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.

Petraeus Scandal Raises Both Security and Privacy Concerns

Former four-star general David Petraeus, 60, who once ran the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and who became director of the CIA after his retirement from the military, resigned in disgrace from that position last week after admitting an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, 40.

While extramarital affairs may be commonplace in Washington, when one involves the nation's spy chief, concerns about possible breaches of national security and access to classified information are immediate. There's also concern about the possibility of blackmail when one's position and reputation are at risk.

The liaison between Petraeus and Broadwell came to light during an FBI investigation of anonymous harassing emails sent to another woman, Jill Kelley, 37, along the lines of "stay away from my guy." Kelley was a friend of the Petraeuses, but there's no known sexual link between her and David Petraeus, who insists that his dalliance with Broadwell is his only marital infidelity. 

Kelley contacted the FBI about the threatening messages, which that agency traced to Broadwell's laptop computer. In the process, agents found messages between Broadwell and Petraeus that indicated the affair involving the two of them.

In the same process, emails found between Kelley and General John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, raised questions about possible inappropriate messages from Allen to Kelley, though both deny any liaison with the other. Still, the questions have caused President Obama to put Allen's nomination to become the NATO supreme allied commander on hold.

Broadwell, who, like Petraeus, is a West Point graduate, met the then general in 2006 when he spoke at Harvard, where she was a grad student. She later made him the topic of her dissertation, and eventually turned that into a book. During her research, she benefited from what she routinely described as "unprecedented access" to Petraeus (though the term now sounds like a double entendre). She flew to Afghanistan to interview him and stayed for months. Her book, called All In: The Education of General David Petraeus, was published in January of this year.

Despite the time the two were together in Afghanistan, the actual affair reportedly didn't begin until about two months after Petraeus took leadership of the CIA in September 2011. It ended about four months ago, by mutual decision, according to a Petraeus friend.

The affair has raised questions about whether Broadwell had access to national security information she shouldn't have. Investigators have now removed a computer and boxes of material from her home, but the results of that are not yet known. There is no known national security breach connected to Broadwell at this time. 

Because Petraeus had been scheduled to testify before Congress on the Benghazi attack and the government's response to it, some lawmakers and others have speculated that the timing of Petraeus' departure was linked to that. Because he has resigned, Petraeus won't testify as scheduled, though he could be called to testify later.

The way in which the affair came to light has also added fuel to the fire regarding online privacy. For more on this issue, see the New York Times article in the links below. 

Petraeus and his wife Holly have a daughter and a son. Broadwell and her husband Scott have two sons. Reportedly, the story of the affair broke while the Broadwells were on a romantic mini-vacation to a cozy B&B. They left early.

While the adultery itself is a significant issue, as are national security and online privacy, TWW team members have also identified the following issues specific to the Petraeus-Broadwell infidelity:

1. Petraeus was faithful while in uniform, but once he left his community of support (the Army), he drifted. We all need communities of support.

2. His biographer worshiped him, and he no doubt found this attention from an attractive woman intoxicating. Our value comes from being children of God, not from the praise of others.

3. Many of Petraeus' Army colleagues are now saying (anonymously) that they had concerns about his biographer, but either couldn't or wouldn't voice their concerns. We all need to hear the unvarnished truth if we are going to stay on the right path. Everyone needs an accountability partner.

4. Under current U.S. law (the Stored Communications Act), emails over six months old do not require a search warrant in order to be given to law enforcement. Regardless of current law, however, nothing is hidden from God, and our behavior ought to reflect that. 

5. There are important boundaries leaders should maintain. On the one side, the power differential and manipulation can work both ways, and can be a way for the senior to gain personal favors or for the junior to gain professional ones. On the flip side, the boundaries also mean that it's harder for the senior to receive negative feedback or warnings.

More on this story can be found at these links:

The Petraeus Scandal: What We Know. CNN

The Petraeus Affair: A Lot More Than Sex. CNN

Online Privacy Issue Is Also in Play in Petraeus Scandal. New York Times

The Big Questions

1. Have you ever engaged in behavior -- even if it was something not considered wrong per se -- that could compromise your effectiveness or have a negative impact on your Christian witness if it became known? How did you handle that?

2. In terms of our spiritual lives, is it better to have our secrets and sins known or left between ourselves and God? Should some be secret and some not? How do you decide? Do you or should you always act as if what you do is seen by someone? Have you ever had an embarrassing act, even if it was innocuous, recorded or seen without your knowledge? What became of that incident?

3. What behaviors have the potential to "spoil" us for effective service to God, as the choices Petraeus made appear to have destroyed his ability to serve the president and the nation going forward? With the understanding that everyone is a sinner, what sins, or misdeeds, or indiscretions disqualify a person for a particular job or task? What errors or sins can a person get away with in your particular job or vocation?  

4. What group or groups serve as spiritual support units for you? How do they keep you from "drifting"? If you don't have such a group, how do you go about finding one to join? In what ways can your church, study group or Sunday school class provide accountability?

5. Where do you go to hear the "unvarnished truth" about yourself? What enables you to consider it without rationalizing or being defensive? When have you made a change in your behavior as a result of hearing an uncomfortable assessment of your conduct?

Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope

Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:

2 Samuel 11:1

"In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle, David sent Joab with his officers and all Israel with him; they ravaged the Ammonites, and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem." (For context, read 11:1-27.)

The story of King David's adultery with Bathsheba is likely the first text Bible readers think of when seeking a biblical example of marital infidelity. But in the case of David Petraeus, the King David story seems especially apt. The opening verse of the David-Bathsheba story, quoted above, contains the line "But David remained at Jerusalem." In previous military campaigns, David had gone with his troops, but this time, he had not. He was isolated from his military comrades, away, if you will, from his community of support, as was Petraeus after retirement from the armed forces. King David now had time on his hands, and he got into trouble with another man's wife. So, apparently, did the other David.

A member of the TWW team who's served in the military and been on long deployments said, "The bit about support groups is spot on: It is easier to resist temptation in a group than alone."

Questions: What conscious practices, besides being in an accountability group, help you to resist temptations toward immoral behavior? 

The account of King David in 1 Chronicles, which was written a few centuries later than the 2 Samuel account, includes nothing about Bathsheba. Since the Chronicler seems to be aware of the older account, and uses it as one of his sources, he apparently made the deliberate choice not to include some of these sorts of incidents in the stories of David. Do you think the Chronicler ignored David's sin because from his viewpoint a few centuries later, they did not matter as much? Or do you think it might have been an attempt to whitewash David's life story? Do you care as much about the sexual indiscretions of, say, the Founding Fathers, as you do about those of recent politicians, religious leaders and military leaders? 

2 Samuel 12:7, 9

"Nathan said to David, 'You are the man! ...  Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight?'" (For context, read 12:1-23.)

Talk about hearing the unvarnished truth about oneself! After King David's adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of Bathsheba's husband, the prophet Nathan came to David with a tale about a rich man with many sheep who stole the single lamb belonging to a poor man. David was incensed and wanted to punish the rich man -- until Nathan suddenly told him, "You are the man!" At that, David realized the story was a parable, and that he was the thief who stole from another. David now knew the truth about himself, and it was shameful. To his slight credit, he did not protest, but eventually turned in worship to God (v. 20).

Our TWW team member who's served long military deployments comments, "Trying to correct or warn a very senior officer -- especially one with stars -- is difficult, not only due to the difference in rank, but due to his isolation. 'The loneliness of command' is not a cliché ...."

Questions: Following the revelations regarding Petraeus and Allen, there were those who seemed to place more focus on those who reported these events, as if they were to blame somehow, or because for a time, they knew and did not report. How difficult is it to choose between discretion and revelation when one knows uncomfortable facts about another person? How can one consult about the proper decision without widening the circle of knowledge to the point where no secret can be kept? 

Nathan as a prophet had to speak uncomfortable truths. Are people really comfortable with a whistleblower, even a heavenly whistleblower? Has there been an occasion when someone shared a truth about another person you trusted, and you wished they hadn't? Have you ever found yourself in Nathan's shoes? When have you had to speak uncomfortable truth to another? How did it turn out? If you had to do it over, would you do it the same way? Why or why not?

1 Samuel 18:7

"And the women sang to one another as they made merry, 'Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands.'" (For context, read 18:6-9.)

This is from an earlier time in King David's life, when he was a successful general in the army of King Saul. The text tells us that the women's hero worship made Saul jealous of David's accomplishments, but we wonder what effect it had on David. Perhaps it was part of what shaped him to feel later that he was entitled to take another man's wife. 

Questions: How do you react when someone praises you lavishly? What does it do for your ego? What is the best way to keep both feet on the ground in the face of a great deal of praise? How do you keep praise from feeding a sense that you are entitled to something others are not? Who do you count on as a truth-teller? 

Judges 16:15-17

"Then [Delilah] said to [Samson], 'How can you say, "I love you," when your heart is not with me? You have mocked me three times now and have not told me what makes your strength so great.' Finally, after she had nagged him with her words day after day, and pestered him, he was tired to death. So he told her his whole secret ..." (For context, read 16:4-21.) 

Concerns about security breaches and the eliciting of secret information are not far-fetched when one partner in a sexual encounter holds valuable information the other partner wants. Intimate relationships create a huge incentive to bypass established safeguards and reveal things one should not. While so far there's no evidence that such happened in the Petraeus-Broadwell liaison, it certainly happened in the Samson-Delilah tryst, and Samson paid a huge price, including imprisonment, blinding and, eventually, death.

Question: What other potential safeguards are at risk when one is intimate with someone besides one's spouse?

Titus 1:6

"An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife ..." (For context, read 1:5-9.)

Paul had left his coworker Titus in Crete to oversee the growth of the churches there. One of Titus' duties was to "appoint elders in every town" (v. 5). Paul then lists the qualifications Titus should look for when appointing elders, including that the man be "husband of but one wife." The version above, from the NIV, is faithful to the underlying Greek, but it's probably not so much a warning against choosing polygamists as against choosing adulterers. The Common English Bible words this verse as "Elders ... should be faithful to their spouse." In either case, however, the elder "must be blameless."

One TWW team member says, "Perhaps Paul's guidance to Titus that [an elder] should be 'the husband of one wife' was to ensure that he had an intimate source of feedback who could warn him of dangerous tendencies. Wives can be good at that -- and so, I presume, can husbands!"

Questions: Do you consider honest assessments of yourself a benefit of marriage? Why or why not? Comedians joke about how husbands and wives don't always want to answer questions from their spouse truthfully -- the classic, "Does this dress make me look fat?" or "That was a great presentation, wasn't it?" kind of questions. Do you and your spouse or another close confidant, really tell the truth to each other? Would you rather not have to answer such questions? When you call someone to leadership in the church, whether it is a pastor, a board chair, a choir director or another position, do you and others consider that person's spouse or lack of spouse; when making a decision? Ought you? 

For Further Discussion

1. Respond to this, from a TWW team member: "Our sins don't affect just  us -- or even just us and the one or two others we have directly sinned against. For example, in a congregation I served, two couples became entangled in adultery; the wife of one pair and the husband of the other pair had an affair. Not unsurprisingly, it led to much sorrow and brokenness among the two families (each of which included young children). But the reach of what we often think of as a private sin extended to the entire congregation and small-town community. At first, both couples actively avoided each other -- which was difficult because they had children in the same community and church activities. The women had both taught Sunday school; the men had ushered together. Now, those co-ministries were lost. Eventually, not one, but both families left the congregation -- one temporarily, the other for good. In a small congregation, when you lose two or four active members, and three or five young children, there is a noticeable void; more than anything, of course, we mourned the loss of the individuals themselves, but we also felt the absence of their ministries among us. The adultery of two, as it turned out, had affected 100 or more."

2. Comment on this, from a TWW team member: "Many laypeople, in my experience, don't really understand why pastors and other professionals/leaders need to maintain certain boundaries. Perhaps they do not fully grasp the power differential and how supposedly consensual sex between two adults can, in fact, be the result of subtle coercion/manipulation, or how -- on the more benign side of things -- even if a relationship or close friendship or such emerges between a leader and another and seems to be healthy, should that relationship deteriorate, the leader/professional does indeed stand to lose much in terms of reputation, integrity and ability to perform his/her duties effectively."

Comment on this, from CNN columnist Frida Ghitis: "[One lesson from the Petraeus scandal is that] powerful men, no matter how brilliant and accomplished, can suffer from a form of temporary insanity caused by the interaction of arrogance and libido." (From her column, 5 Things We've Learned From Petraeus Scandal. CNN)

3. In what way does the resulting publicity and focus on stories such as the Petraeus-Broadwell affair distract from the investigation of and reporting about more serious incidents? What can you do in order not to be distracted?

4. Acts 1:24 says, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. ..." How does that apply to today's lesson? 

5. In terms of adulterous relationships, in what ways are the following two statements excuses or stereotypes? "It's the guy's responsibility." "The woman seduced him." 

Responding to the News

We live in a highly sexualized culture. It's always important, nonetheless, to teach in our church that marital faithfulness is not simply an expectation for those belonging to the Christian counter-culture, but is also the most healthy arrangement for all married persons.

Closing Prayer

Help us, O Lord, not to be persuaded by our sexualized culture that we are missing out on something by being faithful in our marriages and to the other vows we have made. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Post-Election, Christians Can Model Respect, Honor, Love

In a hard-fought political battle, the one who did not prevail often helps set the tone for what comes next. In his concession speech on Wednesday morning, Gov. Mitt Romney called for cooperation between the political parties. He said, "This is a time of great challenges for America, and I pray that the president will be successful in guiding our nation."

Gov. Romney went on to thank his running mate, his wife and family, his campaign team and volunteers. Then he said, "The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this, we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work."

"And we citizens also have to rise to the occasion," Gov. Romney said. "We look to our teachers and professors; we count on you not just to teach, but to inspire our children with a passion for learning and discovery. We look to our pastors and priests and rabbis and counselors of all kinds to testify to the enduring principles upon which our society is built: honesty, charity, integrity and family. We look to our parents, for in the final analysis everything depends on the success of our homes. We look to job creators of all kinds; we're counting on you to invest, to hire, to step forward."

Gov. Romney then turned back to politicians, saying, "And we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics."

It is to be hoped that such will happen. But the campaigns themselves tend to make that difficult by playing toward a different tone. In his blog, TWW team member Timothy Merrill points out some of the problems:

1) [Political campaigns] model the wrong kind of behavior, a modeling and example that influences everyone of all ages. It's become okay to beat a person down in order to look better yourself. It's okay to whine about what the other guy did. Honestly, these politicians sound and act like second-graders sometimes. It's an utter disgrace.

2) The campaigns are too long. It is ironic in a communications age such as the one we live in today (Facebook, Twitter, Instagrams, wikis, YouTube, iPhones, iPads, Skype, FaceTime, television, blogs, e-zines) that politicians seem to believe they need more time -- not less time -- to get their message across to the American people. This is not a disgrace; it's ridiculous.

3) The two-year campaigns foment negativity, discord, disunity. We have no similar POSITIVE national catharsis, except perhaps the Super Bowl and Mother's Day. Two lousy days of the year. The rest of the time we're hollering or whining about something, and that includes Christmas.  

4) The campaigns elicit cynicism and political ennui. What's that collective sigh of relief we're hearing [at the end of the campaign] from coast to coast?

5) And finally ... the campaigns divide us so severely that we are unable to make changes WHICH EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY WISHES POLITICIANS WOULD MAKE with respect to all this tomfoolery. Change the length of the campaigns. Change the primary system. Change the electoral college. Change the length of the presidential term in office. Change the rules governing fair and decent speech. Change and limit the amount of television ads that can be aired. And so on.

Won't happen. And when change that the people want doesn't happen, the people lose interest, and less than half the eligible voters will even go to the polls.

Quite apart from what politicians and the citizenry as a whole choose to do now, however, it behooves Christians to model a better way. In that regard, we like the comments we found at two Christian websites. The first, from Russell D. Moore, appears on The Christian Post, which is usually considered to have a conservative slant, and from Moore's comments, it seems likely that he voted for Gov. Romney. The second, from Adam J. Copeland, appears on The Christian Century site which is considered to have a liberal slant. Copeland doesn't say whom he voted for, but given the site, it's likely he voted for President Obama.

Moore first said that as a conservative Christian, he disagrees with President Obama on several social issues, and he doesn't plan to back down on those matters. But he added that there are other things where it will be possible to work with the president. Then Moore said, "But whether in agreement or disagreement, we can honor."

After talking about the New Testament commands to honor government leaders, Moore said, "Christians, above all people, should pray for and show respect for our President and all of our elected officials. After all, unlike those who see politics as ultimate, we recognize that our political structures are important, but temporal, before an inbreaking kingdom of Christ. We don't then need to be fomented into the kind of faux outrage that passes for much of contemporary political discourse. And, unlike those who see history as impersonal or capricious, we see behind everything a God who is sovereign over his universe."

Moore continued, "So let's pray for President Obama. Let's not give ourselves to terms of disrespect, or every crazy conspiracy theory that floats across the Internet. ... However we voted in the election, let's pray for God to bless our president. We can pray for him to be granted wisdom and health. We can pray that God would prosper his good ideas, and change his mind on his bad ideas. Moreover, we can teach our children to respect our president, starting with referring to him as 'President Obama' or 'Our President,' not as 'Obama' or 'the guy our parents voted against' or what have you."

"There's a time to vote. There's a time to campaign. And there's a time to petition," Moore said. "But, through it all, let's be the people who, even as we speak with conviction, are marked by kindness and respect. When we have to differ with President Obama, let's do that, with backbone. But let's make sure we do all this with honor, with respect, with prayer and, most of all, with love."

Copeland spoke of his intention to receive Election Day Communion at a church following his trip to the polls. He said he planned "to meet at the Lord's Table to be reminded of greater priorities, repent of my sin and be sent to embrace my faith's higher calling."

Copeland continued, "This is not to say voting is unimportant or unrelated to my Christian faith. Indeed, I see participation in public life for the public good as fundamental to Christian discipleship. A well-run government supports me in my call to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God. Because of my Christian faith, I vote."

He went on to say, "The thrill of voting is all too quickly quashed by the choices before us. No elected official is without fault. No one fully lives up to the festal promise of election day. Our political system is deeply flawed. This election, more than any other, has reminded me how far we have to go."

"And yet," said Copeland, "the theologian John Calvin encouraged believers to 'think most honorably' of those who govern them, arguing that the Biblical narrative does not treat officials as 'a kind of necessary evil' but, instead, calls for citizens to have 'esteem and reverence' [for leaders] as ministers and representatives of God.'"

More on this story can be found at these links:

Mitt Romney's Concession Speech (Full Transcript). Washington Post
I Hope He Does a Good Job. Homiletics
How Should Christians Respond to Obama's Re-Election? Christian Post
Election Day Communion and the Sacrament of Voting. Christian Century

The Big Questions

1. What specific behaviors and actions help to make a Christian a good citizen of the country in which he or she lives?

2. How can Christians obey Jesus' command to love one another even when they have passionate and significant disagreements with each other? What specific behaviors should we avoid?

3. If you supported the candidate who lost the election, what is God calling you to do now? If you supported the candidate who won the election, what is God calling you to do now?

4. In what ways can Christians work together to fix political gridlock and open the public square for thoughtful, considerate, respectful discussion of our nation's critical issues?

5. Are politics simply too explosive for you to speak about in your congregation? Can there be more than one Christian position, politically speaking? What topics do you avoid talking about in church or with family and friends, Christian or otherwise? Is this the right thing to do? Why or why not?

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

John 13:34-35
"I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (For context, read 13:31-35.)

This is from Jesus, speaking to his disciples, who were a politically diverse group that included a tax collector who collaborated with Rome and a Zealot who sought to overthrow the government. Bible readers sometimes take this to mean that Christians are to "love everybody." But in context, Jesus is speaking to his followers and telling them to love one another. So while we may wish to extend love more broadly, at the very least, we ought to be behaving lovingly to those in the church with us ... even when talking about politics.

By the way, the command to love is not new (see Leviticus 19:18; Deuteronomy 6:5), but what's new in Jesus' words here is that he hinges that love for one another on "Just as I have loved you" (v. 34).

Questions: Does it seem as if people within churches have love for each other, especially when it comes to political issues? Is there a level of exhaustion and an unwillingness to dialog? Jesus gave this command to his disciples shortly before his death. Why do you think he waited until that time to do so?

Acts 2:6-8
"And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. Amazed and astonished, they asked, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language?" (For  context, read 2:1-11.)

This is from the story of the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit enabled people of all languages to understand the testimony of the disciples. It was also the day the church was born.

Questions: The Holy Spirit broke down language barriers. Does it seem as if nowadays there is just the opposite when it comes to politics, a "Babel" (see Genesis 11:1-9) of assumptions, coded language and language that prevents rather than promotes communication and love? How much of this has infected the church at large? Your church? How can our faith help us to "hear" each other? How does the Spirit unify us?  

Ephesians 2:14
"For [Christ] is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us." (For context, read 2:11-22.)

When Paul here refers to "both groups," he is talking about Jews ("the circumcision," v. 11) and Gentiles ("the uncircumcision," v. 11), but he could have been speaking to any two groups that were willing to follow Christ as the common ground upon which both stand. In being that common ground, Jesus becomes the source of peace between the factions. Paul is not saying that unity needs uniformity -- we should be able to disagree with someone and still be one with them in Christ, in relationship, in national pride, in willingness to seek the common good.

Questions: How can people within a congregation or other church body who disagree with each other (on anything from homosexuality to the color of the carpet or who has authority over the use of the church kitchen) proceed in mission as one united Body of Christ? For opposing  groups who are not Christians, what other common ground is available?

Ephesians 4:31-32
"Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you." (For context, read 4:25--5:2.)

These verses suggest that bitterness, wrath, anger, wrangling, slander, malice and the like are not just things that spring up within us and inevitable when disagreeing with others. If, as Paul urges, we can put them away from us, that means we have some control over them and can, with effort, tone them down or sublimate them to concern about greater things that we can accomplish jointly with others, even some with whom we disagree.

Questions: In what ways would these two verses be good advice for this post-election time in our country? How might we promote such a view?

1 Timothy 2:1-3
"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior ..." (For context, read 2:1-7.)

Russell Moore mentioned this passage in his post-election article, and Adam Copeland alluded to it, or a similar verse, in his article. When Paul wrote these words, he wasn't assuming that those in "high positions" were Christians; almost none were at that time. But he told the church to make "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings" for them nonetheless, and tied that to the well-being and the duty of Christians.

Questions: Why do you think Paul urged this on his fellow Christians at that point in history? In what ways should we be doing this today? Paul writes this admonition to pray for leaders despite the fact that he had experienced some level of persecution from leaders in the empire at various levels. How easy is for you to pray for a leader from another party to be successful in aiding the common good?

For Further Discussion

1. Bob Dylan once said, "Money doesn't talk; it swears." What is your opinion about the place of money is the current political process? Has the influx of huge sums of cash accomplished what it meant to? What would Jesus say, if anything, in your opinion, about the use of large sums of money for political campaigns?

2. Why do you think political campaigns are as long and as negative as they are? What things about them would you change? Why? What do you think of this comment from Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst possible form of government -- except for everything else"?

3. In the TWW forum (http://thewiredword.squarespace.com/), a subscriber pointed us to this article, written a few days before the election: U.S. Presidential Elections in Perspective. Stratfor. The subscriber commented that it contains an "interesting assessment about how some people feel about elections," and said that he was struck by the phrase "chooses not to participate." Read the article to the class, and invite them to consider the implications for faith and life.

4. Comment on this, from Thomas Jefferson: "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

5. Comment on this, from John Wesley, the founder of Methodism:

I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election, and advised them:

1) To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy.

2) To speak no evil of the person they voted against.

3) To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.

--From Wesley's journal, October 3, 1774.

6. Respond to 1 Peter 2:13-17: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor."

Responding to the News
 
Regardless of what individuals and issues you voted for, this is a good time to think about the hopes and dreams of those who voted differently, and consider where you have common ground. Then ask, How can I influence legislators and other political leaders to work toward those common goals?

Superstorm Batters Mid-Atlantic and Northeast States

The news coverage of the storm Sandy has been so wide and so nonstop that we are not going to attempt to recount it here. However, we are including some summary statements about the storm. Bear in mind that these were written on Wednesday, while the storm was still occurring, though in weakened form, over the interior Northeast United States. New reports continue to pour in, and the figures we've been able to gather are likely to change.

The storm, born as Hurricane Sandy, has been dubbed the "perfect storm," because of its collision with a nor'easter and the jet stream, with its high-tide effects magnified by a full moon. This meshing of natural forces caused the storm to linger over the eastern part of the country and cause damage of historic proportions over 10 states and Washington, D.C., much of it from high winds, storm surge and flooding.

At least seven other states experienced some power loss, and every coastal state had flooding. New Jersey and New York have received the most damage, but the damage elsewhere is significant. President Obama has declared those two states major disaster areas.

The tempest has also been called "the storm of the century," a "superstorm" and "frankenstorm," the latter because of its monstrous size and because it occurred over Halloween.

As of Wednesday morning:

• 119 people have died from the storm, many killed by falling trees. Fifty of the deaths were in the U.S. The others occurred in the Caribbean, 52 of them in Haiti.
• Some 6.1 million people were without electricity -- down from a peak of over 8 million on Tuesday -- with most of those affected in the Northeast, though sporadic outages occurred as far away as Indiana and Georgia. In some regions of New Jersey and New York, power failures were near total.
• New York City experienced an unprecedented city-wide paralysis, with massive flooding, including of some 42 miles of the subway system and seven tunnels under the East River. At least 111 homes in coastal Queens burned down, and another 20 have fire damage.
• Heavy snowfall hit parts of Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. Clayton, West Virginia, had 33 inches of snow.
• Early estimates suggest Sandy caused at least $10 billion in damages and possibly as much as $50 billion, when all the devastation and lost business is taken into account. The higher number would make it the second-costliest storm in U.S. history, behind only Hurricane Katrina, which caused $100 billion in damage.
• In Haiti, 38,000 people have been affected by Hurricane Sandy, according to the relief agency CARE, citing the Haitian National Emergency Center. CARE staff members report, in addition to the casualties, that nearly 3,000 homes were destroyed or damaged in Grande Anse province alone, and there are some 300 cases of cholera resulting from conditions left by Sandy.
• The New York Stock Exchange reopened after a two-day closure, the longest weather-related break for the exchange since 1888.

The affected areas are starting to clean up and reopen, but it will be several days, and in some cases, much longer, before all services are up and running again.

While the effects of the storm are likely to be felt for a long time, in the United States at least, most systems worked as intended: Weather reports were accurate, early warnings were given, governments at all levels took appropriate actions to protect lives, safety services went on high alert and did their jobs well, utility crews have worked overtime, service personnel from unaffected states have given assistance in affected states, and much of the repair will eventually be paid for by insurance or government grants.

That is not to say that people have not suffered some permanent and life-changing losses, and many are going to be stressed as restoration of services takes several days, and perhaps weeks in some cases, but we note that as of Wednesday morning, the most frequent message on Facebook was "We are OK."

More on this story can be found at these links:

Sandy: Five Latest Developments. The Weather Channel
State-by-State Guide to Hurricane Sandy. New York Times
Sandy Destruction: Live Updates on the Superstorm's Aftermath. TIME

The Big Questions

1. Why do you think preparedness is one of the recurring themes in the Bible?

2. In what sense is the Bible an "early warning system"? What sort of warning do you think the Bible provides? Have you ever personally felt you received a warming when reading Scripture or when someone else spoke from Scripture or during a sermon or Bible study?

3. How do you determine which spiritual warnings to take seriously? Which warnings have you ignored? Which warnings did you pay attention to? What were the consequences?

4. Are there some parts of our faith journey that we simply cannot prepare for? In what sense is living the life of faith consistently the essence of being prepared?

5. "Preparedness" is often taken to mean being ready for when the worst happens, but is that what it means in Christianity? Why or why not? Do you think Christ wants us to live in fear of the future? Are there times when a warning gives hope instead of fear?

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

Genesis 41:47-49
"During the seven plenteous years the earth produced abundantly. [Joseph] gathered up all the food of the seven years when there was plenty in the land of Egypt, and stored up food in the cities; he stored up in every city the food from the fields around it. So Joseph stored up grain in such abundance … that he stopped measuring it …" (For context, read 41:1-49, 53-57.)

Genesis 41 is an "early warning" story, with God alerting Pharaoh in a dream that following seven years of plenty, there would come seven years of famine. The only problem was, Pharaoh wasn't able to interpret his dream, but he at least had enough sense to realize the dream was important and went looking for an interpreter.

The person he found was the Hebrew prisoner, Joseph. After Joseph correctly interpreted the dream, Pharaoh put him in charge of storing foodstuffs during the good years to be ready for the lean ones. And because Joseph did his job well, the people of Egypt and the surrounding lands had a source of food during the famine.

Questions: What lessons should you and your family take from the way Pharaoh and Joseph prepared for the eventuality of a natural disaster? What lessons should government officials take from the way Pharaoh and Joseph prepared for the eventuality of a natural disaster?

What do you suppose Pharaoh’s advisers thought about Joseph's proposal, especially because the Nile had been such a reliable source of water and therefore of life? How hard is it for you to hear warnings that require us to make a major change in our lives, such as putting resources aside for possible hard times to come? In our present political and sociological climate, are you willing to look 14 years into the future, such as Joseph proposed?

Ezekiel 33:2-4
"If I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take one of their number as their sentinel; and if the sentinel sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people; then if any who hear the sound of the trumpet do not take warning, and the sword comes and takes them away, their blood shall be upon their own heads." (For context, read 33:1-9.)

Ezekiel 33:1-9 is about Ezekiel the prophet being the spiritual "sentinel" for the people of Judah in exile in Babylonia -- the group taken there in 598 B.C. before Jerusalem was overrun 11 years later. Even though his hearers were captives in a foreign land, they still believed their nation would not fall because God's house, the temple, was there, and because God was committed to having a descendant of David on Judah's throne. Because of the people's long-lived and ongoing sins, however, God had decided to withdraw his protection of the city. Thus, Ezekiel's job was to be "sentinel" and warn the exiles of the coming catastrophe so they would understand its meaning.

The point of the verses above is that as long as Ezekiel faithfully sounded the alarm, he was blameless regarding those who failed to heed the warning.

Questions: In terms of the superstorm, we note that as in most storms, there were some who disregarded the warnings and evacuation orders and chose to stay put, only to have to be rescued later. Have you ever done this? How do you feel about such behavior?

Ezekiel might seem to be saying that the word of the Lord states that if you do not listen to the warning, you deserve the fate you receive. How do you think people who refused to evacuate prior to a storm and then required rescue would view this? How do you suppose first responders feel?

When have you put yourself, as well as other people, at risk because of your own failure to obey God's commands?

Matthew 25:3-4
"When the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them; but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps." (For context, read 25:1-13.)

Wedding ceremonies in the New Testament era involved separate processions by the bride and the groom, heading to the groom's parents' house. In this parable from Jesus, 10 bridesmaids are waiting to meet the groom's procession, escort him to his parents' houseand go in with him to the feast. The groom's procession does not arrive until midnight, and five of the bridesmaids realize they have run out of oil for their lamps. So they run to oil dealers to purchase oil, but while they are away, the groom's procession arrives, and the five bridesmaids who have brought extra oil meet it and escort it into the place of the wedding banquet. The other five show up too late, and the gatekeeper won't let them in.

This parable can be interpreted on two levels, the first being how Matthew's original readers likely heard it. Though Jesus, whose ministry took place about A.D. 30, is the subject of Matthew's gospel, Matthew didn't write his gospel until several decades later, probably sometime after A.D. 75. Most of the converts to Christianity in the first few years after Jesus' ascension expected his Second Coming to occur within their lifetimes. But by the time Matthew wrote, some of the early believers had died, and others were getting concerned because Jesus had not come back. So Matthew includes this parable from Jesus to help the Christians of his time understand the timetable of Jesus' return differently. If we were in Matthew's original audience, the message we would likely take from this parable is that while Jesus may not return as quickly as we had hoped, we still need to be prepared for when he does return.

But we live 2,000 years later, so long a time that not all Christians are dealing with the "any day now" expectation that the early Christians had. Yet we can still take seriously that question the first-century Christians considered: "What does being prepared for his return look like?" And that's really a question about how to live a Christian life. For us, preparedness is not keeping an emergency supply of prayers on hand or stockpiling good deeds in an underground vault. It's living the life of the kingdom, the quality of life described in the Sermon on the Mount, and doing it consistently.

Questions: Being prepared for Jesus' return is not a matter of running for one's crisis kit, as the five foolish bridesmaids ran to buy more oil. Some hearers of the parable have commented that the other five seem somewhat selfish, being unwilling to share their oil. But remember, it's a parable, and the oil represents faithful, active, obedient discipleship -- all things that cannot be borrowed from others. In what ways do you keep your "lamp" lit?

Keeping in mind that this is a parable, if you were one of the five bridesmaids with oil, would you have shared some with the other five? In emergencies, do you feel people who planned should feel obligated or blessed -- or should be forced -- to share their resources with those who did not prepare?

Luke 12:39-40
"But know this: if the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour." (For context, read 12:35-40.)

These words of Jesus are about preparedness, and they, along with the context verses, emphasize four things: 1) the certainty of Christ's return, 2) the uncertainty of its timing, 3) the present being an opportunity for faithful service and 4) the relationship between one's present and ongoing faithfulness and one's future outcome.

Questions: Think back to when you were a teenager. Did you ever hold a party at your house while your parents were away? What happened when they came home? How is your answer related to the Scripture passage above? Have you ever been a parent who returned to find a party going on? What was your response?

2 Peter 3:14-15
"Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation." (For context, read 3:8-15.)

The "these things" Peter is talking about waiting for are the events surrounding the return of the Lord. Peter's call in the verses above is about how Jesus' followers should live in the interim.

Questions: If you were in charge of the world's clock, would you speed it up, slow it down or leave it as it is? Why? What do you think Peter means when he says "regard the patience of our Lord as salvation"? (Hint: read the whole context.)

For Further Discussion

1. Comment on this, heard in a sermon: "Almost anybody can take one of Jesus' teachings from the Sermon on the Mount and do it for a little while. Being a peacemaker for a day isn't too hard, but being a peacemaker year after year is another thing altogether. Turning the other cheek once in a while is doable by many, but building a way of life on cheek-turning requires a much deeper commitment. Even praying for those who persecute you can be a hoot when you do it only occasionally, but praying for them and doing good toward them on an ongoing basis requires significant energy and spiritual preparedness."

2. Not all Christians believe that Jesus is going to return in a literal sense. Some view his coming into their hearts as his return, and others simply don't deal with the claim about his return at all. If you knew for sure that Jesus was not coming back in any literal way, would you change how you are living now? Why or why not?

3. Consider these verses from Proverbs and decide how each applies to today's theme: 6:6-8; 13:16; 15:22; 16:1, 9; 21:5; 24:3-4, 27; 27:12, 23.  

4. Authorities have pointed out that failure to respond to evacuation orders can not only put residents at risk, but also jeopardize emergency personnel who may face increased danger later to rescue those who did not obey the order. Does the reason people refuse to obey authorities matter (for example, some assumed the danger was overstated, others wanted to protect their property, others refused to leave because they were not allowed to take beloved pets with them to shelters)?

Responding to the News

With the parable of the wise and foolish bridesmaids in mind, this is a good time to remind ourselves that living our commitment to Christ faithfully day after day is the way we refill our spiritual lamp, keeping it burning brightly so as to be ready for whatever God has for us next.