governor’s office
intervened and insisted that the only allowable exemptions must be of the non-moral, non-religious (hence, non-neutral) variety.
At the time, Governor Christine Gregoire replaced several board members with candidates screened by Planned Parenthood; and she boycotted Ralph’s Thriftway that, for decades, had served the Governor’s Mansion. Buckling under the Governor’s pressure, the board ultimately adopted a version of the regulations recommended by the Governor and drafted by Planned
Parenthood. (Can you say “special interest” politicking?)
While the board insists that it’s the pharmacy (not the pharmacist) subject to discipline, the pharmacist nonetheless pays a dear price. Just ask Margo Thelen. A respected pharmacist for decades, Thelen served customers well—sometimes by paying for, or hand delivering, their drugs. With her Spanish-speaking customers in mind, she even hired a tutor to hone her
second language skills!
Aware of her conscientious objection to Plan B, her employer (Safeway) happily accommodated Thelen until, that is, the politically driven new rule made it financially unfeasible. Of three methods the board discussed to accommodate conscientious objectors, one was singling out a conscientious objector for termination.
A single parent and (at the time) sole provider for her household, Thelen felt compelled to leave the job she loved before that could happen. In doing so, she understood that potential employers were more likely to hire a non-conscientious objector, rather than suffer the expense and hassle
of accommodating a religious, moral objector.
Tumbling Down the Slippery Slope
A pharmacist consultant with the Department of Health, Timothy S. Fuller testifies that “safety” is the Pharmacy Board’s driving principle. In practice, however, this isn’t completely true. If forced todispense Plan B, a pharmacy committed to “do no harm” must violate the “safety”
principle with respect to an embryo. After all, the function of an early abortifacient, as Plan B, is to “harm” the embryo’s earliest developmental stage.
Granted, not everyone agrees on these matters, but think about it: Just because something is legal doesn’t make it safe, ethical, ormoral. On the basis of conscience, a pacifist need not go to war, and a nurse need not participate in an abortion. Most concur that, when it comes to Death
with Dignity for adults, health care workers should be free to opt out.
To negate right of conscience on behalf of the unborn is to open the floodgates—perhaps to partial- and live- birth abortions (infanticide), harvesting and selling baby parts in the name of science. All undermine human dignity and violate core principles of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” (specifically for the unborn).
If a provider believes use of legal emergency contraceptives, medical marijuana, and/or lethal drugs for physician-assisted suicides are harmful, he mustn’t be forced to dispense. But if “choicers” have their way, a pharmacist could be strong armed to forfeit choice of conscience,
career, or privately owned business in deference to someone else’s perceived “right” to convenience.
Even Non-Christians Get It!
With the single exception of Washington State, nations of this world collectively affirm everyone’s "right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion … and to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." Check it out: Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In the words of Mohandas Gandhi, “There is a higher court than courts of justice, and that is the court of conscience,” which, he adds, “supersedes all other courts.” This rings especially true for a nation, as ours, founded on biblical principles. Andrew Jackson said it well: “As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.”
A Moral Mandate to Defend Conscience
Deputy National Litigation Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Luke Goodrich rightly insists, “No individual should be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs. If pharmacies can refer patients elsewhere when a drug is unprofitable or out of
stock, they should be allowed to do the same thing when the drugs violate their deepest religious convictions.”
In America folks may agree or disagree with my convictions as a Christian (and I with theirs), but they may not deny me (or anyone) the right to voice and practice heart held convictions. The U.S. Constitution affords everyone the rights to “free exercise” and “due process.”
The First Amendment implicates Washington State pharmacy responsibility and stocking rules; and if all are not enforced, it’s only fair that none should be (Judge Ronald Leighton, December 9, 2011). Agree or not, Albert Einstein cautioned, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”
Make no mistake. Stormans v. Selecky is a landmark case. If special interest politics were to prevail over the constitutional right to “free exercise of religion,” then everyone’s core convictions would be “up for grabs.” Next time, maybe yours.
1. Stormans v. Selecky, a landmark case handled by the Becket Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects thereligious liberty of all faiths. Also on the legal team are lawyers Kristen
Waggoner and Steve O’Ban with Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. Plaintiffs are challenging the Washington State Pharmacy Board ruling that, despite religious objections, pharmacies must forfeit their prerogative to facilitated referral and stock/dispense early
abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella.
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified effective 15 December 1791, follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
3. Curt Woodward, The Seattle Times, 9 July 2009.
4.http://citizen-patriot.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-plan-b-abortifacient.html.
5. Psalm 139:13-14—“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful. I know that full well.”
6. Acts 24:16—“And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man.”
Part 2, Slippery Slope Politics
Part 1 Revisited
Once again, a four-year legal fight in Washington State has landed in a federal courtroom. In the end, two individual pharmacists (Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler) and a family-owned pharmacy (Ralph’s Thriftway in Olympia) could be forced out of the pharmacy profession solely because of their religious beliefs. Yes, in America.
The plaintiffs view moral choice as their constitutional right under the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution. They cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B or Ella because they believe human life begins at the moment of fertilization; and both drugs operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo. This dilemma, they’re told, is best resolved through a new line of work. But plaintiffs disagree.
The Pharmacy Board found no evidence that anyone in the State had ever been unable to obtain Plan B (or any other time-sensitive medication) in a timely fashion because of religious objections. Yet conscientious objectors alone have been singled out for refusing to dispense drugs to which they morally object.
FacilitatedReferrals, Yes!
Conscientious Facilitated Referrals? No Way!
It can’t be emphasized enough that, with or without referrals, there’s no documented access problem for any drug in the State of Washington (Plan B included). A patient’s need for timely delivery is met effectively by “alternative” facilitated referral. In fact, a survey initiated by the Pharmacy Board revealed that 85% of the responding pharmacies knew of others within a five-mile radius of their own. Were hospitals and other delivery options listed on that survey, the percentage would be even higher.
Facilitated referral is a time-honored practice that oftentimes better serves patients since it’s potentially faster. Even in remote, rural areas, resources are available to patients through Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the prescribing physician, social services, the internet, and/or third party delivery services—e.g., collaborative agreements, remote telepharmacy programs, automated dispensing machines, and balancing systems for owners of pharmacy chains.
If timely, non-restrictive access were truly a "right," as opposed to a convenience, as the State would have us believe, then all pharmacies would be forced to operate 24/7 under threat of
government enforcement. For now anyway, this isn’t the case.
Non-Neutral, Special Interest Politicking
The Washington State Pharmacy Board argues that rules are “neutral” and “generally applicable.” But this is not the case. In 2006, the State Board of Pharmacy unanimously voted to support a rule protecting pharmacists’ right of conscience until, that is, the Governor’s office
intervened and insisted that the only allowable exemptions must be of the non-moral, non-religious (hence, non-neutral) variety.
At the time, Governor Christine Gregoire replaced several board members with candidates screened by Planned Parenthood; and she boycotted Ralph’s Thriftway that, for decades, had served the Governor’s Mansion. Buckling under the Governor’s pressure, the board ultimately adopted a version of the regulations recommended by the Governor and drafted by Planned
Parenthood. (Can you say “special interest” politicking?)
While the board insists that it’s the pharmacy (not the pharmacist) subject to discipline, the pharmacist nonetheless pays a dear price. Just ask Margo Thelen. A respected pharmacist for decades, Thelen served customers well—sometimes by paying for, or hand delivering, their drugs. With her Spanish-speaking customers in mind, she even hired a tutor to hone her
second language skills!
Aware of her conscientious objection to Plan B, her employer (Safeway) happily accommodated Thelen until, that is, the politically driven new rule made it financially unfeasible. Of three methods the board discussed to accommodate conscientious objectors, one was singling out a conscientious objector for termination.
A single parent and (at the time) sole provider for her household, Thelen felt compelled to leave the job she loved before that could happen. In doing so, she understood that potential employers were more likely to hire a non-conscientious objector, rather than suffer the expense and hassle
of accommodating a religious, moral objector.
Tumbling Down the Slippery Slope
A pharmacist consultant with the Department of Health, Timothy S. Fuller testifies that “safety” is the Pharmacy Board’s driving principle. In practice, however, this isn’t completely true. If forced todispense Plan B, a pharmacy committed to “do no harm” must violate the “safety”
principle with respect to an embryo. After all, the function of an early abortifacient, as Plan B, is to “harm” the embryo’s earliest developmental stage.
Granted, not everyone agrees on these matters, but think about it: Just because something is legal doesn’t make it safe, ethical, ormoral. On the basis of conscience, a pacifist need not go to war, and a nurse need not participate in an abortion. Most concur that, when it comes to Death
with Dignity for adults, health care workers should be free to opt out.
To negate right of conscience on behalf of the unborn is to open the floodgates—perhaps to partial- and live- birth abortions (infanticide), harvesting and selling baby parts in the name of science. All undermine human dignity and violate core principles of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” (specifically for the unborn).
If a provider believes use of legal emergency contraceptives, medical marijuana, and/or lethal drugs for physician-assisted suicides are harmful, he mustn’t be forced to dispense. But if “choicers” have their way, a pharmacist could be strong armed to forfeit choice of conscience,
career, or privately owned business in deference to someone else’s perceived “right” to convenience.
Even Non-Christians Get It!
With the single exception of Washington State, nations of this world collectively affirm everyone’s "right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion … and to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." Check it out: Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In the words of Mohandas Gandhi, “There is a higher court than courts of justice, and that is the court of conscience,” which, he adds, “supersedes all other courts.” This rings especially true for a nation, as ours, founded on biblical principles. Andrew Jackson said it well: “As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.”
A Moral Mandate to Defend Conscience
Deputy National Litigation Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Luke Goodrich rightly insists, “No individual should be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs. If pharmacies can refer patients elsewhere when a drug is unprofitable or out of
stock, they should be allowed to do the same thing when the drugs violate their deepest religious convictions.”
In America folks may agree or disagree with my convictions as a Christian (and I with theirs), but they may not deny me (or anyone) the right to voice and practice heart held convictions. The U.S. Constitution affords everyone the rights to “free exercise” and “due process.”
The First Amendment implicates Washington State pharmacy responsibility and stocking rules; and if all are not enforced, it’s only fair that none should be (Judge Ronald Leighton, December 9, 2011). Agree or not, Albert Einstein cautioned, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”
Make no mistake. Stormans v. Selecky is a landmark case. If special interest politics were to prevail over the constitutional right to “free exercise of religion,” then everyone’s core convictions would be “up for grabs.” Next time, maybe yours.
1. Stormans v. Selecky, a landmark case handled by the Becket Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects thereligious liberty of all faiths. Also on the legal team are lawyers Kristen
Waggoner and Steve O’Ban with Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. Plaintiffs are challenging the Washington State Pharmacy Board ruling that, despite religious objections, pharmacies must forfeit their prerogative to facilitated referral and stock/dispense early
abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella.
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified effective 15 December 1791, follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
3. Curt Woodward, The Seattle Times, 9 July 2009.
4.http://citizen-patriot.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-plan-b-abortifacient.html.
5. Psalm 139:13-14—“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful. I know that full well.”
6. Acts 24:16—“And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man.”
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
No Leeway for Conscience
Right to Free Exercise
Part 1, No Leeway for Conscience
Once again, a four-year legal fight in Washington State has landed in a federal courtroom. In the end, two individual pharmacists (Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler) and a family-owned pharmacy (Ralph’s Thriftway in Olympia) could be forced out of the pharmacy profession solely because of their religious beliefs. Yes, in America.
Significantly, Washington is one of only two states requiring pharmacies that object on the basis of conscience to stock and dispense early abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella. The other state (Illinois) recently struck down similar regulations as unconstitutional—and rightly so. The plaintiffs view moral choice as their constitutional right under the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution. They cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B or Ella because they believe human life begins at the moment of fertilization; and both drugs operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo. This dilemma, they’re told, is best resolved through a new line of work. But plaintiffs disagree.
More About Agenda Than Access
At public hearings in 2010, activists from Planned Parenthood, Legal Voice, NARAL, and others testified passionately in Renton, Washington, before the Washington State Board of Pharmacy. Their demand was clear: Regulations are necessary to force pharmaceutical providers to dispense the “morning-after pill” when and where a repeat customer asks for it. In their worldview, religion has nothing to do with it.
To “choicers,” a state license held by pharmacies is a privilege, not a right. They believe defense of conscience deadheads at the drug counter, and a pharmacy must forfeit personally held, religiously motivated moral objections to meet a woman’s demand for emergency contraception. Moreover, respecting politically charged drugs as Plan B and Ella, facilitated referral is not an option. Since Stormans, Thelen, and Mesler are left with only one choice (their livelihoods or their deeply held religious beliefs), real “choice” applies exclusively to “choicers.”
In brief, patient access to Plan B trumps the Bill of Rights. Timely access of safe and appropriate drugs, we’re told, is what every patient is due. However, forcing pharmacies out of business—Ralph’s Thriftway, for example—actually limits access (and therefore choice) for other patients in need of time-sensitive medications. It stand to reason that agenda, not access, is at the heart of the matter.
Lots of Room for Wriggle—Only Not for the Conscience Crowd
For decades, there’s never once been a complaint about the stocking rule. In fact, until 2006, the rule was not broadly known. To meet patient demand, a pharmacy need only stock a “representative assortment of drugs,” but the State provides no list of required drugs. Nor does it publish policies or established procedures for determining stocking violations.
In the pharmaceutical industry, it’s accepted that numbers of reasons—i.e., economic, convenience, business, clinical—exempt a pharmacy from stocking a drug. Everyday Washington pharmacies make choices about which of more than six thousand FDA-approved drugs they’ll stock (or decline from stocking, as the case may be).
Arguably, the stocking rule leaves lots of room for wriggle since our State gives no definition for “good faith compliance.” For most, there’s no quantitative formula of patient demand signaling need to stock a drug, nor are there rules for how long the pharmacy must carry a given drug, once demand for it wanes.
Additionally, Washington State offers no stocking standards for low-demand drugs within a given community, nor are pharmacies required to stock diabetics’ syringes, Schedules 2 and 5 nonprescription meds, or narcotics feared to invite armed robberies.
If shelf space is limited and a medication has a short life, no problem. If it’s exceptionally expensive (and the patient can’t afford it)—or if stocking it requires additional, burdensome paperwork or unit dosages—no worries. If bulk purchase is necessary (beyond what the patient can consume), or if a drug requires monitoring or special preparation (e.g., compounding processes that require related equipment)—again, not to worry. Don’t stock it.In the industry, it’s generally understood that a repeat customer’s prescription triggers the “stocking rule requirement,” but then the rule has no teeth and is never enforced. However, when it comes to conscientious objectors, this overly permissive and otherwise vague rule takes on selective specificity.
An adequate, though not ideal compromise is for a pharmacy/ pharmacist to “step away, but not in the way.” But that’s not good enough for Washington State. While it’s okay to refer patients elsewhere for reasons other than conscience, it’s not acceptable to redirect a seeker of Plan B.
No Leeway for Conscience
Only pharmacies with religious objection, as Ralph’s Thriftway, are held accountable to stock and dispense designated drugs when regular customers request them. Apparently, others are free to decide for themselves. For example, Walgreen pharmacies have opted not to serve Medicaid patient demands and, without facing disciplinary action, niche pharmacies limit drugs they stock to specified healthcare categories such as pediatrics, cancer, or long-term care.
What’s more astonishing is this: Also never having faced disciplinary action, faith-based Catholic hospitals exclude Plan B from their inventories; but Ralph’s Thrifty isn’t afforded the same leeway. You see, by its own admission, the Pharmacy Board is “complaint-driven.” Hence, when Planned Parenthood Pill Patrollers target a pharmacy, the board takes action.Otherwise, it’s business as usual.
Even so, the Washington State Pharmacy Board argues that rules are “neutral” and “generally applicable.” But the plaintiffs disagree (and for good reason). Should a patient violate pharmacy dress- and/or behavior- codes—e.g., no shirt or shoes—or should he be identified as a known shoplifter, he need not be served. But a woman who demands emergency contraception must be served, even when a pharmacy conscientiously objects to it. Neutral? I think not. Generally applicable? You tell me.
My Problem; Your Responsibility
Practically speaking, a woman can conceive when responsible efforts to prevent pregnancy are ineffective. In the minds of activists, this apparently becomes the pharmacist’s problem. It’s his job not to refer a patient elsewhere, but rather to “fix” the outcome; conscience, we’re told, has nothing to do with it.
Forget that emergency contraception may be effective for days after unprotected intercourse, and that it’s never 100% foolproof, activists nonetheless insist upon immediate product and service from the first pharmacy of choice—no matter the provider’s heartfelt convictions against a drug’s safe, ethical use. The reason for referral has no bearing on the fact that, for whatever reason, the patient must go elsewhere, but for Plan B patients a pharmacy on the next block simply won’t do.
More to come in Part 2.1.
Stormans v. Selecky, a landmark case handled by the Becket Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects the religious liberty of all faiths. Also on the legal team are lawyers Kristen Waggoner and Steve O’Ban with Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. Plaintiffs are challenging the Washington State Pharmacy Board ruling that, despite religious objections, pharmacies must forfeit their prerogative to facilitated referral and stock/dispense early abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella.
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified effective 15 December 1791, follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
3. http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra177.htm.
4. The Seattle Times editorial view, 29 November 2011.
Part 1, No Leeway for Conscience
Once again, a four-year legal fight in Washington State has landed in a federal courtroom. In the end, two individual pharmacists (Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler) and a family-owned pharmacy (Ralph’s Thriftway in Olympia) could be forced out of the pharmacy profession solely because of their religious beliefs. Yes, in America.
Significantly, Washington is one of only two states requiring pharmacies that object on the basis of conscience to stock and dispense early abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella. The other state (Illinois) recently struck down similar regulations as unconstitutional—and rightly so. The plaintiffs view moral choice as their constitutional right under the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution. They cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B or Ella because they believe human life begins at the moment of fertilization; and both drugs operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo. This dilemma, they’re told, is best resolved through a new line of work. But plaintiffs disagree.
More About Agenda Than Access
At public hearings in 2010, activists from Planned Parenthood, Legal Voice, NARAL, and others testified passionately in Renton, Washington, before the Washington State Board of Pharmacy. Their demand was clear: Regulations are necessary to force pharmaceutical providers to dispense the “morning-after pill” when and where a repeat customer asks for it. In their worldview, religion has nothing to do with it.
To “choicers,” a state license held by pharmacies is a privilege, not a right. They believe defense of conscience deadheads at the drug counter, and a pharmacy must forfeit personally held, religiously motivated moral objections to meet a woman’s demand for emergency contraception. Moreover, respecting politically charged drugs as Plan B and Ella, facilitated referral is not an option. Since Stormans, Thelen, and Mesler are left with only one choice (their livelihoods or their deeply held religious beliefs), real “choice” applies exclusively to “choicers.”
In brief, patient access to Plan B trumps the Bill of Rights. Timely access of safe and appropriate drugs, we’re told, is what every patient is due. However, forcing pharmacies out of business—Ralph’s Thriftway, for example—actually limits access (and therefore choice) for other patients in need of time-sensitive medications. It stand to reason that agenda, not access, is at the heart of the matter.
Lots of Room for Wriggle—Only Not for the Conscience Crowd
For decades, there’s never once been a complaint about the stocking rule. In fact, until 2006, the rule was not broadly known. To meet patient demand, a pharmacy need only stock a “representative assortment of drugs,” but the State provides no list of required drugs. Nor does it publish policies or established procedures for determining stocking violations.
In the pharmaceutical industry, it’s accepted that numbers of reasons—i.e., economic, convenience, business, clinical—exempt a pharmacy from stocking a drug. Everyday Washington pharmacies make choices about which of more than six thousand FDA-approved drugs they’ll stock (or decline from stocking, as the case may be).
Arguably, the stocking rule leaves lots of room for wriggle since our State gives no definition for “good faith compliance.” For most, there’s no quantitative formula of patient demand signaling need to stock a drug, nor are there rules for how long the pharmacy must carry a given drug, once demand for it wanes.
Additionally, Washington State offers no stocking standards for low-demand drugs within a given community, nor are pharmacies required to stock diabetics’ syringes, Schedules 2 and 5 nonprescription meds, or narcotics feared to invite armed robberies.
If shelf space is limited and a medication has a short life, no problem. If it’s exceptionally expensive (and the patient can’t afford it)—or if stocking it requires additional, burdensome paperwork or unit dosages—no worries. If bulk purchase is necessary (beyond what the patient can consume), or if a drug requires monitoring or special preparation (e.g., compounding processes that require related equipment)—again, not to worry. Don’t stock it.In the industry, it’s generally understood that a repeat customer’s prescription triggers the “stocking rule requirement,” but then the rule has no teeth and is never enforced. However, when it comes to conscientious objectors, this overly permissive and otherwise vague rule takes on selective specificity.
An adequate, though not ideal compromise is for a pharmacy/ pharmacist to “step away, but not in the way.” But that’s not good enough for Washington State. While it’s okay to refer patients elsewhere for reasons other than conscience, it’s not acceptable to redirect a seeker of Plan B.
No Leeway for Conscience
Only pharmacies with religious objection, as Ralph’s Thriftway, are held accountable to stock and dispense designated drugs when regular customers request them. Apparently, others are free to decide for themselves. For example, Walgreen pharmacies have opted not to serve Medicaid patient demands and, without facing disciplinary action, niche pharmacies limit drugs they stock to specified healthcare categories such as pediatrics, cancer, or long-term care.
What’s more astonishing is this: Also never having faced disciplinary action, faith-based Catholic hospitals exclude Plan B from their inventories; but Ralph’s Thrifty isn’t afforded the same leeway. You see, by its own admission, the Pharmacy Board is “complaint-driven.” Hence, when Planned Parenthood Pill Patrollers target a pharmacy, the board takes action.Otherwise, it’s business as usual.
Even so, the Washington State Pharmacy Board argues that rules are “neutral” and “generally applicable.” But the plaintiffs disagree (and for good reason). Should a patient violate pharmacy dress- and/or behavior- codes—e.g., no shirt or shoes—or should he be identified as a known shoplifter, he need not be served. But a woman who demands emergency contraception must be served, even when a pharmacy conscientiously objects to it. Neutral? I think not. Generally applicable? You tell me.
My Problem; Your Responsibility
Practically speaking, a woman can conceive when responsible efforts to prevent pregnancy are ineffective. In the minds of activists, this apparently becomes the pharmacist’s problem. It’s his job not to refer a patient elsewhere, but rather to “fix” the outcome; conscience, we’re told, has nothing to do with it.
Forget that emergency contraception may be effective for days after unprotected intercourse, and that it’s never 100% foolproof, activists nonetheless insist upon immediate product and service from the first pharmacy of choice—no matter the provider’s heartfelt convictions against a drug’s safe, ethical use. The reason for referral has no bearing on the fact that, for whatever reason, the patient must go elsewhere, but for Plan B patients a pharmacy on the next block simply won’t do.
More to come in Part 2.1.
Stormans v. Selecky, a landmark case handled by the Becket Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects the religious liberty of all faiths. Also on the legal team are lawyers Kristen Waggoner and Steve O’Ban with Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. Plaintiffs are challenging the Washington State Pharmacy Board ruling that, despite religious objections, pharmacies must forfeit their prerogative to facilitated referral and stock/dispense early abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella.
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified effective 15 December 1791, follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
3. http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra177.htm.
4. The Seattle Times editorial view, 29 November 2011.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Language of the Communitarian Church
The Economics of Megachurchianity
Part 3: Language of the Communitarian Church
As social tools go, language is by far the most important. Certainly, it’s the most influential. The Proverbs makes this abundantly clear: To guard one’s tongue is to preserve life itself, for death and life are in the power of the tongue.
Because each field of study garnishes its own exclusive vocabulary, a trade word oftentimes connotes something altogether different from what the layman might presume. To the tourist, for instance, a Bombay duck is just that; but to the native chef of India, it is more accurately an indigenous fish—dried, salted, and served with curry. Religious speak is all the more confusing—and telling.
In recent years, Christianese increasingly signals the church’s dramatic paradigm shift away from biblical fundamentalism. But too few discern error inherent in transformative, seeker-friendly language. The faithful well versed in it freely characterize progressive, prosperous, and/or positive Christianity as purpose-driven, clarified, and subject to laws of change, transcendence, and biomimicry.
In meeting its call to renewal, the emerging church (of man’s own making) freely expands core biblical values to accommodate “red-letter,” freestyle Christian thought. Indeed, studies reveal that the lion’s share of sermons heard by American churchgoers marginalize the Bible and focus instead on mundane survival issues—i.e., nurturing personal relationships, developing human potential, and healing the inner child—that is to say, “privatization of the Gospel.”
Self-described advocates of planetary citizenship, creation care, and social justice, nouveau evangelicals participate as enlightened community organizers within the context of God’s politics. This takes form in public-private partnerships and faith-based initiatives, requiring process- and/or possibilities- thinking, coupled with the conciliatory language of consensus.
Now, continuous evolutionary change bypasses natural law in favor of social disciplines. But at a price—that of welfare state capitalism. It’s reasoned that this, after all, is an age of new images, in search of common ground and for the common good. Moreover, new age appeal to the church’s global responsibility presumes need for a new world ethic, language for which is more broadly inclusive than its Judeo-Christian counterpart.
Today’s benign-sounding, albeit cutting-edge buzzwords elicit knowing nods from those immersed in it; but then Bible-honoring Christians hold themselves to a higher standard. The book of James makes it abundantly clear that Christians are accountable for the words they use to inspire action and, therefore, they best choose their language wisely in deference to God almighty, not to “tickle the ears” of customers.
Church Government or Corporate Managers?
Charles Colson rightly warns that, all too often, the Gospel has been transformed into a commodity with the local church acting like a retail outlet and church members, its customers. Together, corporate management (church government) and its workforce (customer-members) work in tandem to attract converts and/or new members (noncustomer newcomers). Tithes, offerings, and manpower of newbies promise to better the corporate church’s bottom line.
Toward this end goal, Dr. Robert E. Klenck, M.D. (TruthRadio.com) discloses methods and practices of church growth ministers—those of Dr. Warren, for example. In his business plan, Pastor Warren first considers the felt needs, hurts, and interests of outsiders (noncustomers). Then he examines the Bible in light of these needs in order to determine the most practical, positive, encouraging, simple, personal, interesting ways to meet them.
Warren’s message and presentation are strategically designed to make it easier for a nonbeliever to come in, submit to spiritual gifts assessments (personality profiles), sign on to the program, and then be “discipled” in accordance with his strengths. Managers influenced by Drucker-Deming business model, progressive pastors as Dr. Warren view church members (customers) as human capital to be equipped for service in the productive whole, otherwise known as the body of Christ. Ostensibly in the best interest of customers, management gathers employment information leading to formulation of databases based on profiling practices.
Flock of Believers or Customers?
While functioning as worker bees under management, customers require ongoing in-service training (i.e., lifelong learning). This is accomplished by means of small groups that practice the dialectic process. Group leaders serve as facilitators or change agents who, in Warren’s words, administer “the most effective way of closing the back doors” of their churches.
Through “Bible study” groups, guided dialogue among committed customers and targeted non customers leads to consensus; team building is solidified through social ministries that encourage bonding among group members. Pragmatism distinguishes communitarian ministries. While social relationships and fun activities keep folks coming back, so-called accountability groups keep them in line.
What’s the Beef?
The question arises, “So, what’s the beef?” when the better question is, “Where’s the beef?” Blatantly absent from the communitarian agenda is deep study of the Bible. Yet the Bible is so central to Christianity that early converts, who were not subjected to spiritual gifts assessments and training, nonetheless became passionately, even miraculously eloquent. Starting in an upper room in Jerusalem, they preached the Gospel and virtually exploded across the Greco-Roman world. Theirs was no social justice message. Still, their oratory spread with such ardor that, in the very generation in which Jesus lived, the good news took firm root in all the leading cities of the region.
No ordinary book, the Bible is uniquely “God-breathed” (inspired) and is, therefore, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Modern marketing techniques may indeed draw and hold large numbers of people. But strategically meeting felt needs of potential agents of social change does not fulfill the Great Commission, nor can it.
What distinguishes mature believers from the herd is their success at the greatest enterprise of all, life itself. For them, life has ceased to be a problem to be solved. It’s instead a glory to be discerned. While it’s true that Christians are genuinely “incorporated” into the body of Christ, the ekklesia of God is not best described as a corporation. Coupling consultants, denominational leaders, tool builders and suppliers with customized forums and workshops may bring to light the best practices known by man, but they overlook the infinitely more essential matter of spirit.
Be sure: Failure to read the Bible publicly and study it diligently signals error. Inspired scripture, when hidden in the heart, keeps one from sin, the very thing that distances God from mankind. Not only is it a source of comfort, delight, and hope, the Bible also lights man’s path. The humanistic construct of a quest for the good life/death offers no such promise.
As infants’ food, the Bible nurtures growth; and, as a life-giving force, it’s a believer’s sustenance. It’s worthy of being reverenced and esteemed even more than necessary food. After all, the Bible is a probing instrument, a defensive weapon, and a saving power —one that’s settled in heaven and forever standing.
Protestantism came about within context of political economy, nationalism, Renaissance individualism, and a rising concern over ecclesiastical abuses, yes. But the church’s basic mission today remains that of reconciliation through preaching of the Gospel—this, with administration of Gospel sacraments.
Upon being nourished and sanctified through the Word of God, the church’s destiny is to realize full conformity to the Lord and His likeness. In no way is the church primarily a human structure like a political, social, or economic entity. It’s the church of the living God, Jesus Christ. Because its function goes beyond man’s salvation to the praise of God’s glory, neither the church nor its function ceases with completion of its earthly task.
More to come in Part 4.
Proverbs 13:3.
Proverbs 18:21.
Debra Rae. “Hijacking Educationese,” Part 2, 6 November 2004.
Contrary to 2 Peter 1:20.
Revelation 22:18-19.
2 Timothy 4:3.
David Bryant. Christ Is All: A Joyful Manifesto on the Supremacy of God’s Son, Second Edition. New Providence, NJ: New Providence Publishers, Inc., 2005, p. 255.
http://www.crossroad.to/News/Church/Klenck2.html.
Methodology matters to God. When Moses smote the rock a second time, rather than speaking to it as God commanded, he was refused entrance into the Promised Land. Against the command of God, Uzzah steadied the Ark of the Covenant with his hand. For that disobedience, he was struck dead (2 Samuel 6: 6-7).
Taken from The Purpose-Driven Church by RICK WARREN. 1995 by Rick Warren. Used by Permission of Zondervan Publishing House., p. 190.
Huston Smith. The Religions of Man. (New York: Perennial Library Harper & Row, Publishers, 1958), 301ff.
2 Timothy 3:16.
Deuteronomy 31:11; Joshua 8:35; 2 Kings 23:2; Nehemiah 8:3,18; 13:1; and Jeremiah 36:6.
Deuteronomy 17:19; Isaiah 34:16; John 5:39; and Acts 17:11.
Jesus Himself warned: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures,” Matthew 22:29.
Psalm 119:11.
Psalm 119: 47, 82, 105; Romans15:4.
1 Peter 2:2.
Ezekiel 37:7; Acts 19:20; Deuteronomy 8:3.
Isaiah 66:2-66:2; Job 23:12.
Hebrews 4:12.
Ephesians 6:17.
Romans 1:16.
Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8.
2 Corinthians 5:19; Mark 16:15.
James 1:18; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Peter 2:2.
1 John 3:2.
Matthew 16:18; 1 Timothy 3:15.
Ephesians 1:6; 2:7.
Part 3: Language of the Communitarian Church
As social tools go, language is by far the most important. Certainly, it’s the most influential. The Proverbs makes this abundantly clear: To guard one’s tongue is to preserve life itself, for death and life are in the power of the tongue.
Because each field of study garnishes its own exclusive vocabulary, a trade word oftentimes connotes something altogether different from what the layman might presume. To the tourist, for instance, a Bombay duck is just that; but to the native chef of India, it is more accurately an indigenous fish—dried, salted, and served with curry. Religious speak is all the more confusing—and telling.
In recent years, Christianese increasingly signals the church’s dramatic paradigm shift away from biblical fundamentalism. But too few discern error inherent in transformative, seeker-friendly language. The faithful well versed in it freely characterize progressive, prosperous, and/or positive Christianity as purpose-driven, clarified, and subject to laws of change, transcendence, and biomimicry.
In meeting its call to renewal, the emerging church (of man’s own making) freely expands core biblical values to accommodate “red-letter,” freestyle Christian thought. Indeed, studies reveal that the lion’s share of sermons heard by American churchgoers marginalize the Bible and focus instead on mundane survival issues—i.e., nurturing personal relationships, developing human potential, and healing the inner child—that is to say, “privatization of the Gospel.”
Self-described advocates of planetary citizenship, creation care, and social justice, nouveau evangelicals participate as enlightened community organizers within the context of God’s politics. This takes form in public-private partnerships and faith-based initiatives, requiring process- and/or possibilities- thinking, coupled with the conciliatory language of consensus.
Now, continuous evolutionary change bypasses natural law in favor of social disciplines. But at a price—that of welfare state capitalism. It’s reasoned that this, after all, is an age of new images, in search of common ground and for the common good. Moreover, new age appeal to the church’s global responsibility presumes need for a new world ethic, language for which is more broadly inclusive than its Judeo-Christian counterpart.
Today’s benign-sounding, albeit cutting-edge buzzwords elicit knowing nods from those immersed in it; but then Bible-honoring Christians hold themselves to a higher standard. The book of James makes it abundantly clear that Christians are accountable for the words they use to inspire action and, therefore, they best choose their language wisely in deference to God almighty, not to “tickle the ears” of customers.
Church Government or Corporate Managers?
Charles Colson rightly warns that, all too often, the Gospel has been transformed into a commodity with the local church acting like a retail outlet and church members, its customers. Together, corporate management (church government) and its workforce (customer-members) work in tandem to attract converts and/or new members (noncustomer newcomers). Tithes, offerings, and manpower of newbies promise to better the corporate church’s bottom line.
Toward this end goal, Dr. Robert E. Klenck, M.D. (TruthRadio.com) discloses methods and practices of church growth ministers—those of Dr. Warren, for example. In his business plan, Pastor Warren first considers the felt needs, hurts, and interests of outsiders (noncustomers). Then he examines the Bible in light of these needs in order to determine the most practical, positive, encouraging, simple, personal, interesting ways to meet them.
Warren’s message and presentation are strategically designed to make it easier for a nonbeliever to come in, submit to spiritual gifts assessments (personality profiles), sign on to the program, and then be “discipled” in accordance with his strengths. Managers influenced by Drucker-Deming business model, progressive pastors as Dr. Warren view church members (customers) as human capital to be equipped for service in the productive whole, otherwise known as the body of Christ. Ostensibly in the best interest of customers, management gathers employment information leading to formulation of databases based on profiling practices.
Flock of Believers or Customers?
While functioning as worker bees under management, customers require ongoing in-service training (i.e., lifelong learning). This is accomplished by means of small groups that practice the dialectic process. Group leaders serve as facilitators or change agents who, in Warren’s words, administer “the most effective way of closing the back doors” of their churches.
Through “Bible study” groups, guided dialogue among committed customers and targeted non customers leads to consensus; team building is solidified through social ministries that encourage bonding among group members. Pragmatism distinguishes communitarian ministries. While social relationships and fun activities keep folks coming back, so-called accountability groups keep them in line.
What’s the Beef?
The question arises, “So, what’s the beef?” when the better question is, “Where’s the beef?” Blatantly absent from the communitarian agenda is deep study of the Bible. Yet the Bible is so central to Christianity that early converts, who were not subjected to spiritual gifts assessments and training, nonetheless became passionately, even miraculously eloquent. Starting in an upper room in Jerusalem, they preached the Gospel and virtually exploded across the Greco-Roman world. Theirs was no social justice message. Still, their oratory spread with such ardor that, in the very generation in which Jesus lived, the good news took firm root in all the leading cities of the region.
No ordinary book, the Bible is uniquely “God-breathed” (inspired) and is, therefore, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Modern marketing techniques may indeed draw and hold large numbers of people. But strategically meeting felt needs of potential agents of social change does not fulfill the Great Commission, nor can it.
What distinguishes mature believers from the herd is their success at the greatest enterprise of all, life itself. For them, life has ceased to be a problem to be solved. It’s instead a glory to be discerned. While it’s true that Christians are genuinely “incorporated” into the body of Christ, the ekklesia of God is not best described as a corporation. Coupling consultants, denominational leaders, tool builders and suppliers with customized forums and workshops may bring to light the best practices known by man, but they overlook the infinitely more essential matter of spirit.
Be sure: Failure to read the Bible publicly and study it diligently signals error. Inspired scripture, when hidden in the heart, keeps one from sin, the very thing that distances God from mankind. Not only is it a source of comfort, delight, and hope, the Bible also lights man’s path. The humanistic construct of a quest for the good life/death offers no such promise.
As infants’ food, the Bible nurtures growth; and, as a life-giving force, it’s a believer’s sustenance. It’s worthy of being reverenced and esteemed even more than necessary food. After all, the Bible is a probing instrument, a defensive weapon, and a saving power —one that’s settled in heaven and forever standing.
Protestantism came about within context of political economy, nationalism, Renaissance individualism, and a rising concern over ecclesiastical abuses, yes. But the church’s basic mission today remains that of reconciliation through preaching of the Gospel—this, with administration of Gospel sacraments.
Upon being nourished and sanctified through the Word of God, the church’s destiny is to realize full conformity to the Lord and His likeness. In no way is the church primarily a human structure like a political, social, or economic entity. It’s the church of the living God, Jesus Christ. Because its function goes beyond man’s salvation to the praise of God’s glory, neither the church nor its function ceases with completion of its earthly task.
More to come in Part 4.
Proverbs 13:3.
Proverbs 18:21.
Debra Rae. “Hijacking Educationese,” Part 2, 6 November 2004.
Contrary to 2 Peter 1:20.
Revelation 22:18-19.
2 Timothy 4:3.
David Bryant. Christ Is All: A Joyful Manifesto on the Supremacy of God’s Son, Second Edition. New Providence, NJ: New Providence Publishers, Inc., 2005, p. 255.
http://www.crossroad.to/News/Church/Klenck2.html.
Methodology matters to God. When Moses smote the rock a second time, rather than speaking to it as God commanded, he was refused entrance into the Promised Land. Against the command of God, Uzzah steadied the Ark of the Covenant with his hand. For that disobedience, he was struck dead (2 Samuel 6: 6-7).
Taken from The Purpose-Driven Church by RICK WARREN. 1995 by Rick Warren. Used by Permission of Zondervan Publishing House., p. 190.
Huston Smith. The Religions of Man. (New York: Perennial Library Harper & Row, Publishers, 1958), 301ff.
2 Timothy 3:16.
Deuteronomy 31:11; Joshua 8:35; 2 Kings 23:2; Nehemiah 8:3,18; 13:1; and Jeremiah 36:6.
Deuteronomy 17:19; Isaiah 34:16; John 5:39; and Acts 17:11.
Jesus Himself warned: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures,” Matthew 22:29.
Psalm 119:11.
Psalm 119: 47, 82, 105; Romans15:4.
1 Peter 2:2.
Ezekiel 37:7; Acts 19:20; Deuteronomy 8:3.
Isaiah 66:2-66:2; Job 23:12.
Hebrews 4:12.
Ephesians 6:17.
Romans 1:16.
Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8.
2 Corinthians 5:19; Mark 16:15.
James 1:18; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Peter 2:2.
1 John 3:2.
Matthew 16:18; 1 Timothy 3:15.
Ephesians 1:6; 2:7.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Communitarian Church Growth Movement
The Economics of Megachurchianity
Part 2: Communitarian Church Growth Movement
When on track, the corporate world is likened to a well-oiled machine that is propelled by one integrative philosophy—namely, Total Quality Management (TQM). TQM ensures continual improvement of the quality of products and processes used so that, in the end, products and/or services offered meet or even exceed customers’ expectations. Together, corporate management, the workforce, suppliers, and customers work in tandem to better the bottom line.
In similar fashion, the Christian church is likened to an efficiently functioning human body with all of its members and officers admirably arranged, ideally proportioned, compacted, and fitly joined together as one. While each part is dependent on the others, all parts submit to the headship of Christ. These fashion one body given over to one faith with one God and Father of all who is over all, and through all, and in all.
Despite superficial similarities, the corporate world and the spiritual body of Christ part ways on matters of profound significance. Biblical Christianity focuses on personal relationship with God that inspires spiritual transformation. Bypassing biblical essentials for the sake of numbers, the Communitarian Church Growth Movement takes its cues from corporate America more so than from the Bible. Rather than heed a Bible-based, Christ-centric model, transformational churchianity practices outcome-based, purpose-driven religion managed by objectives that are geared toward serving customers.
Transformational ChurchianityTransformation churches use modern marketing techniques to attract and hold onto large numbers of people. Church leaders disciple their converts with Total Quality Management-style techniques. Common practices include committed leadership and strategic planning, cross-functional product design and training, process and supplier quality management, customer and employee involvement, information and feedback.
Ultimately, agents of social change within the ranks of the church leave their mark in the community and the world; however, their systems-based management philosophies are not rooted in the Bible, but rather in the work of two globally acclaimed experts in business management and methodology—namely, Peter Drucker and Edwards Deming.
Peter Drucker
An influential writer, management consultant, and self-described social ecologist, the late Peter Ferdinand Drucker coined the term knowledge worker and, later in his life, introduced knowledge work productivity as the next frontier in management. He’s credited with having invented corporate society. Even the church (a human invention in Druker’s view) must balance a variety of mundane needs and societal goals. Ostensibly bringing out the best in people, Drucker nurtured a sense of community.
Well into his nineties, Drucker consulted businesses and non-profit organizations. Volunteering, he believed, is key to fostering healthy community. Drucker insisted that all institutions bear responsibility to the whole of society for the common good.
Among Drucker’s most notable clients were General Motors, Coca-Cola, Citicorp, IBM, and Intel. With ever-increasing notoriety, the Communitarian Church Movement emerges today as yet another behemoth of Drucker’s corporate society model.
Edwards Deming
A contemporary of Peter Drucker, William Edwards Deming was an American statistician, professor, author, lecturer, and consultant best known for his work in Japan from 1950 and on. Deming's message to Japan's chief executives was: To improve quality is to reduce expenses while increasing productivity and market share.
Granted, the Drucker-Deming mindset serves 21st century business interests well; however, when implemented in church ministries modeled by TQM gurus—e.g., Drs. Robert Schuller and Rick Warren and the Rev. Bill Hybels—it’s problematic. Dr. Robert SchullerA great “possibility [transformational] thinker” and master of modern marketing, Dr. Robert Schuller founded the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, California. But first, Schuller surveyed the “felt needs” of his community in Southern California. Then he designed and opened an innovative “drive-in church.”
One former attendee described his experience as “a trip,” being able to “smoke and be in church at the same time [while] at a drive-in during the daytime.” Another recalled, “Ushers came with baskets on poles for the donations if you remained in your car. I remember my mom in her bathing suit ready for Huntington Beach right after the service.”
• Rev. Bill Hybels
Dr. Schuller credits the founder of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, for extending his church growth principles. Rev. Bill Hybels’ seeker-sensitive church is broadly known as the prototypical mega-church featuring contemporary worship, use of drama, and messages friendly to noncustomer seekers.
• Dr. Rick Warren
Arguably, the acclaimed author of The Purpose Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Message and Mission, Dr. Rick Warren, has outdone both the Revs. Schuller and Hybels. Warren holds his doctorate of theology degree from one of the strongest proponents of the Church Growth Movement, Fuller Theological Seminary.
As in Drucker’s economy, Warren always starts the change process with noncustomers (unbelievers). TQM churches use feedback gleaned from community surveys specifically designed to focus on the needs of unbelievers. So it was with Dr. Rick Warren’s Saddleback Valley Community Church in Mission Viejo, CA.
Social Experimentation Toward Church Growth
By his own admission, Dr. Warren condones social experimentation on his congregation. Indeed, he views Saddleback as a kind of Research and Development Department of the church at large. Word has it he’s trained over 150,000 pastors and church leaders in church growth principles.
Unfortunately, transformational churchianity exchanges Holy Spirit guidance for artful manipulation of Hegelian dialectic. That is to say, The Church Growth Movement capitalizes on a repeated process of continual, incremental change until, finally, the Word of God is interpreted to mean something altogether different from its original intent. In the process, the set-apart, Triumphant Church succumbs to agendas that advance seeker- and profit- friendly social services.
Toward this end, Rick Warren fingers the pulpit as the ultimate tool for church growth. The most important thing in communication, according to Peter Drucker, is to hear what’s not being said. Warren agrees. No doubt by design, this communitarian pastor’s attire and presentation are pleasantly informal. Icebreakers and sketchy notes eliminate need for a cumbersome Bible and tedious dogma.
It’s true. Christians may freely enjoy informality, humor, social activities, and the arts. Each has its place. However, a superabundance of church programs and entertainment, when coupled with Hegelian dialectic, inspires creative interpretations only loosely akin to the Bible.
Change Starts with the NoncustomerHuman thinking apart from divine revelation brings about a new thesis or reality upon which all can agree, but by nature it’s hostile toward God. Following Drucker’s managerial principles, unbelievers (noncustomers) are brought into the church, and that’s good. But the follow up process of subtle, albeit continual change sadly misses the mark.
Given the TQM model, the church capitalizes on operant conditioning principles advanced by B.F. Skinner, who found that any behavior followed by a reinforcing stimulus results in an increased probability of that behavior’s reoccurring, and a behavior no longer followed by the stimulus decreases its probability.
Carefully crafted reinforcing stimuli may well nurture church growth and, hence, the bottom line (this, by means of tithes, offerings, and human resources), but then Skinner is no friend to authentic Christianity. In 1973, he signed the Humanist Manifesto II and thereby lauded relativistic values that expressly dethrone God while, at the same time, exalting human dignity and worth based on self-determination through reason.
The Skinnerian method of “successive approximations,” called shaping, at first reinforces a behavior only vaguely similar to the one desired. Once that behavior is more firmly established (i.e., by noncustomer seekers), a good social engineer seeks variations that more closely approximate what’s ultimately wanted (i.e., by repeat customers).
At first, newcomers enjoy sanitized church grounds void of religious symbols that might offend nonbelievers; what’s more, they merit preferred parking slots. Once would-be members are pinpointed, trained greeters expend a great deal of effort to schmooze them. Once on board, the noncustomer newcomer eagerly jumps the bandwagon to help perpetuate the very process that successfully wooed and won him into the fold. Together, corporate management (church government) and its workforce (customers, both new and seasoned) work in tandem to target and draw additional noncustomer newcomers.
This they accomplish by tailoring policies and programs that pander to pinpointed pre-Christians (seekers). Noncustomers are viewed as potential human resources whose talents and means are deemed useful toward furthering work of the corporate church founded on human effort and entrepreneurship.
Biblically, the church is the ekklesia (“called out ones,” each with gifts to share) who separate themselves from the profane world and assemble as a body of believers in order to admonish, comfort, encourage, and edify each other with a word, psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs as unto the Lord. In turn, those built up and anointed go out into the world to yield to the Master Potter and to fulfill the Great Commission.
No doubt TQM ensures continual improvement of the quality of products and processes used so that, in the end, products and/or services offered meet or even exceed customers’ expectations.
But the communitarian church has it all wrong. Expectations of customers (believers) or noncustomers (seekers) don’t much matter. The work of the church is not man-centric. Her mission is to please God, not man; and as good and faithful servants, believers rightly seek the praise of God, not their fellows.
More to come in Part 3.
Ephesians 4:5.
Tarrant, John C., Drucker: The Man Who Invented the Corporate Society (1976), ISBN 0-8436-0744-0.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming.
Possibilities thinking—Involves mutual processing for mutual benefit. Set aside as cumbersome anchors that block the dialectic process, facts and fixed beliefs bow to constructivist thought. A carefully honed, collaborative team voice trumps line-upon-line biblical knowledge. Attention is directed instead to pinpointed felt needs that demand to be met in society.
www.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hybels.
http://ministryonline.com/churchgrowth/warren.ht.
7 James 4:4; Romans 8:7.
Human Resources are best viewed as workers, not thinkers; followers, not leaders; group members, not individuals. Ever learning, they fail to discover and embrace to the full Bible truth and sound doctrine (Isaiah 5:20; 2 Timothy 3:7). Their development and management are accomplished by means of lifelong learning, interdisciplinary approaches, systems thinking, partnerships, multicultural perspectives, and empowerment principles—all designed to fit that human resource to the workforce and/or social needs of the community.
John 5:41-44; Matthew 25:14-30.
Part 2: Communitarian Church Growth Movement
When on track, the corporate world is likened to a well-oiled machine that is propelled by one integrative philosophy—namely, Total Quality Management (TQM). TQM ensures continual improvement of the quality of products and processes used so that, in the end, products and/or services offered meet or even exceed customers’ expectations. Together, corporate management, the workforce, suppliers, and customers work in tandem to better the bottom line.
In similar fashion, the Christian church is likened to an efficiently functioning human body with all of its members and officers admirably arranged, ideally proportioned, compacted, and fitly joined together as one. While each part is dependent on the others, all parts submit to the headship of Christ. These fashion one body given over to one faith with one God and Father of all who is over all, and through all, and in all.
Despite superficial similarities, the corporate world and the spiritual body of Christ part ways on matters of profound significance. Biblical Christianity focuses on personal relationship with God that inspires spiritual transformation. Bypassing biblical essentials for the sake of numbers, the Communitarian Church Growth Movement takes its cues from corporate America more so than from the Bible. Rather than heed a Bible-based, Christ-centric model, transformational churchianity practices outcome-based, purpose-driven religion managed by objectives that are geared toward serving customers.
Transformational ChurchianityTransformation churches use modern marketing techniques to attract and hold onto large numbers of people. Church leaders disciple their converts with Total Quality Management-style techniques. Common practices include committed leadership and strategic planning, cross-functional product design and training, process and supplier quality management, customer and employee involvement, information and feedback.
Ultimately, agents of social change within the ranks of the church leave their mark in the community and the world; however, their systems-based management philosophies are not rooted in the Bible, but rather in the work of two globally acclaimed experts in business management and methodology—namely, Peter Drucker and Edwards Deming.
Peter Drucker
An influential writer, management consultant, and self-described social ecologist, the late Peter Ferdinand Drucker coined the term knowledge worker and, later in his life, introduced knowledge work productivity as the next frontier in management. He’s credited with having invented corporate society. Even the church (a human invention in Druker’s view) must balance a variety of mundane needs and societal goals. Ostensibly bringing out the best in people, Drucker nurtured a sense of community.
Well into his nineties, Drucker consulted businesses and non-profit organizations. Volunteering, he believed, is key to fostering healthy community. Drucker insisted that all institutions bear responsibility to the whole of society for the common good.
Among Drucker’s most notable clients were General Motors, Coca-Cola, Citicorp, IBM, and Intel. With ever-increasing notoriety, the Communitarian Church Movement emerges today as yet another behemoth of Drucker’s corporate society model.
Edwards Deming
A contemporary of Peter Drucker, William Edwards Deming was an American statistician, professor, author, lecturer, and consultant best known for his work in Japan from 1950 and on. Deming's message to Japan's chief executives was: To improve quality is to reduce expenses while increasing productivity and market share.
Granted, the Drucker-Deming mindset serves 21st century business interests well; however, when implemented in church ministries modeled by TQM gurus—e.g., Drs. Robert Schuller and Rick Warren and the Rev. Bill Hybels—it’s problematic. Dr. Robert SchullerA great “possibility [transformational] thinker” and master of modern marketing, Dr. Robert Schuller founded the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, California. But first, Schuller surveyed the “felt needs” of his community in Southern California. Then he designed and opened an innovative “drive-in church.”
One former attendee described his experience as “a trip,” being able to “smoke and be in church at the same time [while] at a drive-in during the daytime.” Another recalled, “Ushers came with baskets on poles for the donations if you remained in your car. I remember my mom in her bathing suit ready for Huntington Beach right after the service.”
• Rev. Bill Hybels
Dr. Schuller credits the founder of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, for extending his church growth principles. Rev. Bill Hybels’ seeker-sensitive church is broadly known as the prototypical mega-church featuring contemporary worship, use of drama, and messages friendly to noncustomer seekers.
• Dr. Rick Warren
Arguably, the acclaimed author of The Purpose Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Message and Mission, Dr. Rick Warren, has outdone both the Revs. Schuller and Hybels. Warren holds his doctorate of theology degree from one of the strongest proponents of the Church Growth Movement, Fuller Theological Seminary.
As in Drucker’s economy, Warren always starts the change process with noncustomers (unbelievers). TQM churches use feedback gleaned from community surveys specifically designed to focus on the needs of unbelievers. So it was with Dr. Rick Warren’s Saddleback Valley Community Church in Mission Viejo, CA.
Social Experimentation Toward Church Growth
By his own admission, Dr. Warren condones social experimentation on his congregation. Indeed, he views Saddleback as a kind of Research and Development Department of the church at large. Word has it he’s trained over 150,000 pastors and church leaders in church growth principles.
Unfortunately, transformational churchianity exchanges Holy Spirit guidance for artful manipulation of Hegelian dialectic. That is to say, The Church Growth Movement capitalizes on a repeated process of continual, incremental change until, finally, the Word of God is interpreted to mean something altogether different from its original intent. In the process, the set-apart, Triumphant Church succumbs to agendas that advance seeker- and profit- friendly social services.
Toward this end, Rick Warren fingers the pulpit as the ultimate tool for church growth. The most important thing in communication, according to Peter Drucker, is to hear what’s not being said. Warren agrees. No doubt by design, this communitarian pastor’s attire and presentation are pleasantly informal. Icebreakers and sketchy notes eliminate need for a cumbersome Bible and tedious dogma.
It’s true. Christians may freely enjoy informality, humor, social activities, and the arts. Each has its place. However, a superabundance of church programs and entertainment, when coupled with Hegelian dialectic, inspires creative interpretations only loosely akin to the Bible.
Change Starts with the NoncustomerHuman thinking apart from divine revelation brings about a new thesis or reality upon which all can agree, but by nature it’s hostile toward God. Following Drucker’s managerial principles, unbelievers (noncustomers) are brought into the church, and that’s good. But the follow up process of subtle, albeit continual change sadly misses the mark.
Given the TQM model, the church capitalizes on operant conditioning principles advanced by B.F. Skinner, who found that any behavior followed by a reinforcing stimulus results in an increased probability of that behavior’s reoccurring, and a behavior no longer followed by the stimulus decreases its probability.
Carefully crafted reinforcing stimuli may well nurture church growth and, hence, the bottom line (this, by means of tithes, offerings, and human resources), but then Skinner is no friend to authentic Christianity. In 1973, he signed the Humanist Manifesto II and thereby lauded relativistic values that expressly dethrone God while, at the same time, exalting human dignity and worth based on self-determination through reason.
The Skinnerian method of “successive approximations,” called shaping, at first reinforces a behavior only vaguely similar to the one desired. Once that behavior is more firmly established (i.e., by noncustomer seekers), a good social engineer seeks variations that more closely approximate what’s ultimately wanted (i.e., by repeat customers).
At first, newcomers enjoy sanitized church grounds void of religious symbols that might offend nonbelievers; what’s more, they merit preferred parking slots. Once would-be members are pinpointed, trained greeters expend a great deal of effort to schmooze them. Once on board, the noncustomer newcomer eagerly jumps the bandwagon to help perpetuate the very process that successfully wooed and won him into the fold. Together, corporate management (church government) and its workforce (customers, both new and seasoned) work in tandem to target and draw additional noncustomer newcomers.
This they accomplish by tailoring policies and programs that pander to pinpointed pre-Christians (seekers). Noncustomers are viewed as potential human resources whose talents and means are deemed useful toward furthering work of the corporate church founded on human effort and entrepreneurship.
Biblically, the church is the ekklesia (“called out ones,” each with gifts to share) who separate themselves from the profane world and assemble as a body of believers in order to admonish, comfort, encourage, and edify each other with a word, psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs as unto the Lord. In turn, those built up and anointed go out into the world to yield to the Master Potter and to fulfill the Great Commission.
No doubt TQM ensures continual improvement of the quality of products and processes used so that, in the end, products and/or services offered meet or even exceed customers’ expectations.
But the communitarian church has it all wrong. Expectations of customers (believers) or noncustomers (seekers) don’t much matter. The work of the church is not man-centric. Her mission is to please God, not man; and as good and faithful servants, believers rightly seek the praise of God, not their fellows.
More to come in Part 3.
Ephesians 4:5.
Tarrant, John C., Drucker: The Man Who Invented the Corporate Society (1976), ISBN 0-8436-0744-0.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming.
Possibilities thinking—Involves mutual processing for mutual benefit. Set aside as cumbersome anchors that block the dialectic process, facts and fixed beliefs bow to constructivist thought. A carefully honed, collaborative team voice trumps line-upon-line biblical knowledge. Attention is directed instead to pinpointed felt needs that demand to be met in society.
www.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hybels.
http://ministryonline.com/churchgrowth/warren.ht.
7 James 4:4; Romans 8:7.
Human Resources are best viewed as workers, not thinkers; followers, not leaders; group members, not individuals. Ever learning, they fail to discover and embrace to the full Bible truth and sound doctrine (Isaiah 5:20; 2 Timothy 3:7). Their development and management are accomplished by means of lifelong learning, interdisciplinary approaches, systems thinking, partnerships, multicultural perspectives, and empowerment principles—all designed to fit that human resource to the workforce and/or social needs of the community.
John 5:41-44; Matthew 25:14-30.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
