There are no good guys in the saga of the Ashley Madison website hack.
Certainly not the people at the Canadian firm Avid Life Media who
created the website to facilitate adultery (not to mention lying, betrayal and
deceptiveness) to begin with and who then failed to protect the identities of
the more than 33 million people who have opened accounts on the site since it
launched in 2001.
After Avid Life Media issued a statement saying that no financial data had
been compromised, web security developer Troy Hunt commented, "Do they
really think that after the most intimate, private aspect of people's lives has
been put on public display that a credit card their bank would simply replace
if compromised is what they're worried about?!"
Certainly not the operators of the site, who promised to delete
customer data for a fee of $19, then didn't delete it. For the $19, Ashley
Madison said it would erase all traces of a customer's activity on the site,
and in 2014 alone, the site made more than $1.7 million through this service.
But in reality, all they did was take customers' names off the public-facing
parts of the site. They never removed names and related info from their backend
servers, from which the hackers were able to grab them.
Certainly not the so-far unidentified hackers who call themselves
the Impact Team and made themselves "morality police," implying that
their illegal activity was justified because of the behavior the Ashley Madison
site condoned. The hackers also said they were outraged that the Ashley Madison
site was a scam, since many of the female profiles on the site were fake and
that 90-95 percent of the actual users were male. That meant, said the Impact
Team, that most men who signed up for an affair never had one fostered by the
site. The hackers further claimed to be angered by the site's phony privacy and
security claims. However, exposing the users to shame and possible negative
consequences -- marital and otherwise -- punishes them even more than anything
done to Avid Life Media.
Regarding the hackers, TWW team member Frank Ramirez comments, "There's
some hubris involved in assuming godlike powers."
As of this writing (on Tuesday), authorities have indicated that there have
been two suicides -- one of them a Texas police chief -- likely related to the
individuals being exposed by the hack of the extramarital affairs site.
Certainly not the site's users themselves, who were actively
looking for opportunities to betray their marriage vows and be unfaithful to
and deceive their spouse.
Certainly not the scammers and extortionists who are using the hack
for their own gain. Toronto police said this week that scammers have created
websites that promise to provide access to the leaked client names but instead
deliver malware. There has also been outright extortion by fraudsters preying
on the potential embarrassment of people who had registered with the infidelity
site.
Certainly not the two Canadian law firms that are capitalizing on
the hack by launching a $578 million class-action lawsuit against Avid Life
Media, saying they are doing so on behalf of all Canadians who have been
affected by the data dump from the Ashley Madison site.
And certainly not anyone unaffected by the dump but who sit in
better-than-thou judgment of those who are affected, or who revel in others'
moral failures. It's all too easy to sling the hypocrisy label, overlooking one's
own shortcomings and sins.
Writing on the Patheos website, Kyle Roberts, associate professor
of Public and Missional Theology at United Theological Seminary of the Twin
Cities, observed, "In the aftermath of the Ashley Madison leak, there will
be shame, new suspicions, broken trust, hurt spouses, even some shattered
dreams. For those of us who believe in the gospel of grace and forgiveness, and
who believe that the best thing that Christians can do in the world is to be
'ministers of reconciliation' (2 Corinthians 5:18), this massive public leak,
with all the guilt, shame, and embarrassment that will come with it, may
provide an opportunity for the church to live out our calling."
Roberts added, "It will be important to remember that it's by grace we
are saved, not by our works. That love rules all things. And that love can
cover a multitude of sins. The ministry of reconciliation is not an optional
calling for those who believe in the gospel of grace."
Other Christian leaders have reminded us of the need for repentance as well
on the part of those whose wrongdoing was exposed. Rev. Mark Woods,
contributing editor at Christianity Today, writes, "But the thing
about Christianity is that it preaches forgiveness and restoration to people
you wouldn't have in your house. It says to people who've done far worse than
adultery, 'You're welcome. Repent and receive Christ's forgiveness.' It says at
communion, 'This is a table for sinners.'"
While Woods was commenting specifically about former reality TV star Josh Duggar,
who was among those exposed by the Ashley Madison data dump, Wood's point is
that while the users of that site are sinners, so are the rest of us.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Ashley Madison Hack: What's Included in the Data Dump. ABC
News
Answers to Your Burning Questions on the Ashley Madison Hack. Wired
An Opportunity for Grace: The Ashley Madison Leak and the
Church's Response. Patheos
Josh Duggar and Ashley Madison: The Problem of Selective
Forgiveness. Christianity Today
The Ashley Madison Hack Ruined My Life. CNN Money
Ashley Madison Facing Massive Lawsuit 'on Behalf of All
Canadians.' New York Post
Ashley
Madison: 'Suicides' Over Website Hack. BBC
Here's What Ashley Madison Members Have Told Me. TroyHunt.com
The Big Questions
1. How should our sex drive fit into a life of faith? Have you found that
there have been times when it is/was easier or harder to control your sex
drive? Do Christians have a greater obligation than others to be faithful to
their marriage vows? Why or why not?
2. For a Christian, is fear of exposure a sufficient reason to avoid marital
infidelity? Explain your answer. An old saying has it that "character is
who you are when nobody is watching." In what ways, if any, does that
apply to our life as disciples of Jesus?
3. How might you feel if you discovered that your spouse was on the data
dump from the Ashley Madison website? What is the immediate thing you might do?
What might you do after you'd processed the information? Would it make a
difference if this involved an action before you'd met?
4. How ought church members behave toward other members discovered to have
committed adultery? Once we know who has sinned and how they have sinned, how
can we offer forgiveness and mercy? Does your church or denomination have a
process in place for reconciliation?
5. Kyle Roberts referred to our call to be "ministers of
reconciliation," citing 2 Corinthians 5:18 -- "All this is from God,
who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of
reconciliation" -- as a basis. What might that calling mean in the Ashley
Madison case? How might repentance be involved?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Numbers 32:23
... be sure your sin will find you out. (For context, read 32:1-32.)
Luke 8:17
For nothing is hidden that will not be disclosed, nor is anything secret
that will not become known and come to light. (For context, read 8:11-18.)
These two verses seem especially apropos in the current day when privacy --
and the ability to keep one's wrongdoings secret -- seems more at risk than
ever.
The words in the Numbers verse were spoken by Moses in response to a promise
from two of the Israelite tribes to help the other tribes in capturing the land
they wanted to occupy. Moses was saying that if the two tribes didn't follow
through on their promise, their sin would be not only exposed, but punished.
The words in the Luke verse are from Jesus and, in common use, would have
been a way of saying that nothing can be kept secret for very long. However,
since Jesus said this following his explanation of the meaning of the parable
of the sower, it may have been a way of saying that the gospel could not be
kept hidden either.
Together, these verses remind us that whenever we hope to keep something
private and secret -- whether innocent behavior or wrongdoing -- we should
consider that it may become known by others, perhaps with unwanted
consequences.
Questions: Can fear of exposure be one means God has given
us to help us stay away from wrongdoing? Why or why not?
Proverbs 6:32-33
But he who commits adultery has no sense; he who does it destroys himself.
He will get wounds and dishonor, and his disgrace will not be wiped away.
(For context, read 6:20-35.)
Hebrews 13:4
Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept
undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers. (For context,
read 13:1-6.)
Some married people, while in the midst of an affair, might argue against
the wisdom of the proverb above, but sooner or later, most affairs result in
pain for somebody, usually including, but not limited, to the adulterers.
Read the context of this proverb for more about the destructive cost of
marital infidelity.
The book of Hebrews is mostly a sermon about the work of Christ, but near
the end, the author mentions a few things for Christians to keep in mind
regarding how they should live. He says they should trust God, be hospitable,
minister to prisoners, avoid the love of money and keep the marriage bed
undefiled. Clearly, the author understood that the temptation to have sex
outside of one's marriage is widespread, even among people committed to
following Jesus.
Questions: Why do you think God made us so that we can be
tempted to stray from our marriage vows? What might God want us to learn? Might
James 1:12 -- "Blessed is anyone who endures temptation. Such a one has
stood the test and will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to
those who love him" -- help with that answer?
Matthew 5:27-28
You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery."
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already
committed adultery with her in his heart. (For context, read 5:27-30.)
Jesus said this in the Sermon on the Mount.
Jimmy Carter is the subject of our other lesson today, but do you remember
when he said he considered himself guilty -- according to these words of Jesus
-- of adultery because he'd had lustful thoughts? He received a lot of ridicule
for that admission, but really, he was talking about an experience common to
most men and some women: lustful thinking.
Questions: Granted that Jesus here probably engaged in
hyperbole, and that actual adultery is worse than fantasy, how can a mental
obsession that never results in action cause similar damage to a marriage?
When Jimmy Carter made his admission in an interview, many people acted
shocked. What does that say about the level of biblical literacy in society at
large? What does it say about Carter's courage in admitting he is a sinner?
What help for yourself do you find in these words from Jesus?
Genesis 38:25
As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, "It
was the owner of these who made me pregnant." And she said, "Take
note, please, whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff."
(For context, read 38:1-26.)
2 Samuel 12:7, 9
Nathan said to David, "You are the man! ... Why have you despised the
word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah
the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife ...
(For context, read 12:1-14.)
We included these two texts simply to show "gotcha moments" for
Judah and David, respectively, regarding sexual sins (plus murder, in David's
case).
Questions: What is the faith lesson for us in "gotcha
moments"?
What does it say that King David was in no danger of losing his kingdom,
while Tamar was in danger of being killed in a horrible way? Does society
condemn and/or condone adultery by one gender more than another, or by people
in certain circumstances?
Would you be supportive of someone in a toxic marriage who committed
adultery? Would you be supportive of a caregiver for a spouse with dementia or
in a coma who had an extramarital relationship?
Matthew 19:9 (CEB)
I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual
unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. (For context,
read 19:1-12.)
When quizzed by the Pharisees on the subject of divorce, it was clear that
Jesus was against it. But they pointed out that Moses allowed for divorce.
Jesus said that this was because of people's stubbornness, but that it wasn't
that way from the beginning: marriage was meant to be lifelong. Yet Jesus also
allows a man to divorce his wife (and, we presume, vice versa) when the spouse
commits adultery. (The Greek word is porneia, whence comes our word
"pornography.")
Note that Jesus doesn't command divorce, and only barely allows
for the breaking of the bond of marriage to be "made legal" by
divorce. It is a possible course of action, but not necessarily a recommended
way to go.
In our congregations. adultery can be committed and become exposed.
Sometimes restoration of the marriage is possible, when forgiveness is sought
and granted, while sometimes it is not, when a heart or hearts are hardened.
This does not even begin to touch on the effects on children, the larger
family, the congregation, employment and the community at large.
Question: How do you and your congregation respond when
unfaithfulness and divorce rear their heads within your fellowship, or even
among your leadership? How do you or your congregation show both law
(condemning sin) and gospel (proclaiming God's forgiveness of sin) to each of
the people involved?
John 8:7
When they kept on questioning [Jesus], he straightened up and said to them,
"Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at
her." (For context, read 8:2-11.)
Romans 3:23
... since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God ... (For
context, read 3:21-26.)
The verse from John is part of the account of scribes and Pharisees bringing
before Jesus a woman (but not the man) caught in adultery. These accusers
wanted to put Jesus on the spot, but he responded as quoted in the verse above,
and the accusers, one by one, left. They evidently recognized that none of them
were sin-free. Paul says the same about all of us in the Romans verse above.
We do note that after the accusers had left, Jesus told the woman, "Go,
and sin no more" (v. 11). He wasn't excusing her but was telling her to
change her behavior, which is a component of repentance.
Questions: What do you take from these verses that might
apply to ourselves as observers of the Ashley Madison news? Why?
What would you say to someone who tried to tell you about a person they'd
discovered through the Ashley Madison hack? Would you listen? Would you refuse
to listen?
For Further Discussion
1. TWW team member Micah Holland says, "The power of technology is
oftentimes understated. We live in a culture of easy communication and easy
knowledge. Also a culture of easy sin. Pornography and now, I guess, adultery
are two easy things to choose. [There is] the risk of being filmed/photographed
today; cameras are everywhere and you can be filmed doing anything. And it is
so easy to take this film and make it go viral. The power of communication, and
the transparency of this world, moves us into a new conversation about privacy,
sin and communication." What ought the content of that conversation be?
2. Discuss this, from TWW team member Frank Ramirez: "Nearly 40 years
ago, the old, experienced pastor who was my mentor while I served as a summer
pastor told me, 'The first thing I'm going to ask God after I die is why he
made it so difficult for young people to control themselves sexually because
they've got all these hormones shouting at them all the time.' At the time all
I did was nod, but over the past four decades I've thought about the fact that
for some people, and at different times in their lives, it is more difficult or
easier to make better choices in this regard. Wonderful people I've known as
colleagues and parishioners have come into my office to confess something about
their behavior.
"I would not want to minimize anything about adultery,
which breaks up families and causes distress that reaches out in several
directions geographically and generationally, but to me running a sweatshop and
oppressing your workers, or operating a drug cartel, or making huge amounts of
money at the expense of workers who might be earning minimum wage, or fanning
the flames of racial hatred seem to be far greater sins, yet you can do these
things in public and in some circumstances be honored."
3. Respond to this, from TWW team member Ed Thomas: "God knows all.
Digital discovery may be a newer phenomenon, but God's always known our hearts
and brokenness. What I find interesting is our collective fascination with
shattered lifestyles and our shock when people are discovered in these
dilemmas: 'Can you believe so and so did this ...?' As Christians we should be
asking, 'Can you believe that you and I haven't been exposed as well?'"
4. TWW team member Mary Sells observes that while we can agree that adultery
is wrong, pointing out others' sins is questionable. She says, "I am
interested in the aspect of forgiveness. We could all easily become part of
this by letting any person on the list drop from our own sense of grace. Isn't
that like two wrongs -- one is theirs, and the other is ours?"
Responding to the News
One lesson we can all take from this news is on the importance of not toying
with temptation.
TWW team member Frank Ramirez points out, "There's that wonderful
phrase in the Catholic prayer of contrition -- the pledge to 'avoid the near
occasions of sin.' Each one of us knows what tempts us. If you've got a
gambling addiction, you can't go near that machine in the convenience store.
(No temptation for me there, but I knew a guy who reached into a bank's automatic
deposit slot and managed to fish out a church's offering bag so he could buy
more tickets.) Diabetics need to avoid the aisle that has the brightly lit
glass counter with all the donuts. I suppose some should avoid the sports page
so they don't get angry. And I suppose some people knew better than to go to
that website, even if they weren't planning to follow through at first, and
play with fire."
TWW team member Shelly Turner comments, "The secrecy of the Internet is
tempting. In a few reports people have said that they were just 'looking' at
what this website offered and never acted. Have the lookers committed a sin
nonetheless?" We suspect they have.
So this is a good time to renew our resolve not to go near the things that
tempt us.
Closing Prayer
Lord, help us to avoid hypocrisy when confronted by news such as this, and
where appropriate, enable us to be messengers of repentance and reconciliation.
Help us also to be careful not to put ourselves unnecessarily in places of
temptation, that our lives may honestly reflect our commitment to follow Jesus.
In his name. Amen.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Undercover Videos Show Planned Parenthood Officials Discussing Sale of Fetal Tissue
© 2015 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
On August 12, the anti-abortion group The Center for Medical Progress (CMP)
released a sixth video in its drive to have Planned Parenthood Federation of
America, a nonprofit reproductive health services organization that, among
other things, is an abortion provider, defunded of federal monies. Overall, the
six videos, released by CMP at a pace of about one a week over the last month
and a half, accuse Planned Parenthood of breaking federal laws by profiting off
the selling of organs and tissues of aborted fetuses.
Planned Parenthood denies that it has broken any laws and has repeatedly
dismissed CMP as an extremist group with an agenda.
Several of the videos were recorded secretly by actors hired by CMP and
posing as employees of a company looking to procure fetal material for research
purposes. On the videos, Planned Parenthood officials explain how the tissue is
obtained from aborted fetuses, and mention the cost to acquire such samples.
CMP founder David Daleiden charged that the videos provide evidence of
"criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reach[ing] to
the very highest levels of [the] organization." Planned Parenthood
maintained that these allegations are false and stated that all tissue
donations are made "with full, appropriate consent from patients and under
the highest ethical and legal standards," and that "there is no
financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned
Parenthood." In states where such fetal tissue collection is permitted, the
organization is allowed to charge to cover the cost of obtaining the tissue,
but not to make a profit.
Some fact-checking groups that describe themselves as nonpartisan (though
their neutrality has sometimes been challenged), including FactCheck.org and
PolitiFact, have investigated the CMP claims and concluded that they
misrepresent the facts (see reports from both of those organizations in the
links list below). You might also wish to view the unedited videos (called
"Investigative Footage") from The Center for Medical Progress'
website, which is also linked below.
On its website, Planned Parenthood identifies itself as "a trusted
health care provider, an informed educator, a passionate advocate, and a global
partner helping similar organizations around the world. Planned Parenthood
delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to
millions of women, men, and young people worldwide. For nearly 100 years,
Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women's health and
well-being, based on respect for each individual's right to make informed,
independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning."
On its website, The Center for Medical Progress identifies itself as "a
group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical
ethics and advances. We are concerned about contemporary bioethical issues that
impact human dignity, and we oppose any interventions, procedures, and
experiments that exploit the unequal legal status of any class of human beings.
We envision a world in which medical practice and biotechnology ally with and
serve the goods of human nature and do not destroy, disfigure, or work against
them."
The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Planned Parenthood
"appears to be gaining traction in its efforts to push back against videos
targeting it and state efforts to cut its funding."
Nonetheless, the undercover videos, whether misleading or accurate, have
been widely covered in the media and have re-invigorated the ongoing American
abortion debate. In some cases, the graphic discussions on the videos have
caused even some abortion-rights supporters to re-examine their commitment to
that position.
As one example, nationally syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr.,
writing in The Daily Beast, said that after 30 years of supporting
abortion rights, the videos, even if edited, have caused him to waver.
"For those of us who are pro-choice, the Planned Parenthood videos are a
game changer. As to whether that means I'll change my view, I'm not sure. I'm
on the bubble. Ask me in a few weeks, after the release of more videos."
More on this story can be found at these links:
The Big Questions
1. Given that the videos in the first-released, edited form and some of the
pushback against them seemed intended to shape a conclusion, how should
Christians regard them? How does your position on abortion itself affect your
answer? How do the since-released videos, in unedited form, affect your
response?
2. When have you been aware that you were "steering" someone to a
desired conclusion by giving a lopsided report or criticism of some
conversation, sermon, news story or event? How did you justify your decision to
do so?
3. What are the moral issues regarding abortion? What are the social issues?
What are the theological issues? How do differing circumstances -- rape,
incest, health risk to the woman, drug addiction and impact on the fetus,
ability to care for the child, use of fetal tissue for medical research, etc.
-- affect your answers to the questions about moral, social and theological
issues?
4. Can giving a fair hearing to only those whose position you agree with in
a cultural, political or religious debate ever lead you to a full understanding
of the issues? What do you do to give a fair hearing to the other side in such
debates?
5. How important is certainty in leading a Christian life? Assuming
certainty is not required in all things, what makes a topic something in which
certainty is required? How should one deal with varying degrees of uncertainty?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Numbers 23:13
So Balak said to him, "Come with me to another place from which you
may see them; you shall see only part of them, and shall not see them all; then
curse them for me from there." (For context, read 22:41--23:26.)
The people of Israel were in the wilderness, nearing the end of their
migration from Egypt to Canaan after years of slavery in Egypt. On the way,
they had fought successfully against the Amorites and now had a reputation as a
fierce and dangerous horde. And their numbers were staggering. Exodus says that
when they left Egypt, they numbered 600,000 men (Exodus 12:37), plus women and
children. So when this enormous body of Israelites camped on the plains of
Moab, the people who lived in that region had every reason to be concerned.
Moab's king, Balak, took one look at this encampment stretched out on the
plain and decided to do something proactive to give the Moabites an edge in
case conflict ensued. Balak sent for a local soothsayer by the name of Balaam
to pronounce a curse on Israel. Balaam sent back word that God had already told
him that Israel was blessed, but Balak insisted that Balaam come anyway. When
the soothsayer arrived, the king took him to a high place where he could look
out over the vast multitude of Israel, and instructed him to pronounce his
curse. Balaam spoke, but instead of a curse, a blessing on Israel flowed out of
his mouth (23:7-10).
King Balak was furious, but not ready to give up. He took Balaam to another
location where he'd be able to see only a portion of the Israelite nation. From
the new spot, Balaam spoke, but once again, a blessing rolled out of his mouth
(23:18-24).
King Balak might come off as a fool for thinking that if he could just limit
the soothsayer's sight, the curse would be forthcoming, as if to say,
"Let's look at only this part and pretend that's all that matters."
But we can understand why he might try it. Telling less than the whole truth or
conveniently omitting the parts that suggest a different conclusion have long
proven effective at misleading audiences.
Questions: When have you consciously ignored some
information so as not to upset an accepted conclusion? Do you resent those who
keep bringing up a topic you would rather not discuss? Have you discerned
resentment when you insisted on bringing up a topic no one seemed to want to
address?
Proverbs 18:17
The one who first states a case seems right, until the other comes and
cross-examines. (No context needed.)
This proverb notes the problem of only hearing one side of an argument,
which can happen when one party presents a large amount of information, even if
not all of it is on target.
Questions: Have you ever not reached a conclusion after
listening to only one side -- and why didn't you in that case? Has listening to
another side ever made a difference? How do you seek to become someone who
weighs the various sides of an issue before making a decision?
Psalm 139:13-14
For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my
mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. ...
(For context, read 139:13-18.)
With this poetic expression, the psalmist presents the view that the
beginning of a human life is not merely a biological event, but is the result
of the will and work of a caring Creator. The Creator is pictured as actively
involved in the in utero development, "knitting" the
individual together. (That metaphor is also used in Job 10:11: "You
clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and
sinews.")
These verses from Psalm 139 are often quoted as biblical support for the
sanctity of all human life, which is a legitimate way to understand them.
Though the psalmist's purpose in the whole psalm was not to make a statement
about life in the womb per se, but to declare that God knows and is with him or
her in all circumstances of life as early as in the womb, these verses do speak
of God's presence with the unborn.
Questions: The medical term for an unborn baby is a fetus.
How different is a fetus from a person, or is there any difference? At what
point does a fetus become a person? What affirmation about God do you hear in
these verses?
John 8:31-32
If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know
the truth, and the truth will make you free. (For context, read 8:31-38.)
The second half of this sentence from Jesus -- "and you will know the
truth, and the truth will make you free" -- is often quoted in support of
truth in general, but when connected to the first half of the sentence and to
the larger context of verses 31-38, it becomes clear that Jesus is talking
about the truth of the gospel. Nonetheless, in many situations, truth about
what's going on has a freeing effect. Truth can free us from mistaken
conclusions, biases, hidden agendas, scams and more. Christians should be
committed to seeking and living by the truth.
Finding the truth, however, can be difficult. All too often, perhaps,
"truth" is whatever some authority or opinion-shaper says it is,
whether their statements correspond to facts or not. (Consider how that is
illustrated often from various sides of the U.S. political divide.) Truth
requires us to separate fact from opinion and from falsehood, and to see and
acknowledge when something is true, something is false, something is unknown,
something is guessed, something is a conclusion or opinion, or something is
unknowable.
Questions: Is truth being lifted up or suppressed by the
CMP videos? Is truth being lifted up or suppressed by the pushback? How do you
know? Whom do you trust in this particular situation? Why?
For Further Discussion
1. What is your denomination's position on abortion? How did your
denomination arrive at that position? Has it changed since first formulated? In
what ways, and why?
2. TWW team member Shelly Turner argues that the main question behind this
controversy is not the sale of fetal tissue, but abortion itself. She asks,
"When, if ever, would abortion be allowed in God's eyes?" and
suggests that that is really what's on many people's minds when they talk about
how fetal tissue is collected and used. Do you agree? Why or why not?
3. Since abortions are legal, is there any value in using for research
tissue that would otherwise be disposed of as medical "waste"? Does
that in any way redeem the loss of potential life? Why or why not?
4. What do you think of the opinion expressed by one politician that
abortion should be "legal, safe and rare," especially since abortion
today is not rare? (The abortion rate is, however, currently at its lowest in
decades, at 16.9 per 1,000 women.) How do you respond to this comment from one
Christian: "I really don't think anyone is 'pro-abortion.' Some just believe
that abortion should be one of the options a woman has in a difficult
situation"?
5. TWW team member Michael Harnish says that the conflict over this matter
makes us feel like "the messiness of living in exile ... in a world that
we do not want to claim as our own." However, says Harnish, just as God
told the exiles from Judah through the prophet Jeremiah (see Jeremiah 29:1-11),
we should "make this a permanent settlement in the midst of an unfriendly
environment, knowing that there is a big-picture God who has plans." What
is your response to that?
6. Comment on this, from TWW team member Charles Alkula: "In an age
where there is so much information available at the touch of a finger, the
amount of 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' that is available just as readily
is staggering."
7. Respond to this, from TWW team member Doug Hargis: "Most women will
say that as soon as they had their suspicions confirmed by a pregnancy test,
they believed that they were carrying a life -- a human life distinctly
separate from their own. I can at least say that when my wife told me she was
pregnant (three times altogether), I felt that way. On some level, we would say
a human life had begun. But at another level, everything was just as it was a
few days earlier -- it took a test to say for sure. The clincher, perhaps, is
that had she miscarried at that early stage, both she and I would have grieved
as if the baby were a day away from birth. And, what's more, the longer she
would have carried the unborn child, the more painful that grief would have
been."
Responding to the News
This is a good time to remind ourselves that there is often an agenda behind
widely broadcast claims, and often from those making counter-claims as well. We
Christians have an obligation to seek the truth as best as we can ascertain it.
Closing Prayer
O God of truth, make us faithful disciples of Jesus, who said the truth will
make us free. In Jesus' name. Amen.
Friday, August 14, 2015
70th Anniversary of Atomic Bombings in Japan Reminds Us of 'Nuclear Options'
© 2015 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
Last week, the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, observed the 70th
anniversary of the atomic bombing of their cities on August 6 and 9, 1945,
respectively. The bombs, dropped by American forces, were the first and only
times atomic weapons have been detonated during warfare.
Because the bombings obliterated many people, estimates of the dead in the
two cities run the wide gamut between 129,000 and 226,000. Many were killed
outright, and many others died in the days and months following from injuries,
burns, radiation sickness and other illnesses.
Japan announced its surrender to the Allies on August 15, 1945, effectively
ending World War II.
While the bombings' role in Japan's surrender and the ethical justification
for employing the atomic weapons are still debated, one of the reasons the
United States decided to drop the nuclear bombs was the assumption that an
invasion of Japan to end the war would prove even more costly in terms of
lives, among both the Allies and the Japanese. In other words, in the reasoning
of those in the U.S. responsible for directing the war, and especially
then-President Harry Truman, of the available options to end the war, none of
which were appealing, the bombings were considered to be the least costly in
terms of Allied lives and the most likely to end the war quickly.
Since that war, the term "nuclear option" has come into the common
parlance. While it has a specific meaning related to the U.S. Senate (changing
that body's rules to enable judicial and executive nominees to be confirmed
with just 51 votes instead of 60, a change that would figuratively blow up the
Senate), it more commonly means "the most drastic or extreme response
possible to a particular situation."
More on this story can be found at these links:
More on the Nuclear Option
In our lives, there come occasions when we consider -- and sometimes
actually employ -- nuclear options regarding some situation. Obviously, nothing
can truly compare to the horrors of nuclear war, but here are some examples
members of The Wired Word team thought of:
• Parents of a teenager who continually refuses to obey household rules
finally decide, after his most recent and outrageous misbehavior, to have him
arrested.
• The husband of a woman who has a serious alcohol problem but won't
acknowledge it calls in friends, family members and her employer to together
confront her and tell her of how her drinking is affecting them (this is
typically called an "intervention"), with a view toward having her
agree to enter a treatment program.
• Judges who order young offenders into short-stay "shock
imprisonments" in hopes of keeping them from becoming repeat offenders.
• Parents who decide to take away their kids' cell phones to stop them from
spending so much time using them at the expense of family time.
• A man who deals with his addiction to online pornography by ripping out his
Internet connection.
• A married woman who deals with her temptation to have an affair with a man at
work by changing jobs, even though she earns less at the new job.
The Big Questions
1. When have you faced a situation so difficult that you exhausted all of
the common solutions without success, and thus confronted the situation with a
drastic means that you would not normally have considered? How did your nuclear
option work?
2. What are the Christian principles we should weigh whenever we consider
using an extreme means to deal with a persistent problem?
3. When the only solution we can think of to a problem is drastic and may
have long-term unpleasant repercussions, can it still be a Christian
action? Why or why not?
4. Are so-called nuclear options examples of the ends justifying the means?
If so, what does our Christian faith have to say about that?
5. Are there times when it seems Christian principles must be abandoned
because we live in a fallen world?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Mark 9:43, 47
If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to
enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell, to the unquenchable
fire. ... And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for
you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be
thrown into hell ... (For context, read 9:42-48.)
Call this "the amputation cure." While we are certain that Jesus
did not mean these words to be taken literally, the very rawness of the
metaphor of cutting off your hand and plucking out your eye points out that he
was talking about taking drastic measures to avoid remaining in sin. If nothing
else, it was a vivid, metaphorical way of saying that we must stop doing those
things that harm us and others.
And let's be clear that Jesus is talking about very dangerous stuff. Our
Bible version has Jesus saying, "And if your hand causes you to stumble
...." Another translation says "And if your hand causes you to sin
...." But in either case, the underlying Greek word Jesus used is scandalon,
which in one form means the bait-stick in a trap -- the arm on which bait is
placed to lure an animal to its own destruction.
Regarding these destructive behaviors, we can pray for two things: First, we
can pray for the courage to be ruthlessly honest with ourselves -- to not kid
ourselves but to view clearly when we are trying to pretty something up rather
than see it for what it is. And second, we can pray for the ability to
understand what things we can take responsibility for ourselves.
Question: In what ways can the church help us to stop doing
things that are destructive to our well-being?
Exodus 11:1
The LORD said to Moses, "I will bring one more plague upon Pharaoh and
upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go from here; indeed, when he lets you
go, he will drive you away." (For context, read 11:1-8; 12:29-32.)
This is the introductory sentence to the account of the 10th plague God sent
upon the Egyptians. That plague, the death of every firstborn among the
Egyptians but not among the Israelites, is the one that finally caused Pharaoh
to let the Israelites, who had been slaves in Egypt, leave the country. While
all of the plagues were harsh, the first nine were all {ITALIC}lesser methods
than this 10th one, which, unlike the others, was irreversible. It was, in
effect, a nuclear option.
Questions: When have you had to employ irreversible means
to deal with an intractable problem? Were there any other viable
options? Do you have any regrets? How does God help you be at peace with what
you decided to do?
Luke 18:22
There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the
money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.
(For context, read 18:18-25.)
Jesus spoke these words to the rich, young ruler in response to the latter's
question, "... what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (v. 18). It
was an answer tailored especially for this man's circumstances, and called for
action drastic enough that we can dub it a nuclear option.
Sadly, the young man chose not to exercise it.
But consider someone from recent times who did: Before co-founding Habitat
for Humanity, Millard Fuller was successful in business. But after his wife,
Linda, left him, he realized that his material wealth was blocking him from
serving God. He traveled to New York to try to convince Linda to come back to
him. She was not easily convinced that he could turn back from his headlong
rush for material wealth. Millard recalls: "We were in a taxi right after
Linda and I had a very tearful session. We'd gone to Radio City Music Hall and
they showed the movie Never Too Late. It was about a woman's getting
pregnant after she thought it was too late. The message was that it's never too
late to change anything."
Fuller continues, "I had a sensation of light in that taxi. It was not
anything spooky. All I can say is it just came into my head: Give your money
away, make yourself poor again and throw yourself on God's mercy. I turned to
Linda and said, 'I believe that God just gave me the idea to give all our money
away; give everything away.' She said, 'I agree. Let's do it.'" Friends,
family, even pastors tried to talk them out of it. "I told them no, if I
think about it I won't do it, because it's not logical. But I believe that God
is calling us to do this."
Questions: When have you felt God was calling you to do
something you would never have considered on your own? How did you test that
calling? How did you respond? What was the outcome? Have you ever turned your
back on an opportunity to really commit to a ministry to which you felt called?
How do you now feel about that outcome?
John 13:3-5
Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and
that he had come from God and was going to God, got up from the table, took off
his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself. Then he poured water into a
basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel
that was tied around him. (For context, read 13:1-17.)
One form a nuclear option can take is the radical example. Here in this text
about an event at the Last Supper, Jesus taught his disciples about serving
others by departing from the usual practice of a master being served by others
and taking on the lowly task of washing their feet, a practice normally
performed by a slave.
Questions: What principle might you need to demonstrate
with your life to positively affect an ongoing problem in one of your
relationships? What limits have you placed on your participation in ministry
and service to others? How comfortable are you with these limits?
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 3:1-17.)
When the TWW team was talking about examples of nuclear options, team member
Peter Surran said, "Of course, the entire Christian story -- God becoming
human, suffering, dying and rising again for our redemption -- might be
considered the ultimate nuclear option!"
Indeed.
Questions: Did the extreme lengths God went to in sending
his own Son to die for humankind have any impact on your decision to receive
Jesus? If not, what part of the gospel message did?
For Further Discussion
1. Discuss this, from TWW team member Mary Sells: "To me, the nuclear
options of God are really about radical change, things done that transform life
and cannot be undone -- from which there is no turning back. In a sense, that
is faith history of the entire Bible.
"A nuclear option is God battling Pharaoh for the
release of his people through the person of Moses, hidden by God in a radical
way (an Israelite baby raised by the oppressor), who would lead God's people
through many changes toward freedom and faith. God is revealing himself to be
the one true God to a chosen group of people, a radical change from their
worship of multiple gods or mythological characters that was common then.
"A nuclear option is wiping out all but the selected
ones. Noah carries them on the ark through the great flood so that a new world
can be established. There are ongoing examples of God's intervention in the Old
Testament to try to make a good life and great relationship with his people,
yet the people always went backward from God toward other temptations.
"Eventually that leads to the biggest nuclear option, the personification
of God in Jesus walking among the people and offering a new path to a right
life and eternity with God via the death and resurrection of himself."
2. Respond to this from TWW team member Charles Alkula: "I was
stationed in Iwakuni, Japan (about 30 km south of Hiroshima), as a chaplain
with the U.S. Marines. I've been to both Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and they are
very sobering places to visit. As an American, I was painfully aware that
everyone who saw me there knew it was my country that did this. That was the
primary reason U.S. personnel were forbidden to venture off base on the
anniversaries of the bombings.
"As an interesting point, the target point in
Hiroshima is across the street from where the Hiroshima Carp play baseball. It
is strange in a fashion to be cheering for the team and at the same time
hearing the peace gong being rung."
3. TWW team member Doug Hargis comments: "One of the problems facing
America today is the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions. That's a problem
worth figuratively using the nuclear option -- an extreme and all-out attack on
a problem. As Christians in today's world, Jesus calls upon us to do everything
in our power to be makers of peace with Iran. Jesus could not be clearer than
this: 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God'
(Matthew 5:9). The apostle Paul in Romans 12:20 quotes Proverbs 25:21-22: 'If
your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to
drink.' The effect is to turn an enemy into a friend -- real peacemaking."
What would constitute an "all-out attack" on the
problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions? What tactics would be excluded as
inappropriate? Does the current proposed treaty with Iran go far enough? Does
it go too far? How would you advise your congressional representatives to vote
on the proposed treaty? How could the United Nations be involved in solving
this problem? What can your church do to impact a peaceful coexistence with Iran?
What action could you take personally with someone from Iran in your community?
Responding to the News
Jesus' words about cutting off our hand or plucking out an eye remind us
that when the results of a certain course of action or a certain way of thinking
are likely to be disastrous, then drastic measures -- the equivalent of
amputation -- are necessary. But often, despite the danger, we cling to our old
habits, behaviors and attitudes that have gotten us into trouble in the past.
We recycle them throughout our lives as if each one were made of the most
precious resources available. There are some obvious things we can say -- and do
-- about this:
• If you want to be healthy, ... stop doing those things that harm you.
• If you want harmony in your life, ... stop doing those things that cause
discord.
• If you want peace in the home, ... stop doing those things that lead to
conflict.
• If you want a closer relationship with your children, ... stop doing those
things and saying those things that build up walls between you.
• If you want to rekindle the romance in your marriage, ... stop doing those
things that create animosity.
• If you want to live in a close-knit, caring community, ... stop hiding behind
your front door.
• If you want a spiritual life that fills you up, ... stop pouring all your
energies everywhere but toward God. (This list comes from TWW's sister
publication for pastors, Homiletics.)
Perhaps this makes it sound like we're in control of our own salvation,
though if that were the case, evangelistic preaching would tell us to just stop
sinning and thus be saved. That's not what the gospel says. It tells us to
trust God and ask him to forgive us, to invite Jesus to come into our lives.
There's not one word about saving ourselves.
But once we have turned to God, there's a good bit of stuff we can and should
be responsible for. For example, if we get into trouble every time we hang out
with certain friends, then the remedy is not to pray that God will change that,
but to stop spending time with those particular friends.
Closing Prayer
O God and Heavenly Father, grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that
which cannot be changed, courage to change that which can be changed, and
wisdom to know the one from the other. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Killing of Cecil the Lion Sparks Debate About Where Outrage Should be Aimed
© 2015 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
If we've got this straight, we're now in the fourth phase of the story about
the killing of Cecil the lion.The first phase was the actual killing on July 1 of Zimbabwe's famous black-maned lion by Walter Palmer, a dentist from Minnesota, who had paid $50,000 to a professional hunter-guide to put him in a position to kill a lion. The 13-year-old lion lived with the pride he'd established in Hwange National Park in Matabeleland North, Zimbabwe, where he was a major attraction for tourists and, thus, a cog in Africa's growing tourism industry. (Similarly, the highly regulated lion-hunting industry is a major economic benefit for local people and the government.) Cecil had been fitted with a GPS device and was being tracked and studied by the University of Oxford.
Allegedly, someone lured the animal out of the sanctuary that was his home base. He was wounded with an arrow from a crossbow and, after being tracked for 40 hours, was killed with a shot from a rifle. The lion was then skinned and his head was removed. When park investigators later found his remains, the tracking collar was missing.
The second phase began after news of the killing was broadcast, drawing international media attention. It sparked outrage among animal conservationists, politicians and celebrities, as well as a strong negative Internet response against Palmer from some five million angry Cecil fans who had never heard of the lion before the news broke. Palmer was subject to doxing (public release of personal address information) and death threats by extremists.
The rage against Palmer, who had returned to the United States after the kill, caused him to go into hiding, but on July 28, he released the following statement:
In early July, I was in Zimbabwe on a bow hunting trip for big game. I hired several professional guides and they secured all proper permits. To my knowledge, everything about this trip was legal and properly handled and conducted.
I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite, was collared and part of a study until the end of the hunt. I relied on the expertise of my local professional guides to ensure a legal hunt.
I have not been contacted by authorities in Zimbabwe or in the U.S. about this situation, but will assist them in any inquiries they may have.
Again, I deeply regret that my pursuit of an activity I love and practice responsibly and legally resulted in the taking of this lion.
The third phase had more than one aspect. The first was when other critics criticized the outraged for getting worked up over the death of one lion while so many human beings -- including hungry children in many places around the world and oppressed people in Zimbabwe -- are suffering and dying. There's a defect in our moral compass, these voices implied. Writer Heather Wilhelm called this our "broken outrage meter." She also observed that the digital age has brought us "the thrill of discovering a new World's Most Despicable Person," a game that leads mobs to judge and shame someone -- in this case, the dentist from Minnesota.
A second aspect of the pushback focused on the disregard for both the local people of Zimbabwe and the conservation of wildlife. The critics of the outrage pointed out that, where managed hunting occurred, both the people in an area and the wildlife thrived. Making wild animals a benefit to local people -- rather than merely a burden -- encourages them to protect and provide for them. The signature example compares Kenya -- which banned elephant hunting in the 1970s -- to Zimbabwe, which encouraged controlled elephant hunting. Kenya's elephant population declined over the next 20 years to less than 10 percent of the original numbers -- while the elephant population in Zimbabwe doubled. This, the critics say, is in addition to the economic benefit the hunters bring to the local and national economies.
While there may be others, a third aspect of the pushback accused those outraged of misunderstanding the "natural" order of things. Those promoting this view said that the killing of one apex predator -- a lion -- by another apex predator -- a member of Homo sapiens -- is part of that natural order. This they considered especially true since lions are known to kill -- and not eat -- other predators. Facebook memes popped up bemoaning Cecil the lion's killing of the "beloved" Gary the gazelle, leaving Gary's mate widowed and his offspring fatherless.
That brings us to the fourth phase: commentators, bloggers and others responding to one part of the criticism of the outrage by pointing out that it's quite possible to care about more than one thing at a time, and that just because someone is motivated to speak up about the killing of the lion doesn't mean he or she doesn't also care about human sufferers.
As TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey put it in a team discussion, "While there is no doubt a disconnect for some who may feel horror at the killing of Cecil and no similar emotion at ____ (fill in the blank with your choice of the death of young black men, the killing of unborn children, etc.), I would take exception to the straw man this can be. Humans have the capacity of great empathy across categories. Love is not like a pie with only so many slices to be distributed, after which there will be none left for anyone else. Of course, some can be callous and hypocritical, but we should be careful not to characterize everyone who cares about lions in those terms."
More on this story can be found at these links:
How Outrage Over Cecil the Lion Killing Misses the Point. CNN
D----t! I Care More (About the Right Things) Than You Do. Word of a Woman
Cecil the Lion: We're Capable of Caring About More Than One Thing at Once. Christian Today
Statement From Walter Palmer on Killing of Cecil the Lion. StarTribune
What Is Trophy Hunting? Save the Rhino
More Information on Lions. Lions.org
In Zimbabwe, We Don’t Cry for Lions. New York Times
The Big Questions
1. Given the multiplicity of problems affecting millions of people around the world, many of which are difficult to address in any meaningful way, how do you decide which one(s) should have your attention as a Christian called to love your neighbor as yourself?
2. Should trophy hunting (defined by the Save the Rhino organization as "a specific and selective legal form of wildlife use that involves payment for a hunting experience and the acquisition of a trophy by the hunter") be an acceptable activity in this day and age? Why or why not?
3. If we become deeply involved in helping people who are struggling against a particular oppressive or deadly thing, does that excuse us from responsibility to help others facing other oppressive or deadly things? Why or why not?
4. Someone has defined evil as "the absence of empathy." Do you agree? Why or why not?
5. What's your reaction to this comment from Loucky-Ramsey: "Humans have the capacity of great empathy across categories. Love is not like a pie with only so many slices to be distributed, after which there will be none left for anyone else"?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
1 Chronicles 11:22
Benaiah ... was a valiant man of Kabzeel, a doer of great deeds; he ... went down and killed a lion in a pit on a day when snow had fallen. (For context, read 11:22-25.)
Benaiah belonged to King David's elite force called the "Mighty Men." Among other notable deeds, he "went down and killed a lion in a pit on a day when snow had fallen."
In that time and place, many people made their living tending sheep. A marauding lion, therefore, was a matter of real concern. And because it was winter, the small game that lions usually ate was not abundant. Thus sheep, and especially lambs, were a natural target for hungry lions, which, due to their hunger, were at their fiercest. Sheepherders had their hands full protecting their flocks. Benaiah, determined to do something, tracked the animal. Eventually he cornered it in a pit, went down into the pit and slayed it.
For that, Benaiah was a hero. And, we suspect, so too might be Palmer had he killed a lion who was threatening livestock or people. But that was not the case.
Questions: What, if anything, about the killing of Cecil differentiates it from other slayings of animals (such as the steer to make the hamburger you had for dinner last night)? Do you think God views the killing of animals for food or for protection or because the animal is suffering differently from the killing of Cecil? Why or why not?
Can you make any comparison between a "trophy" form of evangelism, where one keeps score of how many were "saved" at a particular event, versus evangelism built around creating relationships?
Jonah 4:9-11
But God said to Jonah, "Is it right for you to be angry about the bush?" And he said, "Yes, angry enough to die." Then the LORD said, "You are concerned about the bush, for which you did not labor and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?" (For context, read 4:1-11.)
Jonah was the prophet who tried to run away from his calling when God told him to call the people of Nineveh to repent. (Nineveh was the capital city of the Assyrian Empire, an archenemy of Israel.) But after the Lord made a whale of an effort to stop him, Jonah finally did as the Lord told him to, and -- surprise! -- the people of Nineveh repented!
But Jonah wasn't happy that Israel's enemy was spared God's punishment, and he sat down outside the city to sulk. The only thing he was happy about was the bush that provided him a shady place to sit out of the hot sun. But the next morning, the Lord sent a worm to attack the bush so that it withered and died, which made Jonah angry.
Read the verses above to see what happened next. Note that God used the withered bush as an object lesson for Jonah, comparing Jonah's concern for the bush with God's concern for the 120,000 people of Nineveh (and their animals!). God doesn't tell Jonah he shouldn't be concerned for the bush, but God was certainly implying that Jonah's concern shouldn't be limited to the bush.
Question: What do you think God might say to those who are angry about the killing of Cecil?
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." (For context, read 1:26-31.)
Proverbs 31:8 (CEB)
Speak out on behalf of the voiceless, and for the rights of all who are vulnerable. (For context, read 31:6-9.)
The Genesis verse tells us that God gave humankind power over the lives of his other creatures -- something the Bible calls "dominion" -- so we should understand that we have some responsibility for animals. Like God's other good gifts to us, animals are for our wise use, not for our abuse. In other words, we're talking about stewardship. The animals don't belong to us. They belong to God, and he gives us use of them.
The Proverbs verse, though no doubt initially stated with people in mind, can be a good principle on which to base our treatment of animals.
Questions: What does having "dominion" mean to you in terms of trophy hunting? Why? What is the difference, in your opinion, between dominion and domination?
Genesis 21:17
And God heard the voice of the boy; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar? Do not be afraid; for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is." (For context, read 21:8-21.)
Because of family rivalry, Hagar and her son Ishmael had been turned out from Abraham's encampment. The mother and son were soon out of water and alone in the wilderness, and Ishmael was near death. At that point, God intervened, saving them. An angel told Hagar that God had "heard the voice of the boy where he is."
The word "empathy" does not appear in the Bible, but the ability to "hear" someone "where he/she is" is a good definition of empathy, especially since in scripture, "hearing" often implies having compassion for someone because of their circumstances.
The verse above suggests that empathy is a godly reaction to someone.
The Bible does use the words "compassion" and "pity," both of which imply empathy.
Questions: When have you been aware of empathy as a force motivating you to do some good thing? What does it mean to have empathy for someone? What does it mean to have empathy for an animal? Is it possible to be involved in caring or service ministries without some measure of empathy? Is a sense of duty enough? Can there be too much empathy?
Romans 1:25
... they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (For context, read 1:18-32.)
This verse is from Paul's letter to the Romans, where he begins by describing the natural state of sinful humans, standing in judgment before God's righteousness. One aspect of this is the tendency to worship parts of the creation.
Some of the concern over the lion's death appears to be close to animal worship. G.K. Chesterton, in his book The Uses of Diversity (1920), noted:
There is a healthy and an unhealthy love of animals: and the nearest definition of the difference is that the unhealthy love of animals is serious. I am quite prepared to love a rhinoceros, with reasonable precautions: he is, doubtless, a delightful father to the young rhinoceroses. But I will not promise not to laugh at a rhinoceros. ... I will not worship an animal. That is, I will not take an animal quite seriously: and I know why. Wherever there is Animal Worship there is Human Sacrifice. That is, both symbolically and literally, a real truth of historical experience.
This appears to play out when we read about death threats against the hunter who killed the lion. But to a lesser extent, it also may be relevant when people dismiss the economic benefit to the poor in Zimbabwe who benefit from legalized and sustainable hunting, as well as when the killing of an elderly lion is decried while other major life-and-death social issues are ignored.
Questions: What might be examples of "Animal Worship" that you have encountered or seen? How do you guard against "worshiping the creature rather than the Creator" in your thoughts and actions?
Romans 8:22-23
We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. (For context, read 8:18-25.)
We can get a glimpse, from this writing, that it is not normal for the world and its inhabitants to be in a state of death, decay and destruction. According to Paul, the redemption of humans has a redeeming effect on the rest of creation. Because of all this, Paul calls us to live in hope (see vv. 24-25.)
Question: What role, if any, do you think animals will have in the kingdom of God? In answering, consider the paintings of Edward Hicks, collectively called "The Peaceable Kingdom."
For Further Discussion
1. The great naturalist John Muir, who was born in 1838, was brought up on a farm with domestic animals and later spent a lot of time in the wilderness viewing wild creatures. In his day, some religious leaders insisted that animals had no minds and no souls, and so therefore had no rights. Some people took that to mean that they were essentially machines in fur and feathers. Muir denounced the attitude he found among some people that as so-called "lords of creation," humans have no responsibility for the other, supposedly less intelligent species on earth. He was one of the first to make the case that animals have individualities and uniquenesses that distinguish them one from another. What do you think of Muir's conclusions? Why?
2. Comment on this, from the Save the Rhino article in the list of links above: "Many conservation organizations recognize that the sustainable use of wildlife, including responsible trophy hunting of rhinos, has a valid role in overall rhino conservation strategies. ... At the turn of the century, only around 50-100 white rhino remained in South Africa and urgent conservation action, including the involvement of private landowners, was taken to save this species from the brink of extinction. Since 1968, South Africa has permitted the limited hunting of Southern white rhino, and data from the IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group shows that since hunting began, the numbers of Southern white rhino have increased from 1,800 to over 20,000. By allowing private landowners to conduct limited trophy hunting of rhinos, this helped give white rhinos an economic value and allowed private landowners and communities to benefit from having rhinos on their land. It became an incentive to own rhinos. Currently almost 25 percent of Africa's rhinos are privately owned."
3. Discuss this, from Michelle Krabill in her Word of a Woman blog entry on the killing of Cecil: "Perhaps, just perhaps, courage, empathy, compassion and the rest of our virtues are not a competition at all. ... Perhaps, as we voice our care and concern, our admiration and respect, these things do not diminish but rather multiply. Maybe we could all try to recognize that just because someone says one thing is tragic (for example, the death of a beloved lion) does not mean that they do not also believe that other things are just as and sometimes much more tragic; that just because we believe one person exhibits courage, does not mean others have not and do not exhibit courage and sometimes in greater measure."
4. Respond to this, from TWW team member Frank Ramirez: "Big game hunters make easy targets for derision because unlike an indigenous population which might well eat a giraffe, for instance, most American big game hunters have no intention of eating what they kill."
5. Discuss this, from TWW team member Mary Sells: "One of my clients is from Zimbabwe and his business is making clothing worn by big game hunters. The clothing is made by local people in Zimbabwe, who in addition to getting paid a living wage, are given education and a chance for a better life than if they did not have this employment option. My client is very proud of the good they do for the people who they employ. I have not spoken to him since this incident, yet I can imagine the worry that, if big game hunting in Africa is to be stopped or shunned, all of the good he has made happen for so many families will evaporate. That is collateral damage."
6. Extinction seems to have been a part of the history of life on our planet, with major events in which much of the life on Earth was destroyed in cataclysmic events or climate changes. Are such events from "natural" causes different than extinctions whose root is in human actions or choices?
Responding to the News
While there are more needs in the world than any person could possibly address, it's possible that we use that fact as an excuse to be involved in trying to alleviate none of them. This is a good time to consider that it's better -- and more in line with our calling to follow Jesus -- to be trying to help somewhere than nowhere.
Closing Prayer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)