Young Atheists Tell What Turned Them Away From Christianity: Learnings for the Church?

© 2013 The Wired Word 

www.thewiredword.com 

A recent project to interview students at several American colleges and universities who self-identify as atheists has concluded that a key reason many young people leave Christianity is because they do not encounter strong, convinced, proselytizing Christians in the churches they attend during their teen years.
The project was undertaken by staff of the Fixed Point Foundation, a nonprofit group that describes its mission as "to seek innovative ways to defend and proclaim the Gospel and to prepare Christians to do the same."
While the project's findings seem significant, it does not appear to be a "study" in the sense of interviewing a representative sample with numerical tallies being recorded and measured against a control group. The report of the project, written by Fixed Point's executive director Larry Alex Taunton and published last month in The Atlantic, describes general conclusions but does not tell how many colleges were visited or the number of students interviewed. The Wired Word has not yet received a response to its request to Fixed Point Foundation for such details.
Nonetheless, the report refers to a spread of colleges and universities across the country and to "a flood of enquiries" from students willing to be interviewed, so we assume the responses are reasonably representative. According to Taunton's article, Fixed Point contacted campus atheist groups seeking volunteer participants. These groups, described in the report as "atheist equivalents to Campus Crusade," meet regularly for fellowship, to encourage one another in their unbelief and to proselytize. Their members "are people who are not merely irreligious; they are actively, determinedly irreligious," wrote Taunton.
In response, the foundation heard from many students willing to tell the story of their journey to unbelief. The volunteers ranged from "Stanford University to the University of Alabama-Birmingham, from Northwestern to Portland State."
"It was not our purpose to dispute their stories or to debate the merits of their views. Not then, anyway," said Taunton. "We just wanted to listen to what they had to say. And what they had to say startled us."
The project finding that's likely of most concern to congregations is that many of the "strategies" employed in churches for decades to engage teenagers are not particularly effective in making them disciples of Jesus Christ. As one student put it, "Church became all about ceremony, handholding and kumbaya."
The students reportedly spoke freely and willingly with the Fixed Point interviewers. The foundation gleaned seven broad themes from the participants' stories:
1. The participants had attended church. Most of the participants had chosen their unbelief position in reaction to Christianity.
2. The mission and message of their churches was vague. The participants heard a lot about community involvement, being good and doing good, but "seldom saw the relationship between that message, Jesus Christ and the Bible." As one student explained, "The connection between Jesus and a person's life was not clear."
3. They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life's difficult questions. Participants said they found church answers to questions about evolution vs. creation, sexuality, the reliability of the biblical text, Jesus as the only way and other topics unconvincing. Some said that church services "were largely shallow, harmless and ultimately irrelevant."
4. They expressed their respect for Christians who took the Bible seriously. The project concluded that church people shouldn't waste time worrying about whether the Christian message will turn youth off; youth respect people with conviction, provided they know what they are talking about. A political science major at Dartmouth said he was drawn to Christians who obviously believe their faith. "I really can't consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn't trying to convert me."
5. Ages 14-17 were decisive. Far from choosing unbelief in college, most of the participants said the decision took place during their high school years.
6. The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one. While students spoke of rational reasons for their move to atheism, many also described an emotional transition.
7. The Internet factored heavily into their conversion to atheism. None of the interviewees mentioned being influenced by the works of well-known atheists, but many gave vague references to YouTube videos and website forums.
Taunton spoke of the "lasting impressions" of these discussions: "That these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable. I again quote [a participant]: 'Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven't seen too much of that.'"
"Sincerity does not trump truth," Taunton added. "After all, one can be sincerely wrong. But sincerity is indispensable to any truth we wish others to believe. There is something winsome, even irresistible, about a life lived with conviction."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity. The Atlantic
Learning From Young Atheists: What Turned Them Off Christianity. Christian Post
What Larry Alex Taunton Learned from Atheists Isn't the Least Bit Surprising. Patheos (A response from an atheist)
Fixed Point Foundation website
The Big Questions
1. Do you agree that stronger, more authentic Christian people are the most influential evangelism means the church has? Why or why not? What do you think is more effective in maintaining faith in young people: stronger biblical arguments, stronger relationships or setting an example?
2. Can a Christian fulfill his or her calling without sharing the gospel with others? Explain your answer. How do you define faith sharing?
3. Name some things your church's youth group has done. What were those activities intended to teach teens? Do you think they accomplished that goal? What might have worked better?
4. If you had any struggles with unbelief, at what age did they occur? If you can identify what things helped you resolve your struggles in favor of faith, how might those things be replicated in youth ministry today?
5. What is the most important thing about being a Christian? In what ways have you conveyed this to young people in your church? To people outside your church?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
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" ... (No context needed.)
The author of Ecclesiastes struggled to find meaning in life, and along the way, he tried several means to find it, including self-indulgence, lavish spending and sensual pleasures. Of those, he pessimistically concluded "All is vanity and a chasing after wind" (1:14).
In the end, however, he did come to a few conclusions: Go your way, appreciate your family and passing pleasures, value wisdom and learning, and then this: "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'" (12:1). In other words, start with God even while young, because God provides a baseline of meaning.
Questions: What might the author of Ecclesiastes say about how we should do youth ministry today? What might he say about how straightforward and passionate we should be about presenting the gospel message to teens? What might he say about church programs aimed at youth that include large entertainment components?
The author of Ecclesiastes is upfront about the apparent meaninglessness of much of what happens in life, but does not shy away from observing and describing it. How important is it to approach discussions about belief and doubt from a stance of realism? Are you tempted to gloss over or sugar-coat difficulties?
Acts 8:30
So Philip ran up to [the chariot] and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" (For context, read 8:26-39.)
The Philip in this story is not the apostle by that name, but one of the seven men chosen to assist the apostles in serving the church community (see Acts 6:1-5). Eventually, an angel directed this Philip to go to the Gaza road. There, he met an Ethiopian who was reading the book of Isaiah. So Philip asked him, "Do you understand what you are reading?" When the man said he did not, Philip began to interpret the text and led the man to Christ.
Questions: In what ways might the simple question, "Do you understand what you are reading/hearing/seeing?" be a touchstone for youth ministry? Have you ever been asked a basic faith question by a young person? How did you respond? Do you find yourself on occasion using religious jargon without explaining what you mean, and assuming that everyone is on the same page? How patient are you with others in their faith journey?
Hebrews 3:12-14 (The Message)
So watch your step, friends. Make sure there's no evil unbelief lying around that will trip you up and throw you off course, diverting you from the living God. For as long as it's still God's Today, keep each other on your toes so sin doesn't slow down your reflexes. If we can only keep our grip on the sure thing we started out with, we're in this with Christ for the long haul. (For context, read 3:7-19.)
In 3:7-11, the author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 95:7b-11 with its command "do not harden your hearts" (v. 8, cf. Psalm 95:8). Then, in the verses quoted above, he begins to sermonize on that theme from the psalm. He sees heart hardening as the result of "evil unbelief ... that will trip you up and throw you off course, diverting you from the living God."
While we may or may not want to call unbelief in and of itself "evil," from a Christian standpoint, if it turns a person away from God, it does that person eternal harm.
Question: Here in Hebrews, "unbelief" means unfaithfulness, not intellectual doubt, but how might the two be related?
Hebrews 5:12-14
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. (No context needed.)
Here, the author of Hebrews challenges his readers, who are not new Christians, to grow up spiritually. He finds them still needing the beginners' understanding of salvation, when, in his opinion, they ought to be ready for "solid food" -- a mature understanding of the faith.
One TWW team member recalls as a child attending a Vacation Bible School in a strongly evangelical church and coming away spiritually hungrier than she was before the week started: "I was encouraged to speak to the director of the VBS, which I did, telling her (in simpler terms, of course) that while I liked entertainment and fun as much as the next person, without the bread, milk and meat of the Word, it was just so much whipped cream fluff with empty calories that would leave children just as spiritually malnourished as those who had no access to spiritual food at all. I have no idea how the director reacted, but I believe many people are starving for better spiritual nutrition because parents and churches are afraid people will opt out of the church if we don't 'give them what they want,' the spiritual sugar, fat and caffeine that makes us bloated, lethargic, obese and unhealthy spiritually.
Another TWW team member recollects when their Sunday school adopted a new curriculum sight-unseen. While the lessons were entertaining, they were all "thou shalts" (Law) and no "Jesus did this for you" (gospel). He writes: The teachers ended up rewriting most of the lessons before use because the message was so off. It was dropped as soon as the subscription expired. Over a decade later, that curriculum is still around, which means that many congregations are using it, so it must have its adherents. But a Christianity without the need for Christ's atonement seems to be an oxymoron."
Questions: Is it possible that our own spiritual immaturity hinders our ability to share the gospel with our youth? Is it possible that our youth programs are feeding spiritual pablum when actually, teens are hungry for more substantial spiritual food? How might we determine when the full gospel should be plainly taught? Is there a condescending attitude in our approach with young people and new believers? Are we as ready to learn as to explain?
Revelation 3:15-16
I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth. (For context, read 3:14-21.)
This is part of the risen Christ's message to the church at Laodicea, and it's not complimentary. The church was not doing anything that's outright evil or patently wrong, but it was "neither cold nor hot." In the ancient world, "cold" did not mean "passive" and "hot" did not mean "enthusiastic" or "passionate"; rather cold and hot were used in the sense of "against me" and "for me."
And that was the problem. An outsider visiting the congregation would be unable to tell, from what was being said and done, what the members really believed. Probably young people growing up in the congregation would have had the same problem.
Questions: What's the problem with a "lukewarm" faith? Isn't it better than none at all? There's a question we heard somewhere that asks, "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" How would you answer that? Is your faith a constant hot, cold or lukewarm? What causes changes in "temperature" for you?
For Further Discussion
1. Even if a church does everything in the best possible way in ministry with youth, there's no guarantee that a young person now in the church will not eventually embrace unbelief. But how might that exposure to the full gospel nonetheless function in that person's life, even if the person chooses atheism?
2. Respond to this, from a TWW team member: "I think we need to acknowledge that if we wait until our kids are adolescents to try to build their faith, we've already missed the boat. Scripture says, 'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it' (Proverbs 22:6, KJV). We need to address what constitutes effective Christian education for children. Some churches do nothing more in their children's ministry than babysit and entertain their charges. Why then would we expect our children to view the Christian faith as anything they should take seriously when we don't take it seriously ourselves?"
3. Read some of the reactions to the "Listening to Young Atheists" article at Ship of Fools, and invite class members to respond.
Responding to the News
This is an appropriate time to evaluate how your present youth ministry activities communicate the gospel message and faithfully address the deep questions of life.
Closing Prayer

O God, help us to share our faith intelligently, effectively and in ways that reveal what it really means to us. In Jesus' name. Amen.

J.K. Rowling Unmasked as Author of "Galbraith" Debut Novel

© 2013 The Wired Word 

www.thewiredword.com 

In J.K. Rowling's popular Harry Potter books, the aparecium spell makes invisible writing and possibly other invisible things appear. In an aparecium of sorts, Rowling herself has now been made visible as the author of a new crime novel, The Cuckoo's Calling.
The novel had been released earlier this year as a "debut" book by a former British military man named Robert Galbraith.
The book received surprisingly good reviews for a first-time novelist, but eventually the British newspaper The Sunday Times did some investigating and decided on the basis of word and style analysis, along with the fact that "Galbraith" and Rowling share both a literary agent and a publisher, that it was Rowling's work. After the paper published its conclusion last Sunday, Rowling 'fessed up.
"I hoped to keep this secret a little longer because being Robert Galbraith has been such a liberating experience," Rowling said in a statement released by her publicist. "It has been wonderful to publish without hype or expectation, and pure pleasure to get feedback from publishers and readers under a different name."
The book has since become an overnight bestseller, and the initial print run has sold out. Reprints will include a revised author biography with the statement "Robert Galbraith is a pseudonym for J.K. Rowling,"
The noted American author Stephen King, who wrote several early novels under the pseudonym Richard Bachman but was eventually outed, told USA Today that in these days of the Internet, keeping a popular author's identity hidden is "an impossible secret to keep for long."
But King added that Rowling "is right about one big thing -- what a pleasure, what a blessed relief, to write in anonymity, just for the joy of it."
Still, said King, "Now that I know, I can't wait to read the book."
More on this story can be found at these links:
J.K. Rowling Unmasked as Secret Author of Widely Praised Crime Novel. Slate
Aparecium! J.K. Rowling Revealed As 'Cuckoo' Mystery Author. NPR
Stephen King Cheers J.K. Rowling's Try for 'Anonymity.' USA Today
The Big Questions
1. In what ways does God sometimes work "behind the scenes"? What enables you to recognize his activity?
2. When and in what ways have you benefitted from the work of an unknown Christian?
3. When has a willingness to not receive credit for your efforts enabled something helpful to occur for others?
4. Under what circumstances is anonymity not a good thing?
5. When have you been the beneficiary of an anonymous gift? Have you ever felt supported by prayers even though you had not been notified that you were being prayed for or about who might be praying for you? Have you ever given anonymously to help another through the church or other agencies?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope 
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Esther 4:14
For if you keep silence at such a time as this, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter, but you and your father's family will perish. Who knows? Perhaps you have come to royal dignity for just such a time as this. (For context, read 4:1-17.)
The biblical book of Esther contains the story of a royal decree that Jewish people living in the Persian Empire were to be killed, and how Queen Esther, a Jew herself, though the king didn't know it, saved them by intervening with the king (a dangerous act, depending on the king's mood). The line above is spoken by Esther's relative Mordecai, suggesting that maybe the whole reason Esther had been selected by the king to be his queen was so she could be in the right place to avert the crisis and save her people.
Note that Mordecai says nothing about God having arranged all of this. In fact, the name of God is not mentioned anywhere in the book of Esther. Yet when Mordecai says that if Esther does not help, "deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter," he's likely expressing confidence that God is active behind the scenes and will bring about deliverance for the Jews by other means.
Martin Luther spoke of "the hidden God," whose actions are the opposite of what is patently visible. For example, Jesus' death appears to be defeat, but in it, we are saved.
Questions: What are some signs that God is active in the events of this world? Where do you hope God is working? Where do you think God is most needed? Are some people, in your opinion, better able to receive help from God when they don't know God is involved?
Matthew 6:3-4
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (For context, read 6:1-6.)
These verses are about deliberately practicing anonymity, but their teaching (along with all that Jesus said in the surrounding verses) is that "reward" is not earning God's favor or receiving recognition from others but experiencing God's blessing.
One TWW team member, whom we'll allow to remain anonymous, comments that Matthew 6:3-4 causes this member to think about how our tithes are used. The member says, "I like the idea that my offering is doing God's work, whether that is paying for the overhead of the church or assisting the many charities that the church supports. In some way, it takes me out of the driver's seat of how my tithe should be spent and puts it in God's hands. I feel blessed with the anonymity of this as the one who tithes and relieved that I don't have to make these decisions."
Questions: In what ways have you been blessed by quietly and genuinely meeting someone else's need? Do you derive more satisfaction from giving anonymously, or from getting to see the face of a recipient when they know you are the giver? Many churches have books or plaques that honor those who give memorial gifts. Do you think this text speaks to their situations? What helps us determine which gifts should be anonymous?
Does giving anonymously give some people the freedom to act according to their choice? Does giving anonymously have something to do, in your opinion, with preventing oneself from being inundated by requests from others?
Mark 1:44-45
[Jesus said,] "See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them." But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter. (For context, read 1:40-45.)
Early in Jesus' work, a man with leprosy came and asked Jesus to heal him. Jesus did, but then he asked the healed man to "say nothing to anyone." Clearly Jesus did not want to be identified primarily as a healer. Nonetheless, the man proclaimed what Jesus had done, and so many people then came to him for healing as well that he "could no longer go into a town openly." Jesus was likely concerned that the clamor for healing would keep people from hearing his proclamation of the gospel. Yet, because of his compassion, he did not turn those needing healing away.
Question: When would anonymity about your good deeds free you to do other good things as well?
Mark 14:12-15
[Jesus'] disciples said to him, "Where do you want us to go and make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?" So he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." (For context, read 14:12-16.)
Commenting to this text, preacher Halford Luccock writes, "Notice ... that this householder was anonymous. What a figure in church history ['Anonymous'] has been .... Poet, composer, saint. Turn to your hymnal and look up the hymns 'Anonymous' has written. ... 'Come Thou Almighty King,' 'O Come, All Ye Faithful,' ... 'Fairest Lord Jesus,' and a score of others. How many anonymous people there are in the New Testament -- the centurion who had great faith, the town clerk of Ephesus, a gallery of great souls. They are the hope of the world." Likewise, when God works in the world, it is often done by "Anonymous." "There are no near limits to what a person may accomplish if [he or she] does not care who gets the credit," says Luccock.
Questions: How do you feel about  Luccock's statement that "There are no near limits to what a person may accomplish if [he or she] does not care who gets the credit"? Why do you think he said "near limits"?
John 21:20-24
Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. (For context, read 21:20-25.)
The "disciple whom Jesus loved" is an anonymous person in the New Testament. This disciple was almost certainly a man, since he was present at the Last Supper, which by custom at that time would not have included women, but beyond that, we can only guess at his identity. Nonetheless, as the text above explains, he was the eyewitness behind the gospel of John, so that gospel was based on his testimony. Despite the misunderstanding mentioned in the text about him not dying, the way this disciple "remained" with the community was that his testimony would live on and continue to be heard and read in John's gospel.
Because this disciple is referred to using this terminology only in the gospel of John, he is sometimes assumed to be John, but others think not. John was from Galilee, but after Jesus committed the care of his mother to this beloved disciple, he took Mary to his home, which allowed her to remain near Jerusalem (John 19:26-27; Acts 1:14). Thus, this disciple's home was likely in or near Jerusalem, not far away in Galilee. Based on this, some have surmised that he was Mark or Lazarus or the owner of the upper room or some other follower of Jesus who was not one of the Twelve.
Questions: While the possible identity of the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is of interest to Bible students, does it matter in terms of believing his testimony as recorded in the book of John? Why or why not? How have you benefited from John's gospel specifically?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this: Regarding being helped without knowing the source, consider the story of the poem "The Touch of the Master's Hand." It was written by Myra Brooks Welch (1878-1959), a church musician at the Church of the Brethren in LaVerne, California. After she developed crippling arthritis at a relatively young age and could no longer play music, she took up writing poetry by grasping pencils in her gnarled hands, eraser side down, and plunking out her verse on manual typewriters. After the poem was published in the February 26, 1921, issue of the Gospel Messenger, it was copied and recited over and over again, usually attributed to "Anonymous." Welch took that in good humor, but her most famous poem was almost never credited to her. Yet it did great good, having inspired many. (NOTE: We are not suggesting that people's creations should be usurped simply because those works can do some good. Copyright laws enable many people to make their living, and should be respected.)
2. Have you heard the saying, "A miracle is a coincidence in which God chooses to remain anonymous"? Fittingly, the source of the saying is unknown. Is the saying helpful? Why or why not?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to consider where a concern for receiving credit is interfering with something God is calling you to do.
Closing Prayer

Thank you, O Lord, for all the anonymous people through the centuries who have passed the knowledge about and testimony to the Christian faith on to us. Enable us to do all the good we can in the spirit of Christian charity and grace. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Crash of Asiana Flight 214: When Does "Oh My God" Become a Prayer?

© 2013 The Wired Word 

www.thewiredword.com 

Last Saturday, Fred Hayes, a self-described "aviation buff," and his wife Gina were watching planes land at San Francisco International Airport. Shortly before noon, he noticed a Boeing 777 approaching for a landing. The video Hayes was shooting at the time captured his voice as he said to his wife, "Look at that one! Look how its nose is up in the air."
At that instant, the tail section of the plane, Asiana Flight 214, suddenly hit the seawall that separated the runways from the bay and broke off.
On the video, Hayes can be heard exclaiming, "Oh my god! It's an accident!"
The rest of the plane careened out of control, cartwheeled down the runway and eventually came to rest right side up.
As all this was happening, Hayes uttered "Oh my god!" five more times, with his inflection changing as what he was seeing began to sink in. In fact, here at The Wired Word, we are inclined to spell his last couple of repetitions as "O my God," for as we listened, it seemed to us that what started as exclamations of surprise had become something prayerful. The last thing Hayes can be heard saying on the video is "O Lord have mercy."
The plane, with 307 souls on board, had originated in Shanghai, China. Despite the horrific crash and extensive destruction of the plane, the crew and most of the passengers were able to escape before the aircraft erupted in flames and smoke.
Two teenage girls, however, were killed, and 182 other people were hospitalized with injuries ranging from severe scrapes to paralysis. Investigators are looking into reports that one of the teenage girls may have died from being run over by an emergency vehicle responding to the accident.
Hayes' video is the only known footage of the tragedy. When CNN later interviewed him, he said he and his wife initially assumed everybody on board was "in bad shape," but added that they were happy to learn that "not everybody on the plane lost their life." He's wearing sunglasses, so you can't see his eyes, but he appeared to be having some trouble with his composure.
Hayes' words while witnessing the crash reminded us of a report about a flight attendant on American Flight 11, the first plane to be rammed into the World Trade Center on 9/11. She was Madeline Amy Sweeney, the 35-year-old mother of two small children. As the hijacking was underway, Sweeney, in the rear of the plane, managed to phone an American flight service manager in Boston. With remarkable calm, she told the manager what was happening, and identified the hijackers by their seat numbers. Sweeney reported that two flight attendants had been stabbed and that a business-class passenger had been killed by a hijacker who cut the man's throat. Moments before 8:46 a.m., she spoke of seeing water and buildings. And then, after a brief pause while she apparently grasped what was about to happen, came her last transmission. She exclaimed, "O my God! O my God!"
More on this story can be found at these links:
Asiana Flight 214 Was Traveling Slower Than Recommended on Landing. CNN (includes Hayes' video and interview)
"Large, Brief Fireball," As Plane Landed. CNN
The Big Questions
1. Because "Oh my god" is so much a "throwaway" and even profane expression among many people today (and "OMG!" is likewise a throwaway while texting), what determines when or if it becomes a prayer?
2. Think about the expressions "God bless you" and "God damn you." Both expressions appear to be making a request of God, so are both a prayer? Explain your answer. (In Hebrew, barak can be translated as both "bless" and "curse," depending on the context. In Job 2:9, Job's wife is generally quoted as advising Job to "curse God, and die," but it can just as easily be translated "bless God, and die.")
3. Why do so many expletives employ sacred names? What does this say about the power of the Divine Name that it is used in cursing, even by nonbelievers? Is there a curse as powerful that does not involve faith-related terms?
4. What is the primary difference between something that is secular and something that is sacred?
5. When, if ever, have you said something like "Oh my god" thoughtlessly? If you do not use this phrase, what do you say instead? Do you say anything when you hear someone say "Oh my god" thoughtlessly?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Exodus 20:7
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. (For context, read 20:1-17.)
Leviticus 22:32
You shall not profane my holy name, that I may be sanctified among the people of Israel: I am the LORD; I sanctify you ... (For context, read 22:31-33.)
Exodus 20:7 is one of the Ten Commandments. Note that "LORD" is rendered in all-capital letters, which is the way most English Bible translations denote the underlying Hebrew name of God, Yahweh. In ancient Hebrew, only consonants, and not vowels, were used to reproduce the name, and so, transliterated, it was written as YHWH. The Israelites considered this name too sacred to even say, and so they used substitutes, such as adonai ("my Lord") or "the name." Some devout Jews today write God as G-d so as not to profane the Almighty.
When later Jews inserted vowel markers into the Hebrew consonants, they put the vowels from adonai into YHWH. Translators in a later era were confused by the result, YaHoVai, and thought the sacred name was Jehovah. But there is no such word in Hebrew.
In Leviticus 22:32, when God tells the Israelites not to "profane" his name, he's not particularly talking about profanity in the sense of cuss words, although what he's saying can be applied to our vocabulary. In the Bible, when the words "hallowed," "holy" and "sacred" are used, they denote that the practice or object in question is separated from common use and dedicated for the worship of God. The sacred thing is secured against violation by reverence and a sense of right.
The opposite word from "holy" is "profane," which, in its original sense, meant not something vulgar, but something "common" or "for everyday use." It was a synonym for "secular." "Profane" is from the Latin word profanus, which means "in front of the temple" or "outside the holy place." Thus, to profane something was to use in a common way that which was set apart for holy use.
In Ezekiel 36:21, God charges disobedient Israel with profaning his name among the nations.
Questions: Why do you think the name of God is no longer held in such high regard in our culture? What has allowed it to become for many people a curse word?
Psalm 38:21-22
Do not forsake me, O LORD; O my God, do not be far from me; make haste to help me, O Lord, my salvation. (No context necessary.)
Matthew 26:74
Then [Peter] began to curse, and he swore an oath, "I do not know the man!" (For context, read 26:69-75.)
In the Psalm 38 verse above, there is no question but what the psalmist is saying "O my God" in a prayerful way.
The Matthew 26 verse is about Peter's denying that he was one of Jesus' companions. The verse doesn't tell us what curses and oaths he used, but if he were in our culture today, Peter might have said, "Oh my god! I do not know the man!"
Questions: What is there within us that causes "Oh my god!" or "O my God!" to leap to our lips in moments of anxiety or terror? In such moments, can it be both expressions at the same time? Why? What do you say at times of stress? At such times, when you intentionally address God, what are you likely to say?
Mark 10:47
[Bartimaeus shouted,] "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" (For context, read 10:46-52.)
Luke 18:13
[The tax collector said,] "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" (For context, read 18:9-14.)
Luke 23:42
[The dying thief said,] "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." (For context, read 23:32, 39-43.)
All three of these speakers were praying a form of the short prayer "Lord have mercy."
Regarding Hayes' verbal expressions while filming the plane crash, TWW team member Heidi Mann says, "It seems to me that to say 'Oh my god' might be an easy automatic exclamation because it is so commonly heard these days that it gets in your head -- whether you want it to or not -- and can easily come forth in a time of anxiety. But for someone to exclaim 'Lord, have mercy,' it seems they'd have to have been exposed to it in some specific way, such as through liturgy and/or knowledge of the Bible (as in Bartimaeus calling out to Jesus)."
She adds, "When I was a young pastor, our youth director's baby died at full-term but still in utero; it was discovered later that the umbilical cord got kinked and oxygen was cut off. When I first learned the news, all I could say was 'Lord, have mercy.'"
Questions: What kind of merciful responses have you had to your prayers? When have you experienced depths or heights so profound that your prayer does not require a response, but is simply an acknowledgment of God?
Luke 23:46
Then Jesus ... said, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." (For context, read 23:44-46.)
In his sermon "When Nothing More Can Be Done" (Sermons on the First Readings, Year C, 2006-2007, CSS Publishing) TWW team member Stan Purdum writes, "In an instant when we suddenly comprehend that nothing more can be done, that things really are ending, from somewhere deep inside us sometimes comes the realization that the only refuge we have left is God himself. And there may only be time for the briefest of prayers: 'O my God!'
"When all else is gone, that is our only plea, our only prayer, our only affirmation of faith and our only claim on eternity. 'O my God, receive me!' It was the prayer of Jesus on the cross -- 'Father, into your hands I commend my spirit' -- and it is ours. Commending ourselves to God is what can be done -- the only thing that can be done -- when nothing more can be done.
"Thank God."
Questions: Is "Thank God" a satisfying response to the realization that in the end, commending ourselves to God is the only thing that can be done? Why or why not?
For Further Discussion
1. Comment on this, from a TWW team member: "Some churches use the ancient words of liturgy such as 'Lord, have mercy' and 'Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace.' Some churches -- even within historically liturgical denominations -- don't. Presently, our family attends an ELCA church that does not use the liturgy; I lament that, but we remain with the congregation for other sound reasons. Still, the fact that my boys are not infused weekly with those ancient words saddens me. The words of the liturgy can give Christians a common language when no other words fit the moment (as in the case of the plane crash)."
2. Respond to this: Confessional, a spy thriller by Jack Higgins, is set in the 1980s. The plot involves a Soviet spy, Mikhail Kelly, who has been planted in Northern Ireland for 20 years, using the identity Father Harry Cussane, a Roman Catholic priest. In that role, he performs the tasks of ministry, says the Mass and so forth. But in his real identity, he assassinates both Catholic and Protestant leaders to keep the strife between the groups stirred up and derail any peace initiatives. In time, however, Moscow's goals change, Kelly becomes an inconvenient loose end and they decide to eliminate him. Kelly discovers this and, in a last act of desperation, decides to assassinate the pope, who is visiting England.
    In the final scene, Kelly manages to get into a chapel where the pope is alone, praying. When Kelly, gun in hand, approaches His Holiness, the pope says to him, quite calmly, "You are Father Harry Cussane."
    "You are mistaken," the killer replies. "I am Mikhail Kelly. Strolling player of sorts."
    "You are Father Harry Cussane," the pope says relentlessly. "Priest then, priest now, priest eternally. God will not let you go."
    "No," Kelly shouts, "I refuse it." He aims the gun at the Holy Father and begins to squeeze the trigger.
    At that second, a policewoman who's been on Kelly's trail, bursts into the room and shoots Kelly twice. He falls to the floor, mortally wounded. The pontiff then kneels beside his would-be assassin and gently takes the gun from his hand. He says to him, "I want you to make an act of contrition. Say after me: O my God, who art infinitely good in thyself ..."
    The gunman says, "Oh my God ..." and then dies. (In the book, while both versions of the expression include a capital "G" on God, they are distinguished by the "O" in the pope's use of the phrase and the "Oh" in the gunman's use of it.)
3. Comment on this: There is a 17th-century devotional classic titled The Practice of the Presence of God, written by a lay monk named Nicholas Herman but known in the monastery as Brother Lawrence. He was assigned to work in the kitchen of the monastery. He gave himself to paying attention to God's presence even while going about his kitchen duties. He found himself more and more able to do this and eventually found "That time of business does not with me differ from the time of prayer, and in the noise and clatter of my kitchen, while several persons are at the same time calling for different things, I enjoy God in as great tranquility as if I were upon my knees at the blessed sacrament."
Responding to the News
This is a good time to review how you reverence God in your daily life, including in the verbal expressions you use.
Closing Prayer

"Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to you, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer." --Psalm 19:14

Christians React to SCOTUS Rulings on DOMA and Prop 8

© 2013 The Wired Word 

www.thewiredword.com 

 The two decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court affecting same-sex marriage last week have unleashed a flood of reactions from Christian leaders and laypeople that reflect both sides of the national debate on the issue.
Many Christians maintain true marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and would not describe other types of unions as "marriage." Some would deny those in same-sex relationships the legal benefits that those in mixed-gender marriages receive.
Many other Christians insist that the term "marriage" should be used to describe all legal unions, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and that the legal benefits of marriage should be available to partners in same-gender unions just as they are to partners in mixed-gender unions.
There are Christians who are somewhere in between these two views, holding, for example, that same-sex unions should be legal and that partners should have full benefits just as mixed-gender marriages provide, but that the same-sex unions should not be called "marriages."
Thus, some Christians consider the high court's ruling misguided and a step in the wrong direction while other Christians consider it a welcome step forward.
On Wednesday of last week, the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on a 5-4 vote. DOMA was a 1996 law passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton that forbade the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Under it, people in same-sex unions could not receive the federal benefits and tax breaks that people in mixed-gender marriages could. With DOMA ruled unconstitutional, gay legally married couples must now be treated the same as straight legally married couples in everything from Social Security checks to Pentagon benefits. Further, there is now no federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Also on Wednesday, the court dismissed on technical grounds an appeal that asked it to overturn a lower-court decision striking down the California Proposition 8 marriage law. The decision clears the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California. The ruling does not affect marriage laws in other states, but supporters of same-sex marriage consider that the ruling will be helpful as they seek to change marriage laws in their states.
Christians who oppose same-sex marriage often do so on scriptural grounds, citing biblical verses such as Leviticus 18:22, which refers to homosexual relations as "an abomination," and Romans 1:26-27, which characterizes such relations as "unnatural." Christians who support same-sex marriage sometimes argue that the Bible's "love your neighbor as yourself" command (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39) overrides other commands and that in love, we should extend marriage privileges to all, regardless of their sexual orientation.
In many cases, the clash of views among Christians on same-sex marriage indicates differing understandings of the authority of the Bible. Some Christians consider the Bible to be a complete and unchanging divine statement with a once-and-for-all kind of authority. Thus, if the biblical writers regarded homosexual behavior as immoral, the changing understanding by society and even by science regarding sexuality cannot negate what Scripture says.
For example, Rev. Mike Boyd of Wallace Memorial Baptist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, regards the Supreme Court's decisions last Wednesday as "an absolute travesty for our nation." He bases this view on Scripture, and said, "The Bible is pretty clear what it has to say about this. Some people take things out of context and try to justify alternatives, but biblically, there are no alternatives."
Other Christians consider the Bible to be the Word of God, but also to reflect the limited worldviews of people in the eras in which the Bible was written. This understanding of Scripture allows that God may send new revelations to us that go beyond what the Bible has stated.
For example, Rev. Skip Lindeman of La Canada Congregational Church in La Canada Flintridge, California, views the court's decision as a sign of positive social progress. He said, "One thing I've preached about is don't look for scripture to justify your prejudice. Congregationalists believe God is still speaking, so don't place a period where God has placed a comma."
Among the developments in the last century that have fueled this debate among Christians are indications that some people may be born with same-sex orientation. If that is the case, some Christians reason, that means God made such persons that way, and thus the church should not oppose same-sex unions. Other Christians see this as further evidence of the Fall and the ubiquity of the sinful condition in human nature.
Many Christian denominations have responded to the born-that-way conclusion by distinguishing between same-sex orientation and same-sex relations. The Salvation Army, for example, offers the following position statement on homosexuality: "The Salvation Army does not consider same-sex orientation blameworthy in itself. Homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, requires individual responsibility and must be guided by the light of scriptural teaching. Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life."
Another reaction to the high court's rulings comes in the form of proposals that Christian clergy cease to act as agents of the state in making marriages legal. That is, pastors could hold a religious ceremony to bless the unions of any persons their church's polity permitted, but would not be the ones to sign marriage licenses and make the union "official," regardless of whether the couple was mixed-gender or same-gender; that would be up to civil authorities. Some religious leaders on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue have proposed this. The fact that a same-sex couple had a marriage license would not obligate a pastor who opposes same-sex marriage to bless their union. The fact that a same-sex couple could not get a marriage license (36 states still do not grant them) would not prevent a pastor who supports same-sex marriage from blessing their union.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Religious Leaders React to U.S. Supreme Court DOMA Ruling. Glendale News-Press
Christian Leaders Respond to DOMA Decision. Sojourners
Local Churches Offer Range of Reactions to DOMA Ruling. Knoxnews.com
The Real Fights Over Gay Marriage Are Just Starting. Religion News Service
Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony From the Civil Rite? The Gospel Coalition
The Big Questions
1. If the apostle Paul were alive today, and was aware of the conclusions of science about same-sex orientation, would he have a different view about same-sex unions than he had in the first century when he wrote Romans? Why or why not? What does your answer say about your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture?
2.  If your congregation generally opposes same-sex marriage, and if a same-sex couple who has been legally married were to visit your congregation, would you encourage them to continue to attend? If so, what would be your expectation about their involvement in your church? OR If your congregation generally supports same-sex marriage, and if people who are straightforward in their opposition to it were to visit, would you encourage them to continue to attend? If so, what would be your expectation about their involvement in your church? In either case, why?
3. Should the matter of making marriages legal be left to civil authorities and the matter of blessing unions be left to the church? How might separating the two functions affect how unchurched people view the church?
4. Should celibacy be the only option for Christians who have a same-sex orientation? Why or why not?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Matthew 16:18-19
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (For context, read 16:13-20.)
Jesus spoke these words to Peter after Peter had declared that Jesus was the Messiah (v. 16). Some take the "rock" in the verses to refer to Peter, but more likely it refers to Peter's confession of faith that Jesus is the Messiah -- a confession that all followers of Jesus make. At the same time, Jesus grants his followers great authority "to bind or to loose" -- that is, to interpret and implement his teachings.
Questions: How does our task of interpreting and implementing Jesus' teachings apply to societal changes that Jesus didn't address directly? What principles from Jesus should we use in interpreting the gospel for new circumstances?
John 16:12-13
I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (For context, read 16:5-15.)
The words above are part of several things Jesus said to his disciples at the Last Supper. Although Jesus knows that his time with them is about to come to an abrupt end, he does not try to stuff a lot of final instructions into the conversation. In fact, Jesus tells them, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."
Jesus isn't saying that they are resisting learning, but rather that they have not yet had the experiences that will enable them even to perceive what knowledge they will need. There are encounters ahead for them where they will need to know certain things, but from their present viewpoint, they can't even imagine what those things are. In essence, Jesus tells them, "There are some things I need to tell you, but you are not yet in a position to comprehend them."
But then Jesus tells them something that changes everything, and it explains why he is so calm. After he departs, Jesus says, the Holy Spirit will come to guide them and to convey to them what the Spirit hears from Jesus. In other words, Jesus is leaving his disciples with what they can handle at the moment and need for the present, but he is also telling them that when they need more from him, the Spirit is the "mechanism" that will provide it.
Questions: Can these comments from Jesus be applied to us as well? Is it possible that his reference to the Holy Spirit giving additional information means that new revelations from God continue to come to us? When and about what have you experienced this?
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.)
The apostle Paul wrote this to his younger co-worker Timothy. Even if we allow that Paul was referring to the Old Testament (since the New Testament hadn't been written yet), this is a powerful testimony to the authority of Scripture. Christians usually view these verses as applying to all the books that the church eventually included in the Bible in both testaments.
Questions: What, according to these verses, is the purpose of Scripture? What other means does God use to communicate with us?
James 2:8
You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (For context, read 2:1-13.)
This is one of several places where the New Testament quotes Leviticus 19:18 -- "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But here, James uses an unusual term in introducing it, calling it "the royal law." "Royal" is an accurate translation of the underlying Greek word basilikos, which refers to anything having to do with a king or his kingdom. In verse 5, James has just spoken of the poor who love God as those who are to inherit God's kingdom.
Thus, when James speaks of "the royal law," he means the law that applies in the kingdom of God. We know from the gospels as well from other early Christian writings that this "love your neighbor" commandment went back to the teachings of Jesus -- who highlighted it from Leviticus. Thus, in the Christian community, this commandment held a privileged place.
Coupled with the expression in verse 5, "those who love [God]," the royal law is complete, combining love of God and love of neighbor, isolated by Jesus as the central commandments (see Matthew 22:37-40).
Questions: Is "love" as used in this command a feeling or an action? What Christian resources help you to understand what loving your neighbor as yourself means? What helps you know how to apply it to circumstances the Bible doesn't discuss? What helps you to actually do it?
For Further Discussion
1. What does it mean to be living in a world where you apply your understanding of Christian teachings when the world is heading in a different direction? Consider, for example, Christian pacifists who opt out of military service based on their religious beliefs and the Amish, who choose not to engage the modern world of clothing, electricity and luxury. What effect do these choices have on the surrounding culture? What choices do you make to live as citizens of both this world and God's kingdom?
2. Respond to this, from TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey: "In 1949, when the Communists were seizing power in Czechoslovakia, my father and mother were married there in two separate ceremonies: one at city hall and one in the church. The secular rite was required by the state in order for the marriage to be recognized as legal, but it was the church ceremony that held the most spiritual meaning for them."
Responding to the News
Regardless of where you stand on the definition of marriage and who can marry whom, this is an important time to remember we are called to be followers of Jesus. Thus, it is vital that if we disagree with the culture around us, or even with other Christians, we do so in the spirit of Christ, remembering to love our neighbor as ourselves. This is not a time for hate.
Closing Prayer

Help us, O Lord, to be able to perceive your will. Keep us from using our viewpoint on same-sex marriage as a club with which to hurt others. Rather, let us use it as an opportunity to share the good news of the gospel in ways that honor Christ. In his name. Amen.