Dealing With Our Own 'Deflate-Gates'

© 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

It's been dubbed "Deflate-gate" -- "gate" being the common suffix used ever since the Watergate saga to indicate a scandal -- and it refers to the discovery during the NFL game on Sunday, January 18, that 11 of the 12 footballs used by the New England Patriots in their game against the Indianapolis Colts were under-inflated. The Patriots won that contest 45 to 7 and advanced to the Super Bowl.
The under-inflation matters because balls with less than the regulation 12.5 to 13.5 pounds of air per square inch (psi) would have been slightly easier for the Patriots' quarterback to hold and its receivers to catch, especially during the slick, rainy conditions of that particular game. The same advantage would not go to the opposing team because teams always use their own sets of footballs when they're on offense.
It's not been determined who deflated the balls or when it was done, but with 11 of the 12 being some 2 pounds psi low, most observers consider it unlikely that that condition happened without someone tampering with them -- the temperature variation from indoors to out has been calculated to result in less than a 1-psi change. As of this writing, the NFL investigation is focused on a Patriots locker room attendant.
The NFL reports that all 12 balls were properly inflated before the game when they were tested by game officials. They were then placed in a zipped bag by the sidelines. From time to time during play, ball boys hand fresh balls from the bag to officials, who put them into play.
It's not certain who told the Colts about the under-inflated balls, though Fox Sports' Jay Glazer reported that the Baltimore Ravens, who previously played against the Patriots, tipped off the Colts about the possibility of such an occurrence. In any case, officials checked the Patriot balls at half-time and found all but one low on air. They were then re-inflated to the mandated level and stayed that way throughout the second half of the game.
Patriots owner Robert Kraft insists his team did nothing wrong and says he wants an apology from the NFL if it cannot be determined that his team tampered with the footballs.
Sports commentators say that with the way this particular game went -- with the Patriots winning by such a wide margin -- the under-inflated balls made little, if any, difference in the outcome. For one thing, the Patriots scored mostly by running the ball, a tactic where an under-inflated ball would make little difference. For another, in the second half, when the balls were at full psi, the Patriots still outscored the Colts by 28 points.
People concerned about the under-inflated balls, however, point beyond this specific game to the fact that the Patriots have a history of stretching limits of what the rules allow and that on one occasion, the Patriots' coach was caught illegally filming an opposing coaching staff to learn their hand signals. Also, in a close game, experts say, under-inflated balls could tip the balance in the Patriots' favor.
Former NFL referee Brian Taylor, now a pastor and member of the TWW team, is reluctant to apply the word "cheating" to Deflate-gate. He says he has seen the level of competition and the "edges" athletes try to get, and he compares the under-inflated ball violation to drivers who travel at 65 mph in a 55 mph zone in an effort to get home in time for dinner. But TWW team member Mack Crumpler counters, "How we got to the point where we either break the law and speed just a little, or be late and miss dinner with the family is another story. But suddenly, there we are; what to do? We don't really want to do either one, but one will be done."
Leigh Steinberg, writing about this incident in Forbes, commented, "All of the NFL's overwhelming dominance and revenue flow depends on the public's trust that the outcome of games is determined on a level playing field." He also said, "It is hard to argue that deflated balls made the difference in a 45-7 rout, but what about the prior playoff game with Baltimore, won by 4 points?"
When the TWW began considering this news story, a team member shared the following: "This story hits really close to home. The longtime secretary of the church where I used to serve on staff was arrested last week, charged with embezzling thousands from the church. Everyone there is just crushed. I, too, am absolutely heart-broken because I always considered this woman a saint. And, truly, I think she was. And I still love her. She was (and for all I know, still is) a fervent Christian."
The team member continued, "I just can't make sense of how this came about. I hope it had something to do with her feeling some sort of desperate need on behalf of a family member, medical issue or such, but, sadly, that's not entirely the picture I'm getting from at least one friend there. I am more sad than mad. I feel that something in her life just 'broke' somehow, and a temptation she normally would have been able to resist was not resistible at that given time, and one bad step led to another and another, and she likely felt she just couldn't come up for air from it all. To me, it points out how broken we all are, and how easily any one of us can falter. I don't feel self-righteous in regard to her circumstances; more, my heart just goes out to her in some odd way."
More on the Deflate-gate story can be found at these links:
The New England Patriots' Deflated Footballs Scandal, Explained. Vox
What Is the 'Deflategate' Controversy? Boston Globe
10 Things to Know About Deflate-Gate. Forbes 
Patriots Owner Wants Apology Over 'Deflate-Gate.' CBS News
The Big Questions
1. What internal arguments do we Christians sometimes use to give ourselves permission to do something that is not acceptable according to our faith and moral code (and is sometimes even illegal)? Why do we allow ourselves such exceptions? When it comes to the Scriptures, how do we decide which laws, commands or commandments we are going to keep and which we might "fudge" a little?
2. How should we as Christians navigate in a society where some things that are not really right are not illegal? How should we determine the difference?
3. Is there danger to our souls in crossing "little" lines, such as accepting too much change back from a restaurant or taking office supplies home from our workplace? If so, what is the danger? If not, why not? Does the term "a slippery slope" apply to such cases? If so, how? When is being only good enough good enough?
4. What theology addresses the human tendency to rationalize exceptions to our faith values and moral code? In the church, how should we respond to someone who has been discovered to be engaged in a serious sin? What remedies does the Bible offer?
5. What sort of accountability systems (such as church small groups, Christian friends in whom you confide, etc.) do you actively include in your life to "save yourself from yourself" and maintain your personal relationship with Christ? Whom do you trust to help you make these decisions?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Genesis 3:2-6
The woman said to the serpent, ... "God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So ... the woman ... took of its fruit and ate ... (For context, read 3:1-15.)
This account describes the tempting of Eve in terms of an external dialog between her and the serpent, but of course, that mirrors the sort of internal conversation we have with ourselves when we're toying with the idea of doing something that is against the standards of righteousness to which we have committed ourselves. In Eve's case, the serpent actually lied to her, telling her she would not die and that God was withholding something good from her for selfish reasons. We too sometimes deceive ourselves when looking for a justification to do something we want to do but know we shouldn't.
Sometimes small sins seem harder to resist than big ones, especially when the small wrongdoing is acceptable to many. Perhaps that's what it was like for Eve in the garden with the serpent -- nothing really bad was going to happen at that moment for a little infraction, so she went ahead and did it.
Questions: What helps you recognize your justifications and rationalizations as the "serpent" in the garden of your life? What causes you to sometimes view the serpent as the voice of reason? Is it possible to differentiate the voice of the serpent from the voice of wisdom before you make your choice? How do you do so?
Matthew 4:3-4
The tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." But he answered, "It is written, 'One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (For context, read 4:1-11.)
Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. (For context, read 4:14-16.)
There are similarities between the temptations of Jesus and the tempting of Eve (see Genesis 3:2-6 above). In both cases, the story is framed as an external dialog, but in both cases, the temptations themselves were experienced inwardly, just as our temptations are.
What is different between them, of course, is that unlike Eve, Jesus confronted the temptations and did not surrender to them. He recognized that the tempter was no angel of light, responded with Scripture and remained true to his mission.
Questions: In what ways, if any, does it help you know that as Hebrews 4:15 above indicates, Jesus sympathizes with our weaknesses because he too was tempted, "as we are"? Does it help to know that Jesus our high priest faced temptation "without sin"? Note that the tempter quotes scripture to back up his temptation. Is there a scripture that once led you to act one way which you now reject?
Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse -- who can understand it? (For context, read 17:5-9.)
In Scripture as in other places, the heart is used metaphorically to mean our spiritual, emotional, moral and intellectual core. And here is Jeremiah telling us that that core of our being is devious and perverse. Or, as the King James Version words it, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked ...."
The underlying Hebrew word for "devious" derives from the same root as does the name "Jacob," who was an occasionally devious character in the Old Testament. He cheated his brother Esau out of his birthright by deceiving their elderly, blind father into believing he was his brother. "Perverse" means "directed away from what is right or good" and "obstinately persisting in an error or fault; wrongly self-willed or stubborn."
Jeremiah would probably say that working to know ourselves is fine -- as long as we don't forget perversity. Our hearts have a tendency to turn away from what is right or good, sometimes even to nudge us toward a path that we know for certain leads to trouble.
Questions: Have you ever done something you knew was wrong even as you did it and then asked, "Why did I do that?" How did you answer yourself? How might Jeremiah answer you? What is the remedy?
Respond to this, from the TWW team member's comments in the "In the News" section above about the secretary who embezzled from her former church: "I feel that something in her life just 'broke' somehow, and a temptation she normally would have been able to resist was not resistible at that given time, and one bad step led to another and another, and she likely felt she just couldn't come up for air from it all. To me, it points out how broken we all are, and how easily any one of us can falter."
Jeremiah no doubt saw many people in the society committing the same sins. How easy is it to embrace the argument "Everyone else is doing it" as a justification for cutting corners?
1 Timothy 6:9
But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. (For context, read 6:6-10.)
James 1:14-15
But one is tempted by one's own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death. (For context read 1:12-16.)
We cite these two passages together because they both reference a significant source of temptation: one's own desire. In the case of the 1 Timothy verse, a specific desire -- wanting to be rich -- is singled out whereas in the James passage the topic is desire in general.
Desire opens the matter of the proverbial "slippery slope," where a small yielding to something we desire but which is not right sometimes leads to bigger yieldings. In fact, desire might be said to be the grease on the slope!
Questions: What weight do you assign your own desire? In your heart of hearts, do you consider your wants more weighty than God's commands? How can you tell? How do you avoid slippery slopes? How do you get back once you've slipped down one?
How should we respond (as individuals or as a church) when we see a member who seems to be on "a slippery slope" of almost imperceptible infractions of God's law? Do we wait until someone is engaged in serious sin before we say something?
For Further Discussion
1. Comment on this, from TWW team member Mack Crumpler: "I think of [the story of] the frog in the water in the pot on the stove. It's the gradual change he doesn't respond to; in fact, as the water warms a little, he thinks to himself, 'Ah, this is nice.' Before he realizes it, he's passed out and [is] in trouble. If we give ourselves permission to deviate just a little for whatever valid reason we rationalize, it gets progressively easier, and soon, it's a long way back. We don't yet know who the guilty party is at the Patriots, but one wonders if it started a while ago with one football."
2. Respond to this, from TWW team member Frank Ramirez: "I'm reminded of what C.S. Lewis says in The Screwtape Letters, how the road to hell has gentle curves, with no obvious landmarks or road signs. Or the moment in Lewis' book That Hideous Strength where Michael first does something he knows is definitely wrong, but it is not a big moment, not dramatic at all. That's the whole thing about Ponzi schemes. According to a study I read about in The New Yorker, it begins with trying to cover up a shortfall instead of being honest about it, and the crime gets bigger and bigger."
3. Discuss this, from TWW team member Mary Sells: "[Consider] the insidious nature of cheating -- we experience it so often that we lose our sense of right and wrong. ... We also have big money in attorneys and lobbyists making black/white, right/wrong issues into gray ones so we are losing sight of the truth. Just because some things are legal doesn't mean they are right (Charlie Hebdo satirical cartoons? Big biz buying Congress with campaign donations? etc.). Where and from whom is the old saying that 'your character is what you do when nobody is looking'?"
4. Team member Charles Alkula points us to what are sometimes called the "Four Cardinal Virtues." According to Wikipedia, the cardinal virtues are those recognized in the writings of Classical Antiquity and, along with the theological virtues, also in Christian tradition. They consist of:
  •Prudence: also described as wisdom, the ability to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time.
  •Justice: also considered as fairness, the most extensive and most important virtue.
  •Temperance: also known as restraint, the practice of self-control, abstention and moderation tempering the appetite.
  •Courage: also named fortitude, forbearance, strength, endurance and the ability to confront fear, uncertainty and intimidation.
How do these four relate to today's topic?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to pray not only for ourselves, but for those we love, that we may be able to resist the small temptations that come our way so we do not slip into bigger ones.
Closing Prayer

Dear Lord,
You know the temptations that I am facing today. Your Word promises that I will not be tempted beyond what I can bear. I ask for your strength to stand up under the temptation whenever I encounter it. Your Word also tells me you will provide a way out of the temptation. Please, Lord, give me the wisdom to walk away when I am tempted, and the clarity to see the way out that you will provide. Thank you, God, that you are a faithful deliverer and that I can count on your help in my time of need. Amen. (By Mary Fairchild, "Dealing With Temptation")

Charlie Hebdo Slayings Reflect Clash of Worldviews

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

On January 7, two gunmen, later identified as Muslim extremists, burst into the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly magazine that has frequently mocked religions including Islam, killing 12 people and wounding 11 others. Shortly afterward, another terrorist, later determined to be connected to the first two, killed four people in a kosher supermarket. Subsequently, all three were eventually tracked down by French police and killed in two gun battles.
The attacks have been characterized as an assault on freedom of the press, and governments in the western world and beyond have condemned them. Many people around the world, including some in Islamic countries, have stood in solidarity with the magazine, posting signs saying "I am Charlie." Some Islamic publications have expressed similar solidarity. This week, for example, an Iranian newspaper was shut down by Iranian authorities for doing so.
Despite such displays of support for Charlie Hebdo, which means "Charlie Weekly," that magazine is not an example of a free press at its best. Writing in The Atlantic, Paris-based reporter Scott Sayare says that the magazine is "intolerant of religion and believers of all sorts, and smug in those anticlerical convictions. Dialogue with its opponents was never of much interest, and it has repeatedly chosen to target some of France's most vulnerable inhabitants for provocation." Others have pointed out that there is no U.S. equivalent of Charlie Hebdo.
.
As an example of such provocation, Sayare notes, "In 2011, after Catholic extremists in the city of Avignon vandalized 'Piss Christ,' the photograph of a plastic crucifix submerged in urine, Charlie Hebdo produced a cover cartoon featuring rolls of toilet paper labeled 'Bible,' 'Koran,' and 'Torah.' The headline read: 'In the shitter, all the religions.'"
This was actually one of the tamer covers. A more typical, anti-Christian cover showed a naked Jesus -- complete with a crown of thorns and nail holes in hands and feet -- having anal sex with an old man with a white beard (labeled "the father") whose robe is suitably hitched up, while Jesus is simultaneously on the receiving end of a triangle with an eye (labeled "the holy spirit") doing the same thing to him. The title referred to the archbishop of Paris having "three daddies," the persons of the Trinity.
But for supporters of freedom of speech and of a free press, the merits or lack thereof of Charlie Hebdo are beside the point. Irreverent and provocative content does not warrant or excuse a murderous attack, and those who perpetrated this atrocity were committing a crime. To be truly free, people must have the freedom to say disgusting and insulting words, and the press must have room even for publications with bad taste and inflammatory content.
Most informed observers see the Paris attacks as part of a larger worldview (*see definitions below) that has driven many terrorist attacks in recent decades, including 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings and many others.
Writing in his blog, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said, "The massacre in Paris is yet another sign that a good portion of the world's population operates by a very different worldview and by a very different moral code. There is a form of rationality evident in the ... larger context of Islamic terrorism, and in particular in the attack upon the newspaper Charlie Hebdo. But that rationality is the rationality of Islam, not of the Western worldview; certainly not of the modern Western secular worldview."
Mohler may be sweeping with too large a broom when he blames "the rationality of Islam," without narrowing it to the rationality of radical Islam. But we think Mohler is correct in characterizing that rationality as based on a very different perspective from that which much of the rest of the world holds.
As one measure of that worldview difference, consider how people view human life and what they need to feel justified in taking another person's life. Generally, we in the western world value human life, and to take one, it must be either for defensive purposes or because of a crime, and then only after due process. In contrast, those involved in jihadism, radical terrorism and the like apparently can feel justified taking scores or even thousands of lives, even of people who are no threat to them and are not involved in their struggle, if they can see that life-taking as advancing their goals.
From that point of view, terrorists likely do not see themselves as doing evil but as taking action toward their goals, which they view as right, and perhaps even believe they are called by Allah (the Arabic word for "God") to do.
As another measure of worldview difference, consider the comments of extremist Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, who has known ties to Islamic terrorism. Following the Paris murders, USA Today, like many other publications, ran an editorial condemning the attacks. Choudary then wrote to the newspaper in response to the editorial, and USA Today decided to publish it to show the motivations behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
In his response, Choudary wrote, "Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires." He went on to essentially defend the Paris attacks.
Mohler also points us to an article last October in The Washington Post, which said, "Iraq and Syria, Choudary says confidently, are only the beginning. The Islamic State's signature black flag will fly over 10 Downing Street, not to mention the White House. And it won't happen peacefully, but only after a great battle that is now underway."
The Post article cites Choudary as saying, "We believe there will be complete domination of the world by Islam. That may sound like some kind of James Bond movie -- you know, Dr. No and world domination and all that. But we believe it."
Is that likely to happen? No. But will it be a perspective that continues to foment new terrorist acts? Almost certainly. It's a clash of worldviews.
In TWW team discussions, we have talked about how Christians as individuals might respond across this worldview gulf, and we agree that the teachings of Jesus -- including "love your enemies," "turn the other cheek" and "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you ..." -- still apply in our personal relationships. This does not preclude defending others and ourselves against oppression -- God normally works through people in this world. How specifically those teachings might be practiced across a worldview chasm, should the occasion arise, is something for which we will need to rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
How governments, on the other hand, respond to terrorism that grows out of opposing worldviews needs to be driven by the reasons for which governments exist, including ensuring the security of their citizens, enforcing laws and pursuing and punishing those who commit serious crimes. And governments really have to deal with this because the problem of terrorism is too big for individuals to do much about on their own.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Theological Extremism in a Secular Age. Albert Mohler blog
The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders. The New Yorker
People Know the Consequences: Opposing View. USA Today
There Is No 'Charlie Hebdo' in America. New Republic
The 'Charlie Hebdo' I Know. The Atlantic
Iranian Newspaper Shut Down for Showing Solidarity With Charlie Hebdo. The Guardian 
In Britain, Islamist Extremist Anjem Choudary Proves Elusive. Washington Post
* Online dictionaries give the following definitions of worldview:
• "a theory of the world, used for living in the world. ... a mental model of reality -- a framework of ideas and attitudes about the world, ourselves, and life, a comprehensive system of beliefs."
• "1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. 2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group."
The Big Questions
1. What significant beliefs mark your worldview? To what degree is your worldview in line with the kingdom of God? Where, if anywhere, does it differ? Why? When you were young, did you consider the worldview you inherited the "only" worldview? When did you realize there were others? Have you tested your worldview against others?
2. How should Christians who are direct victims of terrorist atrocities respond? How should Christians at a safe distance from those atrocities respond? What effect might the reaction of those Christians who live at a safe distance have on those who live at "ground zero"?
3. Can you articulate the worldview of those who seem opposed to western values in a way that makes sense? In what ways, if any, does understanding the worldview of terrorists help us, and how?
4. How do you handle a one-on-one relationship where your views on political, religious, social, family or other issues differ widely from those held by the other person? Is it possible to remain in a relationship or friendship when you do not agree on key life issues? Why or why not, and give examples.
5. Are there occasions when the idea of "us" vs. "them" might be a Christian way to respond to world events? Explain your answer.
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
John 18:36
My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here. (For context, read 18:28-38.)
This is Jesus' response to Pontius Pilate when the latter was questioning him after his arrest. Pilate first asked Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?" and Jesus responded by asking if Pilate was speaking for himself or repeating what others said. Pilate then observed, "Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me." And he added, "What have you done?" (vv. 33-35). At that, Jesus answered with the words above.
In effect, Jesus' response was that he was operating from a different worldview than were the chief priests. As one difference, he hadn't come to achieve a position of fame or privilege; he came "to testify to the truth" (v. 37). Thus, he viewed almost everything that was happening to him at that point in a different light and as accomplishing a different purpose.
Question: Where does what Jesus said here connect for you? Was there a time when, because of your commitment to follow Jesus, you realized you were interpreting the world around you differently from how you had previously? If so, what specifically about your discipleship caused the change?
Define the values of the kingdom of God. Do its borders match the world's? Where do the kingdom of God and our society intersect? Where do they part ways?
Acts 17:22-23
Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, "Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." (For context, read 17:16-34.)
In Athens, the apostle Paul had an opportunity to address some intelligentsia (v. 18) who'd not heard before about Jesus. Paul used that opening to proclaim the gospel, but did so using a point of connection his audience would understand: their altar to "an unknown God."
The group gave Paul a polite hearing, but it was not a wildly successful encounter. Most of his hearers were not convinced (v. 32), but that's not surprising, for Paul held a different worldview than they did. Under the circumstances, it's remarkable that even a few were converted (v. 34). Both psychology and our experience tell us how difficult it is to even consider something that goes against one's worldview, much less to change the worldview.
Questions: Have you ever been in a conversation about Jesus with someone who was frankly skeptical? How did it go? What did you conclude from it? How did/do you go about establishing a connection with someone who has no connection with church and Bible? What "scripture" do all people, regardless of belief or disbelief, have in common?
Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (For context, read 55:6-13.)
TWW team member Liz Antonson comments: "There is a significant difference to be noted when the worldviews of people clash with the 'view' of God -- God's comprehensive intention for humankind. God doesn't have a theory of the world. God doesn't ponder whether he exists. God doesn't query what is morally correct. God declares what is so. When worldviews clash with God's revelation to humankind, it is not the same as when the worldviews of the people of his world clash."
Questions: When have you become aware that how you view the world and your role in it is different from how God declares it to be? Were/are you willing to abandon your ways for God's ways? How easy or hard is that? How can you discern the will of God?
Romans 13:3-4
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (For context, read 13:1-7.)
We said in the "In the News" section that governments need to be the primary responders to terrorism, and the verses above from Paul offer a rationale for that.
Questions: Although governments are as prone to corruption and abuse of power as are other human institutions, and the Roman government of Paul's day was no exception, why do you think Paul so clearly supported them?
Paul would eventually be executed by that state. How do we recognize the line between cooperation with and resistance to political authorities?
Matthew 7:12
In everything do to others as you would have them do to you ... (No context necessary.)
Here's Jesus' command we call the Golden Rule. It is not by any means all that Jesus taught, but it does encapsulate much of the Sermon on the Mount; he also says it sums up "the law and the prophets" (v. 12b), what we call the Old Testament. We said above that for individual Christians facing terrorism, the teachings of Jesus still apply.
Questions: What about when another person's worldview goal threatens your existence or the life of a loved one? What is the difference between an existential threat and a philosophical one? What might we learn from Jesus, and how do we discern when different areas of guidance apply?
For Further Discussion
1. In light of terrorism, comment on Jesus' words in Matthew 10:28: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
2. Author Isaac Asimov, when asked why he thought his novels did so well, said that there were no villains in them. That didn't mean there were no bad guys. But he believed no one was a villain in their own mind. How does Asimov's comment illustrate worldview?
3. Comment on this: Author J.R.R. Tolkien, who survived the brutal war in the trenches in World War I because he got very ill and was hospitalized, held no animus against the German people, and later, when his nation fought against Germany again in World War II, he insisted that the enemy was not Germany or German culture, and that Germans were not intrinsically evil. The war was against the worldview of the Nazis.
4. Comment on our constitutional right in the United States to free speech and free press in light of 1 Corinthians 10:23: "'All things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up." Discuss also this, from TWW team member Mack Crumpler: "While Charlie Hebdo was within the bounds of human rights, they were outside the bounds of responsibility. They blew it on stewardship. God gave us the right of free speech and he can take it away if we use it unwisely or recklessly or irresponsibly."
5. Read Matthew 4:1-11, and discuss how Jesus' temptations were a worldview clash.
6. Is it okay to criticize another person's belief? Are you okay with someone criticizing your belief? What should be our response when someone criticizes our belief or pokes fun at God?
Responding to the News
We should pray often for our government leaders and those charged with national security who must make day-after-day decisions to deal with the ongoing threat of terrorism.
Closing Prayer

Help us, O Lord, to take the love of Christ across worldview barriers. Amen.

Drunken Bishop Kills Cyclist in Hit-and-Run Collision

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

On December 27, Thomas Palermo, 41, a software engineer and longtime cyclist, was riding his bicycle on a designated bike lane in Baltimore when he was struck from behind by an SUV driven by Heather Elizabeth Cook, 58, an assistant bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland. Palermo, who was married and the father of two small children, died at the scene.
Cook left the scene without stopping. She returned about 30 minutes later to talk to the police. At that time, she was given a breath alcohol test that resulted in a .22 reading, well over the legal blood alcohol limit of 0.08. Police also learned that Cook had been texting at the time she hit Palermo. She was subsequently charged with manslaughter, leaving the scene, driving under the influence of alcohol and texting while driving. If convicted on all charges, she could face more than 20 years in prison.
The accident has drawn interest well beyond Baltimore, partly because national news programs and bicycle media picked it up, but also because of Cook's position as bishop suffragan (a bishop appointed to help a diocesan bishop), and because she is the first female bishop in that diocese.
An additional factor is that in 2010, at her previous assignment in the Diocese of Easton on Maryland's Eastern Shore, before becoming bishop, Cook was charged in another drunken driving incident. According to a police report, an officer found Cook in the middle of the night driving on three tires. She had vomit on her shirt and was too intoxicated to complete a sobriety test. She was also charged with possession of marijuana.
In that case, Cook pleaded guilty to drunken driving. The drug possession charges were dropped. She was fined and sentenced to probation before judgment on the DUI charge, meaning her record could be cleared if she stayed out of trouble.
Officials from both dioceses are now facing questions from some local Episcopal leaders and clergy who want to know why Cook was selected to be a bishop considering the nature of that 2010 arrest. Those local leaders also want to know why only the search committee, but not the full voting convention, was told about the earlier charge when considering Cook's candidacy for the office of bishop.
According to The Washington Post, the approximately 70 Episcopal clergy from Cook's diocese who attended a closed-door meeting with head bishop Eugene Sutton "were angry that the diocese had not shared more details about Cook when she was elected. Clergy at the meeting were told that the search committee could not tell anyone about the 2010 incident because it was confidential, and that Cook 'was encouraged at least twice' to share it."
"Was she in recovery and was this a terrible relapse ... or was it a situation that no one knew was an ongoing situation?" said the Rev. Megan E. Stewart-Sicking of Immanuel Episcopal Church in Glencoe, Md. "I think those are fair questions to be asking."
Both incidents involving Cook are now spotlighting how churches handle matters of substance abuse, forgiveness and second chances, particularly when the offender is a member of the clergy.
In a statement, Palermo's family said, "We are deeply saddened to learn of the events leading up to the senseless hit-and-run accident that claimed Tom's life, and support the prosecutor's efforts to hold Bishop Heather Cook accountable for her actions to the fullest extent of the law."
Initially, a diocese spokeswoman said publicly only that Cook was on her own time when the accident happened and was "not conducting church business." In a later statement on the diocese's website, Bishop Sutton said, "On behalf of everyone in the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, please know that we are deeply heartbroken over this, and we cry for the Palermo family, our sister Heather and all in the community who are hurting. Our Lord Jesus would be a healing presence in the midst of this tragic situation, and we are seeking ways to walk in his footsteps in the days and months ahead. As we do so we are truly being the church, and we will always be guided by our core Christian values of personal accountability, compassion and respect for the rule of law."
Cook's attorney would not comment on the case, but he did confirm that Cook had turned herself in.
Cook's father, the late Rev. Halsey Cook, was a national leader in the Episcopal Church, who worked to fight alcoholism in the ministry -- including his own.
A $2.5 million bail was set for Cook in a January 9 hearing at the Baltimore City District Court. At last report, she was being held at the downtown Detention Center until bail is posted.
On New Year's Day, hundreds of cyclists pedaled a slow procession along a three-mile route from Baltimore's Episcopal Cathedral of the Incarnation to the site of the accident.
"For the cycling community, this is kind of part of our grieving process," said Nate Evans, executive director of Bike Maryland, which organized the event with Bikemore, a bicycling advocacy organization. "It gives us a chance to get out and celebrate a cyclist's life."
The following is from The Washington Post's coverage of the story:

Diana Butler Bass, a prominent progressive church historian and Episcopalian who lives in Northern Virginia, said she wondered if the denomination's liberal tendencies had been harmful in this case.
"We love to give people the benefit of doubt, 'There but for the grace of God,' and all that. We're not the church that likes to condemn people," she said. "In this case it worked in the wrong direction."
Butler Bass also commented on the role of forgiveness.
"I don't always think church people understand the depth and complexity of addiction. Forgiveness isn't the solution to addiction. And people in leadership should know that," she said. "The question is, does forgiveness qualify someone to be a bishop and an example in the church? She supposedly represents all Episcopalians. When his kids grow up, their narrative will be that this church killed my father. This is why leaders are held to a higher standard. Because they represent something that's bigger than just their own problems."

More on this story can be found at these links:
Md. Episcopal Bishop Faces Manslaughter, DUI Charges in Death of Bicyclist. Washington Post 
Bishop Heather Cook's bail set at $2.5 million. Baltimore Brew 
A Pastoral Letter to the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland. The Episcopal Churches of Maryland 
Friends, Fellow Cyclists Ride to Honor Palermo. Baltimore Sun 
Maryland Bishop Faces Manslaughter, DUI Charges in Hit-and-Run. Fox News
The Big Questions
1. What prevents us from getting help for our own problems? To the extent that you feel safe doing so, share a problem you or your family have dealt with. How has it affected your life? How has it affected the lives of others? To what extent have you experienced forgiveness and/or tolerance for the problem? How has this affected the way you treat others?
2. If you killed someone accidentally, what role would God have for you? For the victim's loved ones? How might your work in the church change? What should Cook do now regarding her position in the church?
3. What do we expect from church leaders when they are troubled? Does God view them and their needs differently than lay persons, and if so, why? Do we view them differently, and if so, how? Do you think people who help others by profession face additional hurdles when encountering problems of their own? Why or why not?
4. Should a member of the clergy be held to a higher standard than others? Why or why not? Should Cook's earlier arrest for DUI have disqualified her to later be a candidate for bishop? If not, why not? If so, why? What failings, do you think, are more tolerated among clergy, and which are not -- and why or why not? Are certain failings more tolerated by the criminal justice system than others -- and why or why not?
5. What is your reaction to Diana Butler Bass' comments about what she labels "addiction" in the news story above? Do we treat addictions seriously enough? Do we excuse addictions? Are we at a point as churches and as a society where people can talk openly about their addictions? Do more conservative churches have a better outlet to talk about addictions (such as in testimonies) than do progressive churches, which may (though not always) view addictions as physical and not moral failings?
6. Think about the diocese spokesperson's comment that at the time of the accident, Cook was "on her own time" and was "not conducting church business." While this likely stems from the need to "cover your rear" in the event of a lawsuit, why do you think this might or might not be an appropriate statement? Is there a sense in which pastors are always "on duty"? Is there a sense in which Christians are always "on duty"?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Isaiah 28:7
These also reel with wine and stagger with strong drink; the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are confused with wine, they stagger with strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in giving judgment. (For context, read 28:1-13.)
The prophet Isaiah was addressing people of the southern Hebrew kingdom, Judah. But here, in warning them of where their sins were leading them, he began with a lament over the then defunct northern Hebrew kingdom, Israel (called "Ephraim" in v. 1, after one of its larger tribes). In verse 7, above, he refers to that kingdom's priest and prophet being "confused" by too much alcohol, and as a result, their vision and judgment were impaired. Thus, they were unable to guide the people of their nation morally and spiritually.
Addiction was not understood as a disease in those days, as many consider it today, but Isaiah was right on about the outcome of alcohol abuse.
Addiction comes in other forms as well. One TWW team member tells this story: "The first church I served 36 years ago had a huge building but its attendance had dropped from around 250 to 50, and no one would tell me why. I was told that the pastor before the more recent one had some financial issues. Three years later someone in the district told me the more prosaic story -- that the pastor had an affair with the organist and at first refused to leave, so everyone else did. It turned out this pastor had serial affairs at all the churches he served but no church spoke about it; they simply passed him on to the next church.
"That's not the case anymore. Pastors are usually dismissed immediately for affairs, and others are told. They must go through treatment before anyone would even think about hiring them. I find it interesting in this case that many people were not informed about the bishop's alcoholism. In previous eras a priest's or minister's abuse of alcohol may have even been something of a comic strain, something to laugh about. It shouldn't be anymore."

Questions: What advice would you give a church leader who you realized was addicted to alcohol or drugs? If the person was in denial or was unwilling to deal with the problem, would you have a responsibility to do anything further? Why or why not? Does a congregation, or at least a search committee, have a right to know in advance about an individual's shortcomings? What is the line between confidentiality and the need to know?

Proverbs 23:29-30, 32, 35
Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger late over wine ... At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like an adder. ... "They struck me," you will say, "but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I will seek another drink." (For context, read 23:19-35.)
These verses picture people with an addiction. Addiction entices those in its grip to keep coming back for more of the addictive substance. It eventually causes its victims grief and "bites like a serpent."
The venom of snakes is designed to paralyze prey so it can be eaten. Because the addict initially feels only the pleasure provided by the drug of choice, he or she craves it all the more.

Questions: Is the line between free will and compulsion static, or in your experience, does it move one way or the other at various times? How important is it for a person struggling with compulsion or addiction to have confidants or programs (like 12-step programs) for support?

Luke 12:48
From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded. (For context, read 12:35-48.)
This comment from Jesus follows a brief parable in which he praises slaves who are doing their work even when the master returns unexpectedly. In commenting further on the parable, Jesus refers to a manager of the slaves (who likewise was a slave) who was expected to be diligent in his duties, leading to Jesus' remark in verse 48. The slave put in charge of others had been selected because of showing an aptitude and skills for that position. Much had been given him, both in terms of endowed abilities and of responsibilities. By the same token, however, much was therefore expected from that manager.

Questions: How would you apply this parable to church leaders? How would you apply this parable to yourself? Does this parable mean church leaders must be held to a higher standard? Are churches willing to pay for programs that provide support (such as counseling or spiritual direction) if they are holding church leaders to a higher standard? Who counts as a church leader? Pastors and ministers? Sunday school teachers? Music leadership? Board and commission chairs? Maintenance staff? How do you decide which leaders or workers the church should be willing to support financially in such programs?

James 3:1
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. (For context, read 3:1-12.)
James made this comment about those who teach in the church, but we suspect he would say at least this much about those who are the ecclesiastical leaders.

Questions: Is it fair and right that higher standards of integrity and behavior are expected from some professions than from others? Explain your answer. To what standards are individuals from other professions held? Give examples from among the professions of members of your class. What are the compensations for being held to a higher standard? (For instance, doctors and lawyers usually make more money than ministers.)

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (For context, read 1:5-10.)

Questions: This verse is not difficult to understand, but should we even be quoting it in the context of this news story? Is addiction a sin? an illness? both? If sin or both, is God's forgiveness enough to deal with it? If not, what else is needed? Can damage and death caused by addiction-fueled behavior be excused? Can it be forgiven?

Mark 5:18-20
As [Jesus] was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him. But Jesus refused, and said to him, "Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you." And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed. (For context, read 5:1-20.)
These are the concluding verses of the account of Jesus healing a man so demon-possessed that "he lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain ..." (v. 3). After he was healed, the man wanted to join the entourage that traveled with Jesus, but Jesus told him instead, "Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you." In other words, Jesus gave the man a ministry, and as the last sentence states, the man did exactly what Jesus told him to do.
Regarding the demon Bishop Cook is wrestling with, TWW team member Mary Sells says, "It is obvious that the right thing [for Cook] to do is to take the punishment and take the cure; however, the enduring problem will be how we show mercy in a situation where there is no possibility to make true reparation: a husband/father lost his life and that cannot be changed."
Sells continues, "To be a bishop or priest or pastor should mean that service to God means more than anything else and losing that role would be terribly hard -- perhaps it causes one to make worse decisions in order to remain in that role. We historically see this as a self-serving protection for the church, but perhaps it is also the threat of being taken from one's calling that is more personal."
Perhaps the biblical story of this healed man gives one model Cook might consider. She might listen for what different ministry Christ might call her to -- even if it's less prestigious and not a professional career -- where her message might be to tell of what mercy she's been shown.

Questions: If you were on the ministry committee for the diocese in which Cook has been a bishop, what would be your recommendation to her now regarding her future service in the church? Would there be steps you would recommend Cook follow? 
What might mercy look like for the family of the cyclist who was killed in the accident?
Regarding your own calling, profession or job, what sins would be more easily forgiven than others? What failings would result in your having to find other work?

For Further Discussion
1. How does the family whose life was forever changed grant forgiveness and mercy, if that is a possibility, despite their great pain? What prayers would you pray if you were related to the cyclist?
2. How should members of the community respond when a bishop, pastor or other senior church leader is revealed to be as human and imperfect as they are? How does the community rebuild trust for leadership? What prayers would you pray if you were related to the bishop?
3. Calling something an addiction can be used in many ways: as a cause for a person's deeds, as a description of a habit, as an excuse to reduce or eliminate guilt or shame, or perhaps for some other reason -- or a mixture of these. Explain how you have heard the term used, as well as how you use it. How -- if at all -- does the concept of sin as an addiction leading to sinful actions relate to this?
4. Comment on the following from TWW team member Frank Ramirez: "I think there is an element of blindness in this story -- people are blind to bicyclists and others who choose to live a different way. Sometimes they are not even seen. Sometimes they are seen and derided. I feel much safer riding a bike on the county roads in my area because people are used to looking out for the Amish, who ride bicycles as well as buggies. But even so, when outsiders drive through our area, they complain -- loudly -- in restaurants and other places, about the presence of those who are going at a different speed of life. I think Christians should be traveling at a different rate than the world at large."
5. Respond to this, from a TWW team member: "I have zero tolerance for anyone who drinks and drives. Wine was a daily part of life for Jesus, but he never got behind the wheel of a car afterward. Alcoholism may be a disease but so is diabetes. I have medicine for diabetes and have to live a certain lifestyle so I don't slump over in the car from low blood sugar."
6. Respond to this, from TWW team member James Berger: "This is not an isolated incident. This is the pattern of a serious alcoholic, not a problem drinker. So I find it incredible that the 2010 incident was never revealed to the larger committee when she was elected. She should have been disqualified and placed in treatment at that time. Denial of a serious problem is an invitation to death, either the drinker's or someone else's."
7. Comment on this, from TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey: "There are multiple layers of infractions of this bishop. She was not only DUI, but also texting while driving and she left the scene of the accident. It is not just the physical condition of alcoholism that troubles me, which today might almost be excused by some people as a component of a disease. But it is the attitude that underlies the behaviors this woman exhibited that really alarms me: the attitude that says 'My pleasure, my rights, my agenda, my career, my whatever, are more important than living in a way that at the very least does not cause harm to others.'"
Responding to the News
If there is someone in your parish who has a known problem with alcohol, but has either refused to recognize it or refused to get help, now might be a good time to learn about intervention and how you can help. As a place to start, look at this website from the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation.
Closing Prayer

O Lord, please be present with mercy and balm with the family of Thomas Palermo. Please be present in the way most needed with Bishop Cook. Help us all, when we are on the roads, to be aware of and careful of those around us. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Site of Jesus' Trial Found?

© 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Travelers in Jerusalem wanting to visit sites where Jesus may have spent time now have a new location to visit. The site, just opened to the public, is where Jesus' trial before Pilate may have taken place.
Historians and archaeologists have long agreed that Herod's palace was located on the western side of Jerusalem's Old City, near the present-day Tower of David Museum. If the palace is there, however, it has long since been buried under subsequent construction and centuries of dirt and debris.
But more than a decade ago, during a planned expansion of the museum, archaeologists began dismantling an old adjacent building. Below the floorboards, they found the remains of a prison dating from the Ottoman Turk rule of Jerusalem. Below that, they found what they believe are some remains of Herod's palace, where some Bible scholars say Jesus was tried by Pilate. Though the palace was Herod's, these scholars say Pilate would likely have been a guest there.
The site of the trial cannot be identified with certainty because the gospels themselves are not specific about its location. Matthew, Mark and Luke only say that Jesus was handed over to Pilate, without saying where. Matthew and Mark do say that after Pilate issued the execution order, his soldiers moved Jesus to the "praetorium" (see Matthew 27:27 and Mark 15:16 in the NIV), a Latin term for a general's tent, but it's not clear that the trial took place there. John's gospel, however, tells that while at least part of the trial took place in the praetorium (John 18:33; 19:9, translated "headquarters" in NRSV and "palace" in NIV), the final judgment was issued "at a place called The Stone Pavement" (John 19:13), a detail that fits with archaeological findings near the prison.
So in visiting this site, pilgrims may be standing where Jesus briefly was before being sent off for crucifixion.
Rev. David Pileggi, minister of Christ Church, an Anglican congregation near the museum, believes that the discovery inside the prison confirms "what everyone expected all along, that the trial took place near the Tower of David." But will the opening of the site cause visitors to deem it holy? Will it change the path of the Via Dolorosa -- the route traditionally considered to be Jesus' journey through Jerusalem to Calvary, which many visitors to Jerusalem today follow?
"I don't think that will happen anytime soon," Pileggi said. "What makes a place holy is the fact that people have gone there for hundreds of years, prayed, cried and even celebrated there, so I don't think there will be changes to the route anytime soon."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Archaeologists Find Possible Site of Jesus' Trial in Jerusalem. Washington Post 
Archaeologists Say They've Located the Possible Site of Trial of Jesus. Fox News
Thin Places: A Biblical Investigation. Patheos
The Big Questions 
1. How do you define "holy"? What is the primary characteristic of holiness?
2. Are there places you consider holy? If so, what causes you to think of them that way?
3. In the news story, Rev. Pileggi said, "What makes a place holy is the fact that people have gone there for hundreds of years, prayed, cried and even celebrated there." Do you agree or disagree, and why? Apply the definition(s) of "holy" from the first question in explaining your answer.
4. In terms of hearing from God, we don't consider a congregation that worships in a gym to be at any disadvantage to a church that worships in a traditional sanctuary. But is there any way in which a traditional sanctuary enhances the worship experience? Is there any way in which a gym enhances the worship experience?
5. How is our relationship with God affected by the things we consider holy? How is our relationship with others affected by the things we consider holy?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
John 19:13
When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat [or "seated him"] on the judge's bench at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew Gabbatha. (For context, read 19:12-16.)
This verse contains the primary clue that causes some Bible scholars to conclude that part of Jesus' trial was conducted in Herod's palace. The underlying Greek word translated "The Stone Pavement" is lithostrotos, which means the tessellated or mosaic pavement where the judgment-seat stood. The word Gabbatha is an Aramaic (though called "Hebrew" in the verse) term derived from a root meaning "back" or "elevation," which refers not to the kind of pavement but to the elevation of the place. Thus the two names refer to different characteristics of the spot where Pilate condemned Jesus to death, and could refer to a location in Herod's palace.
Though the verse above from the NRSV makes it sound like Pilate sat on the judge's bench, the Greek can also be read to say that Pilate sat Jesus down on the bench (indeed, the NRSV notes that in a footnote, which we've inserted above), and there's reason to think that could be the accurate meaning. It is fully in keeping with John's narration for Pilate to taunt the Jews at this point by seating Jesus, still dressed in the purple robe and crown of thorns, on the judge's seat. Doing so lends a profound irony to the account: Pilate unknowingly places Jesus in his rightful place as the true judge.
Questions: Did Pilate unknowingly make his own seat holy by having Jesus sit in it as mockery? Or is holiness not a quality that a "thing" can possess?
Imagine yourself standing in the spot where Jesus faced Pilate when both Jesus and Pilate were there. What would you have done? What would you have said?
Genesis 28:16-17
Then Jacob woke from his sleep and said, "Surely the LORD is in this place -- and I did not know it!" And he was afraid, and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven." (For context, read 28:10-22.)
When Jacob was fleeing from home because of his brother's anger at him, he eventually had to stop to sleep. As he slept, he dreamt of a ladder reaching from earth to the heavens, on which angels of God were ascending and descending. And he heard God's promise to him, extending the Abrahamic covenant to him. Thus, when Jacob woke, he declared, "Surely the LORD is in this place -- and I did not know it!"
When Jacob fell asleep, his location was just another spot in the wilderness (the text calls it "a certain place" [v. 11]). But when he woke, it was a holy place because Jacob had encountered God there.
TWW team member Micah Holland comments: "The word 'holy' is rarely defined and is often contextual for people. I know a lady who reads her Bible each morning on her sun porch, and she considers this place a holy place."
Questions: In what unlikely place have you encountered the Lord? Sometimes people refer to specific locations as "thin places," which are usually defined as places where the boundary between heaven and earth is especially thin, places where we can sense the divine more readily." What do you make of the idea of "thin places"?
The Celtic Christians of Europe that Paul wrote to in his letter to the Galatians (Galats is the Latin word for Celts) also believed there was a thin line between the divine realm and human existence, and for this reason probably found it easy to accept Christianity after the healing of Paul's eyes. Do you have a sense that God is near or distant, depending on where you stand? What and where was your clearest experience of God's presence? Was it a surprising place? Do you experience the same thing when you return, or is God's presence more of a "movable feast"?
Jacob was fleeing his brother's (justifiable) wrath. Have you experienced God's presence more in harried or peaceful circumstances?
1 Kings 2:29
When it was told King Solomon, "Joab has fled to the tent of the LORD and now is beside the altar," Solomon sent Benaiah ... saying, "Go, strike him down." (For context, read 2:26-35.)
When King David died, there was contention over which of his sons, Adonijah or Solomon, would succeed him. Solomon emerged the victor, and after he got the throne, he had Adonijah put to death. Solomon then set out to purge his kingdom of those who had supported his brother. One supporter, Joab, surmised that Solomon would not be satisfied merely to banish him. Therefore Joab fled to the tabernacle and took hold of the horns of the altar.
This action, in accordance with long-standing Hebrew law and custom, was an appeal for asylum. It was considered desecration for anyone claiming such sanctuary to be killed. Benaiah, the military man Solomon sent to slay Joab, knew this, and he was reluctant to violate the sanctuary. But finally, in obedience to his king, Benaiah killed Joab, even as the man clutched the horns of the altar. When Solomon felt his authority was threatened, nothing was sacred to him -- not even the tabernacle of God Almighty.
Questions: When nothing is considered sacred or holy, what do we have left to make peaceful community life possible? Does what is left work as well as a sense of sacred obligation? Is a murder or mass murder worse when it takes place in a church, mosque or synagogue, or are all murders equally desecrations of God's holy image in humanity?
Exodus 3:3-5
Then Moses said, "I must turn aside and look at this great sight, and see why the bush is not burned up." When the LORD saw that he had turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am." Then he said, "Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." (For context, read 3:1-12.)
This is from the account of God speaking to Moses from the burning bush that the flames did not consume. Moses moved toward the bush to see what was going on. But before he got to it, God spoke to him out of the bush, saying, "Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground."
TWW team member Stan Purdum comments, "That's the point at which this story starts to make me queasy, for if I had been in Moses' sandals, I'm not sure that I would have obeyed. Rather, my reaction more likely would have been to think, 'Yeah, right, this is holy ground. Who's kidding who here? This is just the surface of Mt. Horeb. And whatever is going on with the bush, it's liable to start throwing off burning embers at any moment, so I'm not taking my sandals off!' And if I had responded like that, there's a good chance I might have missed an encounter with God."
A few lines from a poem by Elizabeth Barrett Browning recall the burning bush story and indicate the possibility of failing to notice that one is on holy ground:
Earth's crammed with heaven
And every common bush afire with God;
And only he who sees takes off his shoes --
The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries.
Failing to recognize that we are on holy ground is not necessarily a sin, but it is a blockage on the spiritual journey.
Questions: When have you recognized only in hindsight that you had been in a place where God was speaking to you? What lesson about God do you hear in Browning's poem? Have you been tempted to raise a memorial at a site where you realized God was present? Is a healthy skepticism more or less of a guarantee that one has experienced the holy? Do we see or hear what we want to? How has God best been able to get your attention?
Matthew 21:12-13
Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you are making it a den of robbers." (No context necessary.)
For Jesus, the activity of money changers and the animal sellers in the temple subtracted from the holiness of that place, causing him to take dramatic action.
Question: What are some things that hinder your experiencing a place as holy?
Revelation 21:22
I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. (For context, read 21:1-2, 9-27.)
When John of Patmos had his vision of God's kingdom to come, he saw there was "no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb." In the full presence of God, no special place is needed for holiness, and every place is holy.
Questions: Do we need holy places only because we are not fully tuned to God's omnipresence in our world? Do you think you will miss your favorite Bible, holy place or worship center when you are at last in the presence of the Lamb?
For Further Discussion
1. The word "sacred" derives from a Latin word meaning "set apart" for a god's use, while the word "holy" comes from an Old English word meaning "whole," in the sense of complete, entire or healthy. These words have mainly merged into one meaning in today's English. Discuss how the two original concepts are similar and how they are different, and the different nuances an understanding of the etymology provides.
2. It's often said that anyplace can be holy depending on what happens there. One pastor suggests that all of the following "places" could be holy ground. Look at each item in this list and tell why you might or might not consider it holy.
•You are taking a walk when an idea occurs to you about some change you need to make in your life.
•You are going through your daily devotions when something you have read suddenly comes alive for you.
•You are in the midst of an argument with a family member and are quite angry when something clicks inside your head and you remember that you love this person you are so angry at. That realization causes the ground to shift under you, and there is suddenly a special opportunity regarding your relationship with that person.
•You are snowed in and unable to get to your workplace. You are frustrated because you've got so much you need to accomplish, but then it suddenly dawns on you that you have been given a gift -- a day to find yourself again.
•You are busy with the responsibilities of the day when your child -- or your grandchild -- asks you to read her a story.
•You are in the midst of trouble or are depressed over the course of life, and receive one of those "I'm thinking of you" cards from a friend.
3. Comment on this, from TWW team member Mary Sells: "If we [consider holy] only those places where masses of people return over time to pray, that only scratches the surface. ... It is we who move from the holiness of God, while God remains steadfast within us and around us.
     "When I was in Israel, I knew it was a very special place, and indeed the area where so much of our Christian history happened. However, I had to remind myself that it is also dependent upon claiming specific places as holy to drive the economy, and I told myself, it doesn't matter if the stated place is true; it is the events that happened somewhere in that region that are true. We like our shrines and churches as houses of God and as places to pray and feel near to God. But isn't the real goal of a faith path to realize that God doesn't live in a house, but in the spirit he breathed into us?"
4. Respond to this from TWW team member and Church of the Brethren pastor Frank Ramirez: "We Brethren have no connection to the place of our founding. First baptism in Eder River, Schwarzenau, Germany. People go there, especially at our tercentennial, but it is not a holy place. We were refugees there and within three decades we all moved to America. For us, the people are holy, not places or things. Discoveries like Herod's palace are fascinating, but what do they have to do with faith? The tomb is empty. No artifacts. The first Christians did not save souvenirs, nor did they put up historical markers."
5. What special benefits do you think one receives from traveling to a "holy" place? Does this make one a better Christian? If you have traveled to holy places, describe the experience. Did it make you a better Christian? Did you believe everything the guide told you? How much money did you spend to get to the holy place? Would you recommend going to holy places?
Responding to the News
One of the signs that we are treading on holy ground is when we are operating under the grace of someone else's sacrifice. For example, few young people who go off to college these days are self-supporting. Most are able to be there at least in part because of financial sacrifices made by their parents. We may simply call that opportunity, but in truth, they are also on holy ground because their parents, and even those other persons who have set up scholarship funds, have helped make their presence there on campus possible.
This is a good time time to recall and thank those whose sacrifices make our good circumstances possible. It's also a good time to think of how Christ's sacrifice enables our lives to be holy places.
You might contemplate these questions: How does a sacrifice help a place become holy? What sacrifices have been given to you by family members, friends, church members, etc. that have been holy?
Closing Prayer

Lord of all places and beyond, help us to be aware of when you are speaking to us, that we will respond at that time and not miss your call. In Jesus' name. Amen.

The Sony Hack and the Peace of God

© 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

In late November, hackers identifying themselves as #GOP ("Guardians of Peace") released a trove of sensitive, private information they'd stolen from Sony Pictures' computer systems, including personal information about Sony employees and their dependents, executives' comments about certain celebrities, emails between employees, data about executive salaries, copies of unreleased Sony films and more, all of which contributed to a paralysis of company operations. The cyber criminals claimed the attack was in response to the Sony movie The Interview, originally set to be released Christmas Day, which is a satire depicting an assassination attempt on North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The hackers also threatened acts of terrorism if the film were to be released.
The hackers have not been identified, but early suspicions were aimed at the North Korean government. Since then, however, many security experts have expressed doubts about North Korea's involvement, and some believe that a disgruntled employee or ex-employee, working with a small group of computer experts, is a much more likely scenario. As of this writing, the identity of #GOP remains a matter of speculation.
Sony initially canceled The Interview's theatrical release, but eventually authorized more than 300 arthouses and independent cinemas to show the film on Christmas Day. Sony also released the film to Google Play, Xbox Video and YouTube on December 24.
On Christmas Day, Sony, along with Microsoft, became targets of another attack. The Internet platforms for operating Sony's Playstation and Microsoft's XBox were overwhelmed by a distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attack, inundating the servers with fake user requests, making it difficult for legitimate users to log on to the game consoles. The disruption affected millions of subscribers to the two services. A hacker group calling itself Lizard Squad claimed responsibility.
Sony and Microsoft join a growing list of corporations, including Target, Home Depot and JPMorgan, that have come under ever more clever, damaging attacks in recent months from cyber criminals.
More and more, such attacks also cause problems for ordinary people who do business with the companies hackers single out.
Peace of mind, we suspect, has been an elusive quality at Sony in recent weeks. In this particular case, however, there might be a "silver" lining: On Monday, Money reported that The Interview has earned more than $15 million through online sales in its first four days of release. That kind of outcome is the exception, however. Most of the time, cyber crime costs companies -- and eventually their customers -- money.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Everything That's Happened in the Sony Leak Scandal. Vulture 
FBI Faces Skepticism Over Claim That N. Korea Hacked Sony. Fox News
Xbox and PlayStation Resuming Service After Attack. BBC 
Sony Pictures Entertainment Hack. Wikipedia
'The Interview': $15 Million, 2 Million Streams. Money 
The Big Questions
1. What is the peace of God and how peaceful is it? What brings you the most peace? What do you find that is capable of disturbing that peace?
2. Consider these words, sometimes seen on church signs: "Know God, know peace. No God, no peace." To what degree are they true? Why? Are they ever an oversimplification? Are they ever wishful thinking? Are they ever testimony?
3. If a Christian is experiencing inner turmoil rather than inner peace, does that mean there is something amiss about his or her relationship with Christ? Explain your answer. Do you find it easy, difficult or even possible to reach out to another in order to achieve peace? Do you try to achieve peace on your own without help?
4. How is it possible to have "peace like a river" when one is drowning in the flow of circumstances? Can singing songs of faith, praying or engaging in spiritual disciplines help to provide peace in your life? Are these things themselves sometimes distraction from peace? Explain your answer.
5. What resources of the church can help you experience the peace of God? What resources beyond the church -- such as in the fields of counseling, social work, medicine, etc., or from friends and other Christians -- can help?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Psalm 46:10
Be still, and know that I am God! (For context, read 46:1-11.)
This line comes in the midst of a psalm that is all about facing tumult and trouble but with confidence, because "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble" (v. 1). The whole psalm is an affirmation of faith.
Most of the psalm is written in a human voice, speaking about God. But in verse 10, God himself suddenly breaks through and speaks in first person: "Be still, and know that I am God!" This divine statement effectively summarizes the whole psalm.
But what is this "stillness" the psalm calls for? Although many Bible versions retain the word "still" because of its familiarity, "Be still" is not the best translation of the underlying Hebrew. Contemporary readers almost inevitably hear it as a call to meditation or relaxation, when it should be heard in the light of v. 9 -- "[God] makes wars cease to the end of the earth." In that context, "Be still" means something like "Stop!" or "Throw down your weapons!" In other words, "Depend on God instead of yourselves."
Depending on God, says this psalm, is the source of the inner peace we might call "stillness."
Questions: When has God called you to depend on him instead of yourself? How did you respond? What changed after you responded? Name some things about you and your life, as individuals and as a church, that cannot be harmed by a cyberattack?
Mark 4:37-40
A great windstorm arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already being swamped. But [Jesus] was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and [the disciples] woke him up and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, "Peace! Be still!" Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?" (For context, read 4:35-41.)
When Jesus speaks the word "Peace" in this story, he is addressing the wind and sea, but in effect, he is also calling the disciples to an inner peace based on their faith. In the words of a contemporary Christian song, "Sometimes he calms the storm, and sometimes he calms his child."
Questions: When Jesus asked the disciples, in the midst of a violent storm, why they were afraid, was he being unrealistic? Isn't it normal and healthy to fear dangerous circumstances? What might the peace of God mean in this situation? What do you think you would have said to Jesus in these circumstances? Do you speak to Jesus during your own times of turmoil?
John 14:27
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid. (For context, read 14:18-31.)
Philippians 4:7
And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (For context, read 4:4-7.)
Jesus spoke the words of John 14:27 to his disciples during his final instructions to them the night before he was crucified. In the Old Testament, "peace" was a conventional leave-taking term (e.g., 1 Samuel 1:17), but here, Jesus is not simply saying farewell to his disciples. In the context of his coming death, "peace" here takes on the meaning of a bequest.
In verse 18 of this same address, Jesus promises not to leave the disciples as "orphans" -- that is, they will not be alone -- and his promise of peace supports that earlier promise. They will not be alone because they will have his peace.
The peace Jesus offers is not what the world means by peace; he is offering neither the promise of bodily security nor the end of conflict. The peace that Jesus gives derives from the heart of Jesus' life.
In Philippians, Paul refers to this same kind of peace -- the peace of God -- in a benediction-like phrase after telling his readers, "Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God" (v. 6, italics added).
Questions: Is "not worrying" the same thing as having the peace of God? Why or why not?
Matthew 10:34, 38-39
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ... whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. (For context, read 10:34-39.)
Jesus said this to his disciples when sending them out to proclaim the good news, to tell them how radical a commitment he was asking of them. In applying his words to ourselves, whatever else that passage may mean, it clearly says that daily life for a follower of Jesus may be anything but peaceful in the "no conflict" sense of the word. In fact, following Jesus can even bring division among a family when its members are not of one mind about commitment to Jesus (see vv. 35-37).
But the potential conflict for Jesus' followers extends wider than just family relations. The first-century followers of Jesus didn't live very peaceful lives, at least not as we would describe it. Several of the apostles actually were hounded for their preaching and then martyred. Paul was beaten, arrested, stoned and finally executed. If that's peace, no thank you!
But actually, the peace of God means something other than the absence of struggle and discord. Consider the late William Barclay, a Scottish theologian and author, well known and respected throughout the United Kingdom. A few days before his only daughter was to be married, she drowned. Sometime later, while commenting on the story of Jesus stilling the storm, Barclay referred to his daughter's death, and said, "I am not so concerned as to whether Jesus stilled the tempest on the sea. What I know is that he stilled the tempest in my heart."
Questions: When have you known peace in the midst of struggle and discord? What enabled that to happen? Can a "sword" bring peace to your life when it severs the connections between you and certain possessions or obsessions? How else might a figurative sword bring peace into your life
1 Peter 1:6-7
In this you rejoice, even if now for a little while you have had to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith -- being more precious than gold that, though perishable, is tested by fire -- may be found to result in praise and glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. (For context, read 1:3-9.)
When Peter refers to suffering "various trials" and being "tested by fire," he is probably alluding to, among other things, persecution that some Christians were experiencing. But rather than advising fearfulness, he speaks of rejoicing in the troubles because they reveal the genuineness of one's faith. Peter understands that by accepting Christ, Christians are secure in their salvation for the future; therefore, the present sufferings can be endured with hope, and those suffering can show how brightly faith shines.
Peter is not saying that God sends troubles to test Christians but that faith shows how real it is when trials nonetheless come.
Questions: Think of a time your faith has been tested by trial. What did you learn? Might you have learned the same things any other way? How much of your spiritual growth and/or maturity do you attribute directly to trials and tribulations? Is true peace possible without true examination of your faith and your priorities?
For Further Discussion
1. There's a lesser-known hymn about the apostles that distinguishes between peace as it's generally defined and the peace of God. The hymn is called "They Cast Their Nets," and the first two verses talk about peacefulness in the usual sense of the word.
They cast their nets in Galilee
Just off the hills of brown;
Such happy, simple fisherfolk,
Before the Lord came down.
Contented peaceful fishermen
Before they ever knew
The peace of God that filled their hearts
Brimful, and broke them too.
The next two verses describe how things changed after they started following Christ.
Young John who trimmed the flapping sail,
Homeless in Patmos died,
Peter, who hauled the teeming net,
Head down was crucified.
The peace of God, it is no peace,
But strife closed in the sod.
Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
The marvelous peace of God.
Discuss especially this last verse, and tell what meaning you take from it.
2. Comment on this definition of peace by preacher-writer Frederick Buechner: For Jesus, peace seems to have meant "not the absence of struggle, but the presence of love."
3. Respond to this, from TWW team member Stan Purdum: "Jesus' way is not one of neutrality or divided loyalties. One way to look at that is to say that what every Christian needs are two conversions -- one out of the world and the other back into it. That's a way of saying that Jesus calls us to become new people in him, but then, when we've made that commitment, we go back to life in this world to be God's people in it. The peace of God goes with us, but not necessarily peacefulness."
4. What is your opinion of how Sony responded to the cyber attack?
5. To know peace -- the peace that "surpasses all understanding" -- what state of mind must we be in or willing to enter?
Responding to the News
Our ability to keep calm during the storms of life is somewhat of a reflection of our personality. However, our faith has been strengthened by witnessing other believers' peace in times of turmoil. It's also strengthened as we work and pray to gain the fruits of the Spirit -- one of which is peace.
Like many gifts of the Spirit, acquiring peace involves spiritual discipline, and ideally, we need to develop this gift before life challenges us with difficulties. It will be not only a comfort to us in times of trouble, but also a witness of our faith to others around us.
Discuss as a class how you might create a true Sabbath for your group, free from distractions and possessions that can be attacked or stolen, or otherwise become the cause of disturbance? How practical is this? How might you work together for a state of peace?
Closing Prayer

Grant us your peace, O Lord, even in the midst of life's unexpected turns. In Jesus' name. Amen.