Abortion Doctor Trial Finally Gets National Media Attention

Whether you consider yourself "pro-life," "pro-choice" or somewhere in between regarding abortion, you're likely to be sickened by the details of the charges against Dr. Kermit Gosnell, now on trial in Philadelphia. He is a physician charged with regularly performing abortions on women pregnant longer than the 24-week cutoff for legal abortions in Pennsylvania and then murdering the sometimes viable, live infants delivered that way. The defense phase of his trial is slated to begin Monday.
Because our focus in this "In the News" section is on news bias and slanting, The Wired Word is not recounting the details of the charges, but they are included in the links below, most fully in the article from The Atlantic, "Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story."
At this point, however, none of the charges, however difficult to contemplate, have been proven, so Gosnell should not be presumed guilty. What's more, this week, the judge in the case threw out some of the charges, while still leaving some others in place to be decided by the jury.
Gosnell's story has been widely covered by media within metropolitan Philadelphia, but until recently, the national news coverage has been spotty. As a result, many Americans were unaware of it. More intense coverage on the national level began after a few columnists pointed out how little reportage there'd been nationwide on this story -- a story likely to be of interest and concern more broadly than just in the Philadelphia area. Some critics even charged it was a "liberal media bias" that had downplayed the Gosnell news.
After the columnists noted the relative absence of coverage of Gosnell's trial, several journalists responded, some admitting that they should have reported it. For example, Megan McArdle, a special correspondent for Newsweek/The Daily Beast, who is herself pro-choice, wrote a column in which she sought to understand her own avoidance of the story. She said, "To start, it makes me ill. I haven't been able to bring myself to read the grand jury inquiry. ... But I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective -- of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories -- if the sick-making was done by 'our side.'"
McArdle went on to acknowledge her own failure to write about the story and concluded, "What happened in Philadelphia should never happen again, and all of us -- not just the Philadelphia police -- should be asking how we make sure it doesn't. I don't know the answer to that yet, because I still don't understand what happened in Pennsylvania. But I'll be working to figure it out."
Other journalists have offered other reasons, including what one reporter called the "chaotic" way in which stories are chosen. The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf writes, "There is, of course, no single explanation for why any news story unfolds one way instead of another. 'The media' is an abstraction. It encompasses TV, radio, print and digital; editors, reporters and bloggers; the Drudge Report, The New Yorker, USA Today and Feministing. Many of the factors that shape how a story is covered are seemingly random or just plain undiscoverable." He then described 14 different explanations he'd heard for why the Gosnell story hadn't gotten national coverage sooner.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Kermit Gosnell Defense Starts Monday in Philly Abortion Trial. Huffington Post
Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story. The Atlantic
Why I Didn't Write About Gosnell's Trial -- And Why I Should Have. The Daily Beast
Philadelphia Abortion Clinic Horror. USA Today
Politics Aside, the Gosnell Trial Deserves -- and Is Getting -- More Coverage. New York Times
14 Theories for Why Kermit Gosnell's Case Didn't Get More Media Attention. The Atlantic
Team Discussion
In the TWW team discussion of this topic, members mentioned how hard it is to avoid bias even when that is one's intention. For example, the editor said, "Here at The Wired Word, we work hard to keep the 'In the News' section of our lesson objective and without bias. Yet we are aware that we cannot escape 'slanting' the lesson in the sense that simply by choosing to use one news story instead of another in TWW, we are stepping out of the 'objective' box to a degree. Even the order in which we arrange the questions and whether we put them in 'The Big Questions' section or in the 'For Further Discussion' section can slant a lesson, even when we intend no slant."
Expanding the topic, one team member said, "There is good reason to believe that various forms of bias (e.g., expectation bias and confirmation bias) significantly influence how a person looks at events -- at any new information. That applies to reporters and news editors as well. I've seen several analyses that the effect is magnified when there is not a diversity of biases present ...."
That team member cited a couple of examples of bias related to reporting about violence:
• News reports that downplay (or often ignore) Islamic radicalism as a motivation for terrorists. "Ignoring the motivation makes it less easy to understand and, possibly, to reduce the number of future attacks," the team member said.
• Rhetoric that seeks to demonize and dehumanize political opposition by immediately suggesting that every act of violence is caused by people associated with the political opposition.
Another team member commented that many of us who teach or preach in church probably subconsciously slant our lessons or sermons just by choosing which Bible verses we will or won't talk about.
Yet another team member pointed out that in churches that follow a lectionary (a list of Scripture readings set by an ecumenical or denominational committee to be used in worship), large chunks of the Bible are never read in services because they are not included in the lectionary. For those worshipers who don't read the rest of the Bible for themselves, the Scripture is reduced to just the lectionary-approved texts.
For example, although the first few verses of Psalm 137 are often included ("By the waters of Babylon -- there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion ..."), the final verse is not ("Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!").
The Big Questions
1. When you are forming your opinion about some matter in the public culture, to what degree do you consciously try to hear from people on both sides of the issue? What helps you decide whether either view is right? Is it a good idea to listen to differing views on biblical interpretation? Explain your answer.
2. When have you been aware that you were "steering" someone to a desired conclusion by giving a lopsided report of some conversation, sermon, news story or event? How did you justify your decision to do so?
3. What kinds of questions can you consider when hearing a news report or someone's opinion to help you get past any bias -- unintended or otherwise -- in the report or opinion?
4. Can listening to one side only of a cultural, political or religious debate ever lead you to unintentionally "bear false witness"? Can it ever not lead to bearing false witness?
5. How important is certainty in leading a Christian life? Assuming certainty is not required in all things, what makes a topic something in which certainty is required? How should one deal with varying degrees of uncertainty?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Numbers 23:13
So Balak said to him, "Come with me to another place from which you may see them; you shall see only part of them, and shall not see them all; then curse them for me from there." (For context, read 22:41--23:26.)
The people of Israel were in the wilderness, nearing the end of their migration from Egypt to Canaan after years of slavery in Egypt. On the way, they had fought successfully against the Amorites and now had a reputation as a fierce and dangerous horde. And their numbers were staggering. Exodus says that when they left Egypt, they numbered 600,000 men (Exodus 12:37), plus women and children. So when this enormous body of Israelites camped on the plains of Moab, the people who lived in that region had every reason to be concerned.
Moab's king, Balak, took one look at this encampment stretched out on the plain and decided to do something proactive to give the Moabites an edge in case conflict ensued. Balak sent for a local soothsayer by the name of Balaam to pronounce a curse on Israel. Balaam sent back word that God had already told him that Israel was blessed, but Balak insisted that Balaam come anyway. When the soothsayer arrived, the king took him to a high place where he could look out over the vast multitude of Israel, and instructed him to pronounce his curse. Balaam spoke, but instead of a curse, a blessing on Israel flowed out of his mouth (23:7-10).
King Balak was furious, but not ready to give up. He took Balaam to another location where he'd be able to see only a portion of the Israelite nation. From the new spot, Balaam spoke, but once again, a blessing rolled out of his mouth (23:18-24).
King Balak might come off as a fool for thinking that if he could just limit the soothsayer's sight, the curse would be forthcoming, as if to say. "Let's look at only this part and pretend that's all that matters." But we can understand why he might try it. Telling less than the whole truth or conveniently omitting the parts that suggest a different conclusion have long proven effective at misleading audiences.
Questions: When have you consciously ignored some information so as not to upset an accepted conclusion? Do you resent those who keep bringing up a topic you would rather not discuss? Have you discerned resentment when you insisted on bringing up a topic no one seemed to want to address?
1 Kings 12:8
But [Rehoboam] disregarded the advice that the older men gave him, and consulted with the young men who had grown up with him and now attended him. (For context, read 12:1-19.)
Kings Saul, David and Solomon had successively ruled over the united tribes of Israel. After Solomon died, his son Rehoboam was to take the throne, but at that point, the northern tribes, with a man named Jeroboam as their spokesman, asked if Rehoboam would lighten the hard demands Solomon had imposed on them. Before answering, Rehoboam sought advice from two groups: the older men who had counseled his father and the young men who had grown up with him.
The older men advised Rehoboam to "be a servant to this people today and serve them, and speak good words to them" (v. 7). But, as the verse above reports, Rehoboam "disregarded" that advice. The younger men advised him to make the load on the people even heavier, which is what Rehoboam announced he would do. This appears to be a case of continuing to ask for advice until receiving some that coincides with one's bias -- with what one really wanted to do anyway.
In Rehoboam's case, the outcome was disastrous. The 10 northern tribes promptly seceded from the kingdom, setting up a new nation under Jeroboam. Rehoboam ended up with only two tribes under his rule. The Israelite people remained as two kingdoms for more than 200 years and never did regain independent status as a nation until, possibly, modern Israel was formed in the 20th century A.D. (Some theologians deny any link between modern Israel and ancient Israel/Judea. Their arguments are good, but not conclusive.)
Questions: What additional dangers do you see in seeking confirmation of one's biases? How tempting is it to listen only to those who already agree with you? How many sources do you have for news? Do they all share the same slant? How do you feel when your advice or the considered advice of others is ignored?
Proverbs 18:17
The one who first states a case seems right, until the other comes and cross-examines. (No context needed.)
This proverb notes the problem of only hearing one side of an argument. When it comes to news reporting, a situation in which most of the reporters and editors have the same leaning results in there being only one side that "states a case," so others responding to it often have only the edited version and no chance to examine the original case.
Questions: Have you ever reached a conclusion after listening to only one side? Has listening to another side ever made a difference? How do you seek to become someone who weighs the various sides of an issue before making a decision?
Mark 9:23-24
Jesus said to him, "If you are able! -- All things can be done for the one who believes." Immediately the father of the child cried out, "I believe; help my unbelief!" (For context, read 9:14-29.)
Knowing that our sources of knowledge about news items can be biased or misleading, we cannot always be certain that the story as we have heard it is entirely accurate. The Bible verse above shows that even in the area of faith, there is room for uncertainty: "I believe; help my unbelief!" Even this uncertain faith was sufficient for Jesus to heal the man's son.
Questions: In what ways is uncertainty a helpful tool in ascertaining the truth? In what ways might it be a hindrance? Does it feel like uncertainty is almost the default setting? How do you react toward someone who always seems to have the "right" answer and does not seem to experience uncertainty?
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. (For context, read 3:10-17.)
Admittedly, at the time Paul wrote these words to Timothy, the "all scripture" he had in mind was limited essentially to the Hebrew Bible, what we call the Old Testament. That's because the New Testament had not yet been written. But once it was written and established by the church as Scripture also, it's likely that Paul would have included it in this statement.
Questions: Does all Scripture that "is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" include the "begats" (the listing of lines of descent in the early chapters of Genesis)? How about the minutiae of priestly duties in Leviticus? What helpful things have you learned from reading parts of the Bible that are usually NOT read in worship services? What is the least helpful verse or passage you have heard? What is the most helpful?
For Further Discussion
1. Read the following two column excerpts side by side, and then talk about what conclusions you draw and why. The first is from Kirsten Powers, writing in USA Today on April 11. The second is from Margaret Sullivan, writing in The New York Times on April 15.
Powers: "A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months. The exception is when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segment on Meet the Press meant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some backward red state.
    "The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial and The New York Times saw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial's first day. They've been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony.
    "Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams intoned, 'A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh,' as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed -- a major human rights story if there ever was one -- doesn't make the cut.
    "You don't have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life.' It's about basic human rights.
    "The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace."
Sullivan: "The behavior of news organizations often owes more to chaos theory than conspiracy theory. I don't think that editors and reporters got together and decided not to give the Gosnell trial a lot of attention because it would highlight the evils of abortion.
    "I do think that it wasn't on their radar screen -- and that it should have been. The murders of seven newborn babies, done so horrifically, would be no ordinary crime. Any suggestion, including mine on Friday [in a previous column], that this is just another murder trial is a miscalculation. And it's certainly possible that journalists who were more in touch with conservative voices and causes would have picked up on the importance of this trial sooner.
    "Judged on news value alone, the Gosnell trial deserves more coverage than it's had, in The Times and elsewhere.
    "Those who have called for more attention to this grisly and disturbing trial are right. But some of them -- because of their accusations of politics overcoming news judgment -- are right for the wrong reasons."
2. What is the likely effect of a "diversity of biases" present in a given group on the conclusions that group draws?
3. The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once said, "All truths are half-truths." Do you agree? Why or why not?
4. Do you think a person who can be described by the expression "often wrong but seldom uncertain" would be fun to be around? Why or why not?
5. Name a story in recent memory that flew under the radar, that you only heard about by accident long after it happened. Name a story that really mattered to you, that you followed closely, and which no one else seemed to notice, or even care about.
6. Does it seem as if sometimes media outlets focus on a story that you wish to ignore, or think is unimportant? Name instances. How important is it for someone to point our attention to unpleasant events?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to try to recognize our biases, and also to vow to approach news reporting from all sources -- including those most in tune with our sympathies -- with enough skepticism to understand that we may not be hearing the whole story.

Closing Prayer
Help us, O Lord, to use the intellect and skills you have given us to be thoughtful and intentional followers of Jesus. In his name we pray. Amen.

Bombs Kill and Maim at Boston Marathon

On Monday, as the Boston Marathon was nearing completion and many runners were nearing the finish line on that city's Boylston Street, two bombs, 12 seconds apart, ripped through the watching crowds, killing three people and wounding 183 others, some of them critically. Several people had to have amputations of one or more limbs.
Almost immediately, both emergency personnel and ordinary citizens rushed in to help the injured.
As of our publishing time (on Thursday) no individual or group has admitted to perpetrating the attack, but national law-enforcement units, several Capitol Hill lawmakers and President Obama have described the blasts as acts of "terrorism." A major investigation under the direction of the FBI is underway to identify and apprehend the individual or group that perpetrated this crime.
A theme of this year's marathon was "26 Miles for 26 Victims," referring to those killed in the Newtown, Conn., school shooting. The day had begun with a moment of silence to remember the Newtown victims, and there were 26 seconds of silence observed at the starting line before each wave of runners began. Relatives of those killed in the Sandy Hook school massacre were guests at the finish line tent, near where the bombing occurred.
As one commentator pointed out, the bombings serve as a fresh reminder of a hard lesson learned on 9/11 -- the reality in which "it can't happen here" has been replaced by "it can happen anywhere."
Or, as one TWW team member put it, it's not so much a replacement of one "reality" by another, but a greater readiness to recognize the reality that always existed. Blogger Jim Barrett wrote, "What kind of scares me is that I wasn't that shocked. I was actually surprised that it took this long for something like this to happen."
Juan Carlos Zarate, deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush, told the Los Angeles Times, "In some ways, this ruptures the psyche. Now we have that soft target hit that we have imagined but not seen ... since 9/11. We don't know who perpetrated it -- we'll have to see. But regardless, it shatters the sense of security we've had, especially coming at an event like this."
As this is a developing story, be sure to check national news for updates.
More on this story can be found at these links:
3 Killed, More Than 140 Hurt by Bombs at Marathon. Boston Globe
Amid Shock at Marathon, a Rush to Help Strangers. Boston Globe
Boston Bombings Shatter a National Sense of Safety. Los Angeles Times
It Can Happen Anywhere. CNN
There Is No Finish Line. New Republic
The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On. The Atlantic
The Big Questions
1. How do we go about our lives as people of faith in a dangerous world?
2. How do we deal emotionally with situations that leave us feeling powerless? How do we deal spiritually with such situations?
3. How does Christian hope, based on God's kingdom yet to fully come, help us in a world where both good and evil are realities?
4. How many personal freedoms are you willing to surrender in the hope of being safer? How many such sacrifices would actually make you significantly safer?
5. Jesus said, "Pray for those who persecute you." For what specifically should we ask when praying for terrorists? How does Christ's instruction to love our enemies apply to those who perpetrate acts of terrorism? Does loving one’s enemies mean that one no longer opposes their actions or no longer fights against them?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
2 Samuel 7:10
And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly ... (For context, read 7:1-17.)
If we read this verse by itself -- out of context -- it sounds like the sort of thing God might have said to one of the Israelite leaders -- say Moses or Joshua -- before the people were established in Canaan. But in context, this verse is something of a surprise. God says this to David after all the Israelite tribes had accepted David as their king, after David as king had extended the boundaries of Israel, after David had established Jerusalem as the royal city and after "the LORD had given [David] rest from all his enemies around him" (v. 1).
The nation under David was more secure than it ever had been, but in the midst of God telling David that his dynasty would be established as Israel's successive rulers, God makes the promise quoted above. It's as if to say that no matter what arrangements we mortals might make or how "secure" we think we have things, the place of ultimate security, where "evildoers shall afflict [us] no more," is in God's kingdom to come, not in empires of earth.
Questions: Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Zarate that the Boston bombing event "ruptures the [national] psyche"? Did 9/11 already do that? Are you more hesitant now to attend public events that draw crowds of people? Why or why not? Are you, or those you speak with, reacting with less fear than after 9/11?
Psalm 23:5
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. (For context, read 23:1-6.)
Psalm 23 comes out of the Middle Eastern world, where in biblical times, there were strong traditions about hospitality. For example, a man being pursued by enemies could run to someone's tent and, even if that were the tent of a foe, he could ask for refuge. Custom dictated that the tent owner not only take that person in, but also prepare a meal for him. His enemies could stand and glare outside the tent, but could do no more as long as the pursued person remained inside. "You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies."
In World War II, during the bombing of London by the Germans, this verse from Psalm 23 was a favorite one for Communion services -- even in one instance where the service continued while part of the church building was hit. The Lord's Supper was God's table spread for worshipers, and it continued to nourish them spiritually even while their city was under attack.
Questions: In what literal ways does God spread a table before us even in the presence of enemies? In what spiritual ways does God spread a table before us? What obligation might we have toward those whose tables contain less than ours? When have you broken bread with people you considered enemies and become reconciled, or, on the other hand, have remained enemies? What are your feelings about reconciliation with those who consider themselves our enemies, or those you consider your enemy?
Proverbs 12:3
No one finds security by wickedness, but the root of the righteous will never be moved. (No context needed.)
This pearl of wisdom from Proverbs is echoed in other words throughout much of Scripture. The wicked may have their day, but no ultimate tomorrow. The righteous, on the other hand, have today and the ultimate tomorrow.
Questions: Does this biblical testimony help when you have lost a loved one? Is it possible to take the long view of justice when our wounds are still raw? Think of wars that are long past. What are your feelings about atrocities committed during World War II? The Korean or Vietnam War? How much time must pass before we can take a longer view regarding the arc of justice?
John 1:5
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. (For context, read 1:1-14.)
In the Gospel of John, "light" is used to symbolize the way in which God and Christ are present to sustain creation, and John refers to Jesus as "the light of the world." It is this divine light that dispels "darkness," which in John symbolizes chaos, evil and the realm of those who oppose the good. This darkness is real and is hostile to light, which exposes evil for what it is. But try as it might, darkness and all that it represents cannot extinguish light.
Questions: How does John's testimony about Jesus and the light shape your attitude toward life? Part of the meaning behind the original language of the John text is that the darkness doesn't understand the light, doesn't "get" it. Does it seem as if there are those who don't "get" the effects of their atrocities? What past United States actions might be viewed as atrocities that our nation justified at the time?
Hebrews 12:28
Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe ... (For context, read 12:25-29.)
In the verses immediately preceding verse 28, the author of Hebrews talks about God's voice shaking the earth. Then he quotes God as saying, "Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heaven" (v. 26). The writer goes on to say that this "indicates the removal of what is shaken -- that is, created things -- so that what cannot be shaken [the kingdom of God] may remain" (v. 27). He adds then, in the verse quoted above,  "Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks ...."
The Hebrew author's point is that there is no guarantee that the earth or the things on it will remain steady and survive forever. Life, in fact, is constantly being shaken up. But these verses from Hebrews remind us that God's kingdom, the realm where Christians have their other citizenship, cannot be shaken or destroyed. And by extension, that means that we have a haven of ultimate security.
Questions: To what degree does the promise of an unshakeable kingdom to come at the end of time help you deal with present fears in this world? To what degree should it help?
For Further Discussion
1. One TWW team member who lives near Fargo, North Dakota, said she was concerned that the bombing at the Boston Marathon may cause an overreaction elsewhere: "The Fargo Marathon, held in May, was started several years back and has grown to be a big deal. [After the Boston bombing], the founder/head of the Fargo marathon organization said they would be working to add security to the route -- though, of course, they've always taken steps to keep it secure.
    "Fargo isn't exactly a city you think of as ever being the target of terrorists. It reminds me of 9/11, when all our local malls closed down after the bombings out east -- as if the terrorists really had us in their sights! Ha! (Of course, I know everyone was frightened and just reacted and did what they felt they had to do; were I in charge, God forbid, I probably would have done the same.)
    "But really?? Get hyper-vigilant about security at the Fargo Marathon?? Seems extreme to me. Of course you want appropriate levels of security in place, but life is risky and we can't prevent or escape every potential threat. If we live in fear, we miss out on a lot of opportunities. And yes, I can see many ways in which that carries over into church and congregations -- living by fear rather than by faith."
     Respond to her observations in light of these comments from another team member: "Yes, the Fargo Marathon could be a target (as is any large sports event), yet it is less likely mainly because other events have more visibility. Questions of trade-offs regarding 'security' at public events evidence a wide variety of viewpoints -- and what some see as common-sense security measures are seen by others as making things more risky. And, of course, if something bad happens, any lack of 'hyper-vigilance' would be brought to the fore in the 'wrongful death' lawsuits to follow. No easy answers. More precisely, there are many factors and the culture as well which make things more difficult."
2. Respond to this, from another TWW team member: "I am a former marathon runner -- a very slow marathon runner. The marathon is an amazing public event, open to everyone. You can take your glove to the ballgame but you don't get to join the team on the field. You can wear the most expensive basketball shoes, but you don't get to take the court with the big guys in the NBA (or the big girls in the WNBA). But anyone can run with the world-class athletes in the marathon. That was always amazing to me. I'd be warming up, hoping to break four hours, but the thin Kenyans and Ethiopians were competing on the same course with me. There was a spot in the Long Beach Marathon where the course looped back towards itself. The elite runners, eight miles ahead of me, and with no physical outward sign of strain, would glide by going the other direction. I enjoyed that moment each year.
    "I'm also humbled because I am part of the same church as the saints and the martyrs, of prayer warriors whose very humility makes them look the same as everyone around them (though I know better), as well as [modern] prophets ... whose lifestyle and message pierces my heart and makes me strive to do better. There aren't two churches, there isn't a major league and a Sunday afternoon softball league when it comes to the Christian faith. Dante saw it right. At first Heaven looked layered, with people at the circles of the moon and stars and sun, but in the last cantos of the Paradiso when he looked again, all the saints were part of the great rose, a stadium-like structure with God at the center where everyone is part of the great everything."
3. Respond to this, from yet another TWW team member: "When I was the pastor in a little community in rural Ohio, our parsonage was situated across the highway from the church building. From our front window, we could see the church and the village green in front of it. From our side window, we looked at the town hall and, next to it, a large evergreen tree. Each December, we looked out these two windows at symbols of Christmas. On the village green, a life-sized nativity scene was erected, and in the town hall yard, the live evergreen tree was decorated with lights and served as the community Christmas tree.
    "One Christmas, some person or persons, under the cover of darkness, snuck into the town hall yard and cut the tree down. They left it lying on the ground, still lit up. It occurred to me that some people don't want to be reminded of the everlasting light of God. Perhaps the perpetrators of this deed didn't think of it that way, but it really was more than a childish prank; I think it was an expression of the darkness in their hearts and how far they were from Christ who is the light of the world.
    "We could see that tree from our house, but we could also see the nativity scene. There was a spotlight on the scene that burned all the time. During the daylight, it added nothing to the scene, but in the darkness of night, the spot of light glorified the nativity. Often, before going to bed, I would look out of my window at this symbol of Christmas.
    "Ironically, it was the very darkness, the symbol of chaos and wrong, that made the light so dramatic in its effect."
4. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb, good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love." Where did you see this played out in the Boston Marathon situation?
5. In President Franklin Roosevelt's First Inaugural Address, he said, "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." Is this a stance that is supported by the Bible? Why or why not?
Responding to the News
This is a time to pray for the victims of the bombings and their families and for those who must now investigate and make decisions about public safety.
Closing Prayer
O God, we pray that the hope that is ours through faith in Christ will enable us to speak that hope to the world, even in times of great threat. Please grant wisdom, courage and perseverance to all who work for peace and justice. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Should Young-Adult Ministry Use "Better-Than-Nothing" Model?

"What people in the past may have gotten from church, I get from the Internet and Facebook. That is our religion."
That's what one young adult told Hannah Seligson, the author of a new book, Mission Adulthood. And a recent "U.S Religious Landscape Survey" from the Pew Forum found that "among Americans ages 18-29, one in four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion."
That lack of religious affiliation among many young adults has caused some religious groups to look for new ways to relate to this age group.
In Washington, D.C., for example, the local Jewish Federation and an organization called NEXT DC work together to get young adults to try a new synagogue each month -- an idea they call "Shabbat-hop." (Shabbat is Hebrew for "rest" or "cessation" and refers to the Jewish Sabbath.)
At a recent Shabbat-hop, more than 300 people, mostly young adults, visited Adas Israel, a conservative synagogue in Washington. And the synagogue was ready for the influx. They had set up extra chairs and planned a lively service, at which the whole group swayed, clapped and sang. Most of the young adults stayed for the buffet dinner afterward and many lingered until nearly 10 p.m.
The success of the event doesn't mean that Adas Israel will necessarily gain any new members or even attendees from among the visitors, for the next month, the Shabbat-hop is to take place at another synagogue. But the young adults experience Jewish worship and fellowship, regardless of what long-term gains the synagogue realizes.
Another month, the hop takes place at the nondenominational Sixth & I Historic Synagogue, which works hard to make the young crowd feel welcome by offering a variety of worship experiences. Other synagogues bring in special music, offer Shabbat meals and even open bars.
Despite these measures, few of the young adults express interest in joining a congregation. For many, the visits to different places and the meeting of new people is the way they are expressing whatever religious impulse they feel.
Some of the synagogues are getting comfortable with that. Sixth & I, for example, has a "nonmembership model" in which the congregation focuses ministry on young adults without worrying about them jumping from one place to another. Another synagogue, the Washington Hebrew Congregation, sponsors what it calls "Metro Minyan" (minyan refers to a meeting of Jews for worship), where they rent space for Shabbat services and dinners in churches near metro stops. By using a different location each week, they hope to create "neutral territory" where young adults feel comfortable.
Writing about Shabbat-hopping in the Wall Street Journal, Naomi Schaeffer Riley concluded, "So maybe Shabbat-hopping is the best that religious leaders can hope for with Generation Y. Giving young adults regular exposure to some Jewish experience is better than nothing at all."
Many Christian young adults demonstrate a similar unwillingness to follow the church-participation patterns of older generations. The article, "Best Practices in Young Adult Faith Formation," mentions a study by Robert Wuthnow that describes the young-adult approach to religion and spirituality as "spiritual tinkering." Wuthnow defines a tinkerer as a person who "puts together a life form whatever skills, ideas and resources that are readily at hand ... improvising, by piecing together an idea from here, a skill from there and a contact from somewhere else."
The article goes on to say, "Tinkering is evident among the large number of young adults who believe in God, life after death and the divinity of Jesus, for instance, but who seldom attend religious services. Their beliefs lend continuity with the past -- with the Bible stories they probably learned as children -- and their behavior lets them adapt to the demands of the present. Spending a weekend with friends, buying groceries and doing the laundry, or getting ready for a hectic week at work takes precedence over spending yet another Sunday morning at worship. Tinkering is equally evident in the quest to update one's beliefs about spirituality. The core holds steady, persuading one that the Bible is still a valuable source of moral insight, for example, but the core is amended almost continuously through conversations with friends, reflections about unusual experiences on vacation or at work, or from a popular song."
The article challenges churches when it says, "There are plentiful opportunities for young adults to reconnect with the church. Yet utilizing these opportunities requires an understanding that the disconnect stems from several different sources, including an expectation of immediate gratification, high mobility, the demands of the world eclipsing those of spiritual needs and a failure to capitalize on young adults' moments of return to the church (marriage, a child's baptism or death of a parent)."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Synagogue-Hopping With Generation Y. Wall Street Journal
U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Pew Forum
Best Practices in Young Adult Faith Formation. Lifelong Faith
The Big Questions
1. Do you agree that many young adults are "religious tinkerers"? Why or why not? To what degree is your own faith and practice the result of religious tinkering?
2. Should we be alarmed by the reluctance among some young adults to participate regularly with one congregation? Does this spell problems for institutional religion? for faith in general? for neither? for both? Why? Is this reluctance more a reaction to the organized church than to Christianity itself? Why?
3. If we paraphrase Naomi Riley's comment as, "So maybe church-hopping is the best that religious leaders can hope for with Generation Y. Giving young adults regular exposure to some Christian experience is better than nothing at all," do you agree or disagree? Why?
4. What biblical models are there for sharing the faith without expecting a "return on investment"? How, if at all, is "sharing the faith" different from "recruiting new members"? How willing would you be to support your church in an expensive and time-consuming program where it was unlikely that your congregation would gain any new attendees or that the program would contribute to your congregation's survival? Why?
5. One of the possibilities with the Shabbat-hop is that eventually, some participants will visit a synagogue where they feel a connection and will become regular attendees. In the church, we often use the term "church-hoppers" to refer to people who attend one congregation until something happens there that they don't like. They then move on and try another congregation, and continue "hopping" until they find one where they are most comfortable. (Some chronic church-hoppers never do find a congregation where they stick.) What do you think of church-hopping? What negative and positive things can you say about it?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Psalm 148:12-13
Young men and women alike, old and young together! Let them praise the name of the LORD, for his name alone is exalted; his glory is above earth and heaven. (For context, read 148:1-14.)
The final five psalms (146-150) in the book of Psalms are all intended as acts of praise. In fact, each of the five is framed by the opening and closing refrain "Praise the LORD!" These two verses in Psalm 148 invite us to picture a group of worshipers consisting of "Young men and women alike, old and young together," which suggests that congregations today do -- or at least SHOULD -- include such age diversity.
Questions: To what degree is it the responsibility of older worshipers to fan the fires of faith in younger people? Is some Christian equivalent of the Shabbat-hop an acceptable way to fan those fires if young adults are not readily participating in Christian worship? Why or why not? How much is it the responsibility of younger people to seek out and serve God?
Ecclesiastes 12:1
Remember your creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come, and the years draw near when you will say, "I have no pleasure in them" ... (For context, read 12:1-8.)
Many studies have shown that people are more likely to remain in or return to religious faith and practice if they are first exposed to it while they are still children and teens. But young adulthood is often a period of questioning earlier learnings and finding one's own way. During that time, the church's task is often to help young adults reconnect with the faith more than exposing them to it for the first time.
Questions: What challenge for your congregation do you hear in the last paragraph of the "In the News" section above (the paragraph that begins "The article challenges churches when it says ...")? How much are you willing to accept change regarding the elements of worship you find most comforting and inspiring? Should you have to make accommodations? Did the previous generation make accommodations for you?

Matthew 28:19-20
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. (For context, read 28:16-20.)
Jesus spoke these words, often referred to as "the Great Commission," to his 11 disciples, but the church has long understood them as a directive to the whole church as well. As the cultural environment changes, the ways in which we go about the disciple-making process may need to change as well.
Questions: Do you see the idea of a "nonmembership model" as a faithful way to carry out the Great Commission today? Why or why not? What do you think the membership model looked like for the earliest church? How does "membership" differ from "discipleship"?
2 Timothy 4:2
... proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching. (For context, read 3:14--4:5.)
In this passage, Paul was speaking to Timothy as a church leader and evangelist. Notice that Paul tells his coworker to be persistent in proclaiming the message, regardless of "whether the time is favorable or unfavorable."
Questions: In terms of ministry to young adults, is the current time favorable or unfavorable? How might that affect our expectations about the results of such ministry? How should it affect our determination to carry out such ministry?
Acts 6:8-9
Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others of those from Cilicia and Asia, stood up and argued with Stephen. (For context, read 6:8-15.)
This particular Jewish house of worship was commonly called "the synagogue of the Freedmen" because some members of the congregation were former slaves. The existence of a synagogue so identified suggests that there were other synagogues composed of people who had never been enslaved, or were perhaps even slave owners. Those who had formerly been slaves or were children of slaves might want no association with people in their former state but were probably also not fully welcome in synagogues of free people. In other words, congregations differed based on the status, class and cultural background of their members and other demographic factors. Thus, even in the the time of Christ, people could conceivably "hop" until they found a synagogue where the members were most like themselves.
Questions: What are the spiritual advantages of worshiping side by side with people who are similar to you in race, class, station in life, etc.? What are the spiritual disadvantages?
For Further Discussion
1. What opportunities do you hear in this comment from one young adult: "What people in the past may have gotten from church, I get from the Internet and Facebook. That is our religion"?
2. Comment on this, cited in the "Best Practices in Young Adult Faith Formation" article:
[Research from LifeWay research affirms that] [y]oung adults are longing for community and fellowship with peers, looking for ways to reach people in need, and circling the church but not always finding a home in it.
• Connection is the key. Community with other young adults is extremely important in their lives.
• Young adults seek authentic answers in the Bible and Christian tradition, best learned through participation in small group meetings.
• Making a difference is essential by having the opportunity to meet the needs of others on a regular basis. Social action is cited as the major reason uninvolved young adults would consider being part of a church.
3. Respond to this: Regarding church hopping, there's an old story about a man who was stranded on an island for 10 years. When he was finally rescued, outsiders were amazed to discover he had built a whole town out of palm branches. There was a movie theater (no movies, of course), a grocery store (empty shelves), a tavern, a club and, at each end of his forlorn Main Street, a church. Why two churches? he was asked. "Well," he replied, "that church over there was the place where I drew spiritual comfort during my long exile. I sang hymns I remembered from childhood. I recited those scraps of scripture I could recall and even occasionally delivered a halting sermon. Always I imagined myself surrounded by the people of Christ, among the fellowship of believers, and in a mystical way I believed that during my hours of worship I was truly back among you, with Jesus." And the other church? he was asked. "Oh, that's the church I wouldn't be caught dead in."
4. What events or strategies does your church plan or employ to draw in younger people? Would it be better for people of different ages to have different services and only get together for occasional events? Is this true to the biblical model? Would this be a sign of success or failure? Does your church have self-segregated services?
5. Ask young adults in your TWW group or congregation to respond to this:  How do you, as a younger person, find your place within a congregation? Were you welcomed? Marginalized? Were you willing to put up with having to jump through hoops or over hurdles to become more involved?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to consider what opportunities your congregation may be overlooking to help young adults connect with the Christian faith, and then to decide how you can better take advantage of such opportunities.

Closing Prayer
Help our church, O Lord, to find and employ effective means to connect people of all ages to the life-sustaining power of the Christian faith. In Jesus' name. Amen.

North Korea Continues Threats Against U.S. and Allies

Following weeks of ratcheting up bellicose threats against the United States and its allies, North Korea announced this week that it will start up a nuclear reactor that had been mothballed in 2007. The move is seen by many observers as aggressive posturing, as well as a move in that country's commitment to a nuclear weapons program and the creation of a possible negotiating chip in future talks.
Perhaps more troubling, North Korea has declared the 1953 armistice "invalid." Officially, the Korean War has not ended; there is only an armistice (cease-fire agreement), and small engagements have occurred off and on for the past 50 years. This is not the first time that North Korea has abrogated the armistice; it remains to be seen the extent to which actions will match words.
Ostensibly, the move by North Korea is in response to new sanctions the United Nations has levied against the country after North Korea's latest nuclear test in February. The sanctions are part of a larger U.S.-led effort by the international community to persuade the nation to abandon its nuclear weapons program. However, some observers see the North Korean action as part of a larger strategy aimed not at warfare, but for regime survival. (For details, see the two articles from Stratfor Global Intelligence and the one from the International Herald Tribune in the links list below.)
The United States has responded to North Korea's new threats by making a show of military strength during annual training exercises with the South Korea, including sending in B-2 stealth bombers capable of carrying conventional and nuclear weapons. South Korea has said that any provocative moves from the north would trigger a strong response from their forces.
In response to the invective from North Korea, China has increased its military posture along its shared border with that country. Since North Korea is very dependent upon China, that military build-up is likely to have more of an immediate effect in Pyongyang than actions by either the United States or South Korea. Kim can be fairly certain that the allies won't attack and that they have minimal other leverage -- but he cannot be so sure of what China might do.
Despite the flow of belligerence from North Korea, it does not appear that the country's leader, Kim Jong-un, has mobilized troops or positioned forces for an attack. Nonetheless, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is himself South Korean, said that the current crisis "has already gone too far." He added, "Aggressive rhetoric and military posturing only result in counter-actions, and fuel fear and instability."
More on this story can be found at these links:
U.S. Will Not Accept North Korea As a "Nuclear State," Kerry Says. CNN
U.S. Sees North Korea Blustering, Not Acting. New York Times
North Korea: Not Crazy but Very Misunderstood. International Herald Tribune
Ferocious, Weak and Crazy: The North Korean Strategy. Stratfor
Considering a Departure in North Korea's Strategy. Stratfor
Closer to Home
While there is probably little private citizens in the United States can do regarding the North Korean belligerence, on a personal level, many of us have to deal with belligerent individuals.
TWW team member Stan Purdum, who is a cyclist, says that on the roads, cyclists occasionally experience aggression from drivers and others. One day, a man mowing his grass gave the "finger" as Stan pedaled by. Stan dismounted and stepped onto the edge of the lawn. When the man came near, Stan said, "What did I do to offend you?" Rather than answer, the man ran his mower close and said, "Get off my property!" Stan backed up to the road's edge, and repeated his question.
At that, the man stopped mowing and did, in fact, give an answer, loudly: "WITH ALL THE BIKE TRAILS AROUND, YOU [EXPLETIVE] CYCLISTS DON'T [EXPLETIVE] BELONG ON THE ROADS HOLDING UP TRAFFIC."
Stan responded, "Trails don't go all the places I want to go."
"LIKE [EXPLETIVE] HELL THEY DON'T!" the man screamed.
"Well, clearly we're not going to agree," Stan said. Then he mounted his bike and continued on his way.
Stan comments, "Most drivers experience a momentary delay once in a while because of a cyclist on the road, but most take it in stride as part of the reality of driving. Perhaps this guy had been caught behind a group of cyclists who'd acted like they owned the road, so maybe I'd just been on the receiving end of the finger and angry blast that this man had wanted to aim at them. Or maybe he was upset because some of his property taxes support the county parks and, thus, trail building, and so he thought all cyclists should use them. Maybe his anger had nothing to do with bicycles.
"But it also occurred to me that I'd been made the object of venom by a man who didn't even know me because I belonged to a 'group' he despised -- 'people who ride bicycles on the road.' Disliking someone because of their group identity may also show up as racism, xenophobia, hatred of homosexuals and the like. And those kinds of indiscriminate animosities often say more about the one who holds them than they do about those who are the target of them. I've seen a study of prejudice that suggests that reasoning can dispel a prejudiced outlook from people who have no internal need to feel superior to others, but reasoning is not nearly so effective with those who have that need.
"It may be, however, that I'm over-analyzing this encounter. Maybe, after all, the finger flipper was just being a jerk. In any case, I used to think that at least some of this aggression toward cyclists could be eliminated by reasoning with the perpetrators, but I've become far less confident of that."
The Big Questions
1. What do you understand to be going on in a person when he or she is routinely rude, argumentative, hostile or contentious? Why?
2. What might Jesus say about people who cling to confrontation or belligerence as a way of interacting with others? What might Jesus say to such persons? Considering that many people seemed to find Jesus difficult to deal with at times, what might those people say to Jesus? Would they be justified?
3. Assuming you have made genuine but unsuccessful efforts to get along with a difficult person, what, in light of your commitment to follow Jesus, should be "Plan B"?
4. Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9). But what about when the person with whom we are trying to make peace perceives our attempt as a sign of weakness or uses it to gain advantage over us? Is it important to operate from the position of peacemaker even when there is no obvious reward or benefit from doing so? Why?
5. What negative effect does fear or dislike of others have on your ability to make good decisions about how to proceed? How does your faith in God help you make better decisions and live with less fear?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
1 Samuel 17:10-11
And the Philistine said, "Today I defy the ranks of Israel! Give me a man, that we may fight together." When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid. (For context, read 17:1-54.)
The "Philistine" speaking in the verses above is Goliath, the giant. His words bristle with defiance and bluster at the Israelites. And his words effectively dishearten the Israelites, leaving  them "dismayed and greatly afraid."
Later, when David accepts his challenge, Goliath spews words of scorn for him personally: "Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the wild animals of the field" (v. 44). David responds with his own belligerent words (see vv. 45-47), but his include a statement of confidence that the Lord is with him.
We know the outcome of this confrontation, of course. David's slingshot-propelled stone brought down the giant and caused the Israelite troops no longer to view the Philistines as invincible. The Israelites then took the battle to the Philistines and prevailed.
Questions: In human relationships today, what can change how we view a belligerent person? What alternatives would you have suggested to Goliath, or to people who lived with Goliath? Was David's response the only possible response?
In one famous Easter episode of The Simpsons, the family falls asleep during a boring sermon. Bart Simpson dreams he is David and that he was defeated by Goliath's son. He gets back into shape and kills Goliath II, only to discover that the giant has built roads and hospitals and instituted programs that benefit the people. How hard is it to see beneficial actions proceeding from individuals or institutions that represent different political aims and goals? Do we have a tendency to demonize those who represent the "enemy" from our perspective?
Matthew 5:44-45
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. (For context, read 5:43-48.)
As Christians, we're pretty familiar with Jesus' "love your neighbor" command. But here, Jesus extends it to everyone, including enemies. And the reason? This is in imitation of God's indiscriminate and life-giving mercy to all, both good and bad.
Questions: Does this command of Jesus apply to international diplomacy? Why or why not? How does this command apply to personal dealings with obnoxious people? How do you apply it to your enemies?
On an international basis, can you think of instances where treating enemies with more kindness than they deserve has had a long-term benefit? Recent trends seem to favor long sentences for criminals, and for treating juveniles as adults and applying long sentences as well. Does this benefit our communities? Is incarceration the only protection for our communities?
Romans 12:18
If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (For context, read 12:9-21.)
Here's a statement from the apostle Paul that seems rooted in the reality of daily life. Christians should, of course, attempt to live peaceably with everyone. But Paul recognizes that it is not within the ability of any person, Christian or otherwise, to command peaceableness from someone else. Still, we should do what we can to live peaceably with all. If that peace is broken, or never occurs to begin with, it should not be because the Christian person did not make a genuine effort.
Question: Where do you need to make a fresh effort to live peaceably with someone?
Romans 14:19
Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. (For context, read 14:1-23.)
The church in Rome included Christians who had come to the faith from Judaism and also Christians who had come to the faith from paganism. The former brought with them the centuries-old kosher dietary laws while the latter had no problem dining on food that had been previously offered to pagan gods before arriving in the marketplace. It was perhaps inevitable that those from one background would judge those from the other background as wrongheaded in their culinary practices.
In chapter 14, Paul calls upon the members of the church to stop the judgmentalism and instead work together for peace and for the things that make for "mutual upbuilding."
Questions: What is the focus of judgmentalism? In contrast, what is the  focus of "mutual upbuilding"? How easy or challenging is it to mutually upbuild when there are those who seem to prefer dissension and conflict? How does this attitude seem to affect politics in our society? In our churches?
Titus 3:9-10
But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions ... (For context, read 3:1-11.)
This advice from Paul shows that even within the faith community, there can be belligerent people. Paul also sets a precedent: "After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions." Thus, when possible, having no dealings with difficult people can be a biblical strategy.
Question: What should you do when you're forced to encounter someone over and over -- an obnoxious parishioner who never ceases to nitpick at church leaders; an adult sibling with whom you must co-administer care to your aging parents; a coworker who's assigned to your department?
For Further Discussion
1. In an article titled "Managing Conflict in Higher Education," Robert J. McAllister writes: "Not everyone wants peace. People in a conflict sometimes cling to their attitudes and behaviors with a tenacity that may contradict logic, but does not contradict a long record of ill will and mutual animosity. Tenacity in a conflict sometimes develops simply because there is too much to lose in abandoning it or perhaps because there may even be something to be gained from continuing it." What might a continuously belligerent individual hope to gain from maintaining a constant state of animosity?
2. What is your response emotionally to those who are difficult to deal with? Has anyone ever said or done anything that might suggest you can be, at times, one of those difficult people? What is your response to such criticism?
3. What ought to be our country's long-range agenda concerning North Korea? What would be the first step? What tools do we have to influence North Korea?
Responding to the News
This would be a good time to think about a difficult person with whom you have to deal and ask your class members for both advice about and prayer support for that relationship.
As a group, pray for strength and wisdom to be able to deal faithfully with those who seem to have no interest in living like Jesus.

Closing Prayer
O Lord, we pray for our country's international relationship and especially, at this time, our dealings with North Korea. Grant wisdom and guidance for a good outcome to our national leaders and those who must make decisions about how to respond to the provocations. Help us personally to find in our faith wisdom and guidance for dealing with the difficult persons in our lives. In Jesus' name. Amen.