Four Perspectives on God and the Newtown Massacre

The massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, has been so thoroughly covered in media at all levels that we are not going to repeat the facts of it again here. We are, however, going to describe perspectives about God and this tragedy from four people whose views seem to us worth considering.
Perspective 1
The first is from Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar. Writing for the CNN Belief blog, he lists and explains six statements that he is "sick of hearing" after mass killings such as the one in Newtown. Five of the six statements relate to God directly. (He made no attempt to tie the sixth one, regarding gun use, to the Deity, so we are not going to summarize that one in this lesson.)
The first statement Prothero doesn't want to hear is "It was God's will." That, according to Prothero, would imply that God encourages people to commit such atrocities. "Much better to say there is no God or, as Abraham Lincoln did, 'The Almighty has his own purposes,' than to flatter ourselves with knowing what those purposes are," said Prothero.
Second on Prothero's list is "Jesus called the children home," which, he said, implies "that Madeleine Hsu (age 6) or Daniel Barden (age 7) were slain because Jesus couldn't wait to see them join his heavenly choir." Prothero pointed out that "even the most fervent Christians ... want to live out their lives on Earth before going 'home'" and added that Madeleine and Daniel "deserved more than 6 or 7 years."
Third, for the moment, Prothero would ban "After death, there is the resurrection." Prothero does not challenge the belief in resurrection, but argues that the Sandy Hook deaths are so unspeakably tragic that "now is the time for grief, not for pat answers to piercing questions."
Fourth, Prothero does not want to hear "This was God's judgment." He said, "I'm not sure what judgment of God would provoke the killing of 27 innocent women and children, but I certainly don't want to entertain any theorizing on the question right now ... Especially if we want to continue to believe God's judgments are 'true and righteous altogether'" (Psalm 19:9).
Fifth, Prothero would likewise ban "This happened because America is too secular." He was especially critical of comments along this line from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, whose comments on the Newtown tragedy Prothereo summarized as "We don't need fewer guns in the hands of killers ... we need more God in our public schools."
Prothero closed by saying, "Today is a day to shake your fist at heaven and demand answers, and then to shake it harder when no answers are forthcoming. To do anything else is in my view to diminish the idea of God, and to cheapen faith in the process."
Perspective 2
In fairness to Gov. Huckabee, who in the field of ideas is a competitor of Prothero, we have included a link below to a transcript of his remarks. We also point out that Huckabee’s statements were more nuanced and complete than Prothero's summary suggests and reflected upon his experience of another school mass murder (Jonesboro, Arkansas) when he was governor.
Portions of Huckabee’s comments: “[T]here is no human rationale or explanation. ...  But the biggest maybe aftermath of something like this is that people are going to look for, OK, why did it happen? Well, the answer is inexplicable. ...  When someone has an intent to do incredible damage, they will find a way to do it. ... We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we systematically remove God from our schools. Should we be so surprised schools would become a place of carnage? Because we have made it a place where we do not want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability, that we will not just have to be accountable to the police if they catch us, but one day we stand one day before a holy God in judgment. If we don't believe that, then we don't fear that. I sometimes -- when people say, why did God let it happen, God wasn't armed. He didn't go to the school. But God will be there in the form of a lot people with hugs and with therapy and a whole lot of ways in which I think he will be involved in the aftermath.”
Perspective 3
This perspective comes from Rachel Held Evans, author of A Year of Biblical Womanhood. Writing on her blog, she said that the flames of the Advent candles in our churches symbolize "the divine promise that even the smallest light can chase away the shadows lurking in this world, that even in the darkest places, God can't be kept out" -- including out of the tragedy at Newtown.
Evans also referred to comments by former governor Mike Huckabee and others who said that God abandoned the children at Sandy Hook because those schools cannot sponsor prayer events due to religious-freedom requirements. "When asked where God was on that awful Friday morning," said Evans, "these Christians have said that God did not show up at Sandy Hook because 'God is not allowed in public schools,' because 'we have systematically removed God' from that place."
Evans characterized that view with an expletive for bovine excrement, and then said, "God can be wherever God wants to be. God needs no formal invitation. We couldn't 'systematically remove' God if we tried." 
"If the incarnation teaches us anything, it's that God can be found everywhere," Evans said. She concluded by again referring to Advent candles and saying, "May their flames be a reminder to all of us that we don't have to know why God let [the Newtown tragedy] happen to know that God was there."
Perspective 4
The final perspective comes Diana Butler Bass, author of Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening. Writing on the Huffington Post's Religion blog, Bass posed the question "Where was God on that dreadful morning?" She said the answers usually fall into one of two "camps."
The first answer, proposed by many members of the clergy, is that God was present in the horror., That group reminds us that Jesus' other birth name was Emmanuel -- "God with us." The second answer, pushed most bluntly by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, is that God was not there, "'banished' as it were, by human sin," said Bass.
"Thus, the debate continues," said Bass. "The God-was-present people are horrified by Mike Huckabee's remarks; the God-was-absent people are calling for Americans to repent and welcome both God and guns back to public schools."
Bass then goes on to propose a third answer: "God was hidden." She bases that on what she calls "an odd verse" from the Bible, Isaiah 45:15: "Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior."
After mentioning that throughout history, this text has caused theologians to wrestle with the idea of a "hidden God," Bass also cited Jesus' words from the cross --"My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?" -- as possible further evidence of God's hiddenness. She suggests that perhaps certain "aspects of the Divine are purposely not revealed to the world," and asks, "What would the world be like if everyone, everywhere claimed to have full knowledge of God?"
"And that's my answer," Bass said. "God was beyond Newtown, the God of lament, of loss, of anguish, the God hidden away."
Bass said, "As answers go, the hidden God will not completely satisfy and can never get to questions of motive. Isn't that the point? Somewhere, deep in our souls, we know we cannot know. The hidden God, I think, is the only God that makes any sense of Newtown: One neither and both present and absent; One in the hands of rescuers but not the hands that wielded the guns; One in the midst of murdered but not the act of murder. This is the God who is in all places and nowhere."  
 
More on this story can be found at these links:

My Take: Six Things I Don't Want to Hear After the Sandy Hook Massacre. CNN
President Obama's Speech at Prayer Vigil for Newtown Shooting Victims (Full transcript). Washington Post
God Can't Be Kept Out. Rachel Held Evans
Where Was God in Newtown? Huff Post
Huckabee: Laws Don't Change This Kind of Thing. Fox News
The Big Questions
In summary, the four perspectives about God and the Newtown tragedy are:
God is not going to provide answers: "Today is a day to shake your fist at heaven and demand answers, and then to shake it harder when no answers are forthcoming," said Prothero.
God was there, but people ignoring and pushing him out means that they don’t let him act. "We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we systematically remove God from our schools," said Huckabee.
God was there: "If the incarnation teaches us anything, it's that God can be found everywhere," said Evans.
God was hidden: "[God] neither and both present and absent; One in the hands of rescuers but not the hands that wielded the guns; One in the midst of murdered but not the act of murder. This is the God who is in all places and nowhere," said Bass.
1. Which of these four is the most like your own perspective on God and the tragedies of life?
2. What is missing that is not covered by any of these four?
3. Does the Bible present more than one view of God? If so, how are those views different?
4. Does a single death, in whatever manner, matter less than a killing of many people in a single rampage?
 
5. What sort of hope does the Messiah bring to a world that includes such tragedies as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings? 
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Psalm 139:7-10
"Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast." (For context, read 139:1-12.)
Verses about God's hiddenness notwithstanding, these verses from Psalm 139 voice a central biblical theme about God's presence. In fact, in some settings, the issue is not that we cannot find God, but that God refuses to leave us alone.

Questions: What in your experience of God is like that of this psalmist? When have you been acutely aware of God's presence? When have you felt unable to find God? What, if anything, helped? If we believe that God is present everywhere, how do we respond when people tell us that certain tragic events did not happen to someone because God was looking out for them, or still had something for them to do in life? (For example, a plane crashes, but someone was late for the flight and was not on board.) Does this mean God was not looking out for the children of Sandy Hook Elementary, or that God had nothing for them to do in their lives? How do we balance thankfulness for God's providence on the one hand and, on the other hand, sorrow when God stands with us but does not seem to have acted for us?

Matthew 2:16-18
"When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:
'A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.'"
(For context, read 2:13-18.)
Forty times in his gospel, Matthew quotes from the Old Testament, linking those verses to events in Jesus' life. And often, he makes the point that a particular incident involving Jesus happened for the purpose of fulfilling scriptural prophecy. For example, the first time Matthew does this is in 1:21-23, where, after an angel tells Joseph that Mary is to bear a son and that Joseph is to name him Jesus -- because "he will save his people from their sins" -- Matthew adds, "All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 'Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,' which means, 'God is with us.'" The Greek term rendered in English as "to fulfill" is hina plerothe, which are the words Matthew uses to say that the event regarding Jesus happened for the purpose of fulfilling Scripture.
But when Matthew reports Herod's massacre of the children in and around Bethlehem, he drops the hina. That's not obvious in the English translation, but by doing so, Matthew avoids saying that the murders happened for the purpose of fulfilling Scripture. Instead, Matthew uses the equivalent of the passive voice (“was fulfilled”: tote plerothe). Matthew sees the slaughter of children as a reflection of Jeremiah 31:15, which spoke poetically about "Rachel" as a "mother" of Israel, weeping inconsolably for her "children" lost during the Babylonian conquest of Judah, but by dropping the hina, he makes it clear that the killing of the Bethlehem children was not God's will.
TWW team member Frank Ramirez comments, "That little Greek word hina does not appear in the story of the slaughter of the innocents. The slaughter happens, and Scripture anticipates or describes the bitterness of the evil, but it does not occur in order to fulfill the scripture. This is all part of God's great risk, the willingness to include free will as part of the bargain."
 
Ramirez continues, "God's great plan continues in spite of Herod's atrocity. And the atrocity is not forgotten. If Matthew had chosen to ignore it, we would never have known about it. But it would not have been a true account. 'Rachel' weeps, according to Jeremiah, because her children are taken away from her. 'Rachel' weeps again this day [in light of the Sandy Hook tragedy], and so do we. God is cherishing these children. Can we do any less, not only for those who have been taken away from us [in Newtown], but also for those who live and suffer in poverty, want and neglect, who suffer abuse and terror?"
Questions: Can there be any true love of God and neighbor without free will? To what degree is free will at the root of evil? Matthew carves out a spot in the midst of his holy history of the birth of Jesus to memorialize the senseless slaughter of the innocents. In some places, the typical response to a massacre or slaughter is to create a park or some other memorial on that site. What sort of memorial or sacred or public place would be an appropriate response in order to memorialize these happenings?
 
Luke 1:39-40
"In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth." (For context, read 1:39-45.)
Mary and Elizabeth came together while both were pregnant under unusual circumstances and formed a little community of support for one another as they both faced the uncertainty ahead. That's also one purpose of the church and other groups -- to be community for one another not only in times of joy but also in times of sorrow.
Questions: In what ways can you be part of the community of support for the families of the Newtown tragedy victims, or for the people in your own community who are struggling with this tragedy? When Mary found herself in crisis, the person she turned to immediately was an elderly cousin. Imagine what Elizabeth might have said or done for Mary at some earlier time that made her the "go-to" person. Have you ever been the "go-to" person for a troubled teen or young person? What did you do to assure that person you could be trusted? Did anyone ever say or do anything that made you turn to them in such a time? How important are support systems for people in crisis, whether those on the verge of committing a terrible act, or those who have suffered from a terrible act?
John 1:5
"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it." (For context, read 1:1-5.)
If you want to know what happened at Christmas, we suggest you read Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2. But if you want to know what Christmas means, read John 1.
In John 1 and elsewhere in that gospel, "light" is a major metaphor for the divine power present in Jesus. At present, it functions to illuminate but not eliminate "darkness," which is a metaphor for the drive within us that urges us to disregard or ignore God.
Neither the darkness nor the light is a passive thing. Darkness, as John's gospel pictures it, is not just the absence of light. Rather it is active hostility to the light of God. But if darkness is an active, hostile force, light is an active, benevolent force. In this world, darkness is here, but so is light.
If we look carefully at the Christmas story, we see that the Star of the East did not light up the whole night and drive the darkness away. Instead, it gave enough light to guide the Magi through the darkness to the place where Jesus lay. As John said, "The light shines IN the darkness." It does not eradicate it, at least not yet. But neither can the darkness overcome the light.
It is important that we do not translate the message of Christmas into some future promise. Normally, when things are dark, we can look forward to the dawn eventually coming. But Christmas focuses on the light of God present tthrough Christ right now, when darkness is still also present.
Questions: In what ways does this light shine in and through Newtown right now? Given that the King James Version reads "the darkness comprehended it not," what keeps people from comprehending the light? Do you think there is (or have you ever experienced) a darkness so deep that the light cannot shine in it? How have you shone a light after a tragedy? What has your church done to shine a real light in dark places? (For example, a woman we know serving in the National Guard in Kosovo and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia organized youth get-togethers among kids of various ethnic backgrounds, encouraging them to play loud American music. At one point, a U.S. church shipped hundreds of books in English to her, because reading and speaking English was a goal of youth from the various warring backgrounds. That was her way of shining a light where there had been mass slaughter.)
In addition to the text quoted, a little further on John uses the word SKENE from which we get the words "skin" (for tents) and "scene" (a theatrical term derived from the skins that were used as theatrical backdrops), and says that the word was made flesh and "tented" or "roughed it" among us. Jesus is roughing it, tenting it, in this very dark world, and is not a distant spectator. That is part of the Christmas story as well.
Romans 8:38-39
"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (For context, read 8:31-39.)
This statement is part of Paul's great testimony of faith to the Christians in Rome about all the forces that threaten people in this life. Paul begins that list in verse 35: "hardship ... distress ... persecution ... famine ...." In verse 36, he interrupts the list to quote Psalm 44:22 to show that hardships and other difficulties have always pursued the faithful. In verse 37, he makes an affirmative statement about the way Christ's love enables the faithful afflicted ones to hold on. Then, in verse 38, Paul resumes the list of threats: "death ... life ... angels ... rulers ...." Not one of these alone, nor all together, can separate us from God's love in Christ Jesus.
Questions: How can you help someone whose grief prevents them from finding comfort in these words of Scripture? Therapy dogs have been dispatched to Newtown to provide love and comfort. Obviously these dogs cannot fix anything, nor can they say anything to make life better. Yet they have an impact. Is presence with someone in a dark time as important as the words you say? Have there been times when you have found it more important to simply be present after a death or tragedy, and not to say anything at all. (Don't forget, the friends of Job sat silently with him for seven days before they made the mistake of opening their mouths.)
For Further Discussion
 
1. Respond to this, from Rev. Charles Alkula, who is a chaplain at a VA hospital in San Antonio and a member of The Wired Word team: "I preached at the VA Hospital here yesterday, and like many others, touched on the shootings in Newtown. I did so in relation to the joy that the third [Advent] candle [pink in some Advent wreaths] represents for some. But I also mentioned the over 200 deaths in San Antonio since the beginning of December. Some of those deaths were violent, some the result of sudden causes, some after lengthy illness, some simply of age. The point was that while 28 died in a single event in Connecticut, in this community, there were hundreds of people being mourned." Alkula said that the effort to find meaning in the massacre at Newtown was a worthy pursuit, but added, "I hope we don't forget the other families [facing their] first Christmas without their loved ones."
2. It is unlikely that Christmas will ever be the same for the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims. How should we minister to those in our communities for whom Christmas will always be a reminder of grief?
3. In 1247, a Catholic priory named St. Mary of Bethlehem was founded in London. A century later, it became a hospital, and later still, under King Henry VIII, with the suppression of religious orders, it became exclusively a hospital for the insane. The noise and confusion of the place was known all over England. In time, "St. Mary" was dropped from the name, and it became just Bethlehem, which in turn, through contraction and mispronunciation, became "Bedlam." Thus, semantically, Bethlehem and bedlam are intimately related. In what ways can the light that is Christ illuminate both the quiet streets of Bethlehem and the chaotic byways of bedlam?
Responding to the News
At this time, praying for those who suffered loss in the Newtown shooting is still an appropriate response.
Eventually, there may be contributions we can make to policy discussions aimed at reducing or preventing such tragedies as this one.
This is also a good time to offer support to members of your own congregation who are facing their first Christmas without a particular loved one.
You may want to use the following words in your worship service this Sunday. They were written by TWW team member Frank Ramirez following the Newtown events, and are intended to be sung to the Christmas tune "Greensleeves" ("What Child Is This"):
Whose children these, who laid to rest,
Tear every heart in weeping?
Whose children these, God, tell us please?
Uphold them in your keeping,
Each reaching above the fray
To heaven's border where angels pray,
Love, moving past hate and fear,
To save and cherish our children.
 
The wind blows cold. These ills behold,
As rage and evil come feeding.
We see, we hear, Oh God, we fear
That none can staunch the bleeding.
You are greater than evil's reign.
Stand in our midst, we pray, remain.
Comfort hearts, we'll play our parts,
So nothing loving impeding.
 
May every name with us remain,
These sorrows sharing with those who weep
Whose loss is great, against this hate
Your love abiding be done.
Reign! Rein in insanity,
Install in all your divinity!
So then may we, one humanity,
See your will as in heaven be won.
Another option is Psalm 130.
Closing Prayer
 
Be present, O Lord, with comfort to those who have suffered the loss of loved ones over the last few days. Help us as a nation to find ways to prevent such tragedies from happening. May all of us who are shaken and hurting find comfort and healing. In Jesus' name. Amen.
 

Teen Offender Sentenced to Attend Church, but ACLU Objects

Tyler Alred, 17, of Muskogee, Oklahoma, had been drinking before he got behind the wheel of a Chevy pickup around 4 a.m. on December 3, with his friend John Luke Dum, 16, as a passenger.  When he crashed into a tree, Dum was killed.

Two breath tests at the scene showed Alred's blood-alcohol level at 0.06 and 0.07, which is below the 0.08 threshold for drunkenness for adults. But because Alred is underage, he was considered to be driving under the influence of alcohol.
Norman noted that Alred had a good record until that point, but said that the teen used poor judgment, with severe results.
Deciding to give the high school and welding school student a chance, Norman placed Alred on probation, with several conditions, including wearing an ankle bracelet that monitors alcohol consumption, undergoing regular drug and alcohol assessments, graduating from high school and welding school, attending victim-impact panels, speaking on the consequences of drinking and driving, and attending church for 10 years.
In court, Alred apologized to Dum's family. He and Dum's father embraced.
Alred's attorney said his client had no intention of appealing the sentence. He also said that Alred already attends church, so that requirement would not be a problem for him. Alred's minister was in the courtroom.
The American Civil Liberties Union, however, objected, and has filed a complaint about the church-attendance part of the sentence with the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints. The ACLU insists that Norman's ruling disregards our nation's founding principles of religious liberty and violates Oklahoma's Judicial Conduct Code.
While acknowledging that Alred has expressed no complaint about the church-attendance requirement,  Brady Henderson, legal director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, said, "Judge Norman's decision to give this defendant a choice between church and prison cannot be enforced without illegal government intrusion into a young man's conscience. Not only is this inconsistent with our nation's fundamental guarantees of freedom of worship, it is also offensive to the very religion it is meant to advance. Acts of faith should come from a freely made choice to adopt a faith, not from the government giving its citizens an ultimatum to sit either in a pew or a prison cell."
Despite the ACLU complaint, Judge Norman is standing by his decision. "If someone wants to appeal my decision, they're entitled to do that," he said.
"I received a couple of bad calls -- one from Oregon and one from Missouri -- telling me it was in violation of the U.S. Constitution," Norman added. "They may well be right, but that's what I did, and we made a record."
Muskogee County District Attorney Larry Moore said he knows of no law that would authorize a judge to order someone to "participate in a religious event as part of punishment. I anticipate a constitutional issue with separation of church and state," he said.
Moore added, "I'd love for courts to order somebody to go to church, but part of my job is to uphold the Constitution."
More on this story can be found at these links:

ACLU Files Complaint After Teen Sentenced to 10 Years of Church Attendance. TIME
ACLU Files Judicial Complaint Over Oklahoma Teen's Church Sentence. Tulsa World
Judge Stands by Decision to Require Teen to Attend Church. Tulsa World
 The Big Questions
1. What value are we likely to receive from church attendance if we are there against our will? Considering that many young people are required by their parents to attend church, even when those youth would rather not, is there a difference between parents requiring such and a judge requiring such? When should children be given the option to "make their own call" regarding church attendance? Can -- and should -- the government act in loco parentis in these decisions? Did you ever think of attending church as the equivalent of a prison sentence? If so, what changed that view for you?
2. Spiritually speaking, what might regular weekly attendance at church accomplish that sporadic attendance might not?
3. What is the biblical view of attendance at worship services?
4. To what degree is living a Christian life an individual endeavor? To what degree is it a congregational endeavor?
5. What aspects of our spiritual growth, including satisfying the hunger for righteousness, are related to regular church attendance? Can there be a negative impact to regular church attendance? For example, instead of a hunger for righteousness, do we risk developing self-righteousness because we regularly attend? If so, how can we avoid that?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Exodus 20:8
"Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy." (For context, read 20:1-17.)
If we are looking for a biblical directive to attend church, we might start with this commandment, one of the "big ten." But actually, nowhere in Scripture does God say, "Go to church every Sunday." There are plenty of biblical examples of God telling the Israelites to worship him. For example, 2 Kings 17:35-36: "You shall not worship other gods or bow yourselves to them or serve them or sacrifice to them, but you shall worship the LORD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm; you shall bow yourselves to him, and to him you shall sacrifice." But those verses are really talking about the ancient sacrificial system, which was something different from how we worship God in church.
Still, the commandment above seems to apply, especially if we count Sunday as the Christian equivalent of the Jewish sabbath, but even then, Sabbath-keeping is something larger than attendance at a public worship service. It is the devotion of a whole day every week to God and the life of the spirit. It includes lifestyle changes for that day and family practices designed to remind one of one's covenant with God. And there is the troubling fact that the gospels document Jesus as one who sometimes broke the Sabbath rules, doing such things as healing people on that day. As he put it, "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27).
Still, the sabbath command is part of the church-every-Sunday rationale.
Question: In what ways does your attendance at church fit into the spirit of the weekly sabbath?
Psalm 42:1-4
"As a deer longs for flowing streams, so my soul longs for you, O God.
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.
When shall I come and behold the face of God?
My tears have been my food day and night,
while people say to me continually, 'Where is your God?'
These things I remember, as I pour out my soul:
how I went with the throng, and led them in procession to the house of God ..."
(No additional context needed.)
This psalm gives a clear reason for attending "the house of God": It's a way to drink at the stream of God, to satisfy that thirst for God. Admittedly, not every worship service succeeds in quenching that thirst, but regular attendance makes it more likely that our spiritual needs will be addressed.
Question: Think of a service where you especially felt the presence of God. In what ways did the worship convey that presence?
Luke 4:16
"When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom." (For context, read 4:14-21.)
There are important examples in the Bible for us about attending worship. Luke tells us in the verse above that it was Jesus' custom to go to the synagogue on the sabbath day, and Acts reports that Paul had a similar practice (Acts 17:2).
This has echoes in secular philosophy. For example, ethical virtue has been defined as "a habit disposed toward action by deliberate choice" of behavior that avoids the pitfalls of being too lax or too strict. Customary -- but not slavish -- synagogue attendance fits in as an ethical virtue.
Questions: What role does custom or habit play in your spiritual development? In what ways is it a help? In what ways can it be a hindrance?
Acts 2:46-47
"Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved." (For context, read 2:43-47.)
Some of the first members of the early church apparently worshiped daily. Acts reports, "Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple ... praising God ..."
Question: In what ways do you give daily attention to your faith?
Hebrews 10:24-25
"And let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another ..." (For context, read 10:19-25.)
.
These two verses are the closest biblical reference we have to a command to attend Christian worship. Notice that the writer of Hebrews says that one reason for doing so is to encourage one another. And he was right. Church isn't like school where you attend for a while until you receive your "B.A. Christian" degree (Get it? Huh, huh?) and then you graduate. The church has no alumni association. We need to continue to be part of a faith community both for what we receive and what we contribute.
Question: Besides upping the attendance statistics, what does your regular attendance in church contribute to the faith of others who also attend those worship services?
For Further Discussion
1. Comment on this, from the Oklahoma ACLU legal director: "Acts of faith should come from a freely made choice to adopt a faith, not from the government giving its citizens an ultimatum to sit either in a pew or a prison cell."

2. Comment on this, from a TWW member: "Even though I would encourage troubled people to seek after God personally and in the context of a church family, I have a problem with a judge placing prison and church attendance on the same level, so that to avoid the former, one would be forced to accept the latter. I can't help but think that could easily lead to resentment, hypocrisy and projection of one's feelings about governmental authorities onto God or church authorities."
3. Respond to this, from a sermon by Texas pastor Charles Aaron: "Did we come to church this morning thinking it was a safe thing to do? Did we come with some expectation of receiving a blessing, a bit of comfort, but no real challenge? Did we think about the possibility that an encounter with Jesus would rearrange our lives, explode our priorities, cause us to give more than we ever expected? Did we think we could get a little something from Jesus, a dose of grace to help us through the week? Did we come for the fellowship, the music, the spiritual boost? No one can argue with those reasons."
Aaron continues, "The risen Christ, however, may have had other plans for this worship service. Christ may want to come under our skins and transform us. Christ may see through us so that something we have well hidden comes to the surface. Christ may kick out from under us the things we use to prop ourselves up, but that we don't really need. Are we ready for that? Did we bargain on that when we walked through the door today?"
4. Respond to this, from Ernest Campbell, former pastor of Riverside Church in New York City. "From the very beginning of the human enterprise, religious longings have required institutional form. We need each other: the uplifting of a shared liturgy, a shared fellowship, a shared service. However personal our faith may be, it cannot possibly be private and survive. Let it be remembered that Jesus was not a spiritual Lone Ranger going off on his own. He was a product of the Old Testament church and one who heralded the dawn of the New Testament church. The local church, faults and all, is the central entity of the Christian enterprise."
5. Devotional writer Carl W. Franke notes that when geese fly in a V formation, the flapping of each goose's wings creates an upward lift for the goose that follows. When all geese do their part, the whole flock has a 71 percent greater flying range than if each bird were to fly alone. Also, when one bird begins to lag, the others "honk" it into position. Franke says, "I am sure that it is at least 71 percent easier to live the Christian life 'flying with the flock' -- being active in the church -- than trying  to go it alone. And it is good to have the advantage of being lovingly called back into position if we stray from our faith." Do you agree? Why or why not?
6. One TWW team member commented that for some attendees, the church becomes the "social satisfaction community" without being a place where they are spiritually fed. How do you define "being spiritually fed"?
Responding to the News
It is good from time to time in the church to remind ourselves what we gain from regular attendance. It is also good to examine whether the components of our worship service are designed to feed the spiritually hungry and strengthen the faith of each person who attends. 

Closing Prayer

May our worship of you this day, O Lord, be pleasing in your sight. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Nation Approaches "Fiscal Cliff"

The news this week has been abuzz with the term "fiscal cliff." That's a shorthand way of referring to the negative economic impact the U.S. government and the general population will face when the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 go into effect at the start of 2013. The "cliff" can be avoided if Congress acts to change the law, but as of this writing (on Wednesday), the two sides in the debate on how to avoid the impact are far apart and engaged in brinkmanship.
According to financial writer Thomas Kenney, if no compromise is reached in Congress, the new year will bring "the end of last year's temporary payroll tax cuts (resulting in a 2 percent tax increase for workers), the end of certain tax breaks for businesses, shifts in the alternative minimum tax that would take a larger bite, the end of the tax cuts from 2001-2003, and the beginning of taxes related to [the Affordable Care Act]. At the same time, the spending cuts agreed upon as part of the debt ceiling deal of 2011 will begin to go into effect."
These cuts, which would kick in automatically due to the provisions in the 2011 Budget Control Act, would affect more than 1,000 government programs, including the defense budget and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that all of this would cut the gross domestic product by four percentage points, sending the economy into a recession and causing unemployment to rise almost a full percentage point, with 2 million jobs lost.
It should be noted, however, that there is some debate over the severity and scope of the consequences as well as the effect of various policy moves to reduce the consequences. The policy moves are tied in with non-economic ideologies.
The central issues revolve around tax rates, tax rate distribution, the size of federal government expenditures, the scope of federal government power and the federal spending deficit. Democrats, including President Obama, want a combination of tax increases for the upper 2 percent of American tax filers along with either some spending cuts or increased “stimulus” spending.” Most Republicans want no increase in taxes and believe that an increase only on the top 2 percent would result in less revenue to the federal government and result in worse economic growth, including higher unemployment, and favor both wider and deeper spending cuts.
The current political gridlock in Congress makes reaching a compromise difficult. Many observers believe that whatever happens won't occur until very near the deadline, if then, and that those measures that are passed may be stop-gap, pushing real policy change into the new year or even later.
The "cliff" image is misleading in the sense that the full impact of a Congressional failure to act wouldn't be felt immediately, though if allowed to continue, would most likely cause significant damage to the economy over the year and would be felt in most households.
While it is possible for Congress to allow the economy to plunge over the "cliff" and then change the laws retroactively, many Americans would like to see the matter addressed with a good compromise before then. One Wired Word team member tells of hearing a story that is apropos to the Congressional impasse: It involves three people who were interviewing for the position of school bus driver. Each was asked how close to the edge of the cliff he could get without going over. One said he could get within a foot or two. The second said he could get within inches. The third said, "I have no idea. I'd stay as far away from the edge of the cliff as I could get, especially with a busload of children!" That's the candidate who was hired.

More on this story can be found at these links:

What Is the Fiscal Cliff? About.com
Same Players, Same Disputes in Fiscal Cliff Debate. CNN
What Will the Fiscal Cliff Cost You? Bloomberg Businessweek

The Big Questions
1. Brinkmanship is defined as the practice "of seeking advantage by creating the impression that one is willing and able to push a highly dangerous situation to the limit rather than concede." Is there any place for brinkmanship in church life? If so, what is worth going to the "cliff" over? How do we decide? Is it acceptable to take others, including the unwilling, over the cliff with you? If there is no place in church life for brinkmanship, explain why not.
2. When is it important to forge ahead without taking time to consider God's will? When is it a mistake to do so?
3. To what degree should setting church policy (in a congregation or in a denomination) be a matter of finding common ground? Are there policy discussions where common ground ought not be the goal? When and why or why not? Are there times when you can afford to back off from an issue where there is disagreement and wait for consensus to develop? Is the church subject to the same deadline constraints as society?
4. The country is facing the fiscal cliff now because during the budget negotiations of 2011, lawmakers did not come to an agreement and "kicked the can down the road" with a stop-gap measure. We are now "down the road" where the "can" and the fiscal cliff are. In our spiritual life, do we ever engage in similar inaction? In what ways do we delay "doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly with our God" (Micah 6:8) and otherwise put off tending to kingdom-of-God business? What are the ramifications of continued posturing, rhetoric, etc. that push decisions into the future and deny the impact of that decision on the present? 
5. In what ways and in what areas of our lives do we test the limits of what God will allow?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
2 Chronicles 26:16
"But when he had become strong he grew proud, to his destruction." (For  context, read 26:1-21.)
On balance, Uzziah was one of the better kings of Israel. "He did what was right in the sight of the LORD" says the chronicler (v. 4). At least he did until later in life. Early on, he undertook many projects for the good of his people and took steps to increase the nation's security. But then comes the verse above. When he had "become strong" politically and in terms of having the respect of his people, he began to "bull" through his own ideas, even entering the temple and doing there what only the sanctified priests were to do. This was a dangerous precipice he went over, and consequently, he was struck with "a leprous disease" (v. 19), and had to surrender the reins of power to his son. 
Questions: When have you given yourself permission to do something questionable, saying, "Surely God won't mind if I ..." and then bulled ahead? What happened?
Daniel 6:10
"Although Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he continued to go to his house, which had windows in its upper room open toward Jerusalem, and to get down on his knees three times a day to pray to his God and praise him, just as he had done previously." (For context, read 6:1-28.)
Daniel, a faithful Jew, was living in Babylonia where a new edict had just outlawed praying to anyone but the Babylonian king. Anyone who did so was to be killed. Daniel, however, continued praying to God, and not in secret, but deliberately where he would be observed doing so, so as to cause a confrontation on this matter. Eventually, he was thrown to the lions, but God kept him unharmed, and the edict was rescinded.
This action, in effect, was Daniel "playing chicken" with the authorities. He went all the way up to -- and over! -- the brink, because the cost of giving in and failing to follow what he understood to be God's leading was greater than the loss of even his life.
A TWW team member points us to the acronym BATNA,* which stands for Best Alternative To A Negotiated Resolution. Whenever we negotiate, both sides have to have in view what the alternative is. (In the fiscal cliff matter, the BATNA includes the automatic tax increases and some spending cuts -- which are unlikely to be the best (or even great) resolutions, but they’re what we have. Of course both sides have their own views of what the long-term consequences of going over that cliff will be, so that plays into their assessment of their own -- and the other side's -- BATNA.)
Our team member goes on to comment: "You could say this same game [of chicken] played out in Jesus' life, in the opposition of the religious leaders. They kept pushing, giving Jesus chances to give in and say he wasn't the king, wasn't the Son of God, etc. Jesus, on his side, kept doing what he knew he was to do, and in his own way tweaked the religious leaders about their lack of faithfulness. When the religious leaders couldn't see his side, it must have looked to them like Jesus' BATNA was martyrdom. What no one counted on was that his BATNA was victory over death!" 
*From the book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, by Roger Fisher, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton
Questions: Over what matters have you felt it essential to stand your ground despite pressure from others to compromise? What was the BATNA in those cases? When you choose, for reasons of principle, to go "over a cliff" yourself, what weight do you give to the fact that some people may be negatively affected by your choice?
Matthew 4:6
"If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, 'He will command his angels concerning you,' and 'On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.'" (For context, read 4:1-11.)
This is dialog between the devil and Jesus during the latter's temptations in the wilderness. In this case, the devil is tempting Jesus to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple while relying on God's protection that he not be hurt. In effect, the devil is telling Jesus to "test the limits" of God's care. Jesus responds with Scripture, quoting Deuteronomy 6:16 -- "Again it is written, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test'" (v. 7).
We note the case of Psalm 106:14, which says that the people of Israel, while in the desert, "had a wanton craving ... and put God to the test." Then verse 15 says God "gave them what they asked, but sent a wasting disease among them."
We are reminded of a person who, despite earning well during his working years, made no financial provisions for his retirement. He was a Christian, and he believed that God would take care of him, but in effect, he built a "fiscal cliff" into his life and deliberately put God to the test. In a way, God did take care of him, because friends helped him out financially, but his retirement ended up being pretty meager and unhappy.
Questions: What is the difference between trusting God (as in the case of Daniel) and putting God to the test (as in the case of the man who assumed God would care for his retirement finances)? Why does the Bible encourage trusting God but not testing him?
Luke 9:59-60
"To another [Jesus] said, 'Follow me.' But he said, 'Lord, first let me go and bury my father.' But Jesus said to him, 'Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.'" (For context, read 9:57-62.)
While heading to Jerusalem, Jesus invited a man along the way to follow him. We're not told why, but apparently something about the man's demeanor told Jesus he was a possible candidate for discipleship. The man, however, "kicked the can down the road," declining to make the decision right then. His "explanation" at first sounds reasonable -- he wanted to bury his father first -- but it's likely that his father wasn't dead and that the explanation was really an escape line.
Questions: When have you responded with "Maybe later, Lord," to some call from God? What happened?
James 1:22-24
"But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like." (For context, read 1:14-26.)
One TWW team member says that this business of "playing chicken" is like those who look at themselves in a mirror and then, after walking away, forget what they look like. There are two ways this mirror metaphor can be applied:
1) We sometimes do the same with God's call to be "doers of the word." While we're considering the call, we agree that it's something we should do. But when we settle for just HEARING the word and not actually doing it, its importance seems to disappear in the same way our reflection does when we walk away from a mirror.
2) Looking in a mirror, we see what we really look like, imperfections and all. But unless we use that information to change our self, what we've seen is to no avail.
Questions: In what ways is the Bible a mirror we are looking into? In what ways do you "play chicken" with what you see there?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from the same team member who pointed us to BATNA: "I used to be a lawyer and often found myself in negotiations where this BATNA stuff was in play, as well as questions of how to go about the negotiations. I do think there are biblical/ethical limits on how we are to negotiate. You don't lie. You don't hide evidence. You don't make people into pawns (like sometimes happens with custody of/visitation with the children in a divorce negotiation where that gets used as a bargaining chip). You choose ethical representatives/spokespersons. You're careful about issuing ultimatums, which means that you have to be very clear with your own self about what is truly worth going over the cliff for, and what isn't." 
2. We recognize that in the Congressional standoff, there are competing views of what measures will most contribute to the common good, and we assume there are at least some sincere believers in those views on both sides. Likewise, in some disagreements within churches or denominations, there are "true believers" in the staked-out positions. Sometimes, to go to a "common good" compromise feels to those committed to one view or the other like a betrayal of principles. In such cases, should the "good of the most" be a consideration in whether one agrees to a compromise or not? Why or why not? What are some other alternatives?
3. Respond to this, from a TWW team member who is a Church of the Brethren pastor: "In my faith tradition, during the 19th century, the old Brethren met every year as a denomination somewhere in the country to discern God’s will through Scripture. Sometimes they did not agree. When they did not have consensus they waited until the next year, or the next. Their arguments were heated, but they were content to wait decades until God’s will became clear. The only time they split, in the early 1880s, there was one person who kept insisting a decision had to be made right then. The Brethren split three ways. Within 20 years all the Brethren groups were in accord on the issues that [had] divided them."
4. Households sometimes deal with a sort of "fiscal cliff." Perhaps we dare to walk too close to the edge of the cliff in terms of maxing out credit cards, living beyond our means, etc., and sometimes we end up in bankruptcy or foreclosure as a result. Should we expect our government to behave differently from how we do ourselves? Why?
5. Respond to this: One TWW member observes that congregations sometimes stay so far away from fiscal cliffs that it impinges on their ability to minister. They work hard at not living beyond their means, and end up being scared to live fully into their means for doing ministry. She says, "I've been a part of a congregation, and have known others, so afraid of going broke that they quibbled over every nickel and dime that might be spent on ministry. Perhaps that's an example of not going close enough to the fiscal cliff!! It's like seeing someone with a broken leg lying five feet from the cliff, while you stand 25 feet from the cliff, and not 'daring' (or choosing) to go help the hurt person."
6. It's possible that at least a few politicians will vote for a compromise to avoid the fiscal cliff not particularly because of deep concern for their constituents but because they want to be reelected. Does doing the right thing count if it is done for the wrong reason? Does doing good deeds count if we do them primarily to be considered righteous by God or others?
Responding to the News
Perhaps the key spiritual insight from this lesson is about the difference between "stepping out in faith" and "putting God to the test," especially when you are considering undertaking something that is controversial or a significant change of direction. One way to think about the difference is to ask, "Am I doing this to make God prove himself, or am I doing this because I believe God is calling me to do it?" It's more likely to be something blessed by God if it's the latter.
Closing Prayer

We pray, O Lord, for our president and lawmakers, that the result of their labors might be the good of all. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Violating Truce With Israel Is Sinful, Says Gaza Cleric

Despite some small flare-ups between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians near the Israeli-Gaza border, the truce between the two groups, which most reports describe as "fragile," is claimed by many to have been strengthened thanks to a ruling from a leading Islamic cleric in the Gaza Strip, Suleiman al-Daya. Last Sunday, he issued a religious edict called a fatwa, declaring it a sin to violate the cease-fire.

Because al-Daya holds the respect of both the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group Hamas and the ultra-conservative Salafi Muslims who also oppose political accommodations with Israel, his edict gives the truce a religious legitimacy and provides the Gaza government, which Hamas controls, with grounds to enforce it.

"Honoring the truce, which was sponsored by our Egyptian brethren, is the duty of each and every one of us. Violating it shall constitute a sin," the fatwa read.

The United States also helped broker the deal.

A spokesman for Gaza's government said that Hamas is committed to the truce. (The term used by Hamas and in the fatwa is the Arabic word hudna, which does not correspond exactly to either "truce" or "cease-fire." It means calm, tranquility or intermission. In conflict, it means the cessation of hostilities, but does not imply the end of the conflict.)

The Gaza-Israel conflict, which is now in abeyance, left more than 160 Palestinians dead, many of whom were civilians. Six Israelis also died during the conflict, including civilians and soldiers. Almost 1700 rockets have been fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip this year, up from 627 fired last year.

More on this story can be found at these links:

Gaza Cleric Calls Violation of Israel Truce Sinful. USA Today
Hamas Leaders in Egypt for Cease-Fire Talks Involving Israel. CNN

The Big Questions

1. How do you define sin? Is "sin" something different from "sins"? If so, in what ways are they different?

2. Who has the authority to declare something a sin? Why?

3. How are our sins and our intentions related? How often do you think you sin? Might there be sins you commit of which you are unaware?

4. Are some sins minor and some major? If so, give examples of each. Do you think God regards all sins alike? How has your opinion regarding the nature of sin changed over the years? In what ways are your views the same? Whose statements about sin have been the most off-putting to you? Whose statements about sin have been the most perceptive, in your opinion, and have had an influence in how you look at the world?

5. How does some action that is neutral in its own right become a sin? How does it become a blessing?

Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:

Proverbs 14:21
"Those who despise their neighbors are sinners, but happy are those who are kind to the poor." (No additional context needed.)
Proverbs 21:4
"Haughty eyes and a proud heart -- the lamp of the wicked -- are sin." (No additional context needed.)
Romans 14:23
"But those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." (For context, read 14:13-23.)
James 2:9
"But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors." (For context, read 2:8-13.)
James 4:17
"Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin." (For context, read 4:13-17.)

We quote these five verses not to comment on each, but simply to point out some examples of biblical authors declaring some attitude or action a sin. In the biblical milieu, these declarations are not seen in quite the same way that an Islamic fatwa is, but more in the sense of teaching what sin is through examples and urgings to examine one's heart. Still, the biblical authors were not shy about calling out sin when they saw it.

Questions: How have biblical pronouncements about sin and wrongdoing helped you understand what righteousness is? Each of these verses could be considered a "one-off" or "stand-alone." How do these verses reinforce each other? In what way would any of these verses be deficient without the other verses or a larger biblical context? Can sin and righteousness be defined in a single verse? Does one verse speak for the entire Bible?

1 Kings 12:29-30
"He set one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan. And this thing became a sin ..." (For context, read 12:25-33.)

After King Solomon died, the nation of Israel split into two, with the southern group remaining under the reign of Solomon's son. The northern group chose Jeroboam to be their king. Since the temple was in Jerusalem, which was in the land of the southern tribes, Jeroboam did not want his people worshiping there, fearing they would want to revert to the leadership of Davidic kings. So Jeroboam set up two worship sites within the northern territory, complete with golden calves and a non-Levitical priesthood.

Jeroboam's actions are judged harshly in the Bible. The author of the book of Kings comments that "this thing became a sin."

The meaning of that phrase comes from the intent of Jeroboam's actions. We can imagine him saying, "Well, yes, I know God instructed us to worship at Jerusalem and not to make any graven images, but these arrangements work out better for my plans." Jeroboam's real sin was in putting himself above God.

Jeroboam actually had God's blessing initially. A prophet named Ahijah even announced to Jeroboam that God had selected him to rule the northern tribes. So Jeroboam began in favor with God, but because of his high-handed action in establishing the calf worship, he became separated from God. The action became a sin.

Questions: What in general makes something a sin? If sin, as it is usually defined, is an offense against God, can it be that something that offends God in one time period does not offend him in another? Can you think of occasions you have experienced or observed when an act, in and of itself perhaps innocent, became sinful because of the context in which it happened? What about the opposite circumstance -- can you think of acts or situations that might normally be considered sinful that might even be righteous in certain cases (from simple things such as breaking the speed limit to save a life to more complex questions of ending one life to save others)?

Jeremiah 17:9
"The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse -- who can understand it?" (For context, read 17:5-13.)

Jeremiah is here using "heart" metaphorically to mean our spiritual, emotional, moral and intellectual core, and he says that deviousness and perversity lurk there.

A common definition of a sin is "doing something that we should not do or failing to do something that we should do." By that definition, neither deviousness nor perversity are A sin, but they are the very foundation of sin.

At the root of sin is an attitude that fails to honor God and/or fails to love one's neighbor. Sinful acts are what follow from that attitude.

Questions: What steps should we take to safeguard against perversity in our hearts?

There is a long prayer confessing sin prayed by the character King Claudius in Hamlet, in which he reflects on how his actions are sins, but does not wish to undo those sins -- renounce his crown, for instance -- in order to receive forgiveness. In the end he states:

My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
Words without thought do not to heaven go.

How important is it for words and thoughts to be tied together for forgiveness to take place? Is it possible to confess sins and pray for forgiveness with words only, even if our heart is not yet there? Is that enough?

Matthew 6:1
"Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven." (For context, read 6:1-6, 16-18.)

In Matthew 6:1-18, Jesus talks about practicing piety, giving alms and praying. By themselves, these are all good things -- very good things. But Jesus' comments about them in this passage show how they can be perverted: Practice your piety so that you can be seen and praised by others. Give to the needy so that people will speak of what a charitable person you are. Make a big show of your praying so that people will praise you as a great prayer warrior.

Questions: Let's say you like to play golf. Nothing wrong with that. Certainly nothing sinful about the game as it stands. But now suppose you like to play golf so much that you abandon your family every Saturday, despite promising to participate in some activity with your spouse and kids. Under those circumstances, could playing golf become a sin? To the extent that you feel comfortable doing so, discuss things such as an obsession with golf that might be sinful for you that are not sinful for others. What does this say about sin as an absolute or relative condition?

Ephesians 1:7-8
"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace that he lavished on us." (For context, read 1:3-14.)

Trying to teach the meaning of "repentance," a Sunday school teacher wanted to make sure the class had understood her point. She asked, "Can anyone tell me what you must do before you receive forgiveness for your sins?" There was some silence, but it was finally broken by a small voice from the back of the room: "First, you gotta sin!"

Of course, that's the problem: We already have sinned. But that realization can make us ready to hear this statement of pure gospel from the apostle Paul.

Note the word "redemption." In the sense in which Paul uses it here, he means that Christ's saving action "buys us back" from the sins to which we have sold ourselves. Redemption in that sense is something that only God can do, but he offers it freely.

Question: How does the Christian faith help you to both define sin and accept redemption in your own life?

For Further Discussion

1. Consider the following, from pastor and author Tony Campolo: "I always am uptight when somebody says ... 'I love the sinner, but I hate the sin.' I'm sure you've heard that line over and over again. And my response is, 'That's interesting. Because that's just the opposite of what Jesus says. Jesus never says, "Love the sinner, but hate his sin." Jesus says, "Love the sinner, and hate your own sin. And after you get rid of the sin in your own life, then you can begin talking about the sin in your brother or sister's life." ' "

2. Comment on the following from Martin Luther: "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death and the world."

3. The following are some stories and comments about sin. Some are lighthearted, but each makes one or more serious points. Ask your members to tell what the point(s) of each is (are):
*A TV evangelist once announced on his program that there are 577 different sins that people can commit. He received thousands of letters asking for the list.
*A big church had a lighted board out front, on which the pastor put slogans and sayings for the edification of passersby. One week the motto was, "If you're done with sin, come on in." But someone had written an addendum on the sign in lipstick:, "But if you're not quite done, call 272-0200."
*St. Anthony, a Franciscan monk from the 13th century, counseled, "Expect temptation with your last breath."
*A grandfather wanted to make sure that his grandson, whom he sent to church every Sunday, was actually attending, so when the grandson came home one Sabbath, Grandpa asked, "What did the preacher talk about?" "Sin," the kid said. "What did he say about it?" Grandpa asked. The kid said, "He was against it."

4. Respond to this: While Christians are all against sin, we don't all agree on what constitutes sin, or which sins are grave and which are not. Comedian George Carlin grew up Roman Catholic, which he speaks about on his album Class Clown, on the track titled "Special Dispensation -- Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and Limbo," he expresses the hope that they promoted all those people who went to hell for eating meat on Fridays.

Responding to the News

Sin is not something to brood about. Jesus came in part to forgive both the specific actions and the rebellious attitudes that separate us from God. But after we are redeemed, it's still wise and useful to test the actions we are unsure about against this question: If I do this thing, will it become a sin because of my intention and attitude?

Closing Prayer

We pray, O Lord, that you will work in the hearts of all involved, that the fragile cease-fire may blossom into real peace. In Jesus' name. Amen.

New Congress Has Greater Religious Diversity

When members of the 113th Congress take their seats in January, they will be the most ecumenical gathering of that body since its beginning, roughly mirroring changes in religious affiliation in the U.S. population as a whole, according to a report by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life.
The new Congress will include the first Buddhist to serve in the Senate, the first Hindu to serve in either chamber and the first member to describe her religion as "none." There will be more Catholics than in previous Congresses. Although Protestants are still in the majority (at 56.4 percent), their numbers have gradually declined since 50 years ago, when three-quarters of members belonged to Protestant denominations. The 112th Congress had 307 Protestants; the 113th will have 299.
The Pew report noted that while the new Congress is the most religiously diverse in U.S. history, it can also be considered the least devout, as 11 members report their religion as either "unaffiliated" or "don't know/refused." This is a record high in Congress for those categories, but is significantly lower than the national average for those categories, which is about one in five adults.
While Protestants continue to be in the majority, every Protestant denomination represented in Congress except for Baptists saw their numbers decline or remain the same. Baptists added six members.
Jewish membership in Congress declined from 39 to 32, mostly from retirements.
According to the Pew count, the numbers are as follows:

Protestant                      299
Catholic                        161
Mormon                          15
Orthodox Christian           5
Jewish                             32
Buddhist                            3
Muslim                              2
Hindu                                1
Unitarian Universalist       1
Other Faiths                      0
Unaffiliated                       1
Don't Know/ Refused      10
Total                              530
More on this story can be found at these links:

Faith on the Hill: The Religious Composition of the 113th Congress. The Pew Forum
Incoming Congress Least Devout, Most Religiously Diverse. Washington Times

The Big Questions
1. What role, if any, should a candidate's religious affiliation play in his or her qualifications for elected office? To what degree is the lack of religious affiliation in an legislator a matter of concern to you regarding that person's ability to represent his or her constituency? Why? Do you believe someone from a different faith can represent your interests well?
2. Are there ways in which it is important for legislative bodies to mirror to some degree the religious diversity of the constituency? Are there ways in which it doesn't it matter? Are there ways in which it is undesirable? For any "yes" answers, what are some of those ways? 
3. Which makes America stronger: religious diversity or a common religious view? How does it (or does it not) make a difference if the "diversity" is a diversity of Christian groups compared to a diversity of Christian and non-Christian religions? 
4. Since a legislator's religious affiliation is no guarantee of his or her religious commitment, how important is that person's religious affiliation to you?
5. Is it ever accurate to link political positions with particular faith traditions? Explain your answer. Are there some faith traditions which are antithetical to a form of government guaranteeing the freedoms acknowledged in the Bill of Rights? If so, what are some examples, and how do they conflict with American values?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
2 Chronicles 36:22-23
"In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he sent a herald throughout all his kingdom and also declared in a written edict: 'Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him! Let him go up.'" (No additional context needed.)
These are the closing verses of 2 Chronicles. Except for these, that biblical book would end on a sad note, for the rest of the final chapter tells about the last days of the kingdom of Judah, including the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, who burned the temple, destroyed the city and marched the leading citizenry off to exile in Babylon.
The verses above, however, introduce the next chapter of Israel's story, which began several decades later. What isn't reported here is that eventually, the Persians defeated the Babylonians. The Persian king at the time, Cyrus, had a different attitude than the Babylonians toward the Jews held captive in the empire he had taken over. He not only permitted all who wanted to do so to return to their homeland, but he also authorized (and funded) the rebuilding of the temple.
Cyrus was not a worshiper of Israel's God, and he didn't "free" the Jews. They remained subjects of the Persian Empire. His motives for helping them aren't certain either: He may have had a pluralistic outlook or a wish to thank "whatever gods there may be" for his success, or he may have done it for political expediency, to garner gratitude and loyalty from the subject peoples throughout his realm.
Whatever his motivations, however, the Hebrew prophet whose messages to the exiled Jews appear in Isaiah 40-55 announced in advance that Cyrus would be God's "shepherd" who would do what God wanted (Isaiah 44:28). This prophet also referred to Cyrus as the Lord's "anointed" (literally, "Messiah" -- Isaiah 45:1) and quoted God: "I have aroused Cyrus in righteousness, and I will make all his paths straight; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward, says the LORD of hosts"  (Isaiah 45:13).

Clearly, it didn't require "denominational affiliation" for Cyrus to be an agent of the Lord.
By the way, the verses above are the very last verses in the Hebrew Bible. (The books are arranged in a different order from how they are in the Christian Bible.) The Hebrew Scriptures end on this note, that God is about the business of restoring and that God can use believers and nonbelievers in this great task.
Questions: How do you account for the fact that God sometimes uses people who don't believe in him to accomplish his will? What does it mean that a non-Jewish ruler not only respects another's faith, but says that he is acting on God's orders and is a part of God's plan? Do you consider self-identified non-Christian leaders as agents of God's will? Do these leaders have to acknowledge this in order to be following God's will? What does this say to those who insist that only Christians -- or their brand of Christians -- are following God's will?
Ezra 6:13
"Then, according to the word sent by King Darius, Tattenai, the governor of the province Beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai, and their associates did with all diligence what King Darius had ordered." (For context, read 5:1--6:15.)
Several years after the exiles returned to Judah, and long after Cyrus had died, a non-Jew named Tattenai was the governor of Judah, administering it for the Persian Empire. When the Jews began rebuilding the temple, he questioned where they had gotten the authorization. They told him about Cyrus' degree, but too many years had passed, and Tattenai had no knowledge of it. So he carried out his responsibilities, writing about the situation to the current Persian king, Darius. Darius had the archives searched, found the decree and issued a fresh authorization instructing Tattenai to cooperate with the project. While religiously unaffiliated with the Jews, Tattenai "did with all diligence what King Darius had ordered."
Questions: Darius' fresh authorization included this: "Furthermore I decree that if anyone alters this edict, a beam shall be pulled out of the house of the perpetrator, who then shall be impaled on it. The house shall be made a dunghill" (v. 11). That may well have accounted for Tattenai's "diligence." But as long as an official does the right thing for his or her constituents, do the person's motives matter? Why or why not?
Tattani took the time to research the Jewish claim about the temple. When you are told something about a leader or about the history of our country, do you accept it at face value or do you do research? Where do you do this research?
Ezekiel 47:21-23
"So you shall divide this land among you according to the tribes of Israel. You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who reside among you and have begotten children among you. They shall be to you as citizens of Israel; with you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe aliens reside, there you shall assign them their inheritance, says the Lord GOD." (For context, read 47:13-23.)

Ezekiel was a prophet to the Jews in exile. Chapters 40-48 of the book bearing his name describe a vision Ezekiel had in which he saw God restoring the Jews to their homeland. In 47:13-23, Ezekiel hears God tell of the boundaries of their land being re-established to where they were in the days of Kings David and Solomon. And then come the verses above, which instruct that unlike in the original kingdom, land shall also be given to "aliens" living among them, and there's no explicit requirement that these aliens follow the Jewish faith.
The Jews did eventually return to their homeland, but it never reached the boundaries described in Ezekiel's vision. And when the returnees did encounter religious diversity, their tendency was to "circle the wagons" against it (see Ezra 9-10). Still, Ezekiel 47 can be interpreted as indicating that religious homogeneity is not the goal.
Questions: What do you make of the idea that "religious homogeneity is not the goal"? Give reasons for your answer. How do you define religious homogeneity? With which non-Christian faiths are you most comfortable? Which are you uncomfortable with? Is our nation enriched by a variety of faiths? Why or why not?
Acts 5:38-39
"'So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them -- in that case you may even be found fighting against God!' They were convinced by him ..." (For context, read 5:17-42.)
This is another example of an authority acting for the good of people of a different religious conviction. Because the apostles were preaching about Jesus, the high priest, who considered Jesus an outlaw, had them arrested, but God freed them. So, wondering what to do next, the Jewish high council met, and one member, Gamaliel, advised the group to allow the apostles to continue their work on the assumption that if their message was from God, it would succeed, and if not, it would fail.
Questions: Technically, Gamaliel and the apostles were of the same religion, for they were all Jews. Christianity, at this point, was still a movement within Judaism. But Gamaliel did not share the apostles' convictions about Jesus, which made him religiously different from them. How does your conviction about Jesus affect your ability to appreciate the concerns of someone from a non-Christian faith?
How willing are you to follow the advice of Gamaliel to wait to see if something is of God? Are you satisfied when something --a television show, a product, a health plan or philosophy -- offers help even if it is not Christian?
Romans 13:1
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God." (For context, read 13:1-7.)
In the early days of Christianity, no governing authorities were Christians, but here Paul states that their authority is from God, and he advises Christians to consider themselves subjects of such authorities.
The Romans text is written before really horrific persecution began under Emperor Nero. Jews and Christians had been expelled from Rome because of messianic unrest around A.D. 51 or so, but there had also been some measure of protection, and Paul had even appealed to the emperor when he faced the possibility of a kangaroo court.
Questions: In what ways do you view legislators, regardless of religious affiliation, as God's servants? People tend to cite this text when their guy is president and ignore it when the other party takes power. What helps you to apply in either case?
For Further Discussion
1. What interests you about the religious faith of candidates for elected office?
2. If we expect that a representative who is Catholic or Protestant can represent the interests of constituents who may be Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist or some other faith, why should we or should we not expect a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or other representative to see to the needs and interests of Protestant or Catholic constituents?
3. What is there about Christian morality that is common to all or many faiths? What do you suppose is peculiar or unique to Christian morality?
4. Have you had any experience with legislators who come from a different faith or cultural tradition than yours? What was your experience like? Has anyone questioned your leadership, whether in politics, business, church or clubs and associations, because of your faith background?
5.  Martin Luther differentiated between God's kingdom in civil government, which rules by power and coercion and is directed toward providing for protection and orderly affairs, and God's kingdom in the church, which rules solely by grace and is concerned with leading people to trust in God for their salvation from sin. How does this "Two Kingdoms" teaching impact how one views the religion of public officials?
6. Do you think some candidates profess faith for political purposes? Is it more important to be honest or to be pragmatic in pursuing political goals?
Responding to the News

Being aware of how our national population makeup is changing can be helpful in understanding the times in which we live our Christian faith.  
Closing Prayer
O God, bless our national political leaders, regardless of their religious persuasion, with the wisdom and courage to do what is right for the country as a whole. In Jesus' name. Amen.