Satanic Group Unveils Statue Representing the Devil, Plans to Challenge Ten Commandments Monument

© 2015 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

On July 25, a satanic organization in Detroit unveiled a 9-foot statue of Baphomet, a goat-headed symbol of Satan, to a crowd of about 400 who paid a minimum of $25 for entry to the unveiling party. Several in the crowd shouted, "Hail, Satan," and those with $75 entry tickets came forward to have their picture taken by or on the sculpture.
The one-ton bronze sculpture includes two young children looking up adoringly at the devil.
The group -- the Satanic Temple -- is opposed to Bible-themed displays on government land and originally planned to have the statue placed on the Oklahoma State Capitol grounds near a Ten Commandments monument, but was denied a permit to do so. A spokesperson for the temple said that the group now plans to transport the sculpture to Arkansas, where earlier this year a bill was passed authorizing a Ten Commandments monument on that state's capitol grounds.
Responses by Christians to the Detroit unveiling included the following:
• Nine Detroit preachers together asked the city not to allow the statue to be brought to the community.
• The same day as the unveiling, about 50 Detroit Christians gathered outside a building where the satanic group had previously tried to display the statue to denounce it and pray for the city.
• That morning, about 250 Catholics gathered for a mass aimed at countering the spirit of satanism and to pray for Detroit.
• The Church Militant, a Roman Catholic evangelistic organization, loaded a six-foot bronze statue of St. Michael on the bed of a pickup truck. While the unveiling was happening, the Catholic group drove the St. Michael sculpture around the unveiling venue three times, saying the St. Michael's Prayer as a counter-witness to the satanic statue. According to Revelation 12, St. Michael is the angel who did battle against Lucifer and cast him out of heaven into the abyss.
While "satanism" is an umbrella term that covers groups with varying beliefs, Wikipedia says, "The Satanic Temple uses the literary Satan as a mythological foundation for a non-supernatural religion, in order to ... usefully contextualize life experiences and promote pragmatic skepticism, rational reciprocity, personal autonomy, and curiosity."
Both of the temple's co-founders declare themselves "atheistic Satanists," meaning they do not believe that Satan actually exists. Some other satanic groups are "theists," believing that the devil is an actual deity or force that can be worshiped.
Wikipedia further says the Satanic Temple "actively participates in public affairs. This has [been] manifested in several public political actions and efforts at lobbying, with a focus on the separation of church and state and using satire against religious organizations that it believes interfere with freedom and the pursuit of happiness."
The focus on church-state separation appears to be pertinent to the group's plans for this statue.
Editor's note: As The Wired Word team considered which news stories to use this week, one team member recommended that we not use the satanic statue story. "It is a play for publicity," our team member said. "The one thing it cannot abide is being ignored." Another team member agreed that the folks who created this statue are counting on righteous outrage from Christians. (There's a saying that when you want something or someone noticed, "there's no such thing as bad publicity.") In the end, we decided to use the story, but we think our team members are right that getting overly worked up about this news only plays into some political and societal goals of the Satanic Temple group.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Satanic Temple Holds Public Sculpture Unveiling in Detroit. Yahoo News 
Now Archangel Battles Devil in Detroit. WND 
The Devil in Detroit. Church Militant 
The Big Questions
1. While recognizing that there are varieties of satanists, some of whom reportedly do not believe Satan actually exists, why do you think some people purposely declare themselves to be aligned with a being that is widely seen as evil personified? Have you ever taken an unpopular position just to be contrary? Did you gain much satisfaction from taking such a stance?
2. If you could stage a counter-demonstration, what form would it take? What good might it do? How might it make you feel to do so?
3. Does the idea of Satan suggest that temptation and wrongdoing are things that come at us from outside of ourselves? Could it be a way of personifying the sinfulness that comes from within us? Can it be both? What does your personal experience suggest for answering these questions?
4. In Henry Longfellow's carol "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day," he speaks of the Christmas bells tolling out the message, "Peace on earth, good will to men." But then he says, "And in despair I bowed my head; / 'There is no peace on earth,' I said, / 'For hate is strong and mocks the song / Of peace on earth, good will to men.'" What is the Christian faith's answer to that?
5. What is the practical life-application of this statement: "Evil belongs to time; goodness belongs to eternity"?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Isaiah 44:6
Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (For context, read 44:1-8.)
Anytime we talk of Satan, it's important to remind ourselves of verses such as this one, in which God asserts, "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god." While, aside from satanists, few would be inclined to call the devil "god," we sometimes talk as if Satan were God's equal opposite. But the Bible's witness is that only the Lord is God. He alone is the first and last.
In the preface to his excellent little book The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis said that he was frequently asked if he believed in the devil. Lewis responded, "Now, if by 'the devil' you mean a power opposite God and, like God, self-existent from all eternity, the answer is certainly no. There is no uncreated being except God. God has no opposite. No being could attain a 'perfect badness' opposite to the perfect goodness of God; for when you have taken away every kind of good thing (intelligence, will, memory, energy and existence itself) there would be none of [that being] left."
Questions: What does it mean in terms of your life that God has no opposite? What makes some people think that Satan is God's equal opposite? What statement are they making about Satan -- and God -- when they assume this?
Job 1:6
One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. (For context, read 1:6-12.)
The Hebrew word sat?an here rendered in English as "Satan" means "adversary." It doesn't appear often in the Old Testament, and when it does, it sometimes refers to a human opponent (see 1 Samuel 29:4; 2 Samuel 19:22; 1 Kings 11:14, 23). But in the book of Job, from which the verse above is taken, and in 1 Chronicles 21:1 and in Zechariah 3:1-2, the word refers to a ruler of evil beings who is constantly opposed to God's purposes -- an adversary.
TWW team member Frank Ramirez comments, "In Job there is no Satan. There is 'the satan,' an adversary who is a part of the heavenly court and whose job is to play, well, devil's advocate! Every ruler worth his or her salt has to have someone who's willing to challenge authority, and the satan plays an important role. The satan oversteps his bounds when he takes the argument about Job personally and, in the second chapter, challenges God 'skin for skin' (Job 2:4). Is he saying it's his skin or Job's skin? Is he saying (whisper this), 'It's either me or you, God, in this bet. One of us ceases to exist after this bet.' God takes the bet. The satan disappears from the story and is not part of the discussion or part of the restoration at the end of the book. I think the author of Job is speaking directly to the myths about a dualistic system in which there are two deities who will duke it out at the end of time. The Job author will have none of that dualism. There is only one God."
In the New Testament, the idea of Satan is more fully developed, but he never ceases to be an adversary of God's will.
Questions: In what ways do you experience an adversarial force in your walk with Christ? How do you deal with that force? Can there be a benefit to an element of testing from this adversarial force? Are there times when you feel stronger and better able to endure or confront an adversarial force?
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.)
1 Peter 5:8-9
Discipline yourselves, keep alert. Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in your faith ... (For context, read 5:6-11.)
James here speaks of temptation as something that comes from within -- from "one's own desire." Peter, in contrast, speaks of it as a force from outside, seeking to devour us.
From our perspective, it probably doesn't matter whether a temptation to do wrong originates from within or from without; it's equally destructive either way, and when it results in wrongdoing, it damages our relationship with Christ and often with others.
The New Testament uses several different metaphors to describe the havoc Satan causes -- serpent (Revelation 12:9), dragon (Revelation 12:7), lion (1 Peter 5:8), strong man (Matthew 12:29), the evil one (Ephesians 6:16), the accuser (Revelation 12:10), the tempter (Matthew 4:3), the destroyer (1 Corinthians 10:10), the adversary (1 Peter 5:8), the enemy (Matthew 13:25), an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), the ruler of demons (Matthew 9:34), the ruler of this world (John 12:31), and the ruler of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2).
TWW team member Shelly Turner suggests a few other names by which this force may be known: "friend, drugs, addiction and temptation that becomes the devil."
Questions: Under what guises has the adversary come to you? Did you recognize you were facing something adversarial at the time? Did things make more sense afterward? How did you respond to an adversary?
Revelation 12:7-9
And war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back, but they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world -- he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (For context, read 12:7-12.)
These verses tell of the archangel Michael battling and defeating Satan. God has no equal. That's why it's Michael who battles Satan, not God. "That's why," says TWW team member Frank Ramirez, "those who put their money on the beast and the unholy trinity in Revelation lose. There is no battle in Revelation. War is declared and it is over in an instant. That's the thing about the battle of Armageddon. There is no battle. There is one word -- ginomai (translated into English as three words: "It is done!" [see Revelation 16:17]). And it's done. Evil is defeated with a single word, and no one has swung a sword."
(Regarding that one word, see also the third stanza of the hymn "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God": "The Prince of Darkness grim, / we tremble not for him; / his rage we can endure, / for lo, his doom is sure; / one little word shall fell him." Martin Luther, the hymn writer, said that the word he had in mind is “You lie,” but, when uttered by God, “It is done" is even more final.)
The archangel Michael's defeat of Satan is powerfully illustrated in Coventry, England, where next to the modern cathedral is the burned-out husk of the old one. That ancient cathedral was still in service on the night of Thursday, November 14, 1940, when Coventry suffered through the longest German air raid of any one night on any British city in World War II. The old cathedral, along with much of the rest of the city, burned. The next day, only the four walls were left. When, some years later, the new cathedral was built, the old walls were left standing as a memorial to that church's vital ministry of reconciliation, which was born out of the ashes of their building. The Coventry congregation has become known for their ministry of outreach and compassionate caring in several parts of the world. Goodness, they've demonstrated, cannot be bombed out.
This point is emphasized dramatically by a large bronze sculpture on the wall outside the entrance to the new cathedral. The sculpture, by Sir Jacob Epstein, is based on Revelation 12, and it portrays the angel Michael defeating Satan. View in here.
The original listeners to Revelation would have understood the phrase "Tough times don't last. Tough people do." The meaning of apocalyptic literature such as Revelation is not to provide a roadmap to the future, but to encourage the present saints to hold on and trust that God, not Satan, is the ultimate victor. This is good news for those who stand with God and Christ.
Question: The Bible as a whole, including Revelation, presents us with a view of life as seen from the end. We might call it an "eternal perspective." It says to us that "This is how you will understand it when it is all over." That is not very satisfying when we are immersed in difficulties in the here and now. But how would our lives be poorer without that eternal perspective?
Revelation 12:12
Rejoice then, you heavens and those who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, for the devil has come down to you with great wrath, because he knows that his time is short! (For context, read 12:7-12.)
This verse is a way of saying that evil is not eternal. Wrong cannot last forever; its time is, relatively speaking, short.
This particular section of Revelation describes a vision John of Patmos sees: a war taking place in heaven in which Satan, who is pictured as a dragon, and his angels fight against the angels of God, led by the archangel Michael. Satan, supposedly a fallen angel, wages this battle in an all-out attempt to regain his position in heaven. Although the battle is fierce, Satan and his forces cannot prevail, and in the end, he is defeated and thrown out of heaven once and for all. But his rage at losing is such that he then turns his wrath upon the church of John's day, causing great trouble and tribulation.
This dramatic vision was John's way of understanding why the Christians of his day were being severely persecuted. He knew the reality of evil because he and his fellow believers were facing it every day. But in the midst of all that persecution is this word of hope: "... the devil has come down to you with great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!"
John maintained that Satan's time was short because Satan was already a beaten enemy. All Satan had left was only that time between his defeat in the heavenly battle and the final judgment. After that, this evil adversary of humankind would be destroyed forever.
Questions: "His time is short," of course, is a relative expression. If Satan's time is not shorter than our lives, then it seems really long. In what sense does the Bible mean that Satan's time is "short"? Is that helpful? Why or why not?
For Further Discussion
1. Discuss this: Even devils, C.S. Lewis suggests in The Screwtape Letters, are afraid of goodness. For while a virtue can be twisted (humility, for example, can be twisted to become pride in how humble we are), it cannot be destroyed. Goodness has about it a sense of immortality because it comes from God. Goodness will outlast wrong.
2. Respond to this, from TWW team member Mary Sells: "I think it must be difficult to get to middle age without having thoughts, at times, of the futility of following Jesus and trying to be good. We see so many instances that direct our attention in other ways; we sense hopelessness. We witness professed Christians with no evident moral compass; we try to be good, yet life is still very hard; we see people who break laws seeming to live an easier life; etc. It might seem the path of least resistance is better, to give up and just join the ranks of the evil and worship at their table.
     "Yet God has a plan that defeats the hopelessness of the world, that gives us hope for the eternal peace and community he always desired for us. Jesus lives and his promises are trustworthy. In troubled moments, the Spirit always guides us back to this truth."
3. TWW team member Doug Hargis writes, "Satan, which in Hebrew can also mean 'accuser,' has the task of accusing people of wrongdoing (sin) before God. In the course of Satan's routine hunt for people to accuse before God, God asks, 'Have you considered my servant, Job?' 'Absolutely,' says Satan, 'and my conclusion is that Job doesn't fear you for nothing, but his faith is directly linked to the blessings you've showered upon him. Take those away and he'll curse you to your face. Let's test the genuineness of his faith in you.' God agrees and lays out the parameters for the testing (the temptation). God tells Satan to take the blessings away and see if Job's faith is a genuine love for who God is versus a love based on the blessings themselves. First, with the restriction that Satan may not take Job's life, Satan removes the blessing of material wealth, then the blessing of children and finally the blessing of health. After the losses, it is noted that 'In all of this, Job did not sin by accusing God of wrongdoing' (1:22; 2:10). Job passes the test; he not only believes in God, but loves God just for who God is, not for the blessings of wealth, family and health. Job truly 'fears God for nothing'; Job's faith is real." How do you think your faith stacks up against Job's? Why?
Responding to the News
It's good for our spiritual health to recognize that whether the urge to sin comes from within us or from some outside force, in the end, we are responsible, with God's help, for dealing with it, for fleeing temptation, for repenting of our sins, for trying to repair damage we have done.
You might also sing together the third stanza of the hymn "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God." For explanation, see the commentary under Revelation 12:7-9 above.
Closing Prayer

Thank you, O Lord, that goodness is immortal and evil is not. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Killing in the Name of God

© 2015 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

A Wired Word subscriber asked the questions, "Why was it okay to kill indigenous people including their children in Joshua 3:10-11? How can a God who is loving and kind kill innocent people just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time? If we are apologizing to indigenous people for the colonization of their lands, how as loving, kind and gentle Christian people are we supposed to respond to God's brutal acts?" These questions provoked a number of thoughtful responses from members of the editorial team of The Wired Word.
In the book of Joshua, the people of Israel are preparing to cross the Jordan River and enter the Promised Land. Their leader Joshua asks them to draw near and hear the words of the Lord. He says, "By this you shall know that among you is the living God who without fail will drive out from before you the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites, and Jebusites" (3:10). Each of these groups might be considered "indigenous people" today, as might the Israelites themselves, who were from that area before moving to Egypt during the famine.
More shocking to us nowadays is the manner in which these people are treated. When the Israelites fight the battle of Jericho, they destroy by the edge of the sword "both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys" (6:21). This is in obedience to the guidance of God in the book of Deuteronomy: "you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them -- the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites -- just as the LORD your God has commanded" (20:16-17). The purpose of this killing is "so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD your God" (v. 18).
Such annihilation is an example of killing in the name of God, which is being done today by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. This terrorist group has a long list of enemies that it wants to destroy, from the United States to the Arab oil sheiks. ISIS even wants to conquer Muslim countries such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. Just this week, a terrorist allegedly linked to ISIS blew himself up and killed dozens in Turkey -- a predominantly Muslim country.
"Its slaughter-and-condemnation-fest has been indiscriminate in large part because it believes Islam must be cleansed before it can be successful in jihad," writes Kurt Eichenwald in Newsweek. "It's the fatally flawed logic of true believers." ISIS wants to slaughter everyone who does not follow God according to its perverse theology.
So how can Christians read passages such as Joshua 3 without falling into "the fatally flawed logic of true believers"?
Douglas Hargis, a member of the editorial team of The Wired Word, suggests that we first understand why God would command the annihilation of indigenous people in Joshua. "If we do not take the time to even try to look at this from God's point of view, then we will continue to hold up our own points of view as if they are the standard by which we judge God. Second, we must determine whether the event in question -- known as 'the conquest of Canaan' -- is a one-time event, not intended to be repeated, or whether it is an ethical example intended for us to emulate, follow and repeat over and over again."
First, Hargis suggests that God commanded the extermination of the Canaanite groups because they worshiped the god Molek, who demanded child sacrifice (1 Kings 11:5, 7, 33; Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5; Jeremiah 32:35). This was abhorrent to God and the primary sin for which God would eventually punish the Canaanites. Annihilation is ordered because of their idolatrous influence on the Israelites.
In similar fashion, Moses warns the Israelites in Deuteronomy 7 that a similar extinction awaits them if they turn away and follow Canaanite gods (v. 4) and if they ever forget the Lord and fail to obey the Lord (8:19-20). In the end, this is precisely what happened -- the Israelites became idolatrous and God used the Assyrians and the Babylonians to destroy them in judgment.
Second, Hargis asks whether the extermination of a people is to be repeated throughout history. "The rules of war referred to earlier from Deuteronomy 20 make it very clear that the Canaanite extermination was an exception to the rule and not to be exercised in warfare in general. Warfare should always begin with the offer of peace if there is surrender. For the Canaanites no such offer was to be made since this was the land that the Israelites would call home and it needed to be purged of the idolatry." His conclusion is that God's annihilation order would be limited to the conquest of the Promised Land, and therefore "Christians cannot use the extermination of the conquest of Canaan to justify the extinction of a people."
Not everyone on the TWW team finds Hargis' explanation satisfying, because it still requires us to justify God's command to show no mercy to the Canaanites, including their children. One explanation that does not blame God posits that the Old Testament was written from the perspective of the Israelites. If they wanted to obliterate their neighbors, possibly they could convince themselves that God told them to do it, and thus their scribes recorded the story that way. The problem is, if this explanation is correct, some parts of the biblical account must be incorrect.
TWW team member Frank Ramirez suggests another angle, one found in the Bible itself. "You may be very uncomfortable with the mass slaughter of Joshua," says Ramirez, "but then you read Judges (which also has some awful passages) and you realize these people weren't wiped out. Judges tells a totally different story of competing nations living side by side."
So in the end, we conclude, as have many before us, that an answer to this question that covers all the objections is not forthcoming. But perhaps TWW team member David Hall points us in a helpful direction when he says, "I always view the events of the Old Testament as necessary to keep a people alive from whom would spring the hope of all mankind, Jesus Christ."
More on this story can be found at these links:
ISIS's Enemy List: 10 Reasons the Islamic State is Doomed. Newsweek
Turkey 'ISIS' attack: Horrifying moment suicide bomber blew himself up killing 28 caught on camera. Mirror
The Big Questions
1. A quote from Mark Twain's book Letters From the Earth: "The two Testaments are interesting, each in its own way. The Old one gives us a picture of these people's Deity as he was before he got religion, the other one gives us a picture of him as he appeared afterward. The Old Testament is interested mainly in blood and sensuality. The New one in Salvation." How does this observation align with your understanding of the Old and New Testaments? What problems arise when you assert that the character of God changes over the course of the biblical story?
2. David Hall, a member of the editorial team of The Wired Word, writes, "I always view the events of the Old Testament as necessary to keep a people alive from whom would spring the hope of all mankind, Jesus Christ." How was the conquest of Canaan necessary to keep the Israelites alive? In what way might these military victories have supported the eternal purposes of God? Do the ends justify the means?
3. "You may be very uncomfortable with the mass slaughter of Joshua," writes editorial team member Frank Ramirez, "but then you read Judges (which also has some awful passages) and you realize these people weren't wiped out. Judges tells a totally different story of competing nations living side by side." What problems arise when we focus only on God's will in Joshua, while ignoring the story of Judges? Where do you see multiple messages from God on the topic of warfare? In your opinion, do the Scriptures have a conversation within themselves, or must Scripture speak with one voice on all issues?
4. Mary Sells, another editorial team member, notes that "God always does extreme things to come to the aid of his people." Although the conquest of Canaan might strike us as an excessive act, she asserts that "God did the most extreme thing to reunite with mankind: manifest as human in the form of Jesus. The message transformed and transcended the previous Old Testament experience, becoming the command to love God, oneself, others -- even enemies." How can Jesus be understood as an extreme act of God? What "extreme" act or choice have you or your church made to advance the good news of Jesus Christ?
5. Editorial team member Charles Alkula writes, "I believe that we have an obligation to own up to the deeds of those who came before us particularly as it impacts upon the present and future generations." What would it mean to "own up" to the deeds of the Israelites as they conquered Canaan? How about the deeds of the settlers who killed Native Americans? What can we learn from these deeds of the past to help us with our decisions today?
6. What do you think of the idea that the destruction of the Canaanites was more the will of the Israelites than the will of God?
7. Is the act of questioning God always an act of rebellion against God? Or does God welcome our questions? Joanna Loucky-Ramsey, a member of the editorial team, notes that "God is not afraid of our questions." How is questioning God a way of being in relationship with God? Is there a part of Scripture you question? What do you want to ask God about?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Genesis 15:13-14
Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know this for certain, that your offspring shall be aliens in a land that is not theirs, and shall be slaves there, and they shall be oppressed for four hundred years; but I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions." (For context, read 15:1-21.)
God makes a covenant with Abram (later called Abraham), and promises that Abram's descendants shall be as many as the stars in the sky. God promises that Abram will be given a land, but his offspring will be enslaved for 400 years before they enter this Promised Land occupied by "the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites" (vv. 19-21).
Questions: Why does God not give the Promised Land to Abram immediately? What lessons do Abram's offspring need to learn during their years of slavery? Why do we sometimes need to wait for God's promises to be fulfilled and God's justice to be delivered? Are all nations being blessed through Abram's obedience? How are you blessed through Abram's obedience?
Genesis 18:23-24
Then Abraham came near and said, "Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it?" (For context, read 18:16-33.)
The Lord sees the grave sin of Sodom and plans to destroy the city. Abraham asks if God will "not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it." The Lord answers, "If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake" (v. 26). Then Abraham negotiates the number down to 45, to 40, to 30, to 20, and finally to 10 righteous people. The Lord concludes, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it" (v. 32).
Questions: Although God has a right to destroy Sodom for its sinfulness, why do you think Abraham enters into this negotiation? What causes God to withhold annihilation for the sake of ten righteous people? What does this say about the character of God? Considering situations which you think might require intervention or judgment from God, which would you try to negotiate with God about?
Leviticus 19:33
When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. (For context, read 19:33-34.)
The holiness code of the Israelites covers a wide range of behaviors: revering parents, keeping the Sabbath, leaving crops for the poor, avoiding witchcraft and particular sexual activity. Part of the moral holiness of the Israelites involves treating resident aliens fairly, and even loving aliens because the Israelites "were aliens in the land of Egypt" (v. 34).
Questions: What is the difference between the aliens of Leviticus and the indigenous people of Joshua? Why are aliens to be loved and indigenous people to be destroyed? Which path do you feel God is calling us to take today, and why?
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. (For context, read 3:16-21.)
John makes clear that God "did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him" (v. 17). Michael Harnish, a member of the editorial team, says that a noted difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is that "God had a child." He observes that God's interactions with humans culminates in sending his Son Jesus to earth to solve problems.
Questions: How does the gift of Jesus complete God's relationship with the people of the world? What hope does Jesus give people of every race and culture? What hope does he give you?
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (For context, read 6:20-23.)
The apostle Paul tells the Romans that they were once "slaves of sin," and that their lives would end in death (vv. 20-21). But now that they have been freed from sin and enslaved to God through their faith in Jesus Christ, the "end is eternal life" (v. 22). Editorial team member Ed Thomas notes that "God loves his people but free will and the choice to disregard God's directives traded utopia for the earthly world we have today -- which is brutal. However, God gives us the ultimate survival kit for this world in Jesus."
Questions: Where do you see "the wages of sin" in the lives of the indigenous people of the Promised Land? In what sense, if any, were their deaths justified? What is our Christian responsibility toward people of different races and cultures today? How can we bring a message of peace and life instead of violence and death?
Revelation 7:9
After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands. (For context, read 7:9-17.)
John sees a vision of a multitude from every nation standing in heaven before Jesus, the Lamb of God. This international gathering is made up of people who have "come out of the great ordeal" on earth -- "they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (v. 14).
Questions: What does this vision tell you about the diversity of God's people in heaven? How does it influence how you should treat people of different races and nationalities today? In what ways to do we prepare for life in heaven by our behavior on earth?
For Further Discussion
1. In A.D. 637, Muslim invaders conquered and killed Christians in the Middle East. Christian crusaders then killed Muslims during the Middle Ages, and fighters in the Islamic State are now killing Christians and other Muslims. What justification, if any, can be given for killing in the name of God today?
2. God ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites because of their idolatrous influence. How are we supposed to deal with idolatry today?
3. Killing in the name of God is often done out of a desire to purify a community. But what is the usual outcome of this type of violence?
4. How does the terrorism of ISIS shape your view of religious violence? What does it inspire you to do as a Christian?
5. What are the challenges of living with resident aliens today, and how should Christians respond?
6. In what ways are our relationships with foreigners changed by the discovery that "God so loved the world" (John 3:16)?
Responding to the News
Seek out a neighbor from a different race, culture, or religion and attempt to establish a relationship. Listen to their story and share some of your own, attempting to offer the grace and love of Jesus Christ.
Closing Prayer
Help us, Lord, to remain faithful to you in the face of idolatrous temptations. May we find our peace in you, and in our relationship with your Son, who lived and died for the salvation of the world. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Copyright 2015 Communication Resources

School Board Cuts Budget Deeply Due to Funding Drop

© 2015 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Facing reduced funding for the coming school year, the Tri-County School Board in Southwest Nova Scotia, announced at its July 7 meeting that it has cut 34 positions from its staff, including some teachers, librarians, bus drivers and administrative workers, a move that has left no one involved happy.
According to the board, the budget cuts are the result of declining enrollment in the system's schools, which means that the board now receives less per-student funding from the province. (This same dynamic affects schools in the United States, but here, such cuts are more typically because school funding levies have failed to receive voter support.)
"Our student numbers have been -- and are, and are predicted to continue -- declining," explained board member Faye Haley. "That means, in very simple terms, less funding for teachers and increased costs to maintain un-utilized space." Haley also noted that while there is less funding, the costs have remained the same or increased. She said it costs the same to operate a bus route if there are 15 or 34 students on the bus.
Board members characterized the budget as "robbing Peter to pay Paul" and "making the best of a bad situation."
This problem is not unique to schools by any means. Similar situations occur when declining sales or increased costs lead a business to lay off employees. As much as we might wish for the supply of money to be unlimited at any given time, that is not so, and choices have to be made concerning proper stewardship of resources. The same sorts of choices occur in households, where reduced spending can lead to a lower standard of living for the household and to economic problems for local businesses.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Tri-County School Board Budget in Southwest Nova Scotia Cuts 34 Positions. Nova News Now 
Library Technicians Association Giving Tri-County School Board Failing Grade for Possible Cuts to School Librarians. Yarmouth County Vanguard 
The Big Questions
1. What contracts or long-term arrangements have you entered into that you eventually regretted but couldn't get out of? Were there any ways that you found to make the best of those regrettable decisions?
2. What help do you receive from your Christian faith when you find yourself stuck in an unpleasant situation from which you cannot easily extricate yourself? What might God be allowing you to learn from such circumstances?
3. Describe a situation you've confronted personally that initially appeared to be a serious setback but which, in retrospect, proved to be "the best thing that ever happened" to you. What changed your perspective on the matter?
4. What bad situations do congregations typically have to confront? Are there times when such situations can be opportunities in disguise? How can we know, and if so, what kinds of opportunities?
5. Can the ability to make the best of a bad situation be a spiritual gift? Explain. If so, how might this gift be used to help the church?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Joshua 9:14-15
So the leaders partook of their provisions, and did not ask direction from the LORD. And Joshua made peace with them, guaranteeing their lives by a treaty; and the leaders of the congregation swore an oath to them. (For context, read 9:3-27.)
These verses are from an account of the Israelites in the days following their 40-year sojourn in the wilderness as they moved into Canaan, driving out the people who lived there. Under Joshua's leadership, the Israelites swept through Canaan, capturing in short order the cities of Jericho and Ai, routing and killing their inhabitants. In response, some of the other Canaanite cities banded together to fight the Israelites, but the people of one town, Gibeon, came up with a different tactic. They dressed in worn-out clothing, loaded their pack animals with moldy provisions, and, in caravan fashion, made their way to the Israelite encampment. There they told Joshua and his lieutenants that they were citizens of a far country and that they had come to make a peace treaty with the Israelites.
Some of the Israelites questioned the Gibeonites' story. The Israelites believed they had a God-given mission to take the land of Canaan, but they had no quarrel with peoples living beyond those boundaries. They were suspicious of these Gibeonites, however, even saying, "Perhaps you live among us; then how can we make a treaty with you?" Cleverly, the Gibeonites replied that they had made this long trek because they heard of the power of Israel's God, and in so saying, they appealed to the spiritual vanity of Joshua and threw him off guard. The narrator tells us that Joshua then agreed to the treaty "and did not ask direction from the LORD." Thus, the ruse succeeded.
When the deception was later discovered, some of the Israelites wanted to kill the Gibeonites, but Joshua and his leadership team insisted that the agreement had to be honored. It was an oath made before God. Even though the Israelites had been deceived, that did not negate the promise, and Israel was now duty-bound to keep it.
To make the best of a bad situation, Joshua decreed that the Gibeonites would from that point forward be woodcutters and water carriers for the Israelites, but the Gibeonites had achieved their main goal -- not being killed by the Israelites. And so they remained among the people of Israel as a constant reminder of Israel's failure to consult God.
Questions: What do you think Joshua learned from this incident that he might not have learned otherwise? Is there anything you can learn from this incident that might be applicable to your spiritual life, and if so, what?
Luke 14:28-30
For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, saying, "This fellow began to build and was not able to finish." (For context, read 14:25-33.)
Jesus made this comment while talking about the cost of discipleship. He wanted the crowd around him to know what they were getting into if they chose to follow him.
In the context of today's topic, however, Jesus' example about estimating accurately the cost of building a tower can also be an example of how we get into some of the bad situations we find ourselves in -- such as paying top dollar for a used car that turns out to be a lemon or signing up for a long-term fitness center membership we seldom use, but which cannot be canceled without an expensive penalty.
Or, more in line with the original intent of Jesus' tower-building example, failure to count the cost may also be reflected in our lives where we turned down a call to serve God in a specific way because we didn't want to do it, but now consider that a costly mistake in terms of what might have been had we obeyed.
Questions: When did failure to count the cost of discipleship and mission mean that you as an individual or a congregation turned away from ministries that served God and God's people? Are there times when we use financial difficulties to excuse us from hard work we don't want to do? When we have rejected a call from God, does he have a new plan for us on a go-forward basis? How might we know?
Jeremiah 29:7
But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (For context, read 29:1-14.)
This verse is part of a letter that the prophet Jeremiah wrote to some people of Judah after they were taken into exile in Babylon. Although he predicted that as a people they would one day be allowed to return to their homeland, that was far enough in the future (70 years says verse 10) that in the meantime, said Jeremiah, the people should not only resign themselves to a long stay, but should actively seek the welfare of the community where they had been taken.
They were to work for the good of Babylon! They were to not forget who they were or where they came from, but neither were they to think of themselves merely as visitors. In effect, they were not only to make the best of a bad situation, but also to make the situation better for all concerned, including their captors.
Questions: When has making the best of a bad situation helped not only you, but also others around you? What does "seeking the welfare of a place in which you find yourself" mean in your life?
Matthew 1:18-19
Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. (For context, read 1:18-25.)
Here's a case where what looked like a bad situation was actually part of God's plan. Certainly when Joseph learned that his bride-to-be was pregnant out of wedlock, it seemed to him like a bad situation, especially in that time and culture. Joseph could have brought public shame upon not only Mary, but also her family, but in an effort to make the best of things beyond his control, Joseph resolved to "dismiss her quietly" -- end the engagement without drawing attention to Mary's "sin."
But, as we know, an angel appeared to Joseph and told him the facts of the situation, and he proceeded not only to marry Mary, but also to be a father to her child, Jesus.
It's likely that for more than one reason, Joseph would have said that proceeding with the marriage was "the best thing that ever happened to him."
Question: Have there been times when, in retrospect, you ought to have taken the quieter course when seeking a solution to a difficult situation?
Philippians 4:11-13
... I have learned to be content with whatever I have. I know what it is to have little, and I know what it is to have plenty. In any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of being well-fed and of going hungry, of having plenty and of being in need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (For context, read 4:10-14.)
Question: How do these words from Paul apply to today's topic?
For Further Discussion
1. Remember the old adage about "when life hands you lemons, make lemonade"? With that in mind, read and discuss the young woman's story found here.
2. Comment on this, from TWW team member Doug Hargis: "School budgets reflect what the school board values. What was not cut by the Nova Scotia group tells us what they value most; what was cut tells us what they value least. The same is true for church budgets. What a congregation will spend money on is what they value -- pure and simple. The church budget tells where the congregation's values are and how the church has chosen to be about the business of Kingdom building. The Nova Scotia school system is weighed down by excess buildings and space; many churches are closing because they can no longer afford the building and its space. The church has gotten away from its primary mission and become trapped by its trappings (pun intended.)"
3. Discuss this, from TWW team member Shelly Turner: "I understand that when budgets are cut, people get stressed. Budgets have had to be cut continuously over the years. Sometimes, though, these bad situations end up being a great way to reinvent the way we do things or to realize where the 'fat' really existed. Volunteerism normally increases where school budgets are cut to make up for the lack of funding/staffing. Hurricane Katrina was a great example of communities pulling together to get back on their feet when funding hadn't come through yet. I think our grandparents' generation did a much better job of making the most out of any situation instead of the continuous complaining/blaming that goes on today."
4. Respond to this, from TWW team member Ed Thomas: "My loving wife of 21 years loves tent camping. She says that shared conflict is a great way to build memories. Essentially [for me,] tent camping is making the best of what is often a bad situation. I've grown to love tent camping for the simplicity. My back often disagrees. I understand that tent camping is not the equivalent of the baddest of situations; but for many of us in the first world it can be a reminder of varied living conditions."
5. Discuss this, from TWW team consultant James Gruetzner: "A number of years back, a pastor who'd been serving our congregation took a call to another church. We were 'vacant' (without a pastor) for some three years, and that somewhat scared some of the members. In retrospect, that vacancy was one of the best things God has ever done for us. We decided that we would not reduce any of our ministries, including those that were traditionally the pastor's job. Although members of sister congregations thought we were being punished or that we were 'hard on pastors,' that vacancy showed us (1) that God provides members with gifts; (2) that it's not all 'the pastor's job'; (3) that a loving and caring pastor is a 'pearl beyond price'; and (4) that God really looks after his own. Among the active laity, I see a noticeable difference between the members who joined after the vacancy and those who suffered through it. It was tough, but I say again, this was one of the best things that God has ever done for our congregation.
Responding to the News
This is a good time to consider what we can learn from the bad situations we get ourselves into. Here are some ideas from a sermon by TWW team member Stan Purdum:
     "One thing bad situations remind us of is that two wrongs don't make a right. I heard this principle from my father several times while I was growing up. He usually said it to me when I was about to lower the boom on one of my brothers who had done something to me that I didn't like. My father was asking me to not make matters worse, and of course he was right. The fact is, there are times when the real measure of our character is shown by what we do not do. Bad situations can be good opportunities to grow in spirit and demonstrate our confidence that God has larger purposes for us than getting even with someone who has wronged us. In fact, bad situations are exactly the right circumstances for practicing Jesus' instruction to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Jesus said that we should do that so that we may be children of our Father in heaven.
     "A second good thing that bad situations can yield is growth in character. Have you ever prayed, 'O Lord, make me a better person'? If you have, then you may want to consider how God answers such a prayer. We don't become better people by means of some magic formula recited over us. We have the opportunity to grow in character as we deal with the situations life brings to us, including the rough ones. When we have made a foolish or inconvenient commitment, how we then honor that commitment and whether or not we keep the promise we made, even if it was ill-advised, often is a determining factor in whether or not we become better people. The late J. Oswald Sanders, a Christian leader and author, once wrote, 'God frequently allows the results of our compromises to run their natural course but uses them to serve our spiritual development.' Or, to say it another way, bad situations are good opportunities to become better people.
     "A third thing that bad situations can yield is a helpful challenge to our haste to backpedal on poorly considered agreements. I've talked to more than one married person who admitted to having made a blunder in their choice of spouse. They got caught up in the romance of the relationship and never took a good look at how well suited they actually were to a life together. But some of those same people have said that they decided to stick with the commitment they made, and in the long run, the life they made together was a good thing. A bad situation can be a good opportunity to think carefully before hitting the 'undo' button."
Closing Prayer

O God, who used the sin of the world as an opportunity to send your Son among us, help us to find redemptive possibilities in the messes we get ourselves into. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Churches Respond to SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

© 2015 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

On June 26, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), in a 5-to-4 decision, ruled that the Constitution's 14th amendment guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry, with the same rights and responsibilities as in a marriage between a man and a woman. In effect, such unions are now legal everywhere in the United States, and the word "marriage" is redefined to include same-sex couples.
Because the current decision from the high court sets a new legal norm, church groups and pastors must now decide how they will respond going forward. Those Christians and leaders who oppose same-sex marriage will need to decide the tone and manner in which they will continue that opposition. Those Christians and leaders who support same-sex marriage will need to decide how the new norm will be expressed within the framework of their polity and congregations, and how they will deal with members and pastors within their group who personally oppose same-sex marriage.
In writing the court's majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy included the following, which seems to give church groups that oppose same-sex marriage some wiggle room:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.
In light of that, the SCOTUS ruling seems to mandate only civil marriage and to not dictate what churches and other religious groups must or must not do. In writing his dissent, however, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the majority opinion did not grant a religious exemption per se:
Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority's decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to "advocate" and "teach" their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to "exercise" religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.
For their part, many evangelical Christian leaders who oppose same-sex marriage have signed a joint statement organized by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. It asserts that this is not a time for outrage or panic, as those "are not the responses of those confident in the promises of a reigning Christ Jesus."
The statement goes on to say, "While we believe the Supreme Court has erred in its ruling, we pledge to stand steadfastly, faithfully witnessing to the biblical teaching that marriage is the chief cornerstone of society, designed to unite men, women, and children."
Another group, the National Association of Evangelicals, says it regrets the court's ruling but "calls on evangelicals to be gracious and compassionate to those who do not share their views on marriage and to also advocate for liberty for all who desire to live out their faith."
The president of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, a theologically conservative denomination, stated on the denomination's website that as a result of the court decision, "Christians will now begin to learn what it means to be in a state of solemn conscientious objection against the state. We will resist its imposition of falsehood upon us, even as we continue to reach out to those who continue to be harmed by the ethic of radical sexual freedom, detached from God's blessing of marriage. And we will stand shoulder to shoulder with Christians, churches and people of good will who are resolute on this issue. God help us."
In contrast, within several denominations, there are congregations that in recent years have declared themselves as "affirming" (or something similar), by which they mean they welcome the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) persons in the church's life and ministry. For those congregations, the primary response to the high court's decision was celebration.
Most Christian groups that support the court's ruling have thus far not issued unified statements -- at least none The Wired Word could find. This may be because there are few Christian groups that unanimously support same-sex marriage. Even denominations that now accept practicing homosexuals into their ministry and who permit their clergy to perform same-sex weddings generally include some members and clergy who support only traditional one-man-one-woman marriage. Within these groups, internal communications have advised members to be respectful of each other's views.
This statement from a letter from the Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a mainline denomination, to all its pastors and churches is typical: "For many members ..., this [Supreme Court] decision is a welcome sign of hope and a time for celebration. Other members of this church do not agree with the court's decision and remain deeply concerned because of their understanding of Scripture. This decision affects each of us, some profoundly, and we are not of one mind. Let us continue to accompany one another with prayer, love and mutual respect as we reflect on this new reality and remember Paul's words in 1 Corinthians about the enduring power of God's love."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide. New York Times 
What Would Jesus Say About Same-Sex Marriage? Los Angeles Times
'Outrage and Panic' Are Off-Limits, Say Evangelical Leaders on Same-Sex Marriage. Christianity Today 
Court's Marriage Ruling Creates Uncertainty for Churches, Clergy. Church Law & Tax
Meet the Evangelicals Who Cheered the SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling. Huffington Post 
Tears of Joy, Tears of Sorrow, and Little Empathetic Listening. Religion News Service
Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court's Huge Gay-Marriage Decision. National Journal
The Big Questions
1. In what way, if any, does the fact that marriage equality is now the law of the land affect your personal decision about it? What helped you arrive at your decision? Is it possible to accept same-sex marriage as a civil right but deny it as a church-blessed right?
2. Who should decide if pastors will officiate at same-sex weddings? The pastor's denomination? The local congregation? The pastor? Federal law? Explain your reasoning.
3. As a Christian, what ought to be the tone of any disagreement over this issue you have with other Christians? with non-Christians?
4. In what ways ought the SCOTUS majority decision on this matter affect your witness about Christ and the life to which he calls us?
5. Is the church stronger when it is defined by what it stands against or by what it stands for? Why? Is there a time for each? How do we know?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Matthew 5:14-16
You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven. (No context necessary.)
Regardless of which side of the same-sex marriage issue we are on, we are called by Christ to be light to the world.
Questions: How, specifically, can we be light to the world regarding this new ruling that puts same-sex marriage on equal footing with opposite-sex marriage? What should that light reveal?
Matthew 16:6
Watch out, and beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (For context, read 16:1-12.)
Luke 13:20-21
To what should I compare the kingdom of God? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened. (For context, read 13:18-21.)
We have paired these two passages because both use "yeast" in a metaphorical sense to mean "influence." Jesus spoke the words of the Matthew verse right after some Pharisees and Sadducees tried to put him on the spot and discredit his teachings. Thus, although both groups were religious parties, from the perspective of Christ's teachings, they were cultural forces arrayed against those teachings. In subsequent conversation with his disciples, Jesus warned them about the influence of these cultural forces.
In the Luke passage, Jesus compares the influence of the kingdom of God to the effect that yeast has on bread dough and how it permeates the whole loaf.
Combined, these two passages remind us that the world is subject to all kinds of influence, and that Christians, those already holding citizenship in the kingdom of God, should be exerting their influence on the course of society as well.
Question: Some Christians have used their influence in support of what they see as "marriage equality." Some Christians have used their influence to support the "historic definition" of marriage and oppose its legal redefinition. Now that same-sex marriage is legal everywhere in the United States, how ought our influence be used?
2 Corinthians 3:3
... you show that you are a letter of Christ, ... written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (For context, read 3:1-3.)
Many Christians who labored or lobbied in support of or in opposition to same-sex marriage felt they were being true to God's intentions as revealed in scripture or in subsequent revelation. While they probably didn't think of themselves as "a letter of Christ," that analogy, used by Paul in the verse above, is Christian vocabulary to describe how one reflects the spirit of Christ in one's life.
Questions: Why can't Christians all agree on how the Bible should be used to guide our lives? Can Christians be a letter of Christ to the world even while disagreeing with one another on specifics of Christian practice?
1 Corinthians 16:13-14
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love. (For context, read 16:13-24.)
These words are among Paul's closing remarks in his first letter to the Corinthian Christians. His comments are not directly tied to a specific discussion in the letter. They are more on the order of the kinds of encouraging remarks friends give to one another when parting -- remarks such as "Keep the faith," "Don't give up," "Stay strong" or "Keep a stiff upper lip." That they are parting comments does not mean they are unimportant, however. Actually, such statements are often shorthand versions of principles the speaker sincerely believes. And in this case, Paul certainly meant every word he spoke.
Paul reminds followers of Jesus to stand firm, but at the same time, he says, "Let all that you do be done in love."
Question: How ought these words from Paul apply as we consider this SCOTUS decision?
For Further Discussion
1. What was your first reaction to hearing about the SCOTUS decision? Has your reaction been modified in any way by all you have heard since? If so, how?
2. Does the spirit (lowercase "s") of scripture ever conflict with the letter of scripture? If so, how do we know which one to respond to?
3. Can something be good for society without being good from a Christian perspective? Can something be bad for society without being bad from a Christian perspective? Explain.
4. Does your denomination or congregation have an official position or policy regarding qualifications for marriage?
Responding to the News
Read and discuss this young woman's essay on her thoughts as a child in light of her future development and advocacy as a lesbian. How would you like to see your church respond to children such as those she mentions?
Closing Prayer

O God, help us to be faithful "yeast" for the kingdom of God in our society today. Help us to discern when and how to testify to the faith that is within us. And help us to persist with love, graciousness and faithfulness as we speak up for the gospel, whether in support of a cultural norm or against it. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Following Church Massacre, SC Governor Calls for Removal of Confederate Flag From Capitol Grounds

© 2015 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

On Monday, June 22, five days after nine African-American attendees at a church prayer meeting in Charleston, South Carolina, were gunned down by a white shooter allegedly motivated by racial hatred, Gov. Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina, a Republican, used a news conference to call for the removal of the Confederate battle flag (CBF) from the state capitol grounds.
The CBF had flown atop South Carolina's capitol dome from 1961, when the legislature approved that location for the flag as part of the opening celebration of the Confederate War Centennial, until 2000 when the legislature passed a bill to move the flag to the front of the capitol next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers. Current state law prohibits the flag's removal from the statehouse grounds without additional legislation.
In her address at the news conference, Haley alluded to the statements of forgiveness the victims' families extended toward the shooter. "Their expression of faith and forgiveness took our breath away," the governor said.
Haley went on to talk about the strength and character of the people of her state as well as the state's struggles and progress. But then she said that 150 years after the end of the Civil War, the time had come for the state to no longer display the CBF on the capitol grounds.
"For many people in our state, the flag stands for traditions that are noble," the governor said, "traditions of history, of heritage, and of ancestry."
But Haley added, "At the same time, for many others in South Carolina, the flag is a deeply offensive symbol of a brutally oppressive past. As a state we can survive, as we have done, while still being home to both of those viewpoints. We do not need to declare a winner and a loser here. We respect freedom of expression, and that for those who wish to show their respect for the flag on their private property, no one will stand in your way."
She further acknowledged that "the flag will always be a part of the soil of South Carolina."
"But this is a moment in which we can say that that flag, while an integral part of our past, does not represent the future of our great state," Haley said. "The murderer now locked up in Charleston said he hoped his actions would start a race war. We have an opportunity to show that not only was he wrong, but that just the opposite is happening."
The governor said, "My hope is that by removing a symbol that divides us, we can move forward as a state in harmony and we can honor the nine blessed souls who are now in heaven."
Since the state's legislature needs to act for the flag to be removed, Haley not only called on them to act, but also mentioned her authority as governor "to call them back into session under extraordinary circumstances. I've indicated to the House and the Senate that if they do not take measures to ensure this debate takes place this summer, I will use that authority for the purpose of the legislature removing the flag from the statehouse grounds."
Near the end of her remarks, Haley said, "We know that bringing down the Confederate flag will not bring back the nine kind souls that were taken from us, nor rid us of the hate and bigotry that drove a monster through the doors of Mother Emanuel that night. Some divisions are bigger than a flag. The evil we saw last Wednesday comes from a place much deeper, much darker. But we are not going to allow this symbol to divide us any longer. The fact that people are choosing to use it as a sign of hate is something we cannot stand. The fact that it causes pain to so many is enough to move it from the capitol grounds. It is, after all, a capitol that belongs to all of us."
Finally, referencing the proximity of July 4th and the celebration of freedom, she added, "It will be fitting that our state capitol will soon fly the flags of our country and of our state, and no others."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Transcript: Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina on Removing the Confederate Flag
5 Days That Left a Confederate Flag Wavering, and Likely to Fall. New York Times
Viewpoints on the CBF
Editor's note: This is not a usual segment of Wired Word lessons, but we've separated what follows from the "In the News" section above because we want to share the viewpoints of some folks we've talked to about what the CBF signifies to them. And viewpoints are, by definition, more subjective than straightforward news reporting, which we always aim to provide in the "In the News" portion of the lesson. Some of those speaking here are TWW subscribers. Others are connected to TWW team members. We've chosen not to give the names of the speakers, but have identified them in ways that put their opinions in context. Comments have been edited for length.
From a white layperson, who is a lifelong resident of Tennessee: "My great, great grandfather was a private in the 49th Tennessee Infantry. He never owned a slave nor did any of our known forefathers. They were just people who worked the land and tried to make a better life. He, like many of his neighbors, left their farms and shops and hurried to Fort Donelson to enlist. Why? Because they heard that an army was coming and that their way of life and communities would soon be overrun. The politics of it all meant nothing, but protecting their homes did.
     "I have seldom seen the flag in question displayed except at re-enactments and in cemeteries. Has it been used by hate groups as a symbol in the past? Yes. There are the occasional 'rednecks' that make a fool of themselves with it, but even then I think it is more an issue of southern pride and authority defiance than true racial hatred."
From a white pastor in Florida: "When I see the Confederate battle flag (CBF) flying, I get scared. Those pickups driving around here with all sorts of CBF bumper stickers are not preaching heritage. That's a smoke screen in my view. '155,000 southerners died for this flag!' 'Heritage, Not Hate!' 'Never Back Down!' 'Stand Your Ground!' They are nearly always accompanied by anti-federal government slogans. Florida only has a rear license place, so many put the CBF on the front of their vehicle. The individuals posting these messages on their vehicles scare me. Their message is personal autonomy. The CBF declares that the bearer does not answer to the U.S. government; they answer to a higher law, the law of self. I don't see heritage. I see anger and anarchy.
     "My great, great, great, great grandfather served with the 48th Pennsylvania regiment. They fought at 2nd Bull Run, Antietam, Spotsylvania, the Wilderness, Cold Harbor and Petersburg, VA. My heritage is the USA, not the breakaway country that launched the war that cost 650,000 American lives. There is one nation. And one flag. The USA."
From a black layperson in Maryland: "I don't think [the CBF issue] is as simple as declaring racism. What is offensive is that persons displaying the flag say it is part of their heritage and that the Confederates were trying to protect their families and way of life. That way of life, their wealth and comfort, was built on the backs of slaves who had no opportunity to protect their own way of life and families taken from them when they were snatched from Africa. The slaves were ripped from their families, chained and put on a ship for a long journey for someone's way of life. If the slaves survived the middle passage, they were sold at auction and shipped to plantations to work for free under brutal conditions. Female slaves were repeatedly raped and impregnated by their slave masters and/or forced to have sex with another slave to produce more slaves. Slaves were beaten routinely and killed. Slaves and their children were sold away from each other at the whim of the owner. All this for someone else's way of life.
     "So the confederate flag represents theft of free persons, enslavement, rape, the destruction of families (in Africa and the United States.). Additionally, it represents the failed attempt to keep these awful conditions in place. Why would anyone associate something positive with a flag that has been used to keep people in their 'place' and enslaved either physically (past) or mentally (current day)."
From a white pastor in Texas: "My observation about those who make a big deal out of the Confederate flag is that it basically is an act of immature defiance. They perceive the federal government as an entity that tells them what to do. Flying the flag is like giving the finger to those who try to 'push them around' as they see it. They feel alienated from the federal government, condescended to by northern elites, and the Confederate flag symbolizes their anger at all of that. They perceive school prayer and affirmative action as top-down decisions that they cannot fight.
     "As do most people who do something for a questionable motive, they hide behind excuses like honoring southern culture or honoring the soldiers who died fighting for the South in the war. Those same people do not, however, show as much concern for honoring soldiers who died in other wars.
     "Racism is so pervasive and so inextricably bound up with thinking in the South that I am hard pressed to say what role racism plays in flying the CBF. I cannot think of an emotionally healthy, historically justifiable reason to fly the flag."
From a white layperson who's lived in several states and is now in New Mexico: "Per family lore, my great, great grandparents were victims of a KKK cross-burning in their front yard. Since they were ethnic German and politically Republican, they had two strikes against them as far as the Democratic and mainly Scots/English/Irish Klan was concerned. Anyway, for me the flag symbolizes a mixture of liberty and freedom, of politeness, of southern courtesy, of independence and of the ambiance of the South -- with a touch of iconoclasm thrown in."
From a black pastor in North Carolina: "The Confederate battle flag was flown during the Civil War as Confederate forces sought to maintain the status quo in the South; namely, to keep the institution of chattel slavery intact. Chattel slavery held enslaved persons of African descent as mere property of rich whites who literally worked them to death, providing little reasonable clothing, food and housing; beat their native language and traditions out of them; did not allow families to stay in tack; forbade them to learn to read or write; beat them close to death and demanded them to go back into the fields or the slave owner's home to work as though nothing happened; and sold them on auction blocks, listing these enslaved human beings as property on tax records, just as one would list livestock. The lack of consciousness that allows one to celebrate an institution established and grounded in enslavement of another human being is unthinkable and reprehensible.
     "Many people who display the Confederate battle flag say they are not racist, and only God knows their sincere thoughts and ethical stances, for God truly looks at the heart."
From a white pastor born in West Virginia and who returns there frequently: "I saw my share of Confederate flags. My impression was that the flag was a symbol of southern culture (hospitality) and pride in that culture, in spite of losing the Civil War to the north. Never did I associate the Confederate flag with racism. I am now 64 years of age, and for the first time in my life at the Solidarity March I attended June 24th [following the Charleston church murders], I heard that the Confederate flag was a symbol of southern white racism. For me, the symbol of southern white racism was the garb of the Ku Klux Klan and its burning crosses.
     "At the end of the Solidarity March in an African-American church, when a speaker said 'It's time for the Confederate flag to be removed from Charleston, South Carolina,' I remained seated while everyone around me was on their feet clapping. My eyes were opened as I suddenly realized what the CBF means to black Americans. It is the tangible reminder of the oppressive southern economy from which they had been set free at the conclusion of the Civil War, and it is also a symbol of the hatred that some whites still harbor in their hearts against blacks and other people of color. No, removing the flag won't change the hearts of white people who want to harbor hatred, but that symbol now has no place in public life anywhere in our country. The Charleston murderer is now responsible for its removal and relegation to museums instead of monuments."
The Big Questions
1. When an emblem's negative symbolism outweighs its positive symbolism, what should be done with the emblem? In the case of the CBF, what weight should be given to the argument about heritage when many see the flag as divisive or even as a symbol of oppression?
2. Racism has been around for a long time. Why do you think this tragedy in particular sparked a broad-based effort to remove the flag?
3. What symbols, mementos, emblems, trophies or the like in your life have come to symbolize something different from or even opposite of what they originally did for you?
4. What things do you display that may be offensive to others?
5. What is the root Christian issue in the matter of what do about the CBF?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Song of Songs 2:4 (NIV)
Let him lead me to the banquet hall, and let his banner over me be love. (For context, read 2:3-13.)
The Song of Songs is love poetry between a man and a woman, and in 2:3-13, it appears to be the woman who is speaking. In the verse above, she says, "Let his banner over me be love," which is a poetic way of saying, "Let his intention be to love me." But the word she uses, "banner," literally refers to a standard on a pole or a flag carried by armies to show to whose service they belong. Such banners also served as a symbol of their hoped-for dominance in any conflict.
In a larger sense, the verse calls us to let the "banner" that flies over our actions be love, not self-centeredness. And the banner of love shows that we serve the Lord, who told us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
Question: What "banners" over your life have you taken down to better serve God? (These might include the banner of anger, selfishness, thoughtlessness, etc.)
Joshua 4:20-23
Those twelve stones, which they had taken out of the Jordan, Joshua set up in Gilgal, saying to the Israelites, "When your children ask their parents in time to come, 'What do these stones mean?' then you shall let your children know, 'Israel crossed over the Jordan here on dry ground.' For the LORD your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you until you crossed over ..." (For context, read 4:1-24.)
Joshua tells the story of the Israelites taking 12 stones from the floor of the Jordan River, which God had parted to enable them to cross into the Promised Land, and setting the stones up on the shore as a memorial to what God had done for them.
To the Israelites, of course, the stones symbolized a good future with God as their help. But to the people of Jericho and other places in Canaan, the stones could have surely been taken to symbolize their defeat and destruction.
Questions: Since the meanings of flags, banners, emblems and other symbols are assigned by those who use them and by those they are used against, whose meaning is the valid one? Can both meanings have validity? In what ways does our understanding (or misunderstanding) of U.S. history affect or impede our ability to confront contemporary issues?
1 Corinthians 10:24 (NIV)
No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. (For context, read 10:23-33.)
The Corinthian Christians had a slogan, "I have the right to do anything," which arose from their freedom in Christ from the "slavery" of Jewish law-keeping. In response to that slogan, Paul responded, "But not everything is beneficial [or] constructive" (v. 23). Then in verse 24, he states a basic principle of the Christian life: "No one should seek their own good, but the good of others."
Questions: After Charleston, what does "the good of others" suggest should be done regarding the CBF? Who are the "others" whose good you hope to affect?
Has there been a time when you held an opinion that seemed right and true, and yet had to reconsider your position upon discovering it had a negative effect on others? Did faith play any role in the discovery or the outcome?
Have there been times when you thought someone ignored his or her own scruples in order to take your feelings into account? Were there times you had to ignore something someone said because you weren't sure the time or circumstances were suitable to effect change?
Matthew 7:12
In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets. (No context necessary.)
These words from Jesus are what's been called the "Golden Rule." "The law and the prophets" refers to the Hebrew Bible (essentially the Old Testament). The phrase "for this is the law and prophets" is a way of saying that the Golden Rule is the "essence of God's law." Jesus isn't just referring to case law, but is bringing the example and lessons of biblical history into play regarding what he's saying.
Questions: How would you apply the Golden Rule to the discussion about the CBF? How does your personal history, or your local history, speak to questions like the CBF? How does it affect your ability to hear another, and to love another as yourself?
For Further Discussion
1. Read and discuss the comments of Stephen Ingram, regarding today's topic, found here.
2. It is said that one person's prize cow is another person's Big Mac. Christians view the cross as a symbol of the promises of the risen Christ, yet hate groups used burning crosses to terrorize people. Is perception everything regarding symbols? What is needed to reconcile differences of experience regarding them?
3. Have you ever been treated differently because of a Christian symbol on your person, your car, your home? Have you treated another person differently because of their symbols? If so, were there both positive and negative reactions? Explain.
4. Discuss this, from TWW team member Frank Ramirez: "Back in 2001, I had a discussion about rug making with a Native American. I was interested in the various symbols and patterns that were used. Finally, he showed me one rug that he could not sell or display. It featured a swastika, which in many cultures had been a symbol of good luck [before being co-opted by the Nazis]. He wondered how many centuries it might take before that rug could even be shown, but evidently he was in no rush. Obviously the symbol, which had been hijacked on a grand scale, was simply too toxic."
Responding to the News
This is a good time to redouble our efforts to rid ourselves of biases that interfere with seeing others as God sees them.
Closing Prayer

Help us, O Lord, to be a nation of people who consciously seek the good of all. In Jesus' name. Amen.