Last Christians Driven from Mosul

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

A little more than a week ago, news surfaced of the systematic purging by the jihadist terror organization the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) of all remnants of the Christian community in Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. First, the Sunni Muslim extremist group that operates in Syria and Iraq began denying food rations to Christians and Shi'ite Muslims in the city. Shopkeepers were warned that providing food and supplies to Christians was punishable by death.
Then ISIS issued Christians in Mosul an ultimatum: convert to Sunni Islam, pay a hefty religious "head-tax," give up all property and possessions and leave the city with just the clothes on their backs in less than 24 hours, or "face the sword."
In an atmosphere eerily reminiscent of the Nazi Germany ghettoes when Jewish shops, homes and persons were marked with the Star of David as a precursor to destruction or confiscation of property and atrocities committed against entire populations, Christian homes in Mosul were spray-painted with the words: "Property of the Islamic State of Iraq," along with the letter "N" for "Nasrani," labeling the residents followers of Jesus the Nazarene.
On Monday a photo of one such vandalized home went viral on Twitter with a noticeable alteration of the red "N" ISIS had sprayed on the wall: Someone had interposed the sentiment "We are all Christians." Such brave actions are reminiscent of similar acts of solidarity in various European nations during the Nazi era; for example, an underground Dutch newspaper printed 300,000 stars of David inscribed with the phrase "Jews and non-Jews are one and the same" for non-Jews in Holland to wear as a symbol of their unity with their Jewish countrymen.
In addition, ISIS in Mosul destroyed a statue of the Virgin Mary, demolished the tomb of Jonah and torched an 1,800-year-old church. The militants also removed the cross from St. Ephrem's Cathedral, which had been the seat of the Syriac Catholic Archdiocese, and replaced it with the black ISIS flag. Ghazwan Ilyas, once the director of the Chaldean Culture Society in Mosul, said, "They did not destroy the churches, but they killed us when they removed the cross; this is death for us." Many Iraqi Christians from Mosul mourned that the sound of church bells mingled with Muslim calls to prayer, the ultimate symbol of Mosul’s tolerance for diversity, would likely never be heard again.
When Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein was removed from power in 2003, Mosul had over 30,000 Christians; now, presumably there are none left after ISIS captured the city on the banks of the Tigris River across from ancient Nineveh in early June. Nearly 6,000 civilians have been killed since the beginning of the year, according to United Nations records. Over 1.2 million Iraqis are displaced inside the nation's borders.
"We have lived in this city and we have had a civilization for thousands of years, and suddenly some strangers came and expelled us from our homes," said a woman in her 60s who fled last Friday for a nearby town controlled by Kurdish security forces.
The Syrian (Syriac) Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, Ignace Joseph III Younan, pleaded with the international community to advocate for "human rights, religious freedom, freedom of conscience. We are present in Iraq, in Syria, in Lebanon: Christians were not imported. We have been here for millennia, and so we have the right to be treated like human beings and citizens of these nations!"
More on this story can be found at these links:
'We Are All Christians': Anti-ISIS Graffiti Appears in Mosul After Terrorists Expel Christians. breitbart.com
ISIS Forces Last Iraqi Christians to Flee Mosul. New York Times
Ancient Christian Population of Mosul Flees Islamic State. Reuters
Genocide. Wikipedia
The Big Questions
1. If you were among the Christians who fled Mosul for their very lives this week, how do you think you would read Matthew 10:14-39?
2. Awareness of the suffering of Christians for their faith can help us understand and deplore similar mistreatment of other groups (such as Native Americans, African Americans, Jews in Nazi Germany, Muslims attacked by Crusaders), perhaps by our own ancestors or people of our ethnicity. Why is developing such understanding and empathy important to Christians seeking to share Christ with members of such groups?
3. Can you imagine such a thing happening to us today in the United States? How hard is it to put yourself in the shoes of Iraqi Christians? What makes it difficult or easy to relate to them? How can you overcome the sense that their suffering is unrelated to you?
4. Do you consider the persecuted Christians of Mosul as your brothers and sisters in Christ? Why or why not? Why do Christians in the west seem to know so little about Christians elsewhere who are in danger of genocide? Where is our collective outrage over the way they are being treated? What will stir our hearts to care for them?
5. What can we do about this persecution or for the persecuted?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Acts 8:1-4
And Saul approved of their killing him. That day a severe persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria. Devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church by entering house after house; dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison. Now those who were scattered went from place to place, proclaiming the word. (No context needed; see also 9:1-2.)
Determined to annihilate members of what he considered a blasphemous sect, Saul, a Jew, pursued followers of Jesus with the same vehement zeal that characterizes the jihadists today.
Questions: What do you think Stephen and Paul said to each other when they met for the first time in heaven? What is perhaps surprising about the way the believers reacted when they were scattered?
Acts 9:15-17, 20
But the Lord said to [Ananias], "Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel; I myself will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." So Ananias went and entered the house. He laid his hands on Saul and said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." … and immediately [Saul] began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God." (For context, read 9:10-22.)
After Jesus interrupted Saul's murderous rampage against his followers and sent him, blind, to Damascus, he told Ananias, a disciple, to go see him and heal him. Ananias protested that Saul's violent reputation had preceded him, but Jesus reiterated his command that he should go visit him anyway.
Questions: What needed to happen in Ananias' heart for him to obey the Lord's command? What did Jesus say that convinced Ananias to go see the arch-enemy of the church? What is the significance of the way Ananias addressed Saul? Why doesn't God intervene in the expulsion of Christians from Mosul as he intervened in Saul's rampage?
1 Thessalonians 5:15-18
See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. (No context needed; see also Romans 12:17-21.)
1 Peter 3:9
Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called -- that you might inherit a blessing. (No context needed.)
The apostles Paul and Peter, who wrote these words, were no strangers to suffering. When they urged suffering believers to refrain from taking revenge, they did not do so in a vacuum, from ivory towers far removed from anguish or persecution. Yet they still spoke in the manner of Christ who prayed for his murderers, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34) and Stephen who cried out to God on behalf of those who were stoning him, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them" (Acts 7:60).
Questions: What happens when we "repay evil with evil"? How should the worldwide Christian Church -- and the Christians from Mosul -- respond to the radical Muslims who have committed evil against them? How can you in your own life repay evil and abuse with a blessing? What blessing would you like to inherit for acting this way?
Matthew 5:43-45
You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. (For context, read 5:43-48.)
Jesus instructs his disciples to model their attitude and behavior toward enemies on God their Father's example, which runs counter to common human practice. It seems counter-intuitive to us to love our enemies and pray for our persecutors, but Jesus says loving and praying for them proves that we really are children of our Father in heaven, who "proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us ... while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son" (Romans 5:8, 10).
Questions: What do rain and sunshine teach us about God's character? How can you love and pray for those who seem determined to eradicate all Christ-followers from the earth?
For Further Discussion
1. Presbyterian missionary Ralph Winter wrote that throughout scripture and Christian history God moves his redemption plan forward in four ways: voluntary going, involuntary going, voluntary coming, and involuntary coming.
• The first, voluntary going, is when believers choose to go to another land with God's message of salvation.
• The second, involuntary going, occurs when believers are initially forced to go to another land or culture due to persecution, slavery or some other cause, but spread their faith in the new culture.
• The third, voluntary coming, happens when people voluntarily migrate into places occupied by believers who influence them by their faith.
• The fourth, involuntary coming, takes place when people are coerced to migrate to areas where believers live and are subsequently influenced by the believers' faith.
(Source: World Christians Info)
Where would you place Abraham in this paradigm? His great-grandson Joseph? The prophet Jonah? Queen Esther? The prophet Daniel? The Queen of Sheba, who came to Solomon's court? The Hebrew slavegirl in Naaman's household? Naaman, the Syrian leper who came to the prophet Elisha? The magi? Jesus in Samaria (John 4)? Greeks who sought Jesus out (John 12:20-26)? The centurion who came to Jesus? Peter who went to Cornelius' house (Acts 10)? Cornelius, who sent for Peter? Paul and his companions on their missionary journeys? Believers in the early church who scattered due to persecution?
Give an example from history for each way the gospel has spread.
Which of these have been in evidence in your own family, church community, or personal life?
What encouragement do you receive from the knowledge that God's salvation plan continues moving forward through these various ways even in times of persecution and trauma?
2. Ghazwan Ilyas, once the director of the Chaldean Culture Society in Mosul, said, "They did not destroy the churches, but they killed us when they removed the cross; this is death for us." What do you think he meant? Is the sign of the cross that important to you? What is the significance of the cross in your life?
3. A TWW contributor wrote: "A member of a church I attend is from Mosul; his family had already fled to Baghdad. I myself am only one generation removed from a similar fate; my father was on a list to be arrested for his Christian identity and ministry before he fled his homeland." Do you have ancestors who came to the United States to escape enemies intent on their obliteration? How does awareness of your own story help you empathize with others experiencing similar upheaval?
Responding to the News
1. Consider wearing the Arabic letter Nasrani as a show of solidarity with your Iraqi brothers and sisters who have suffered great loss and are in great danger.
2. Every time you hear or see a weather report this week, pause to remember what rain and sunshine teach us about the mercy of God, and pray for your enemies.
3. Consider taking the Pledge Against Genocide.
4. Check with your denominational headquarters to see if there are any direct aid initiatives being undertaken for these persecuted Christians. Find out how you can participate.
Closing Prayer

Thank you, Father, for extending your mercy to us by sending Jesus to earth to take the punishment for sin that we who were your sworn enemies deserved. Fill us with love for our suffering, displaced Christian brothers and sisters, and show us how we may help them. Enable us to love the enemies of these Christians as well, and teach us how to pray for your mercy upon them, that we may behave not as children of the devil but as your children. Amen.

Most People Don't Enjoy Sitting Quietly With Their Thoughts, Study Shows

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Most people find being alone even briefly with their thoughts and with no distractions -- no smartphones, no music, no reading material or anything else -- unpleasant. And some would even rather give themselves electric shocks than sit alone thinking for even six minutes.
Those are the findings of a series of 11 studies conducted by psychologist Timothy Wilson and some colleagues at the University of Virginia (UVA) and Harvard University. The abstract for the report, published in the July 4 issue of Science magazine, summarized the results as follows: "In 11 studies, we found that participants typically did not enjoy spending 6 to 15 minutes in a room by themselves with nothing to do but think, that they enjoyed doing mundane external activities much more, and that many preferred to administer electric shocks to themselves instead of being left alone with their thoughts. Most people seem to prefer to be doing something rather than nothing, even if that something is negative."
Participants in the study ranged in age from 18 to 77. They were told to entertain themselves alone in a room just with their thoughts, or to imagine doing one of three pleasant activities like hiking. Regardless of age, most showed no fondness for being alone and thinking. On a 9-point scale of enjoyment, their average rating was about in the middle. They "consistently demonstrated that they would rather have something to do than to have nothing other than their thoughts for even a fairly brief period of time," Wilson said.
In one phase of the study, 61 participants were allowed to spend their alone time (six to 15 minutes) with their thoughts at home, and about a third of those people admitted that they "'cheated' ... by engaging in some activity, such as listening to music or using a cell phone, or leaving their chair," Wilson said. "And they didn't enjoy this experience any more at home than at the lab."
In another phase of the testing, participants were given the option of administering a mild shock to themselves by pressing a button. Before embarking on their time alone, they all received a sample of the shock, and most said they would pay to avoid being shocked again. Nonetheless, when placed in a room alone with their thoughts and no other distractions, 12 of the 18 males (67 percent) and six of the 24 females (25 percent) gave themselves at least one electric shock during the 15-minute period.
"What is striking," the investigators write, "is that simply being alone with their own thoughts for 15 minutes was apparently so aversive that it drove many participants to self-administer an electric shock that they had earlier said they would pay to avoid."
Wilson does not attribute the findings to the pace of modern society or to the ready availability of electronic devices. Rather, he posits that the devices may be a response to the common wish to always have something to do.
"The mind is designed to engage with the world," Wilson said. "Even when we are by ourselves, our focus usually is on the outside world. And without training in meditation or thought-control techniques, which still are difficult, most people would prefer to engage in external activities."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Doing Something Is Better Than Doing Nothing for Most People, Study Shows. UVA Today
Study: Just Thinking by Yourself Isn't Much Fun. WNCT
Just Think: The Challenges of the Disengaged Mind. Science (Abstract and Editor's Summary can be viewed, but a subscription to Science is required to access the actual report)
The Big Questions
1. From a spiritual-life point of view, is it important to be willing to spend time alone with no distractions? Why or why not?
2. If you find it unpleasant to spend prayer and/or devotional time alone -- with or without aids such as a Bible or devotional handbook -- does that mean there's something wrong with your level of commitment to Christ? Or if you find it unpleasant to spend time in corporate worship or individual outreach -- does that mean there's something wrong with your level of commitment to Christ? Explain your answer.
3. If we find quiet time difficult or unpleasant, does that mean we should look for some other way of connecting to God? If so, what other ways might there be? If not, why not?
4. Does one's personality type have any bearing on the benefit one receives from solitary, distraction-free time? That is, might an introvert benefit more than an extravert? (Introverts "recharge" by being alone. Extraverts do so by being with others.) If so, what does that suggest about one-size-fits-all prescriptions for a devotional life?
5. What "life signals" might be obscured by the noise of our electronic way of life? What important and/or pleasant "life messages" might be obscured by the culture of "multi-tasking"?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
1 Kings 19:11-13
Now there was a great wind ... but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of sheer silence. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. Then there came a voice to him ... (For context, read 19:1-18.)
Job 38:1
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind ... (For context, read 38:1-7.)
These two passages provide an interesting contrast. In the 1 Kings passage, Elijah does not hear God in the noisy wind, earthquake or fire, but only in the sheer silence that followed them. In the Job passage, however, Job heard God from the clamorous whirlwind. Clearly God doesn't need silence to connect with us.
Questions: In what circumstances other than silence have you heard God's personal message to you? When has silence contributed to your hearing God? Conversely, when has music, noise or even cacophony elevated your awareness of God's presence -- think "1812 Overture" in Chicago right before the fireworks go off on the Fourth of July, or Niagara Falls, or the glory of a crowded street in London or Los Angeles, or a shared victory at a sports stadium -- and what are the shared qualities of silence and sound? Is it possible to appreciate one without the other?
Job 13:13
Let me have silence, and I will speak, and let come on me what may. (For context, read 13:13-19.)
This is from Job, in the midst of his suffering, speaking to his three friends who seem feel the need to speak instead of remaining silent, as they had done for seven days previously, in respect for his suffering (Job 2:13). Their comments have not been helpful, and Job is here saying that rather than claiming to know God's point of view about his suffering, they would be better to remain silent.
Questions: Does suffering have a message that requires silence in order to be "heard"? When in the company of friends, do you feel the need to fill "empty" space with speech? Is that a good thing? Why or why not? Do we sometimes drown out the needs of the world with our need for distraction?
Psalm 4:4-5
When you are disturbed, do not sin; ponder it on your beds, and be silent. Offer right sacrifices, and put your trust in the LORD. (No context needed.)
This passage refers expressly to being "disturbed" (the underlying Hebrew word can also be translated as "angry"), but it says that rather than sin (presumably by acting rashly based on one's emotions), one should "ponder" -- think about -- the disturbance in the silence of one's bed. On the surface, that sounds like the recipe for a sleepless night, where one obsesses about one's troubles, but the verses are referring to communing with God and trusting him.
The Message version of the Bible perhaps makes it clearer for our day: "Complain if you must, but don't lash out. Keep your mouth shut, and let your heart do the talking. Build your case before God and wait for his verdict."
Questions: In what ways do you air your troubles and disturbances with God? In what ways do you receive his peace? Do you regularly set aside a period of silence during your prayers to wait for God's reply? Do you leave space in your prayers, individually or corporately, for God's possible reply?
Psalm 46:10
Be still, and know that I am God! (For context, read 46:8-11.)
Although this verse would seem to be a call to meditation or relaxation, that's not the intent. Actually, it should be heard in light of verse 9 -- "[God] makes wars cease to the end of the earth; he breaks the bow, and shatters the spear; he burns the shields with fire." In that context, verse 10 means something like "Stop! Throw down your weapons! Depend on God and not yourselves! He will end the conflict."
Questions: In what sense is depending on God rather than ourselves the source of inner calm? Why do you think we need to be commanded to be silent? Name a time when achieving stillness, however difficult, has led to insight or direction.
Luke 10:41-42
Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her. (For context, read 10:38-42.)
Jesus said this to Martha after she complained that her sister Mary was sitting and listening to Jesus rather than helping Martha with her hospitality tasks. Jesus wasn't saying there was anything wrong with Martha being busy and active; there would have been no hospitality for him at their house if she had not been. The problem Jesus pointed out was that Martha was "worried and distracted by many things." That's different from being calmly focused on action for the sake of the good that can result.

Mary's silence in this case was the quiet of listening.
Don’t forget, for all her busyness, Martha makes the most astounding declaration of faith in the Gospel of John account of the raising of Lazarus. (See John 11:20-27.)
Questions: In what ways can you develop the quiet of listening for God? How do we balance all the "Martha tasks" in our lives so it is possible to, in good conscience, have "Mary time"?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from TWW team member Frank Purvis: "In 1991, I spent a week in Kentucky at a Catholic monastery called the Abbey of Gethsemani. That week [impressed] upon me the need for silence for prayer and worship. It was a confrontation of the 'spiritual noise' in my life as a Christian -- not just the noise of phone, cars and TV, but the noise of my own thoughts and trying to prescribe to the Lord what I wanted him to do in my life. It was a challenge for me to sit still and just pray, 'Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.' Not so much 'let go and let God'; rather it was 'let go and let God be God.'"
2. TWW team member Heidi Mann comments, "Often God seems to speak to me more through my interaction, conversation and activity with other people -- or through my reading or writing -- than when I sit in silence. I don't think silence and meditative/devotional reading of Scripture or other faith-related writings are mutually exclusive. Often, quiet, thoughtful reading sparks new openness to the Spirit in me and I 'hear' something from or about God that I haven't before." When it comes to listening for God, is there anything inherently better about sitting in silence than about engaging in activity?
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."
4. Respond to this, from an unidentified writer in the Taizé Community (an ecumenical monastic order in France): "At times prayer becomes silent. Peaceful communion with God can do without words. 'I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother' (Psalm 131:2). Like the satisfied child who has stopped crying and is in its mother's arms, so can 'my soul be with me' in the presence of God. Prayer then needs no words, maybe not even thoughts."
5. Comment on this, from TWW team member James Gruetzner: "Since we are made in the image of the Creator, no matter how corrupted that image may be, perhaps it's fair to say that we are created to be active and engaged with the creation and with others. God is very active, as is his creation, and the universe is replete with all sorts of activity and even noise. Even a vacuum is not empty, but is filled with the creation and annihilation of all sorts of particles -- not to mention the radiation/photons zipping through. On the other hand, God also rested when his work was complete, so resting is also part of the 'image of God.'"
Responding to the News
If you're struggling to sense God's presence, and you take stock and realize that you are constantly busy, constantly on the move, constantly taking in information or just noise, this might be a good time to find a place and time to get quiet and still and really listen for God's voice in your heart. It might take a while to get comfortable enough with silence to sense God's presence -- it might take a few days or weeks. But it just might prove meaningful to your walk of faith.
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).

How Should We Respond to Thousands of Unaccompanied Minors Arriving at Our Border?

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

There's a growing humanitarian crisis along the United States' border with Mexico as an unprecedented number of unaccompanied, undocumented/alien children and teens, mostly from Central America, are crossing illegally into this country. Most are apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and are being held in overcrowded detention centers while awaiting immigration hearings and probable deportation back to their home countries. En route to the centers after apprehension, some of these young people and other undocumented immigrants have been confronted by angry protestors waving "Return to Sender" and similar signs. In addition, pastors and churches have been prohibited from visiting or donating supplies (e.g., food or toys) to the camps.
As with many issues of national importance these days, this has become the subject of partisan bickering and blaming in Washington. Though both sides have valid points, the White House and Congress will likely have to work together to staunch the inflow of unaccompanied minors, ensure humane treatment of those who make it across the borders and provide timely processing of the detainees through the immigration courts.
Here is a summary of some of the main facts of this story:
1. The number of unaccompanied minors crossing illegally into the United States has been increasing since at least 2012 (some reports say since 2011), with the biggest surge this year. Although the entries are through Mexico, the majority are from Central America. According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection service, an estimated 70,500 children and teens are expected to be apprehended at the border -- including 52,000 from Central America -- in fiscal year 2014. By law, the administration can't deport those minors until they have an immigration hearing, which can take years. (The same law, however, permits Mexican and Canadian minors to be immediately turned back at the border.)
Some of this increase is likely the unintended consequence of a 2008 law, passed without controversy with bipartisan support and signed by President George W. Bush, to curb sex trafficking. The bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone who were not from Mexico or Canada by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.
Other factors pushing the surge include faltering economies in Central America, rising crime and gang violence and changes in how smuggling networks function, the belief that laws are being changed in the U.S. (or will fail to be enforced) to allow minors to obtain permanent residency, the increase in and increasing knowledge of government-provided benefits, the use by drug smuggling cartels of under-18 members as workers in their operations, and the rosy pictures painted by those who can earn money by smuggling them into the U.S.
2. Government agencies are overloaded in their efforts to deal with the huge number of unaccompanied young people. The 2008 law assigns Border Patrol agents the responsibility for screening immigrant minors and holding them for up to 72 hours before transferring them to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). But with so many kids now arriving, the 72-hour period is regularly exceeded, and they are housed in Border Patrol processing centers or in makeshift facilities at military bases.
When the detainees do finally get to HHS, they find a system that was designed to handle 6,000-8,000 kids a year, but which is now responsible for six times that many.
3. According to a recent report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, about 60 percent of children coming in from Central America might be eligible for some kind of humanitarian protection, based on international standards.
4. The U.S. government is attempting to react to this crisis on three fronts, though it is not yet clear how effective or helpful these measures will be:
First, the administration is aiming a public service campaign at parents in Central America to spell out the dangers of sending children to cross the border and to emphasize that they will likely be deported if they do make it in.
Second, because the process for dealing with child migrants is set down by law, the White House cannot implement a faster deportation process without changing the law, so it's asking Congress to make that change. Representatives Matt Salmon (R-AZ) and Paul Labrador (R-ID) are working to introduce a bill to do that this week. It is not certain that the bill will pass.
Third, the administration is asking Congress for $2 billion to address the immediate humanitarian crisis. The money would be used to employ more immigration judges and court staff to deal with migrant minors and to house them in the meantime. It's not certain that Congress will agree to this request, but it's too early to tell.
More on this story can be found at these links:
14 Facts That Help Explain America's Child-Migrant Crisis. Vox 
Immigrant Surge Rooted in Law to Curb Child Trafficking. New York Times 
Obama to Ask Congress for $2B to Ease Immigration Crisis. NPR
Murrieta Immigrant Protests: Mayor Defends His Town's Actions. Los Angeles Times
Guatemalan Boy Left for Better Life, Died Alone. Yahoo! News
The Big Questions
1. Regardless of where we stand on immigration in general, as Christians, what ought to be our first response to this huge influx of unaccompanied minors? Why?
2. In what ways should churches get involved, if at all, in this crisis? Why? Is this a church problem, a problem and opportunity for Christians as individuals or corporately, or a political problem? To what extent -- and how -- can these be separated (or can they)?
3. What broadly accepted American values ought to have a bearing on the handling of this situation?
4. How might our nation's response to this situation enable other nations to shirk responsibility to their own citizens? Does that matter in terms of how we treat the young people at our borders? When does "helping" actually hurt those we perceive to be in need? What long-term consequences likely depend on how we as a nation deal with this situation?
5. Are political agendas helping or hurting in addressing this crisis? How much is this issue informed by racism? Maneuvering for political gain? Nationalism? A desire to preserve the rule of law? The polarization of everything in our country?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Exodus 2:2-3
The woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw that he was a fine baby, she hid him three months. When she could hide him no longer she got a papyrus basket for him, and plastered it with bitumen and pitch; she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds on the bank of the river. (For context, read 2:1-10.)
The woman in these verses is Jochebed (Numbers 26:59), and the baby is Moses. Jochebed and her husband lived in Egypt, where the descendants of Israel were being oppressed. The pharaoh had decreed that all their newborn boys were to be thrown into the Nile because he feared that the Hebrews might become too powerful. When Moses was born, Jochebed hid him for three months until that was no longer feasible. Desperate to save her son's life, she made a watertight basket of bulrushes and put Moses in it. She then let the basket float in the Nile while Miriam, her daughter, kept watch over it from a distance. Pharaoh's daughter, who had come to bathe in the river, found the basket. When she discovered the child, she was moved with compassion and decided to adopt him. The child, Moses, grew up to become the leader of the Exodus, his people's escape from the land of Egypt.
TWW team member Liz Antonson comments, "I am not suggesting that we might be missing an opportunity to experience another Moses-like event. But the narrative of Moses surely gives a glimpse at the desperation of the parents in Central America. How are the parents of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador different from Moses' parents? In desperation they are placing their children in 'baskets or boxes of bulrushes,' but they are not watertight, they are not safe. Their children are not destined for Pharaoh's palace."
Questions: In what ways are the parents of these unaccompanied minors similar to and different from Moses' mother? To what extent might you be projecting your own viewpoints onto the situation in the absence of general or specific knowledge? Should we have a "Pharaoh's daughter" type of response to the children arriving at our borders? Why or why not?
Exodus 22:21 (CEB)
Don’t mistreat or oppress an immigrant, because you were once immigrants in the land of Egypt. (For context, read 22:21-24.)
Exodus 12:49 (ESV)
There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you. (For context, read 12:43-49.)
To be fair, we should acknowledge that in ancient Canaan, there was no such thing as "documented" or "undocumented" immigrants. People moved about to flee drought, find grazing lands for their flocks, avoid invaders, follow opportunities, etc., and they set up their tents wherever they were welcomed, felt safe and could meet their needs. There was no nation-state, so all unclaimed land was available. Thus this command from God quoted above has nothing to do with one's "legal" status as an immigrant. It includes a recognition for the Israelites that there were people living among them who were not Israelites and who had migrated there from other places.
Regardless of how or why these non-Israelites got there, the Israelites were not to "mistreat or oppress" them. What's more, God calls the Israelites to identify with the immigrants, reminding them that their ancestors first went to Egypt as immigrants (to escape the famine in Canaan).

In addition, since the declaration that non-Israelites are to follow the same law as Israelites applied to celebrating the Passover (if they were willing to be circumcised), there was at least a certain effort at assimilation that accompanied their presence.
Questions: When did your ancestors migrate to America? Did they do so legally? What was done at the time to those who tried to immigrate illegally? On what level, if any, can you identify with the unaccompanied children and youth at our borders? What makes it hard to identify with them? What makes it easy? What does it mean today to not mistreat or oppress them?
Genesis 37:28, 36
When some Midianite traders passed by, they drew Joseph up, lifting him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. And they took Joseph to Egypt. ... the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh's officials, the captain of the guard. (For context, read 37:12-36.)
Joseph was an immigrant to Egypt, albeit not by his own choice. He was trafficked there, but that nation eventually greatly benefited from his presence. But what if the Egyptians had blamed Joseph for his presence in Egypt when he had, in fact, been a victim of his brothers' and the Midianites' criminal behavior? Was he a "criminal" for entering Egypt "illegally"?
At various times, immigrants -- some of them our ancestors -- have arrived in America under less than ideal circumstances. Some came as slaves or as political, economic or religious refugees; some seeking opportunity and some adventure; some as invited guests and so on.
Questions: How has our nation benefited from the skills and passion immigrants have brought to the table? How has the nation been harmed by some or ended up harming others (e.g., illegal immigration of Nazi prison camp guards)? What attitude(s) we should adopt toward immigrants to our nation today? Why? We sometimes think of immigrants in terms of what resources they will use, thus creating shortages for people already here. Would we be better to think in terms of how our country might benefit from their presence? Or is it wrong to categorize immigrants as all the same in terms of benefit or lack of benefit to us, rather than treating them as individuals? Explain your answer.
Matthew 18:5
Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. (For context, read 18:1-5.)
Jesus made this statement as the conclusion of his answer to a question from the disciples: "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He first called a child into their midst, and told them they had to humble themselves and become like children to enter the kingdom of heaven. The child here does not denote purity and/or innocence. Children in that society were powerless, without economic resources and vulnerable. Living as "kingdom people" meant renouncing the values of greatness and taking up the humble ways of children.
But with the final statement above, Jesus seems to leave the "object lesson" aspect of the child in their midst and focus on the child himself/herself. Welcoming children is, in effect, welcoming him.
Questions: Should this statement from Jesus be applied to the current border crisis? As Christians, how do we decide which Bible verses we will apply to given situations in our society today? Explain your answer.
Matthew 25:35
... 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 ... (For context, read 25:31-46.)
This statement from Jesus remains a primary standard by which Christians measure their mercy and good works.
Questions: What are the limits, if any, that we should place on welcoming others? Why? Is it possible to be too welcoming? Can deportation -- which does send children back to their parents (assuming they are not orphaned), though still in poverty and in violent surroundings -- ever be part of welcoming? Explain your answer. Do these lines from Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) apply: "Christ has no body but yours, / No hands, no feet on earth but yours, / Yours are the eyes with which he looks / Compassion on this world ..."?
For Further Discussion
1. TWW team member Frank Ramirez tells that in 1976, he and his wife were one of eight couples sharing an apartment entrance on the campus of Bethany Theological Seminary. Only one of the couples had children, an infant daughter who was struggling with ear infections. "For some," says Ramirez, "the crying of the infant made it hard to study and sleep. Some of the students and spouses organized a deputation (thankfully without pitchforks and torches) to tell these parents to 'control' their child. I'll never forget the answer the father gave: 'The children of the world belong to the world.' It was, in part, his way of telling the others that difficulties regarding children are something we share.
     "I've never forgotten that line, and I've used it several times over the years. ... On a larger scale, I've always begun funerals and weddings by reminding folks that both are worship services where God is honored, so children are allowed to make noise and no one has to leave if a baby is vocal. It's the same for Sunday worship."
     Where is it helpful to remind yourself that "The children of the world belong to the world"?
2. Comment on this, from TWW team member Micah Holland: "What is our response [to this crisis]? We do our best to interpret Jesus' teachings in light of our world today, and we do our best to live out the ethics of Jesus. Are these [border crossings] illegal actions? Yes. So we have to follow our country's policies on what is illegal. Does compassion find its way into this conversation? Yes, absolutely. So what is the balance?
     "I wish I had that answer. I guess I have this response: If it is really as bad in these certain countries as some say it is, then yes, we should do something. Simply opening our doors completely can be dangerous on multiple levels. If an undocumented child shows up at our door or in our church, do we help them? Absolutely. But help can look several ways.
     "I look at the larger perspective and think, what can I do as a guy settled into Midwestern America? We don't see the flood of undocumented children up here too much. My wife has been to Haiti. I have been to Guatemala. We both sponsor kids through Compassion International. We feel like this is a step in the right direction, and we pray for these kids regularly."
3. Comment on this, from TWW team member Liz Antonson: "I have a friend who lives in Uruguay. He told me that parents give their children unwittingly to human traffickers in the hopes that their children will no longer be hungry, sick or in danger of violent death. These children are not given to caring homes as promised but handed over for all forms of slavery -- domestic slavery, agricultural slavery, industrial slavery and sexual slavery." Does it change the direction of our anger and outrage over the situation on our southern border to learn that the children are a commodity of a criminal element?
Responding to the News
This is an issue about which we should seek to be well informed, so that we can understand what is at stake for all concerned. It's a good time to pray for those in our national leadership who have to decide how to address this crisis, and for those in the Border Patrol and HHS who are responsible for the welfare of these minors.
Closing Prayer

Help, O Lord, those who live in the midst of such poverty and violence that allowing their children to leave seems preferable to keeping them at home. Be with those in our land who become responsible for the welfare of unaccompanied minors, that they might be strengthened to deal well and wisely with those in their care. And help our nation as its leaders seek solutions to this situation. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Decisions About Sanctioning Same-Sex Marriages Filter Down to Congregations

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

On June 19, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA, meeting in Detroit, voted overwhelmingly to change the definition of marriage from involving a man and a woman to involving two people, in effect sanctioning same-sex marriages. Because that change requires amending the denomination's constitution, the decision will take effect only if a majority of the church's 172 regional presbyteries approve it over the next year.
Another strongly supported action of the General Assembly (76 percent to 24 percent) takes effect immediately: allowing the denomination's clergy to perform same-sex marriages in states where such unions are legal. That ruling leaves it up to individual pastors to decide for whom they will conduct weddings, though presumably the congregations those pastors serve will have some voice in such decisions.
While the Presbyterians are working through their position related to same-sex marriage, some other denominations are also seeking to find their way through this issue that has Christian people on both sides. This is a thorny matter in many churches because it involves decisions not only about same-sex marriage itself but also about the authority of Scripture.
Writing about this matter in the July 7, 2013, installment of  The Wired Word, we said, "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 that same installment, we said, "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.
"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." (Examples: views on slavery; views on women in ministry; whether or not divorce is allowed.)
Discussions of same-sex marriages are further made difficult because they involve not only Scripture, but also the very definition of the word "marriage," with those supporting same-sex marriage advocating changing the definition and those opposing it insisting that such redefinition misses God's intention.
In the United Methodist Church, the disagreement over both sanctioning same-sex marriages and ordaining clergy who are in committed same-gender relationships has led to talk of the denomination splitting. On May 22, a group of 80 evangelical pastors and theologians issued a statement entitled "Regarding United Methodism's Future." The statement recognizes a rift in the church that it says probably cannot be healed. It suggests that it may be time for the church to split "amicably."
At the same time, another proposal within United Methodism, called "A Way Forward," suggests a compromise where the denomination would officially keep its stated position that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching but would also allow local churches to determine their own course in relating to LGBT persons. Individual congregations could decide whether or not to receive practicing homosexual pastors and whether or not to encourage their pastor to officiate at the weddings of same-sex couples. And annual conferences (the UM equivalent of presbyteries or synods) could decide on their own whether or not to ordain ministers who are homosexual. The goal of this proposal is to allow the churches, pastors and members freedom of conscience while still remaining together in one denomination. The proposal is a kind of third choice -- between staying together in disharmony on the one hand and splitting the church on the other. It's still unclear whether this option will be embraced by those on opposite sides of the issue.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) sanctioned same-sex marriage at its Churchwide Assembly, in 2009. Though not described as such, its decision was a kind of "third way." It gave pastors the freedom to bless same-sex unions and perform same-sex marriage, depending on what is legal in their state, but they are not required to do so. People can now be ordained as ELCA pastors if they are in a committed same-sex partnership or marriage, but a bishop can decline to perform the ordination if he or she isn't comfortable with such. Congregations are free to call (or not to call) pastors in committed same-sex relationships.
One of the resolutions that was part of that 2009 decision reads, "Resolved, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships."
The upshot of all of this is that in some denominations, decisions about how the church will minister to and serve people in the LGBT community may be less a matter of denominational fiat and more a matter of decisions by individual congregations and pastors, and/or by regional assemblies within the denomination.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Presbyterians in U.S. to Allow Gay Marriage Ceremonies. USA Today
Regarding United Methodism's Future. Good News
A Way Forward for a United Methodist Church
An Open Letter .... Good News (a response to "A Way Forward")
Where Christian Churches, Other Religions Stand on Gay Marriage. Pew Research Center
The Big Questions
1. When it comes to divisive and contentious issues in the church, how useful is the decision to "agree to disagree" but continue together as a congregation? Why?
2. What ought to be the prime factors to consider when deciding whether your church will change longstanding policies that some -- possibly including you -- consider untouchable? How much is a decision in matters related to homosexual persons affected by the makeup of families in the congregation?
3. In disagreements with other Christians over major issues where no compromise seems possible, how should we characterize those who disagree with us? Does it seem possible to remain in relationships with other denominations regarding larger ecumenical structures or projects if there is disagreement about particular issues?
4. Are there "third ways" (between staying together in disharmony or splitting) that might be considered for your congregation or denomination when there are matters of significant disagreement? If so, what are they?
5. Under what circumstance is a denominational split a good thing? Under what circumstances is it a bad thing? What factors and history inform your answer to these questions?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Ephesians 4:1-3
I ... beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (For context, read 4:1-16.)
The fact that Paul finds it necessary to urge his readers to make "every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit" suggests that such unity was not always evident in the Ephesian church. It is unity of the Spirit he calls for, however, not necessarily unity -- let alone uniformity -- in opinions or conclusions. Further on in this passage, Paul speaks of coming to "unity of faith" and "to maturity" (v. 13), which suggests he understood that church members grow in understanding at different rates and that there should be a loving quest for understanding and patience while the whole body matures.
Questions: Is unity of the Spirit a biblical command or a goal? To what degree do you consider those who disagree with you regarding same-sex marriage and the church to nonetheless be brothers and sisters in Christ? Does unity require agreement on every issue? Which issues? Does a creed that does not include specific guidance on controversial issues create the possibility of unity? Ought centuries-old creeds be changed to reflect a position on current controversies?
Do you consider disagreements over same-sex marriage to be disagreements within the unity of the Spirit, or between those who remain in and those who reject "the Spirit"? Explain your answer.
Acts 15:6
The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. (For context, read 15:1-29.)
Acts 15 contains the report of the first church council on record. The matter it had to decide was contentious: whether Gentiles first had to submit to Jewish rites -- in effect, adopting Judaism -- before becoming Christians (remember that all of the first Christians, including the 12 disciples and Paul, and Jesus himself, were Jewish). In council, they listened to Paul and Barnabas tell of how eagerly Gentiles had responded to their preaching. In the end, the council, with both Peter and James speaking in favor, decided that Gentiles did not need to adopt Judaism to become Christians.
Questions: Read the full report of this council (vv. 1-29). What examples from that meeting might be models for your discussion of your church's ministry to LGBT people or to people whose beliefs differ radically from yours in other ways today? In what ways, if any, is this council not an adequate example for deciding contentious issues today?
Matthew 18:15-17
If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (For context, read 18:15-20.)
Actually, according to biblical researchers, it's not just if that person sins "against you," for those two words are missing from some of the oldest manuscripts of Matthew. So what Jesus probably said was, "If another member of the church sins, go and point out the fault ...." Thus, Jesus was speaking of behavior by a single person that hurt not just one other person, but the church itself. He does not discuss what happens if "the church" (or a denomination of the church) sins. No matter which side of a contentious issue a person is on, he or she may believe that "the church" is sinning and is defying God. A literalistic reading of this passage doesn't help much in such cases. Even so, it is likely that Jesus' words may help in how to approach those with whom one disagrees.
Questions: How does a denomination correspond to -- and fail to correspond to -- "the church" or to "a member"? How should you approach those on "the other side," and when do you decide that they should become "as a Gentile and a tax collector"? Might someone on "the other side" just as well think of you that way? Then what? -- if it's going in both directions?
Acts 24:16
Therefore I do my best always to have a clear conscience toward God and all people. (For context, read 24:10-23.)
Paul made this statement as part of his defense before the Roman governor Felix, following his arrest after certain opponents incited a public uproar against him. His opponents claimed that Paul had profaned the temple (Acts 21:27-28), so when Paul here refers to his clear conscience, he is denying that charge.
But his statement has a larger context as well. He says that he always does his "best to have a clear conscience toward God and all people." That can be understood as reflecting his overall commitment to Christ -- expressed in his behavior, speech and belief.
Questions: When a position promoted by some Christians offends your conscience, how do you determine God's will? Can your conscience be misled? Can your conscience be clear even when in a minority? To what extent can individual or congregational conscience trump a mandate from a larger Christian body? Can you respect the sincere beliefs of those who disagree with you?
Philippians 1:27
Only, live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel ... (For context, read 1:27-30.)
Questions: Paul here refers to believers having "one mind for the faith of the gospel." But is that possible? Even quite apart from issues related to same-sex marriage and other highly charged matters, how often do you find members of your congregation to be of one mind? About what can we have one mind? About what is it essential that we have one mind?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from TWW team member Jenni Marner: "We had an interim pastor who had us work through a set of issues and place on a timeline various ideas [such as] hymns vs. contemporary music, women in leadership, discipline of sin, etc. It was a fascinating time of self-reflection of who we are individually and who we were corporately. As a part of that exercise we were encouraged to view our individual ideas as a part of the larger whole. He also encouraged us to come together as one mind as a method to move forward, seeking to pray through the differences and ask God to allow us to have unity within the body. Our church has a history of splits about every 10 years over the latest fad in the church. In the last 15, we have continued to move together and move forward towards loving Jesus more and showing his love to the community we are in."
2. Respond to this, from TWW team member Malia Miller: "Growing up, one of my good friends went to a very conservative church that prohibited many activities that my church allowed. We were able to work through these differences because we had mutual respect, but we had many conversations about what God thought -- particularly about me since I attended the more liberal church.
     "[From my childhood] through my college days, I was very active as a gymnast, which became another topic for my friend and me. She was not permitted to wear shorts in public -- or even at home if any male visitors were present -- and I was tumbling around the gymnasium in a leotard in front of high school boys. I always made sure to dress appropriately when at her home, but I skulked about in guilt wondering what her family and other members of her church thought about someone like me. At a time when I was trying to find my way as a young Christian, these issues could have become 'deal-breakers' for me when deciding whether or not to fully commit to Christ. It was hard to understand how two churches preaching from the same Scriptures could have such different interpretations. I found it very confusing since I really had pure motives and was working very hard to live a Christ-like life."
3. Respond to this, also from TWW team member Malia Miller. She was a high-school-level guidance counselor for many years and now teaches others who are in school to be counselors: "Many teens whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual that I have counseled through my work in the schools struggle with a society that labels them as 'sinful' and judges them for something that they truly feel is as natural to them as heterosexuality is to their friends. They aren't necessarily acting on their feelings in relationships, but they live with the shame and disapproval that is evident all around them. Many of them come from Christian families, which compounds their struggle. This is one of the primary reasons that the suicide rate among LGBT teens is so high. They live in a world that sees them as flawed and that deprives them of freely meeting their need for love and belonging. (I guess my bias here is showing, but I worked with so many LGBT teens in the course of my career who would have never freely chosen the difficult path of being gay if it were a choice.) I, too, have struggled with this issue as a heterosexual Christian trying to understand how to make sense of this in context of the Scriptures, but I rest in the peace of my Lord that I don't have to have all of the answers!
"I don't think these topics are just individual choices. When a church interprets Scripture in such a way that they deem activities or the way one dresses as sinful, there is unspoken judgment about those who do not agree or are just beginning their Christian journey. This creates an environment of shame which is not particularly conducive to spiritual growth. I am not suggesting that boundary lines are unnecessary. However, how a church membership handles those who are still seeking clarity on an issue will determine whether a person feels nurtured or alienated."
4. Discuss this, from TWW team member James Gruetzner: "During my life, I have know people who are adamant that their own propensity to sexual promiscuity, to stealing from others, to lying for their own material benefit, and a host of other things is 'as natural to them as' other feelings are to their friends. I've come to the conclusion that 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' and that our feelings about what is right or wrong tend to be poor yardsticks. Feelings are not nothing, of course, but they aren't normative. The somewhat cliched guidance to 'hate the sin and love the sinner' seems pretty good (and I hope that others might hate the sin in me while loving the sinner that I am). My wife and I (and our congregation) have had little trouble with acknowledging both homosexual activity and divorce as wrong, while at the same time welcoming both homosexual and divorced people into our congregation and into our home on a personal level. Jesus ate with sinners, although he was sinless. Can a sinner like me do any less?"
5. If your congregation is part of a denomination, describe the way that congregations relate to the denomination. Are congregations required to follow the leading of the denomination? Is it purely advisory? On a complicated and/or controversial issue, do you think your congregation would follow or ignore a change in denominational policy if the congregation disagreed?
6. Dan West (1893-1971) was profoundly affected by the life-or-death choices he had to make as a relief worker during the Spanish Civil War. His realization that "these people need a cow, not a cup" inspired him to recruit donations of live, impregnated cows to ship to starving people in other countries, a program that eventually became the ecumenical organization Heifer International. In his home congregation in Indiana, the story is told that West, having argued passionately on a particular subject in church council, found himself on the losing side after the vote was taken. He is remembered to have said that he would now become a passionate supporter of the other side of the issue.
     Have you ever supported your church even when you did not fully agree with their stance on a particular subject or program? Is this possible for a person of conscience? Does the leading of the larger group, whether a congregation, a denomination or Christendom, determine your response to an issue? What does it say if you can only follow your own leaning on a topic instead of that of the larger church?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to remind ourselves that in most cases of disagreement on significant issues in the church, the debate is not between "true" Christians and "false" Christians -- or between Christians and sinners -- but between sincere people who understand the ramifications of their faith differently. It's good to spend as much time listening as talking.
Closing Prayer

Help us, O Lord, in this time of turmoil, to discover what it means to be your faithful disciples, worshiping and working with others you have called. In Jesus' name. Amen.