Duck Dynasty's Robertson Ignites Controversy, in Society and in Churches

 © 2013 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the family featured on A&E's popular Duck Dynasty reality show, ignited a multi-issue national controversy last week with comments he made to a writer for GQ magazine. His comments also led to his being suspended "indefinitely" from the TV show.
The Duck Dynasty show has made no secret of Robertson's Christian faith and that of his family. Responding to the GQ interviewer's question "What, in your mind, is sinful?" Robertson said, "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men." He then paraphrased 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, saying, "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."
In the same interview, Robertson also made the following statement about black people living in pre-civil-rights-era Louisiana: "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field .... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word! ... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." (Editor's note: The ellipses, which were present in the GQ article, indicate that we may not have the full statement.)
Both statements have drawn criticism from several quarters, including from groups promoting gay rights, human rights and civil rights.
For example, GLAAD, a media-monitoring organization which promotes the image of LGBT people in the media, slammed Robertson's comments, calling them "vile."
The GLAAD statement said: "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans -- and Americans -- who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."
His suspension came on the heels of a joint letter from the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign to the president of A&E, expressing "outrage and deep concern about the recent racist, homophobic and ill-informed remarks made by Phil Robertson."
In suspending Robertson, A&E Networks released a statement saying: "We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."
After the suspension, however, many people and ad hoc groups criticized the network for its decision, some because they agree with some or all of what Robertson said, and some because they uphold his right to state his opinion without being subject to political correctness "policing."
Robertson's supporters quickly rallied in his defense and created a petition at Change.org -- already signed by some 20,000 people -- demanding his reinstatement to the show. The petition states: "Homosexuals have their convictions and Christians respect them. There is a difference between respecting someone's rights to exercise free will and imposing on others what we believe. Phil has done nothing more than state what he believes in. Just because homosexuals do not agree does not mean Mr. Robertson needs to be suspended."
Brian Doherty, a libertarian blogger, wrote, "There may have been a good reason why classical tolerance of expression was summed up in the epigram: 'I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!' That has a different feel than: 'I disagree with what you say, I think you are evil for having said it, I think no one should associate with you and you ought to lose your livelihood, and anyone who doesn't agree with me about all that is skating on pretty thin ice as well, but hey, I don't think you should be arrested for it.'"
Long-time lesbian activist Camille Paglia also supported Robertson's freedom of expression (although not his beliefs) and spoke out against his suspension, calling the network's actions "utterly fascist and utterly Stalinist."
Shortly after the GQ article was released, the Cracker Barrel company, whose restaurants carry some Duck Dynasty items, announced that it would pull those items from its stores. After hearing a strong backlash from its customers, however, Cracker Barrel reversed its decision.
Some Christians argue that Robertson was just expressing a sincere, Christian view that homosexuality is sinful -- even if he did so crudely -- and that to condemn him amounts to condemning Christian beliefs.
Other Christians, however, view his remarks as showing a lack of understanding of both homosexuality and racism, and say that they do not demonstrate the love for neighbor that is central to the Christian faith.
In fairness to Robertson, we should mention that one of his sons adopted a bi-racial child, and that elsewhere in the article he is quoted as declaring, "We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven [or] hell. That's the Almighty's job. We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus -- whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later ...."
More on this story can be found at these links:
What the Duck? GQ (This is the article that led to Robertson's suspension. Although it includes some expletives and coarse language, and has a suggestive title, we felt it important for you to see the whole article.)
'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Suspended by A&E. FoxNews
Why Phil Robertson Got Suspended From Duck Dynasty. TIME
The Big Questions
1. At what point does stating a sincerely held belief or opinion become an expression of bigotry? How might someone conclude that it applies to Robertson? that it applies to the leadership of GLAAD?
2. Does the fact that Robertson has experienced an unwanted consequence (his suspension from the show) of his comments mean that this affair is a freedom of speech issue? Why or why not?
3. Do you consider it helpful to the Christian cause to have Phil Robertson as one of its most popular examples? Does he reach some people others can't? Does he alienate some people? Explain your answer.
4. To what degree do you think A&E's decision to suspend Robertson and Cracker Barrel's flip-flop on withdrawing Duck Dynasty items from its stores were primarily business decisions, with an eye on the bottom line? To what degree do you think they are moral decisions (whether you agree with them or not)? Why? What do you make of the fact that A&E is suspending Robertson but still planning to air the upcoming season featuring him?
5. Respond to this, from a TWW editorial team member: "Any suggestion that blacks were happy under the oppressive regime of the pre-civil-rights south, and that it was welfare and outside agitators that made them less godly and less happy, is mistaken. Robertson says he never heard a black person say anything bad about a white person. Of course not. That could be a death sentence in the south. In case you forgot, they would hang black people by their necks ...."
6. Robertson's comments about homosexuality came in response to the interviewer's question "What, in your mind, is sinful?" There are many possible things he could have named -- and does name in his autobiography -- such as drugs and sexual promiscuity. Why do you suppose he picked as an example something that he himself presumably does not practice? Why didn't he talk about something he himself does that he considers wrong? Does Matthew 7:3 -- "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?" -- apply here? Why or why not?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Mark 11:18
And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him ... (For context, read 11:15-18.)
Here is a good example of consequences for one's actions. This verse occurs immediately following Mark's account of Jesus cleansing the temple. Jesus took an action, and as a consequence, the religious officials began plotting against him -- and, of course, finally succeeded when they persuaded Pilate to have him crucified.
In this case, Jesus no doubt knew full well that as a result of his action and his teachings, there would be painful consequences. In retrospect, the consequence to Jesus becomes a badge of honor. Such is not always the case. Some consequences make the person receiving them look silly, shameful, malevolent or just wasteful because nothing useful is accomplished.
Questions: What, if anything, has been accomplished by the remarks that led to Robertson's consequences? What might have been some different uses of his opportunity to have some of his thoughts published? In this age of quick responses through email and social media, do people seem to respond to questions without using some sort of mental filter? Should we have to apologize for our opinions, even if they hurt another?
Matthew 18:15-17 (NIV)
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that "every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church ... (For context, read 18:15-20.)
Here, Jesus shows how disputes and the sin of one against another within the church should be handled. As for applying it to the current news, insofar as Christians disagree with Robertson, it might be good to find a way to engage him firsthand, rather than through the media.
Perhaps that would even work on the corporate level. This issue might have played out differently if the network had called Robertson in for a meeting and said, "Your comments in the interview do not reflect the values of our network. We need to maintain consistency in our brand. Are you with us, or do you want to withdraw from the show and go your own way?" Such an approach would have honored Phil's right to free speech but also made clear that he, and all of us, need to bear the consequences of our actions, economic and otherwise.
Alternatively, we might imagine Robertson calling in the A&E executives and saying, "You asked me and my family to be the subject of your series knowing well our beliefs and attitudes. We have not changed, but now you want us to conform to your beliefs. Are you going to allow diversity in your network, or will you drop our show since we -- and many of your viewers -- have different beliefs than you do?"
Both possibilities make clear the need for all -- the Robertsons and the A&E management -- to bear the consequences of their actions, economic and otherwise.
Questions: When you decide to confront someone whom you consider to be doing wrong, how do you avoid being vindictive or hurtful? When discussing Matthew 18, many people tend to focus on the wrong committed by the other person who they think needs to be corrected. Many don't seem to consider that they might be the one in the wrong. How have you responded when someone or some people approached you with concerns about what you have said or done that offended them? Were you open to listening to criticism?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (For context, read 6:1-11.)
These are the verses from 1 Corinthians that Robertson was loosely quoting from memory in his answer to the GQ interviewer. Read them in context, and it's clear that the apostle Paul was addressing church people, chastising them not only for sexual and other immorality, but also for taking one another to court instead of settling their disputes within the church, and thus making themselves wrongdoers, like those in the list above. Paul goes on to say, "And this is what some of you used to be," but adds that they are now "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (v. 11).
Questions: In what arena(s) today should Christians settle their disputes? Considering that Paul's statement seems to be directed at fellow believers, is it appropriate to criticize or attempt to change the behavior of those who are not part of our faith?
James 3:5-6
How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. (For context, read 3:2-12.)
Notice that James does not here talk about what people are talking about, but simply about the damage they can do by talking. In fact, in verse 2, he comments, "For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle."
Questions: When has your decision to speak been a mistake? Given that Robertson's decision to speak was not in the context of his family or his church, but in an interview with a secular magazine that was not looking for Sunday school material, should he have been more wary? Was he being a credit to the church? Why or why not?
Under what circumstances are you more wary in your responses? Have there been occasions when something you said in social media or electronic communication has come back to haunt you?
James 4:17
Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin. (No context needed.)
Questions: The GQ interviewer asked Robertson, "What, in your mind, is sinful?" Asked that way, the question seems to imply that the locus of authority for defining sin is in the individual. But who determines what is a sin? How do you think the sponsors and the public would have reacted if Robertson had quoted this verse in his answer to the question asking for a definition of sin? As Christians, are we required to answer every question someone asks?
For Further Discussion
1. Comment on this, from a TWW team member: "I think the real issue [regarding this news] is how people do not exercise their filters. Tweets, texts, emails and social media postings are often sent out without a person reflecting."
2. Should we take the age of the person expressing a personal opinion that seems bigoted into account? To what degree do you think people's opinions are shaped by the era in which they grew up?
3. Respond to this, from another TWW team member: "Corporations get nervous, because they rightly believe that we Americans have become the most thin-skinned, sensitive, litigious crybabies in the world. We will get 'offended' and 'outraged' at anything. If the business community thought that gays and African Americans would just shrug their shoulders and say, 'Ah, what an idiot' and move on, Phil would still have his job."
4. Discuss this, from Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Bear in mind that he essentially agrees with Robertson regarding homosexuality: "To be fair, Robertson also offered some comments that were rather crude and graphically anatomical in making the same point [about homosexuality]. As Magary [the GQ interviewer] explained, 'Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He's got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there's no stopping them from rushing out.' Phil Robertson would have served the cause of Christ more faithfully if some of those comments had not rushed out. This is not because what he said was wrong; ... The problem is the graphic nature of Robertson's language and the context of his statements."
5. Respond to this: Over 18,000 people who define themselves as Christians have signed a petition from Faithful America encouraging the A&E cable network to stand its ground because "there's nothing Christian about racism or anti-gay bigotry."
6. Stereotyping and misinformation in discussions about race are not helpful. Consider the following, from a TWW team who is Hispanic: "I rarely write letters to the editor, but a woman wrote a letter to the editor [of our newspaper] saying that Obama had promised all Hispanics and other minorities free health care so they would vote for him, and that all Hispanics wanted were freebies. I was a little stunned, but let the letter alone for week. I then wrote out a dripplingly ironic letter, tore it up, and wrote a letter describing the freebies my family favored -- my second-cousin Vince who survived the Bataan Death March, my father's twenty years in the service, my great-uncle's sacrifices against prejudice to earn a PhD and spend his life as a high school principal serving children, and so on. My point was that all newcomers to the United States make tremendous sacrifices and that generalizations are harmful, and my concern is that we finally have a small Hispanic community working as entrepreneurs and opening a Mexican restaurant. These people become targets of violence when people are allowed to spread mistaken or misinformed ideas."
Responding to the News
Whether you actually send it or not, compose a message of response to Phil Robertson that reflects your church's theology, your Christian spirit and your concern to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Should you decide to send your message, it can be emailed to fanmail@duckcommander.com. 
In the same manner, compose a message of response to GLAAD that also reflects these three things. We were unable to find a published email address for GLAAD, but should you decide to send them your message, you can use their contact form at www.glaad.org/contact.
Closing Prayer

Help us, O Lord, not only to live our faith, but to love others as you do. In Jesus' name. Amen.

How Well Do You Know the Christmas Story?

© 2013 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

We are using the arrival of Christmas itself as the news this week. As a way of talking about it, we suggest you take the following "Christmas IQ Quiz," which comes from Ray Pritchard at Keep Believing Ministries and is reproduced here with his permission. Also, we suggest you include the additional two quiz questions offered by The Wired Word.
1. Joseph was originally from ... (Luke 2:3)
 A. Bethlehem
 B. Nazareth
 C. Hebron
 D. Jerusalem
 E. None of the above
2. What does the Bible say that the innkeeper said to Mary and Joseph? (Luke 2:7)
 A. "There is no room in the inn."
 B. "I have a stable you can use."
 C. "Come back later and I should have some vacancies."
 D. Both A and B
 E. None of the above
3. A manger is a ...
 A. Stable for domestic animals
 B. Wooden hay storage bin
 C. Feeding trough
 D. Barn
4. Which animals does the Bible say were present at Jesus' birth?
 A. Cows, sheep, goats
 B. Cows, donkeys, goats
 C. Sheep and goats only
 D. Miscellaneous barnyard animals
 E. None of the above
5. Who saw the star in the east?
 A. Shepherds
 B. Mary and Joseph
 C. Three kings
 D. Both A and C
 E. None of the above
6. According to the Bible, how did Mary and Joseph get to Bethlehem?
 A. Camel
 B. Donkey
 C. Walked
 D. Joseph walked, Mary rode a donkey
 E. Horse-drawn chariot
 F. Who knows?
7. How many angels spoke to the shepherds? (Luke 2:10)
 A. One
 B. Three
 C. Multitude
 D. None of the above
8. What did the angels say/sing? (Luke 2:14)
 A. "Glory to God in the highest, etc."
 B. "Alleluia"
 C. "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given"
 D. "Joy to the world, the Lord is come"
 E. "Glory to the newborn King"
9. What is a heavenly host?
 A. The angel at the gate of heaven
 B. The angel who serves refreshments in heaven
 C. An angel choir
 D. An angel army
 E. None of the above
10. There was snow that first Christmas ...
 A. Only in Bethlehem
 B. All over Israel
 C. Nowhere in Israel
 D. Somewhere in Israel
11. What is frankincense?
 A. A precious metal
 B. A precious fabric
 C. A precious perfume
 D. None of the above
12. In Matthew, what does "wise men" or "magi" refer to?
 A. Men of the educated class
 B. Eastern kings
 C. Men who studied the stars
 D. Sages
13. What is myrrh?
 A. Middle Eastern money
 B. A drink
 C. An easily shaped metal
 D. A spice used for burying people
 E. None of the above
14. How many wise men came to see Jesus?
 A. 3
 B. 6
 C. 9
 D. 12
 E. We don't know.
15. Where did the wise men find Jesus? (Matthew 2:11)
 A. In a manger
 B. In a stable
 C. In Nazareth
 D. In Saudi Arabia
 E. In a house
 F. None of the above
16. When the wise men found Jesus, he was ... (Matthew 2:11)
 A. A babe wrapped in swaddling clothes
 B. A young child
 C. A boy in the temple
 D. A grown man
17. The "star in the east" that the wise men followed ... (Matthew 2:9)
 A. Stayed in the same place their entire journey
 B. Disappeared and reappeared
 C. Moved ahead of them and stopped over the place where Jesus was
 D. Was just a mirage
 E. None of the above
18. The wise men stopped in Jerusalem ... (Matthew 2:2)
 A. To inform Herod about Jesus
 B. To find out where Jesus was
 C. To ask about the star
 D. To buy presents
 E. None of the above
19. Where do we find the Christmas story?
 A. Matthew
 B. Mark
 C. Luke
 D. John
 E. All of the above
 F. Only A and B
 G. Only A and C
 H. Only A, B and C
20. When Joseph found out Mary was pregnant, what happened?
 A. They got married
 B. Joseph wanted to break the engagement
 C. Mary left town for three months
 D. A and B
 E. B and C
21. Who told (made) Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem? (Luke 2:1-5)
 A. The angel chorus
 B. Mary's mother
 C. Herod
 D. The shepherds
 E. Caesar Augustus
The answers, along with a few comments from Pritchard, may be found online here.
Here are two more questions we at The Wired Word would add:
1. As related to the birth of Jesus, "nativity" means ...
 A. The ethnicity of Mary, Joseph and Jesus
 B. The prophecies about the Messiah
 C. The facts of Jesus' birth, including place, time and situation
 D. A and B
 E. B and C
2. As related to the birth of Jesus, "Incarnation" means ...
 A. Jesus was half human and half divine
 B. God the Son "became flesh" by being conceived in the womb of a woman
 C. Jesus took on a human body and nature and became both human and God
 D. The choices and acts of the pre-existent Son of God to become fully and truly a human being without ceasing to be fully and truly divine
 E. A and C
 F. B, C and D
For answers, see "Answers to the Additional Questions," below.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Christmas IQ Quiz. Keep Believing Ministries
Answers to Christmas IQ Quiz. Keep Believing Ministries
The Meaning of Incarnation. Patheos
The Nativity of Jesus. About.com

The Big Questions
1. What is Christmas all about?
2. Putting aside secular and commercial "meanings" of Christmas, in what ways do Christians sometimes distort the message of the nativity of Jesus? What should be emphasized more? What should be emphasized less?
3. Is there a difference between Jesus of Nazareth (the person born in Bethlehem) and the risen Christ? If so, what is it? If not, how are they the same? Is the birth of Jesus or the life of Jesus more important? Which events in his life do we celebrate more?
4. What does it mean to you personally that Jesus was both human and divine? Why?
5. Thinking about Jesus' birth and his death, which of the two did Jesus ask his followers to remember? Why?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and lived among us ... full of grace and truth. (For context, read 1:1-14.)
This verse is a clear biblical statement about the Incarnation of Jesus. The term John uses to describe the pre-existent Son of God is Logos or, in English, the "Word." According to New Testament scholar Ben Witherington, Incarnation "refers to the choices and acts of a pre-existent divine being, namely the Son of God, that the Son took in order to become a human being. He took on flesh, and became fully, truly human without ceasing to be fully, truly divine. Divinity is not something Jesus acquired later in life, or even after his death and resurrection. According to the theology of Incarnation, he had always been the divine Son of God, even before he became Jesus, a human being."
Lutheran Bishop Stephen Bouman tells of standing behind an altar in a small crypt chapel of the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth in the Holy Land, supposedly at the location where Mary heard that she was going to have a baby. He saw some Latin words carved into the altar: Verbum caro factum est, "The Word was made flesh." But then he noticed that there was one other little word in Latin. That word: h - i - c. Hic. "Here." Verbum caro hic factum est, "The Word was made flesh here." Probably whoever authorized that inscription meant it to refer to that specific location, but in reality, the Incarnation means God became flesh here on earth, for all of us. The Incarnation means that we can speak of the "hicness" of God, the nearness of God. Incarnation means that God walks with us on earth, and that if we are saved anywhere, it is right here on earth.
Questions: In what ways do you allow Jesus to dwell with you? In what ways do you keep him standing at the door?
Matthew 2:1
In the time of King Herod ... Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. (For context, read 2:1-6.)
Both Matthew and Luke are careful to place the birth of Jesus into historical and geographic context. Matthew does it by naming the local king at the time and stating the birthplace: "Bethlehem of Judea." Luke does it by naming both the emperor and a specific event in his reign (the census), and also by telling of Joseph and Mary's journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-4). In those contexts, the gospel writers were talking about Jesus of Nazareth, the person born in a stable in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago.
But both writers went on to identify Jesus in a larger context, as the one whose blood would be poured out for the forgiveness of sins for "many" (Matthew 26:28; cf. Luke 22:20) and who rose from the grave (Matthew 28:1-10; Luke 24:1-12). Here they were talking about the risen Christ whom we can meet personally and whose blood saves us from our sins. Jesus of Nazareth and the risen Christ are the same Jesus, to be sure, but unless we personally meet the risen Christ, he is no more to us than a historical figure. The risen Christ is not confined to a manger or to Palestine in the first century. The risen Christ challenges us today to walk in the ways of God. The risen Christ calls for commitment, for service, for reformation of our lives.
Questions: Share briefly a story about your own birth or about the birth of someone important to you. Are our birth stories important in defining who we are? When you define yourself, is it in terms of who you are now, or where you came from? Which is more important? How does your experience of Jesus affect how you live?
Philippians 2:5-8
... Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death -- even death on a cross. (For context, read 2:5-11.)
This is another biblical statement about the Incarnation. This one stresses Christ's Incarnation as the ultimate pattern for the humility and obedience requested of Christ's followers.
Questions: Besides Christ's humility and obedience, what else does Christ's Incarnation model for you? What attitudes about yourself might need adjusting in order for you to follow Christ's pattern here? Compare or contrast the circumstances of Jesus' birth with Paul's description of Jesus' life and mission. Are they consistent with each other?
Titus 3:4-5
But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy ... (For context, read 3:1-8a.)
Titus was one of the apostle Paul's lieutenants, a younger coworker, and this letter presents itself as a communication from Paul to Titus while the latter was in Crete. Although the letter discusses Jesus Christ, none of the references are about his birth. Yet in the church, a passage from Titus is often one of the recommended readings for Christmas.
Paul encourages Titus and offers advice about how the younger man should go about his ministry. Some of the advice is what we'd expect, but then Paul makes reference to the deeper human condition: "For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, despicable, hating one another" (v. 3). Paul wasn't saying that he and his comrades alone were deep sinners; he meant his comment as a statement about humankind in general.

Paul, however, knew of the fix for the situation, and it is in his very next sentence that the letter to Titus becomes a Christmas message: "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy ...." Then Paul goes on to say that God poured his Spirit "out on us richly through Jesus Christ" (v. 6). In other words, by sending Jesus to our world, God was giving humankind a gift, the way to deal with the darkness of the human condition that afflicts us all.
This is the heart of the Christmas story. God didn't send Jesus as a reward because we've been so good; he sent Jesus because we had gone astray. So Jesus came, and still comes, as a gift to help us out of our dilemma, to help us reshape our lives and rise above the darkness that hides in corners of our human nature.
Question: When have you sensed that Jesus was a gift to you?
Answers to the Additional Questions
1. Correct answer is C -- the facts of Jesus' birth, including place, time and situation. Actually, the word "nativity" can apply to the facts of anyone's birth, but it's most commonly used to refer to the facts of Jesus' birth.
2. Correct answer is F, which includes B, C and D. The only wrong answer is A, because Jesus' nature is understood as fully human and fully divine, not a half-and-half mix.
For Further Discussion
1. "That's what Christmas is all about." That expression and ones like it get a lot of use every year around this time. For example:
   • On a news station interview, we heard a woman talking about her family all getting together, including those members who live far away coming home for the holiday. Then she said, "That's what Christmas is all about."
   • An ad for a supermarket chain says that "Family, fun and food" is what Christmas is all about.
   • The song "Christmas is for children ..." says that children are what Christmas is all about.
   • Some say that what Christmas is all about is doing good for others.
   • If you are a child, your idea of what Christmas is all about may center on getting presents.
   • Though we suspect he was kidding, we heard one man say "Cookies are what Christmas is all about."
Would you say that these things are some of what Christmas is about? Why or why not?

2. Respond to this, heard in a sermon: "Although Incarnation is a highfalutin word, the concept is not that difficult to understand. Consider what we've learned about human DNA, the basic stuff of life. Each person has something like three billion digits of DNA. That's a huge number, of course, but do you know that we can compress that many digits onto about four CDs? Given that, the idea of God incarnating or 'compressing' himself into the baby of Bethlehem seems quite logical."
3. Comment on this: One of the things the Incarnation means is that God came in the flesh to show us how to live the life God wants for us. Several years ago, there was a story out of the International Crane Foundation in Wisconsin about a rare female whooping crane named Tex who for some reason seemed to have an emotional attachment to male humans but not to male cranes. That was a problem because Tex wouldn't perform the usual crane mating dance with a male crane, and the birds must dance to become excited enough to produce an egg that will hatch. And having new chicks was important because whooping cranes are endangered. Over the years, Tex's keepers at the foundation had managed to get Tex to lay several eggs by means of artificial insemination, but none of them hatched. So finally, they tried another approach. They used artificial insemination again to impregnate Tex, but this time, the foundation director, George Archibald, to whom Tex was strongly attracted, moved into the pen with Tex and, in a way, became a crane -- a human "incarnated" as a crane. Several times a day for six weeks, Archibald and Tex did the mating dance together. And eventually Tex produced an egg that hatched, producing a live chick. Archibald taught Tex how to be the crane she was meant to be. Jesus, coming to earth, taught us humans how to be the people God wants us to be.
4. Is the Incarnation of Jesus important to us if we don't see ourselves as sinners? Why or why not?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to remind ourselves that by becoming flesh, Jesus showed us some of what God is like.
Closing Prayer

O God, thank you for the gift of your Son. Help us to keep our lives as a fit place for Jesus to reside. In his name. Amen.

In South Africa, Mandela Memorialized as 'Father of the Nation'

© 2013 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

In eulogies and commentaries on the life of former South African President Nelson Mandela, who died last week at the age of 95, he's been compared to Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln, all three of whom played significant and leading roles in advancing human rights and political freedom for oppressed groups. And given Mandela's record in those areas, the comparison is not misplaced.
But it wasn't clear in his earlier life that he was headed that way. Born into a part of the Xhosa royal family, he was educated at a Methodist mission school. Later, while living under South Africa's apartheid system, Mandela became an anti-apartheid revolutionary. Although initially committed to non-violent protest, he eventually turned to more violent means. He was arrested in 1962 for leading a sabotage campaign against the apartheid government and was sentenced to life in prison. He remained there for  27 years, until international pressure on the South African government led it to free him.
After his release in 1990, Mandela joined negotiations with then President F.W. de Klerk to abolish apartheid and establish multiracial elections. In those elections, held in 1994, Mandela led the African National Congress political party to victory and became that country's first black president, and the first president elected in a fully representative democratic election. He held the presidential office from 1994 to 1999, and during that time, his government focused on dismantling the legacy of apartheid by tackling institutionalized racism, poverty and inequality, and by fostering racial reconciliation. Importantly, Mandela did not unleash a blood bath on those who had oppressed him and his people, but worked for reconciliation and forgiveness instead of revenge. Notably, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was multi-ethnic, and it illuminated atrocities on all sides -- including those of Mandela's ex-wife, Winnie.
Even before his death, many in South Africa were calling Mandela "the father of the nation," "the founding father of democracy" and "the national liberator." According to Mandela's biographer Anthony Sampson, a myth had developed around Mandela that made him "a secular saint" and which was "so powerful that it blurs the realities."
Despite his accomplishments, Mandela was often criticized. One criticism was for his movement in the 1960s to violently resist apartheid, the resistance that led to his imprisonment. He later told Jesse Jackson, however, that he was glad he was arrested, because his group had plans to continue the violent resistance, and he thought he would have ended up with innocent blood on his hands.
Later, while he was president, Mandela was criticized for his friendship with political leaders such as Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddafi, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Suharto and for his refusal to condemn their human rights violations. Some members of the anti-apartheid movement viewed him as too eager to placate South Africa's white power elite rather than delivering "economic equality" to the majority who continued to live in poverty. Others questioned his decision to prioritize tranquility over justice and said that his reconciliation process left too many crimes unpunished. Yet others criticized his silence at the racism and ethnic hatred of many in his own political party, and their violence against the Boers.
In the South African magazine Daily Maverick, Pierre De Vos, a law professor at the University of Cape Town, wrote last week, "Nelson Mandela was not a saint. We would dishonor his memory if we treated him as if he was one. Like all truly exceptional human beings he was a person of flesh and blood, with his own idiosyncrasies, his own blind spots and weaknesses."
But De Vos also wrote that Mandela's "brilliance must surely be found in the fact that he was a principled and hard-nosed politician who also had the dignity and the self-knowledge that drove him to try and bridge the unjust divide between races created by colonialism and apartheid."
Mandela is no saint, De Vos said. And in that regard, we note that Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi and Lincoln all had mixed records as well. King reportedly plagiarized in some of his academic papers and committed adultery on occasion. Gandhi's been branded a misogynist and accused of racism against the blacks of South Africa. Lincoln had his own racism, and once proposed sending freed slaves to colonies in Central America.
The high regard and the label of greatness afforded to King, Gandhi, Lincoln and now Mandela, we suspect, comes from looking at their lives on balance and deciding that their achievements on behalf of those oppressed far outweigh some personal failings or wrong decisions.
TWW team member Malia Miller commented that in thinking about what makes people great, two qualities surfaced for her: passion and intention. "All leaders mentioned [here] had seemingly limitless passion for their causes and good intentions in how to bring about the change," Miller said. "The fact that they were flawed human beings is what made them like the rest of humanity. Their incredible drive to persist toward change for the betterment of humankind is what made them unique."
Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote of Mandela this week, "Was he a saint? Not if a saint is entirely flawless. I believe he was saintly because he inspired others powerfully and revealed in his character, transparently, many of God's attributes of goodness: compassion, concern for others, desire for peace, forgiveness and reconciliation."
More on this story can be found at these links:
To Call Mandela a Saint Is to Dishonour His Memory. Daily Maverick
For Mandela, Reverence, but Criticism, Too. New York Times
In Life, Nelson Mandela Often Irritated U.S. Washington Post
Desmond Tutu: Mandela All About Kindness. The Herald
Shaped by Methodists, Mandela Paid Tribute to the Role of Religion. Washington Post
Jesse Jackson: Mandela Preferred Prison to Blood on His Hands. Newsmax
A Long Walk to Immortality -- The Life and Times of Madiba. The Independent
Nelson Mandela. Wikipedia
The Big Questions
1. Professor De Vos wrote of Mandela that "Like all truly exceptional human beings he was a person of flesh and blood, with his own idiosyncrasies, his own blind spots and weaknesses." Do you agree that the same definition applies to all human beings, whether exceptional or not? If so, how can you spot your own idiosyncrasies, blind spots and weaknesses? How do they affect how you think of yourself? How do you think they affect the way others view you?
2. Given the Bible's insistence that "all have sinned and ... are now justified by [God's] grace as a gift" (Romans 3:23-24), do you think God weighs our accomplishments against our failings when judging us? Explain your answer.
3. Define greatness. Is the term used too often or not enough? What, in your opinion, elevates some people to the level of greatness? Do passion and intention apply? What characteristics of greatness do you seek to practice in your life?
4. What does the phrase "I'm only human" mean to you? Given that we are God's creations and made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), what should it mean? Psalm 8 reflects a high regard for humanity. How do we balance a high regard for what God has created, and the tendency in some parts of Scripture to suggest that maybe we have too high a regard for ourselves?
5. Think about people today whom you would consider great. What failings, if any, are you willing to overlook in those you have identified as great? Why?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Ezekiel 37:25
They shall live in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, in which your ancestors lived; they and their children and their children's children shall live there forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. (For context, read 37:15-28.)
Note that these words from the prophet Ezekiel talk about David being the "prince forever" of the people of Israel. But Ezekiel lived long after King David had died, and after the remainder of David's empire had been extinguished. Ezekiel, in fact, was himself in exile in Babylon along with many of his fellow Jews. His prophecy in 37:15-28, however, is about the restoration of the Israelite people in a kingdom where they will live forever, with David as their leader.
The mention of David here and in many other prophetic passages in the Bible shows that David, like M.L King Jr., Gandhi, Lincoln and now Mandela, became a larger-than-life figure in the collective memory of Israel, so that when they thought of the restoration of their nation, they naturally thought of their ideal leader being David or, perhaps more accurately, a "new" David (recall that when Jesus rode into Jerusalem, the crowd greeted him as "the son of David" [Matthew 21:9]).
The actual David had been mostly good news for the people of Israel. During his reign, Israel's enemies were subdued, the kingdom's borders were extended and, for much of the time, the people enjoyed peace, prosperity and God's favor. Thus David was remembered as the greatest of Israel's kings. But the actual David also had some significant failings, most notably his adultery with Bathsheba and his despicable murder of her husband Uriah, as well as his failure to deal with misbehavior among his own children.
Yet, on balance, David's accomplishments make him the hope of later Israel and the stand-in for the Messiah to come.
Questions: While David was still a youth, the prophet Samuel described him as "a man after [God's] own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14). Do you think David could still be described that way at the end of his life? Why or why not? Is the "on-balance" assessment of David in the memory of Israel correct? Compared to the author of 1 and 2 Samuel, the Chronicler skips most of the difficult portions of David’s life and presents him as a much more perfect figure. Is that what it means when we say God forgives and forgets our sins? Is that how God views the matter? Ought we?
Genesis 50:20-21
Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today. So have no fear; I myself will provide for you and your little ones. (For context, read 50:15-21.)
Like Mandela, the Old Testament figure Joseph spent several years in prison, and in his case, he was completely innocent. And like Mandela, Joseph came out of prison into government leadership without acting on bitter feelings to seek revenge against those who had hurt him. He took no revenge on Potiphar's wife, whose false accusations put him in prison, no revenge on his fellow prisoner who was released early and then didn't speak on Joseph's behalf, and no revenge on his brothers who'd sold him into slavery to begin with. The statement above shows Joseph acting out of kindness instead.
There is an interesting similarity to Mandela, with God using oppression to a good end in the South African story. Mandela's tribe, the Xhosa, at one time followed the vision of a young girl regarding how to appease the ancestors and defeat their enemies (mainly Boer and English settlers). Following her vision, they destroyed their own cattle and winter foodstuffs. The expected help from the spirit world did not arrive, and the Xhosa were made destitute, causing many to become dependent upon their former enemies. Many made their way to mission stations, where they were provided food and received a Western education. The education and skills learned gave them tools for politics and governance. Mandela was descended from that group.
Question: In what situations might Joseph and Mandela be models for us?
1 Samuel 17:48-49
When the Philistine drew nearer to meet David, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine. David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell face down on the ground. (For context, read 17:38-51.)
David's killing of Goliath is when David first came to the public's awareness.
The poet Maya Angelou recently compared Mandela to David defeating a giant Goliath (in Mandela's case, colonialism and the apartheid system).
Questions: What "stones" did Mandela have in his bag? How can we acquire and make use of similar "stones"? How much credit should South African President de Klerk and the Boer (and English) leadership of that period be given for peacefully ending the apartheid policy and ceding their own political power to another group?
Matthew 25:34-36, 40
Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." ... "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me." (For context, read 25:31-46.)
This is from Jesus' parable of the final judgment, in which people are divided according to how they treated those in need. In this parable, the only standard by which people are judged is how they have treated others.
Chris Bowman, Brethren pastor, scholar and writer, once said that Brethren have Matthew 25 in their DNA. He meant that the whole idea of the Brethren Service Explosion -- Heifer International, Church World Service, CROP (which is now ecumenical and not exclusively Brethren), Brethren Volunteer Service and other efforts -- is the result of this Scripture passage's importance. Christians insist they're saved by faith, but there is a tension between some of Paul's texts and texts like this one which seem to suggest that it's what we do that saves us.
Questions: Since this parable refers to only one standard of judgment, does it leave room to consider that perhaps God looks at our lives "on balance"? If so, how does that square with Paul's teaching in Romans that we are saved by faith and not by works (see Romans 3:21-28)? Do we think of people like Mandala as saved by what they have done for so many? Ought we also to think of individuals like Richard Nixon in terms of what they accomplished (an impressive record, in Nixon's case) instead of the malice they might have had toward others? Why or why not?
Luke 22:26
But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. (For context, read 22:24-30.)
This verse includes Jesus' definition of what makes a person great: service.
Questions: By this definition, who in national public life today would you label "great"? Who in your community? Who in your church? How skeptical are you when someone's biography (perhaps a campaign biography in politics or an inspirational biography for a Christian charity) seems too perfect? Why do we seem to look for flaws in good people or complain about the flaws if they are revealed?
Should we define both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, despite their obvious flaws, as great? (For example, even many people who are not fans of Mr. Bush acknowledge the great work he did toward eradicating AIDS in Africa. And even many who are not fond of Mr. Clinton acknowledge the importance of the Family and Medical Leave Act he signed, which has allowed over 20 million Americans to take unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or a sick family member.)
For Further Discussion
1. Comment on this, from a TWW team member: "One of the talking heads on TV this morning said Mandela was an angry and bitter man (after 27 years in prison) but that his greatness was in 'masking it,' in not letting his bitterness show to the detriment of the cause. If true, this gives me pause -- a great man with an un-healed wound contributing to a reconciliation cause. [Compare that] with Jesus; with him what you see is what you get: the sinless Son of God reconciling the world unto himself. I don't think we should minimize the bitter cup Jesus drank for us. Do we imagine Jesus didn't know what bitterness felt like? I think he must have tasted bitterness in order to fully understand what it means to be human. Mandela chose not to act on bitterness, much the way Jesus did not turn his bitterness back toward his oppressors. I'm not sure they were so different."
2. Consider this, condensed from a published piece called "Grudge Match," by TWW team member Frank Ramirez: "Assuming you'd been born by 1986, think about everything that has happened in your life since then -- all the births in your family -- all the deaths, how important each one was, and what it meant to be one family gathered together in sorrow, but also in healing and hope. Think of the trips you took. Think of the picnics and the family gatherings and the holidays and the holy days. Can you even imagine how many phone calls you made and received, how many letters you wrote and you got, how many emails and texts and tweets? Just think of ten, maybe only five, of the really high points that you wouldn't have missed for the world. All because you are free and equal with everyone else, and can dream and make your dreams come true.
    "And now imagine that for the last 27 years, since 1986, you were in prison, much of the time in a cell eight feet by seven feet. Imagine that you were allowed to write one letter a year and to receive one letter a year. Imagine that you missed every high moment, every birth, every death, every family gathering, everything that's happened to you the last 27 years. All because you wanted to be free and equal with everyone else.
    "What would you feel like? What would you do when you got out? What form would your revenge take? Who would you get even with? Who would pay for all your suffering? Nelson Mandela was in prison for 27 years. When he got out, and gained power, he did not take revenge on his enemies. He did not call for a bloodbath and begin a reign of terror to get even with the white minority government that imprisoned him under apartheid. He set up a commission where those who told the truth about what they'd done could receive amnesty. He worked for forgiveness and reconciliation. He met with his enemies and insisted that there had to be a way to break the cycle of violence. That's what he did after 27 years of imprisonment: forgiveness.
    "So here are my questions to the rest of us. What grudge am I holding that is so important that I cannot forgive or seek to be forgiven? What kind of grudge are we clinging to that matches what Mandela went through? What grudge is so much greater than what this man endured, that we don't dare to forgive and seek reconciliation?"
3. How can you work for truth and reconciliation, not only between races and ethnic groups, but between other groups? How are you tempted to control others who are different than you, like was done under the apartheid system? What can you do to resist that temptation and free others?
4. In what ways do you believe God has helped you overcome your own flaws? How have lessons learned from life because of your flaws made you a stronger person and/or believer?
5. Respond to this, from a TWW team member: "Let us remember that the question of apartheid and Mandala's ideas has been decided. The point is that even though the problems we face today sometimes seem intractable and insoluble, from the vantage point of eternity they are already settled. Like Grover Cleveland stated in his inauguration speech a half century after the Civil War -- slavery was no longer an issue. People were pretty much unanimous that slavery was wrong. The celebrations of the 50th anniversary of many milestones in the Civil Rights movement demonstrate that racists were wrong. The issues we are facing today which are very polarizing are already settled. We're just not there yet. We do not live in a safe place if we are on God's side."
Responding to the News
Author Glennon Doyle Melton wrote on Facebook in response to Mandela's death: "Let's honor Mandela by doing the very, very hard work of refusing to fight others and choosing instead to fight our own egos. Let's fight for our Earth and for the vulnerable folks -- our sisters and brothers -- who live on it. Let's take our places as the leaders of this home. And let's start in our own families and friendships and neighborhoods."
We can respond to the news by striving for peace and reconciliation in the relationships closest to us: our families, our congregations and our communities.
Closing Prayer

Thank you, O Lord, for those you have called to great tasks who have not turned away. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Majority of Americans Don't Trust Each Other, Poll Says

© 2013 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Americans trust each other less these days than they did 40 years ago. That's the general conclusion of a poll conducted last month by AP-GfK. Specifically, only about a third of Americans say most people can be trusted, compared to about half of Americans who said that in a 1972 poll.
Now, a record high of nearly two-thirds say "you can't be too careful" when dealing with people.
Some political and social scientists say this loss of trust in one's fellow citizens is a loss for the society. They say that distrust:
     • makes it more difficult to compromise or make a deal.
     • encourages corruption.
     • requires greater expenditure of energy and money for protection -- drawing up lengthy legal documents and building gated communities.
     • makes for rancor in politics.
     • breeds a drop in civility.
Observers suggest several reasons for the drop in trust levels. Among them:
     • staying home to watch TV rather than participation in group events, clubs and social gatherings.
     • increasing economic inequality and the resulting loss of shared fate.
     • the perception that Wall Street executives and other super-high earners don't care about common people.
     • decline in moral values, with people acting more on their greed.
     • 24-hour news coverage of distant violence that skews our perception of crime and our likelihood of becoming a victim.
     • hackers, viruses and hate-filled posts online.

Other possible contributing factors include:
     • the perception that politicians care mainly for themselves and their own power and wealth rather than for people in general.
     • increased ethnic diversity, which has been shown to increase distrust both between and within ethnic groups.
     • increased focus by news media, government and educational institutions on differences between people rather than on common ground.
     • the multiplication of rules and regulations, which stifle and limit people working together.
     • the shift from voluntary market interactions (exchanges where each person involved must believe they benefit) to a restricted economy where people have to obey the rules emplaced by those not involved.
     • the perception that others are thin-skinned and will react negatively to attempts at social interactions.
Thomas Sander, executive director of the Saguaro Seminar, a Harvard University program that studies the value of social networks, believes the trust loss is "eminently fixable" if we work to rebuild community and civic life.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Poll: Americans Don't Trust One Another. USA Today
In God We Trust, Maybe, But Not Each Other. AP-GfK
The Downside of Diversity. Boston Globe
The Big Questions
1. Do you feel more trusting or less trusting of people in general than you did earlier in your adult years? Why? Is trust always a good thing? If you answer "no," when is it bad, and when is it good? If you answer "yes," how do you think about people whose trust has been abused, such as by becoming the victim of a scam artist?
2. What groups or categories of people do you tend to trust more? Christians? Members of your own congregation? People from your ethnic group? Public officials? People who share your interests? Other groups (specify)? What is your basis for trusting any of these groups more than others? Is it logical? Similarly, whom do you tend to distrust, and why?
3. Can you respect someone you do not trust, and can you trust someone you do not respect? Explain your answer.
4. What is the relationship between your willingness to trust others and your own sense of vulnerability? What effect does your Christian faith have on your willingness to trust others? Is it more important to trust people or to be trustworthy yourself? Explain your answer.
5. What promises do you live by today? What promises do you count on others keeping?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Proverbs 20:6
Many proclaim themselves loyal, but who can find one worthy of trust? (No context needed.)
This bit of advice is posed as a rhetorical question, perhaps to suggest that true loyalty is a rare commodity.
Questions: This verse conflates trust and trustworthiness. Is the percentage of Americans willing to trust others related to the percentage of trustworthy people in the world? Or is it more a matter of perception than reality? Explain your answer. Most mentions of "trust" in the Bible are about trusting in the Lord. Is there a link between trusting in God and trusting other people? If so, what is that link? Does trusting other people mean making the best assumption about them, or are these different? Explain your answer.
Matthew 2:8
Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage." (For context, read 2:1-18.)
The Bible includes many examples of people deceiving other people, and this verse is one of the more well known of them. Here King Herod disguises his true motives for wanting to know where the infant Jesus is. Herod tells the wise men he wants to "go and pay [Jesus] homage," but he really wants to kill him. Fortunately, God intervenes directly, warning the wise men in a dream about the king's evil plans (v. 12).
Question: Even without the dream, what else might have caused the wise men to be suspicious of King Herod's motives?
Mark 10:18
Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (For context, read 10:17-22.)
This is Jesus' response to the the rich man who came to him seeking advice about how to "inherit eternal life" (v. 17). In posing his question, however, the rich man addressed Jesus as "Good Teacher," leading Jesus to make the disclaimer above. In so saying, Jesus switched the focus of the conversation from himself and the rich man to God.
Jesus was not saying that he was not good or that he was not to be trusted. Nor was he saying that the man was wrong about his goodness. But Jesus was saying that the term "good" in the absolute sense should be reserved for God. The rich man would not have thought of Jesus as God at this point, so to use the term for him was unacceptable. Jesus may have also perceived the term as flattery, and wanted to nip that in the bud. Additionally, Jesus' comment can be understood as saying that no human rises to God's level.
Question: Given that none of us possesses complete goodness, what can we do to convince others of our trustworthiness?
Proverbs 17:17
A friend loves at all times, and kinsfolk are born to share adversity. (No context needed.)
This verse suggests that the true character of love is revealed by its constancy over time and especially by its conduct during troubles.
Question: If constancy over time and conduct during troubles are good ways to measure someone's trustworthiness, how can we decide whether to trust someone we've just met and whom we've not had the opportunity to observe during troubles?
2 Timothy 2:13
... if we are faithless, he remains faithful -- for he cannot deny himself. (For context, read 2:8-13.)
This verse makes the distinction between God's trustworthiness and human faithlessness. It's not saying that we are always faithless, but it does indicate that faithfulness (trustworthiness) is a characteristic of God himself.
Questions: When we are being trustworthy, keeping our promises, doing what we have agreed to do and standing by those to whom we have committed ourselves, are we being "godly"? Why or why not?
For Further Discussion
1. Comment on this, heard in a sermon: "We live in an age when promises are not doing very well. By their very nature, promises commit us to behaving in certain ways in the future. But since we can't know what the future will bring, we cannot tell now what keeping a promise will actually cost us -- when it will become inconvenient to keep it. Thus, as a society, we try to build escape clauses into our contracts, look for loopholes in our agreements, insert weasel words into our guarantees or hold out for renegotiation. Getting stuck in an old promise, we think, is only for those not nimble at sidestepping. Thus we have manufacturers who refuse to honor their product warranties, politicians who renege on their campaign promises, corporations that shuck their pension obligations and ordinary people who make exceptions to their promises to one another."
2. Discuss this: When the 19th-century historian and social critic Thomas Carlyle wrote his three-volume history of the French Revolution, he offered the observation that the revolution failed not because of great errors in the higher echelons of power, but because ordinary people in minor posts of everyday responsibility stopped keeping their promises.
3. Respond to this: Michael Josephson, president of the Character Counts! Coalition, has said, "Let's face it: honest citizens pay more taxes than dishonest ones. Business people who keep their word even when it's disadvantageous sometimes pay a heavy price for their integrity. And coaches who refuse to violate recruiting rules or play ineligible athletes may lose more games than their less scrupulous opponents. These costs are just the dues we pay to maintain integrity and build a reputation. Unfortunately, many people are unwilling to pay the price."
4. Comment on this: Thomas More, whose story has been dramatized in the movie and stage play A Man for All Seasons, was the Lord Chancellor of England under King Henry VIII and was a personal advisor to the king. He fell out of favor with Henry when he refused to support Henry's move to divorce Catherine of Aragon in defiance of the pope. The king resented More's attitude and eventually dealt with his resistance by having More beheaded. At one point during his final days, More could have saved his life by renouncing an oath he had made. His daughter, Meg, begged him to do so. But More refused. In the play, he explains his refusal this way: "When a man takes an oath, Meg, he is holding his own self in his hand, like water. And if he opens his fingers, then he needn't hope to find himself again."
Responding to the News
This is a good time to consider how we can ensure that we are becoming the kind of people others (and God) would view as trustworthy. Can God rely on us to keep our promises to him?
Closing Prayer

Trustworthy Lord, help us to be trustworthy people, whom others can rely upon. In Jesus' name. Amen.