Why Would a Conservative Christian Disagree With Hobby Lobby?
Post date: Apr 23, 2016 1:02:17 PM
Why a conservative Christian is not so sure about Hobby Lobby's CEO's position.
Considering my views (see “What Is the Christian Worldview” https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe) I would label myself a “conservative” evangelical Christian. And I am convinced that abortion and certain other contraceptions are against the Biblical Christian Worldview (see “Abortion: What Questions Should We Be Asking?” https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe). So why would i not agree with Hobby Lobby's position?
I. Context:
according to Obama Care Facts, http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-facts:
'“ObamaCare” is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), or Affordable Care Act (ACA) for short...The Affordable Care Act allows religious institutions to choose to be exempt from providing controversial contraception and reproductive health services to women. Multiple businesses have also received an exemption after taking the ruling to court...[the Act includes]
* Providing tax breaks to small businesses for offering health insurance to their employees.
* Requiring large businesses to insure employees...
* Ensuring all plans cover minimum benefits like limits on cost sharing and ten essential benefits including free preventive care, OB-GYN services with no referrals, free birth control, and coverage for emergency room visits out-of-network….
Free Preventive Services and Ten Essential Benefits
ObamaCare’s new benefits, rights and protections include the requirement that most non-grandfathered (or grandmothered) health insurance plans cover preventive services and services from at least ten categories of essential health benefits with no annual or lifetime dollar limits...The Ten essential health benefit categories include outpatient care, emergency care, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health services and addiction treatment, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services and devices, lab services, pediatric dental and vision, and free preventive services.
• A minimum amount of services from the Ten Essential Benefit categories must be included on all non-grandfathered plans as “covered services”. Covered services are services your plan covers in-network at the plan’s cost sharing amount…[these benefits] consist of ten categories of items and services required on all individual and small group plans starting in 2014. Large Group Plans are not required to offer a essential benefits package, but most already do, as these benefits were defined from the coverage typically provided by large employers.
• Free preventive services including a yearly check-up, immunizations, counseling, and screenings must be included on all non-grandfathered plans at no out-of-pocket costs...
What Birth Control Is Covered?
According to HealthCare.Gov Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman’s doctor are covered. This generally includes:
Barrier methods (used during intercourse), like diaphragms and sponges
Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
Sterilization procedures
Patient education and counseling
Plans aren’t required to cover:
Drugs to induce abortions
Services related to a man’s reproductive capacity, like vasectomies…
As of July 2015 all plans, except for the following, must provide at least one method from each of the 18 FDA approved birth control categories at no out-of-pocket costs:
Religious employer health plans (houses of worship don’t have to provide coverage. For all other religious employers women are provided contraceptive coverage through a third party)...
Some “religious employers”, houses of worship, health sharing ministries, a few employers who got religious exemptions, non-profit hospitals, some institutions of higher education, etc don’t have to provide contraceptive services, including counseling. However, after a rule passed by the Obama administration in July of 2015 employees of religious employers are provided with free contraceptive coverage through a third party in most cases. Houses of worship are exempt from this rule and health sharing ministries are unaffected by this rule as they are not employers.”
II. David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is cited in
http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/01/24/hobby-lobby-may-close-500-stores-41-states
as stating:
“now, our government threatens to change all of that.
A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance.
Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs…”
III. What should we consider about this situation:
Me being a Christian does not necessarily mean that i agree with every and anything all Christians believe or do
My current belief on this situation is similar to my view on “Should We All Stop Singing Hillsong Songs?” (Worldview Cafe- https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe).
When I first read CEO Green's position, I agreed with it. But now, after studying philosophy I am not so sure he is doing the correct logical thing.
A. The Necessity and Usefulness of Philosophy: “If you are a non-expert on any subject, you should not say anything about it beyond your competence. Your opponent may call you out on it...” - Victor Stenge v
* Philosophy is the critical analysis of fundamental concepts of human inquiry, and the normative discussion of how human thought and action ought to function, including the description of the nature of reality. It is often more preoccupied with method than with theory and it is a development of skill; second order discipline, examining method and concepts of first order disciplines, e.g., biology, history, education. It also has clarification as one of its goals: epistemology. i ii
1. Two different approaches of philosophy:
a) analytical or conceptual-- defines philosophic and scientific terms and clarifies the language of ideas; studies the concepts and terminology.
- Goals: to examine basic presuppositions and concepts that those in special disciplines use, i.e., the scientist, moralist and theologian; to clarify the concepts and terms used in all major areas of inquiry; to analyze the foundations of knowledge
b) speculative – combines the results of the conceptual inquiry into a comprehensive and integrated view of reality.
- Goals: to explain the ultimate constituents of the world and reality and define the proper place of man and his activities in the world;
2. Important tools of philosophy: iii
* Clarity-- the first step in determining whether a proposition is true or false is to understand its meaning
many disagreements happen because we fail to understand another person's position and we engage in argument before we know what we are really arguing about.
* Definitions-- state the necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of words. There are two types:
1. nominal-- arbitrary stipulation that a certain word will have a particular meaning
a) many words in science are of this type (ex. electron)
b) found in dictionaries.
c) cannot be true or false only useful or not
2. real-- describe set of properties possessed by all members of a certain class and not possessed by anything outside of that class
a) concerned with factual considerations
b) maybe true or false if it does not described the class of things it is formulated to define
* Analysis of concepts (context)-- the usage of words, usually in ordinary language. iii Process of defining and clarifying terms. i
* Argument-- two or more declarative statements made up of premises or propositions and a conclusion iv
* Inference-- drawing conclusions from premises
* Logic-- a branch of philosophy that involves the understanding of the laws that regulate our thought processes; correct reasoning; basis for all thought; is a study, an ordering, of how to think rightly or how to find truth; a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions; a universal practice; studies the methods that we use to analyze information and draw valid conclusions; puts all of these methods into an order that gives the right way to draw conclusions; and is a negative test for truth. iii
1. we always ought to be logical so that we know the truth, come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking?
2. can be used to prove whether or not our faith, opinion, worldview, religion, etc. makes sense; if it's reasonable or foolish?
3. emotions are not and should never be involved at all in formal arguments; argument provides reasons for the basis of a conclusion, one cannot do good logical thinking without them
4. limits of: only questions of truth are subject to logic; reveals nothing about some kinds of statements: emotive expressions (expressions of feelings) or aesthetic expressions (appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses; the nature of beauty, art, taste): which are neither true or false
* Syllogisms-- two premises that state the evidence and a conclusion, that affirm or deny something iii
* Types of Propositions-- hypothetical (“if this, than that”); disjunctive (“either this, or that”); categorical (“this is that”) iii
3. How Philosophy relates to the Christian:
* In a general sense, all of us, Christian and non-Christian, are philosophers and theologians:
“Theology is for everyone. Indeed, everyone needs to be a theologian. In reality, everyone is a theologian—of one sort or another. And therein lies the problem. There is nothing wrong with being an amateur theologian or a professional theologian, but there is everything wrong with being an ignorant or sloppy theologian.” —Charles Ryrie
There are even various kinds of theologians: tabloid, folk, lay, ministerial, professional, academic. (see https://bible.org/article/258-theology-questions-and-answers).
See “Is There a Need for Christian Apologetics?” Worldview Cafe https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe
So, although all Christians are technically apologists (defenders of Christianity) and philosophers, most have not really reflected and studied what they believe and why. On the other hand, those who call themselves “Christian apologists”, amateur and professional, usually have made the mental effort (based on their occupation) to really research and reflect various sides of an issue or subject. They usually are more open to critique, have conducted personal research, looked at the whole system and various sources and considered what others believe and why before formulating their own opinions. They have the skills and tools necessary to be able to make objective informed opinions instead of relying on hearsay information, no evidence, popularity, traditional and religious folklore, emotion, passion, personal investment. This is why I trust (put more weight and certainty in) their opinions, advice, commentary and critique more than I trust that of “non-experts”. (Many who are professional have spent 8-12 yrs in field of specialization within the discipline and even had to defend their work before a panel of expert examiners in their given discipline in order to earn their degree).
Furthermore, Why are there different interpretations, systems, and views? Why can a text or passage of the Bible have different Interpretations? Why are there various views or doctrines (teachings) of theology, revelation, God, Christ, Holy Spirit, anthropology, sin, salvation, church, end times (future prophetic events)? (Does the Church Need A New Reformation? Worldview Cafe- https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe):
a. the various views of truth. what a person believes about truth: what the nature of truth is and how they know what is true: relative, subjective, pragmatic, objective, etc.
b. the different types of theologians. how one does theology: tabloid, folk, professional, etc.
c. the type of Biblical hermeneutic one uses (how one interprets): pre-modern, modern and post-modern
d. the theory of inspiration used (how they answer, “how did God write or influence the Bible?”): mechanical, partial, degree, natural, illumination or verbal/plenary
e. the theological system used: covenant or dispensational
f. the philosophy of translation used: differences in translation methods which create different English translations
g. the differences in Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (sources) which also affects translations.
h. not every translator uses the same manuscripts.
i. textual criticism: catalogs and analyzes the textual variations to determine which text is the best; it is also the science of reconstructing the original text based upon the available manuscript evidence or data
j. improper hermeneutics: when the foundational principles of Bible study are not followed
k. using the wrong meaning of Greek and Hebrew words and misusing grammar
m. not observing the text, context, literary and grammatical structure, and historical and cultural background, carefully.
All of the above will logically affect how a person applies what the Bible says
A passage ultimately has only one correct interpretation but Christians may disagree about what that is for the reasons stated above
See also “258 Theology Questions and Answers” https://bible.org/article/258-theology-questions-and-answers
* It is best to construct one's view of the world by reflecting upon concepts, formulating beliefs that differentiates essentials from non essentials, being critical of unfounded traditions, using study tools and resources, using methods (systematic rules, procedures), being open to critique, and conducting personal research.
It is also best to avoid opinions and theology based on hearsay information, no evidence, popularity, traditional and religious folklore, emotion, passion, personal investment.
Which is a better method for developing beliefs: learning how to think through issues, coming to your own decisions/conclusions, and learning how to evaluate your own beliefs or being taught what to believe, what someone else thinks is true? This is why learning philosophy is important.
Unfortunately, many people choose beliefs (religions) based on how they want to look at the world (facts/reality)--priori/pragmatic based, instead of seeing how the world (facts/reality) really is and then determining their beliefs—posteriori/inductive based.
* Would you agree that our belief system and standards should be coherent (make logical sense, cannot be contradictory), consistent (internally consistent with itself and other statements in a given system) and comprehensive (liveable)?
We all have a belief system, whether we know it or not, and our lifestyle often contradicts the beliefs we claim to hold (there is a difference between what one practices and what one professes). What a person really believes determines how they live/ behave. Our actions and behavior are the most reliable index to our beliefs (If we are convinced that certain propositions are true, we will behave accordingly). “Dissonance”, a 15th century term that means a lack of agreement; especially: inconsistency between the beliefs one holds or between one's actions and one's beliefs — compare cognitive dissonance and an instance of such inconsistency or disagreement (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissonance). Unfortunately, many Christians are inconsistent in their theology and behavior. We are called to avoid hypocrisy and inconsistency. vi
We should all attempt to live consistently between the claimed beliefs we claim to hold and between our actions and our claimed beliefs. We should continually ask ourselves: Is what I say, claim, really how I live?
* Christians should also not be afraid to disagree with others or to have their own opinions and beliefs challenged. “We must stand against the culture (including inappropriate tendencies in the evangelical subculture), resist the empty self, and eschew the intellectual flabbiness that goes along with it. Motivation is a key here...Expose yourself to ideas with which you disagree and let yourself be motivated to excel intellectually by the exposure. Listen to talk shows, read the editorial page, and walk around a local university and look at bulletin boards or read the student newspaper. Get into discussions with people at work with whom you differ. The point is to spend time around those who do not simply reinforce your own ways of looking at things. There are two advantages to this. For one thing, we can learn from our critics. For another, such exposure can move us to realize just how serious the war of ideas really is and how inadequately prepared we are to engage in that contest.” - J.P. Moreland in Love Your God With All Your Mind.
For more on the importance of “peer review” see “Is There a Need for Christian Apologetics?” Worldview Cafe https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe
B. Why I disagree with CEO Green's reasoning:
1. What is the core issue? to answer this we need to ask what does “provide” and “cover” mean?
According to Webster, “provide” means “to make (something) available : to supply (something that is wanted or needed); to give something wanted or needed to (someone or something) : to supply (someone or something) with something.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provide). And “cover” means “ to have sufficient scope to include or take into account.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cover).
2. There are three parties involved here (four if you include the government): employer, employee, government mandate or health plan. What the relationships are between them is an important (if not main) issue.
3. All the services mentioned-- maternity and newborn care, mental health services and addiction treatment, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services and devices, pediatric dental and vision, and free preventive services-- are optional, voluntary.
“Employer or health plan must provide/cover” is not the same as “insured person or employee is obligated to use”
What is the difference between:
(1) the employer must provide/offer a health plan which itself must cover controversial contraceptions and insured employee have a choice to use them or not.
(2) the employer must provide/offer a health plan which itself must cover controversial contraceptions and the insured employee is obligated to (must use) them.
Last time i checked, just because someone has a health plan (through their employer or personal plan) that provides (makes available) a certain service or benefit, let's call it “x”, doesn't mean the insured (or employee) has to (without a choice) use that service/benefit.
Using a health plan service/benefit is optional. The insured, employee has a choice to use it or not. One is not forced to get x rays, or forced to go to the dentist, or forced to use controversial contraceptives, etc.
One could ignore or disagree with a doctor's prescriptions or recommendations (at one’s own risk of course and at least in usual, non mental health related situations).
An employer having to provide the option or opportunity for their employees to use controversial contraceptions (or let's make it more black and white and say a law is passed and they must cover abortions) does not invalidate the free will of the insured employee.
If all personal health plans had an abortion option or benefit, would you therefore not purchase any plans because you don't agree with abortion? If so then are you consistent with other similar situations? If you are against excessive smoking and alcohol or pornographic R rated movies do you also avoid general stores like Albertsons and Hastings just because they offer those products? Since many pharmacies also sell controversial contraceptives, does that mean that you should not puchase your toothpaste and headache medicine from them too? Probably not! Why? Because you recognize the distinction between the company “offering” some service/benefit and you having the free will or choice to use that product (service, benefit) or not.
Hobby Lobby CEO's position, to me, seems to assume that all employees who are given the opportunity for controversial contraceptions will use them. And since it goes against their beliefs/convictions-- “We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs…” – they do not want to give their employees that opportunity. Now if (2) the employer must provide/offer a health plan which itself must cover controversial contraceptions and the insured employee is obligated to (must use) them, was true, then Hobby Lobby's position makes more sense.
Their position (as I currently understand it) is similar to an employer refusing to continue paying an employee just because they freely choose to use their paycheck for strippers, excessive smoking and alcohol which the employer disagrees with.
4. There is a misunderstanding of cause, condition and free will. As Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks explain in “Come Let Us Reason” : iii
* The fallacy (bad reasoning) of confusing cause and condition involves the difference between the things needed to set up an effect and making the effect happen:
1. condition: is necessary condition for the effect (or event) to occur. does not cause
2. cause: a necessary and sufficient condition for the effect to occur. the only thing that makes the effect happen.
3. ex. cigarette (cause) + pile of dry leaves (condition) = fire.
4. ex. guilt over tragedies; when one thinks that the controllable condition was the cause of the accident.
5. ex. chemical reactions:
6. ex. sin (James 1:14-15): presence of tempting object (condition).
- sinful nature (condition).
- desiring to sin vs. deciding to sin. being tempted vs. giving in to it.
- lust must conceive, we must choose to follow our lust before we actually sin.
- our free will, ability to choose, causes sin.
-temptation is only a necessarily condition for sin; it is not sufficient to make one actually sin
* In our topic,
1. the condition is: (1) the employer must provide/offer a health plan which itself must cover controversial contraceptions.
2. the cause is: the insured employee having a choice to use them or not; their free will
3. the event is: using or not using controversial contraception.
* Another fallacy is that of confusing various kinds of causes: there are 6 kinds of causes:
*ex. what is the cause of a car?
1. efficient cause: that by which; who/what produces:? makes things happen; produces the effect;
a. primary: the first efficient cause of the effect
b. secondary: subsidiary efficient cause used by the primary cause to produce the effect.
* ex. engineer
* ex. boss can do the job himself (primary) or tell someone else to do it (secondary)
* ex. God is the primary cause for all that exists. He uses secondary causes (people, laws of nature, angels, etc.) to do many things in the world.
* ex. God and evil; since He determines all events, he must be responsible for all the evil and suffering.
- confuses primary and secondary causes. God is primary cause of all things; allowing many things to happen without intervening. many events are done through secondary causes. God does not directly cause them. see Job 1:12; 2:6. God created beings with free will; knowing that there was a possibility for evil; it was necessary to allow that in order to have creatures with true freedom. A secondary cause acts on its own; is responsible. the primary cause allows the freedom of the secondary cause to act or choose.
* in our topic,
1) the primary efficient cause: the employer; health plan; and the government;
2) the secondary cause is the insured employee.
Green's logic confuses cause and condition and various kinds of causes. He seems to imply that one should not be given the option to use controversial contraceptions but that means having no free will/choice. Why would you restrict free will/choice this way if God himself allowed it?
Now, the situation would be different if companies had to provide a health plan and if part of the money that was used to purchase a health plan was used for abortion research.
IV. Conclusion:
Christians need to really reflect on what they believe, why they believe it and check the logical consistency of their beliefs. They seriously should ask “is this really what the Bible clearly teaches? is this what Jesus did or would do?” or “is this what I think the Bible teaches? is this what I think Jesus did?”
See also:
1. Some thoughts on the question "Who are you to force your morality on someone else?" Greg Koukl
http://www.str.org/articles/how-to-force-your-morality#.VxY46N9vHR0
2. Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?
http://store.epm.org/product/does-the-birth-control-pill-cause-abortions
3. Are Christians justified in refusing to serve Non-Christians? Worldview Cafe- https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe
4. Should We All Stop Singing Hillsong Songs? Worldview Cafe- https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe
Notes:
i. Charts of Apologetics and Christian Evidences by H. Wayne House; Joseph M. Holden.
ii. Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective by Norman L. Geisler and Paul Feinberg
iii. Come Let Us Reason. Norman Geisler. Ronald Brooks
iv. Zondervan Charts: Philosopy and Philosophers. Craig Vincent Mitchell.
v How Not To Debate A Christian Apologist. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2014/02/how-not-to-debate-a-christian-apologist
vi Introduction to Theology. The Theology Notebook. The Theology Program. www.bible.org.