Thursday, September 17, 2015

Ex-Bishop Who Killed Cyclist Gets 10 Years Behind Bars

© 2015 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com

Back in January, we had a Wired Word lesson based on the news of an Episcopal bishop who, while driving drunk and texting, veered into a bicycle lane where she hit and killed a cyclist. Because of a new development, we are returning to that story today.
The driver, Heather Elizabeth Cook, 58, who at the time was an assistant bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland and the first female to serve in that post in that diocese, has now pled guilty to these charges: automobile manslaughter, leaving the scene of a fatal accident, driving while under the influence and texting while driving. She will be incarcerated for 10 years. (Her full sentence is 20 years, with 10 suspended, plus an additional five years' probation.)
Cook has also resigned from her office as bishop, and in an "accord" reached between her and the Episcopal Church, she is no longer allowed to function as an ordained person in that denomination. An "accord" means that Cook agreed to the terms of her deposition under the terms of church law and thus was able to forgo an ecclesiastical trial.
Except for one part of the original story that is germane to today's discussion, we are not going to rehash the January lesson, but if you wish to review it, it's The Wired Word for the week of January 18, 2015: "Drunken Bishop Kills Cyclist in Hit-and-Run Collision." You can find it in the "Choose a different lesson" list on the Wired Word website, www.TheWiredWord.com.
The germane section of the original story is this: In 2010, at Cook's previous assignment in the Diocese of Easton on Maryland's Eastern Shore -- before becoming a bishop -- Cook was charged in another drunken driving incident. According to a police report, an officer found Cook in the middle of the night driving on three tires. She had vomit on her shirt and was too intoxicated to complete a sobriety test. She was also charged with possession of marijuana.
In that case, Cook pled guilty to drunken driving. The drug-possession charges were dropped. She was fined and sentenced to probation before judgment on the DUI charge, meaning her record could be cleared if she stayed out of trouble.
After Cook killed the cyclist, many Episcopal leaders and clergy demanded to know why she was selected to be a bishop, considering the nature of that 2010 arrest. The leaders in the Diocese of Maryland also wanted to know why only the search committee, but not the full voting convention, was told about the earlier charge when considering Cook's candidacy for the office of bishop.
According to the search committee, they did not tell anyone about the 2010 incident because it was confidential, and because they had "at least twice" encouraged Cook to share it herself. If that's the case, she apparently chose not to.
Following the news of Cook's hit-and-run accident, Diana Butler Bass, a prominent church historian and Episcopalian who lives in Northern Virginia, said she wondered if the denomination's liberal tendencies had been harmful in this case.
"We love to give people the benefit of doubt," Bass said. "'There but for the grace of God,' and all that. We're not the church that likes to condemn people. In this case it worked in the wrong direction." Bass added, "Forgiveness isn't the solution to addiction."
Of interest to us for this lesson is a comment from Rev. Anjel Scarborough, in an open letter to her congregation at Grace Episcopal Church in Brunswick, Maryland. She wrote the letter in January, right after Cook's arrest, but a portion of it was quoted in one of the news stories last week reporting Cook's plea and sentencing.
"In the end, this was an epic failure," Scarborough wrote. "It was the failure of a process to stop a candidate for bishop from being put forward when clearly her alcoholism was not in remission. It was a failure of Heather's to choose not to treat her alcoholism and conceal her past. This resulted in the death of a husband and father [the cyclist] -- something which Heather will have to live with for the rest of her life and for which she may be incarcerated. This was our failure of Heather too. As the Church, we set her up to fail by confusing forgiveness with accountability. We did not hold her accountable to a program of sobriety and we failed to ask the tough love questions which needed to be asked. In so doing, we offered cheap grace -- and that is enabling."
In Scarborough's mention of "cheap grace," we find the primary topic for this lesson. As far as we know, the term was coined by the German Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed by the Nazis for actively resisting Hitler. In his 1937 book  The Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer wrote, "Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves ... the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship."
Bonhoeffer contrasted cheap grace with "costly grace," which he said "is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which [we] must knock .... It is costly because it costs [us our] life, and it is grace because it gives [us] the only true life."
More on this story can be found at these links:


The Big Questions

1. Grace is typically defined as "undeserved favor." How is it related to the matters of second chances and accountability? What needs to happen before giving a person a second chance? What needs to happen in addition to giving a person a second chance?
2. Does the current trend toward tolerance in our culture fit into the discussion of cheap grace? If so, how? And how might costly grace fit with tolerance?
3. In our desire for our churches to grow, should we welcome people without any demands for righteous living? Should we offer an expectation-free welcome up front in the hope that we can later move people toward righteous living?
4. How are judgment and grace related? Is there a difference in kind between God's forgiveness of sinners and our forgiveness of those who have sinned against us? Explain the distinction, if any.
5. In the Heather Cook situation, who, in addition to God and Christ, has the purview to offer her grace?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:

Psalm 145:8 
The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. (For context, read 145:1-9.)

This is an important statement about the character and intent of God, but it's a verse that is too easily used to misunderstand God's grace and to excuse all manner of unrighteousness.
God's slowness to anger is good news for us because we need time to discover we are on the wrong road when we do not include Christ in our lives. We need time to be convinced of our need for forgiveness. We need time to grow in the Spirit and mature in the faith. We usually cannot become the people God calls us to be overnight, and so, thankfully, God is slow to anger and is patient with us.
At the same time, however, God does not withhold judgment forever, so we should not use God's slowness to anger as an excuse to live as we please without attending to God's call to be righteous. That's a cheap -- and inaccurate -- view of God's grace.
Questions: When have you benefited from God's slowness to anger? Did you understand that as an expression of God's grace?
Matthew 18:32-33
Then his lord summoned him and said to him, "You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?" (For context, read 18:21-35.)

These lines are from what's often called "the parable of the unforgiving servant," which Jesus told after answering Peter's question about how often he should forgive someone who sinned against him. The parable tells of a servant who owed a vast sum of money to the king he served, but when he couldn't repay it, the king forgave him the debt. The servant then went out and found a fellow servant who owed him a paltry debt, but who also couldn't pay. The first servant had his workmate thrown into prison. At that, the king withdrew the forgiveness of the large debt and had the man tortured until such a (hypothetical) time as he could pay.
The parable is about forgiveness, but it's also about grace, for grace is the motivation behind forgiveness. The problem was, the bestowal of grace by the king didn't translate into the debtor's offering forgiveness to his fellow servant. We could say that the man forgiven of the huge debt considered the grace shown toward him as something "cheap," which, of course, it was not.
The man also devalued the second chance at a life unencumbered by debt that the king had given him.
Question: What has and does God's grace cost him?
Galatians 6:1-2 
My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (For context, read 6:1-5.)

Paul addressed these remarks to the whole community of Christ in Galatia. They were to deal with one another, helping each other live faithfully and in a manner true to their calling.
The Episcopal Church has taken ownership of the tragedy caused by Heather Cook, including reaching out to the family of the slain cyclist with support, accepting blame for not making sure Cook's alcoholism was under control before electing her to the new responsibility, and revising their whole approach to recognizing and dealing with addictions. (See the Anglican Ink article in the links list above.) We assume, but don't know since such matters are usually kept confidential, that there has also been some offer of ministry to Cook since her dismissal from the ordained ranks of the church.
Questions: When has your congregation sought to help a member who has conspicuously sinned or fallen into addiction? What was the outcome? What might you do differently if a similar situation were to arise?
Are there any ways in which the Episcopal Church's "accepting the blame" -- with no personal consequences for those in authority who made decisions -- exemplify cheap grace: a "grace we bestow upon ourselves"? Explain.
2 Corinthians 7:9-11 
Now I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because your grief led to repentance; for you felt a godly grief .... For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death. For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you ...." (For context, read 7:5-13.)

At one point after leaving Corinth, Paul felt it necessary to write a severe letter to the Christians there because of some serious misbehavior among some of the church members. The letter was apparently effective, for here, Paul writes to say how pleased he is that the letter caused some "godly grief" among the members and led to repentance.
Godly grief, we suspect, was a recognition of the costliness of the grace of God that had been extended to them.
Question: What might be the "cheap" version of grief caused by Paul's letter, and what might it have led to?
Mark 1:16-17 
As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea ... And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you fish for people." (For context, read 1:16-20.)
John 21:22 
Jesus said to [Peter], "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" (For context, read 21:15-23.)

In his book The Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer referred to these two passages, saying, "On two occasions Peter received the call, 'Follow me.' It was the first and last word Jesus spoke to his disciple. A whole life [of discipleship] lies between these two calls." Bonhoeffer went on to explain that the first call came while Peter was fishing, and the second when Peter had gone back again to his old trade. Bonhoeffer also noted that between these two calls came Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ of God (Matthew 16:13-20).
"Three times Peter hears the same proclamation that Christ is his Lord and God -- at the beginning, at the end, and [in between the other two]," Bonhoeffer wrote. "Each time, it is the same grace of Christ which calls to him 'Follow me' ... the one grace proclaimed in three different ways."
Bonhoeffer continued, "The grace was certainly not self-bestowed. It was the grace of Christ himself, now prevailing upon the disciple to leave all and follow him, now working in him that confession which to the world must sound like the ultimate blasphemy, now inviting Peter to the supreme fellowship of martyrdom for the Lord he had denied, and thereby forgiving him all his sins. In the life of Peter, grace and discipleship are inseparable. He had received the grace which costs."
Questions: What do these texts and Bonhoeffer's commentary on them say about second chances? What do you now understand about cheap grace/costly grace that you did not understand previously?
What do you think might be God's call to Heather Cook at this point in time?
For Further Discussion
1. Comment on this, from TWW team member James Berger: "It is important to realize that there can be no grace until there has been judgment. One must be judged as guilty before grace can be extended. Bypassing judgment is only excusing an action. For example, the two high school football players in Texas who apparently assaulted a referee, one smashing him from behind, the second jumping on him as he lay on the ground -- this happened two weeks ago and I saw the video online. Some might say, 'Boys will be boys.' That is excusing their actions. The school has suspended them pending an investigation, and legal charges are being considered against them. That is judgment. Forgiveness can only come from the official they attacked. He is the arbiter of grace, not the fans, families or media. Cheap grace is just another name for excusing the action without holding the party accountable. To me 'cheap grace' is an oxymoron."
2. In 1 John 2:1-2, John wrote, "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." What does this have to do with second chances?
3. Respond to these two comments, from the article "How to Connect Forgiveness and Accountability":  "Second chances require forgiveness with accountability." "Forgiveness is starting again with clear expectations."
4. Discuss this, from TWW team member Mary Sells: "As Christians, we are just as likely to offer cheap grace even when no sin is involved. Our actions tell that there is no expectation -- but I think that is contrary to Jesus' teaching. Yes, Jesus forgives all and so should we; however, I think we often forget the 'go and sin no more' after the 'your sins are forgiven.' Is it because we do not want to have God put expectations of change on us that we fear having expectations of others?"
5. Respond to this, from Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "This cheap grace has been no less disastrous to our own spiritual lives. Instead of opening up the way to Christ, it has closed it. Instead of calling us to follow Christ, it has hardened our disobedience."
6. The phenomenon of the "non-apology apology" has become almost a cliche in our political culture; if you can't think of an example from your own political group, no doubt you can think of an example from someone you oppose. Discuss this in the context of "cheap grace."
Responding to the News
This is a good time to consider in what ways you have been taking God's grace for granted and what you need to do to change that.
If you have a problem with certain temptations or addictions, this is a good time to review what accountability measures you have put in place to address them.
Closing Prayer
O God, whose grace has cost you so much, thank you for its bestowal on us. Help us not to cheapen it by accepting it without re-aiming our lives toward the ways of righteousness. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Now Released: Kentucky County Clerk Jailed After Refusal to Issue Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex Couples

© 2015 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk whose job includes issuing marriage licenses, chose to be jailed last week rather than accept a deal that would have allowed her to remain free after defying a federal order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Davis, a Democrat, had not only refused to issue licenses to such couples, but had stopped the issuance of any marriage licenses. Furthermore, not only did she refuse to issue them, but she also forbade her deputies to do so. When ordered by the court to obey the law, she appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear her case.
Unlike in some other states, Kentucky requires that a marriage license state the county clerk's name as the one issuing the license, even when it is issued by a subordinate in that office. In these other states, a "reasonable accommodation" (a legal term) has been found, allowing licenses to be issued to homosexual couples without implying that the official issuing the license was in agreement. Davis has sought accommodation whereby homosexual couples could get marriage licenses without her involvement, direct or indirect. She suggests an "opt-out" in the marriage license process, deputizing another county clerk, taking her name off of the license and having the state distribute the license.
After being jailed, Davis asked the Kentucky governor, Steven Beshear, also a Democrat, to free her and, according to one of her lawyers, "provide reasonable, sensible accommodation so she can do her job." The governor said he would not intervene in a matter between her and the courts.
However, on Tuesday, after being satisfied that Davis' deputies are now issuing the marriage licenses, the Federal Court judge who had ordered her jailed, let her out, with a stern warning: "Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples." The judge also instructed that the deputies are to report to him every two weeks. "If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this order and appropriate sanctions will be considered," the release order said.
Davis maintains that her refusal to issue the licenses, which are now legal in every state following the recent Supreme Court decision creating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, is because of her view as a Christian that same-sex marriages are "not of God."
Some coverage of this story has highlighted the fact the Davis' personal history regarding marriage is not exemplary. She has been married four times to three different men, and was reportedly impregnated by the man who became her third husband while she was married to her first husband. Davis dates her "religious awakening" to 2011, following her mother-in-law's "dying wish" that she attend church. She regularly attends the Solid Rock Apostolic Church near Morehead, Kentucky, a congregation in the Apostolic Church, a Pentecostal Christian denomination.
It is not rare for an elected official to disobey the law. Ironically, in 2004, then San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom defied the law and forced government clerks to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. What is rare is for an official to be jailed. Newsom was not jailed or even fined. Whatever the case, Davis is partaking of another long-standing American tradition, that of civil disobedience.
In another story this week, a Muslim flight attendant, Charee Stanley, was suspended by ExpressJet because of her refusal to serve alcohol to passengers due to her religious beliefs. Some members of The Wired Word team consider her story and Davis' to be examples of the same theme of obedience to one's conscience and one's understanding of God's will. If that's the case, then some of our responses to Davis' situation might also apply to Stanley's.
More on this story can be found at these links:


The Big Questions
1. When, if ever, is a Christian justified in refusing to do part of a job for which he or she was hired, especially if some dimensions of that job have changed? When, if ever, is a Christian justified in refusing to obey a court order? Assuming you consider there to be some times when one or the other is the right thing to do, what criteria do you use in making the decision, and whom do you consult for a second opinion? What might lead you to conclude that your decision to refuse was correct? What might lead you to conclude that it was misguided?
2. (You may wish to consider the following as different versions of the same question, or you may wish to consider them individually.) If an Amish person works for the Department of Motor Vehicles, must they issue driver's licenses, even though they don't believe in the use of automobiles? If a district attorney believes that the Bible teaches that a man may beat his wife, does that mean he is not obligated to prosecute domestic abuse cases in which a man beats his wife? Or may a public defender who is passionate about animal rights choose not to defend a person accused of animal abuse, or dog-fighting? How about a postal worker who dislikes the person on his route whom he assumes to be a mafioso? Must he deliver his mail?
3. Some might believe that the Kentucky clerk's troubled background renders her hypocritical or lacking in personal credibility. Suppose she had not been married four times and had a pristine moral record. How, if at all, would that affect your opinion of her stance regarding marriage licenses?
4. Are there some jobs Christians shouldn't hold if they are convinced that some requirements of the job conflict with their conscience or faith?
5. If you defend Kim Davis' choice to refuse on religious grounds to issue same-sex couples marriage licenses with her name on them, even though this is a requirement of her job, do you also defend Charee Stanley's choice to refuse on religious grounds to serve alcoholic beverages to airline passengers, even though this is a requirement of her job? Why or why not? Is Davis' situation different enough from Stanley's to warrant different answers? Does the fact that Davis' job is a government job (as opposed to a private-sector job) have any bearing?

Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:


Acts 5:29 
But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than any human authority." (For context, read 5:17-42.)

This is from the account of the arrest of some of the apostles for preaching and healing in the temple in Jesus' name, and the sentence above includes the words of defense the apostles spoke when brought before the high priest and the council. Some commentators on Davis' situation have been quick to apply the apostles' defense to her.
But TWW team member Timothy Merrill comments that Davis "is not in the position of the apostles in Acts ..., where Peter famously said it is better to obey God than human authority. No one is saying she can't stand on a street corner and proclaim her beliefs. They are saying that if she wants to continue to get a paycheck from the government, then she'll have to do what clerks do: issue marriage licenses."
Davis needs a job that does not offend her conscience, Merrill says. "Being a county clerk evidently is not a job a Christian like [Davis] can continue to hold. Perhaps there are other such jobs off limits for Christians of a certain conscience."
TWW team member Frank Ramirez, a pastor in the Church of the Brethren, responds, "Our denomination teaches that all war is sin and encouraged our people to register as conscientious objectors during World War II and the Korean and Vietnam wars, so I would suggest we shouldn't be military recruiters. Some of my friends, because of their objections to war, actually live at the poverty level deliberately so they don't pay taxes and thereby support the military. I don't think I would be willing to go that far (my stance on war is more nuanced), but I know people who will not work in positions that require them to go against their conscience."
For a contrasting view, see the article "When Does Your Religion Legally Excuse You From Doing Part of Your Job?" in the link list above.
Questions: Are there indeed times when Christians must choose between following their faith and keeping their only source of income? What sorts of jobs should Christians not hold? Why? Which ones would you be unable to hold based on your conscience or your understanding of God's will?

Luke 20:25
Then give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's. (For context, read 20:20-26.)

This was Jesus' response to a question about whether it was lawful to pay taxes to the emperor. The question was not a sincere one, but rather an attempt to trap Jesus into saying something that would throw him either into disfavor with the crowds or into legal jeopardy with Rome. But Jesus took the occasion to tell people that while they needed to give to the emperor what was legally required, they also needed to give to God the allegiance they owed him.
Clearly Jesus understood that his followers had dual responsibilities. They were both subjects of the Roman Empire and citizens of God's kingdom. Jesus does not discuss how far Christians should go in trying to make kingdom principles the law of the empire, but his statement does suggest that they could not ignore either world.
Question: What clues does this verse give you about how Jesus might address Davis' choice to refuse to issue marriage licenses despite it being a requirement of her job?

Romans 13:1-3
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. (For context, read 13:1-7.)

It is important to read these words of Paul about obedience to governing authorities in the context of the early church. Christians were still a new group in the Roman Empire and could bring brutal repression upon themselves if they challenged the governing powers. However, except for a few periods of severe persecution, the Roman authorities often left Christians alone. And the social order Rome enforced throughout its empire, as well as the roads the Romans built, made travel for the purpose of spreading the gospel relatively safe. Thus, Paul and other Christians saw God's hand in that social order and urged obedience to those who enforced it.
Probably this advice was not intended to be universal or to apply to every government, no matter how repressive or notorious. Christian responses to governing authorities should be informed by discernment of the will of God and faithfulness to Jesus' command to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Questions: Is one's understanding of one's religious requirements superior to the law? Who has the authority to answer that question?

1 Corinthians 7:17, 19 
... let each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned, to which God has called you ... obeying the commandments of God is everything. (For context, read 7:17-24.)

Paul makes this comment in the midst of a discussion about whether unmarried and widowed Christians should marry and how married Christians whose spouse is an unbeliever should deal with their marriages. Some biblical commentators believe Paul's comments were made in expectation that Christ would return very soon, but whatever the case, the words above can be thought of as a kind of summary statement that no matter what their marital circumstances, "obeying the commandments of God is everything."
That sounds right to us yet today, whether talking about our marriages or anything else. The challenge is rightly understanding and applying those commands for our purposes here and now.
Questions: Is Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses a matter of "obeying the commandments of God"? (After all, God nowhere says, "Thou shalt not do anything to help same-sex couples.") If you think it is, what specific or general command is she obeying?
When have you taken a costly stand based on obeying the commandments of God?

For Further Discussion
Reflecting somewhat the varying views among Christians nationwide concerning Kim Davis' action, members of The Wired Word team differ in their views as well. We offer the following samples, which you may wish to discuss and respond to:

From TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey: "We had dear friends who paid dearly for standing up for their faith after the Communists took over in Czechoslovakia. He was sent to a death camp prison for 10 years and nearly died for crimes he didn't commit, and his wife and three small children were thrown out of their apartment and forced to live in a field for months; she had trouble keeping her job as a nurse because she would not deny her faith; the children in later years were denied entry to university or refused jobs because they would not follow the party line. When an American is thrown into jail for her unwillingness to put her signature on marriage certificates which she feels her faith does not permit, it's not hard to understand that a lot of Americans might see this [the arrest of Davis] as egregious persecution that would have been unimaginable in our nation in our parents' generation."

From TWW team member Mary Sells: "On the one hand, you have an elected official who swears to uphold the law -- and is now in a position to disagree with one. My view? If you run for office, you know the gig and that it is possible that your personal view and your official duties may not match; constituents elect persons to rise above personal views in order to administer the law. Ms. Davis is in jail because the money being raised on her behalf, according to the judge, influenced her more than her duty. I opine that Ms. Davis is enjoying her moment in the sun, like a good politician, despite her Christian belief, and will do quite well when book and movie rights offers come to light.
     "I also understand that there are people in every generation who are standard bearers, who can cast light upon issues for us all to make a self-examination -- Martin Luther King, for example. I wish I felt the sincerity of such in Ms. Davis, but I do not think she belongs to that club."


From TWW team member Liz Antonson: She points out that the religious liberty based on the First Amendment of the Constitution not only ensures that all Americans will be able to practice their religious convictions freely and openly without fear of government regulation or prohibition, but also that the government is protected from religious institutions' attempt to garner political power over the nation. 
     Antonson says, "As much as we love the country we live in, we must remember two important realities: 1) It is a temporary home, and 2) there is a time coming when this scripture will be fulfilled: 'The kingdoms [governments] of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever!' (Revelation 11:15). Our citizenship is not earth-bound; 'This world is the limit of their earth-bound horizon. But we are citizens of heaven; our outlook goes beyond this world to the hopeful expectation of the Savior who will come from heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ' (Philippians 3:19-20)."
     "Take note," Antonson says, "none of the first disciples, nor Paul, the latecomer disciple, took it upon themselves to infiltrate or transform the government of Rome, nor of any other country to which they carried the Good News of the Kingdom. They were faithful to Christ's Great Commission; the command was to evangelize the world, not to re-fashion political powers. ... This is not a call to be silent about harmful ideas and practices in our country. Rather, it is a reminder to keep foremost in our understanding that Christ is not a conservative or a liberal ... Christ is King of the only government that matters."

From TWW team member Jim Berger: "Lots of people are convinced they speak for God today. Just ask the Taliban, ISIS, the Aryan Nation, the Ku Klux Klan, the Neo-Nazis and, of course, the Westboro Baptist Church. God told them to take this stand!"
From TWW consultant James Gruetzner: "This situation provides more indication that the government should not be in the business of approving or 'licensing' marriages. I've been told that current licensing scheme developed in part as a method to enforce anti-miscegenation laws (laws against interracial marriage). Requiring the government's permission to get married is truly beyond the legitimate scope of government power. This was brought home to me when my older daughter was getting married, and there was the added stress of ensuring that 'the license' was obtained prior to the ceremony. While government may arguably have a role in maintaining a registry of marriages as a matter of public record (as they may do with other contracts), that is much different than seeking the permission of some mandarin in order to get married. (To be clear, I believe that homosexual 'marriages' are mock-marriages, but if two people of the same sex want to write a contract that they call a 'marriage' and have it filed in a public repository, then I see no reason for the government to forbid them.) If the government doesn't have to provide a license, then the problem facing Davis and her opponents goes away."
Responding to the News
We all, as Christians, struggle with when to take a stand as a matter of our faith, and when not to. This is a good time to think about where our conscience convicts us because of requirements of our work or school or some other circumstance of our life, and bring such matters to our church where we may review them with the help of Christians who are mature in Christ.
This is also a good time to remember that if we substitute other names or circumstances into a premise and the premise doesn't hold up, that may be an indicator that it is a misguided premise. For example, in place of talking about a county clerk who doesn't want her name on marriage licenses issued to homosexual couples, substitute a pastor who defies his or her denominational policy in order to conduct a same-sex wedding. (An actual case; read about it here.) After the substitution, is your view of Davis' action any different? Is your view of your action (or contemplated action) in one of your own circumstances any different?
Closing Prayer
O God, we thank you for calling us to make Jesus the Lord of our lives, even while you place us in societies where our conscience is challenged. Help us to live as good citizens of both your kingdom and our nation. Help us also, insofar as is possible and helpful, to avoid partisanship. And when we must disagree, let it be in a spirit of charity. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Fleeing Hurricane Katrina, Church Finds New Place of Ministry Hundreds of Miles Away

The news this week is about a smokin' hot church, but we start with a bit of retrospective.
When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the United States on August 29, 2005, The Wired Word was a new curriculum, in its third month of publication (our 10th anniversary was this past June). Here's how we opened our "In the News" section the following Sunday:
Monday night and on into Tuesday of this week, a category-5 hurricane, dubbed Katrina, tore into the Gulf Coast, with winds in excess of 150 mph and a devastating storm surge, inflicting catastrophic damage in the coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, including the cities of New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile, Gulfport and surrounding communities. In New Orleans, the levees protecting the city were breached and as much as 80 percent of the city is in standing water, up to 20 feet deep in some places.
As we now know, Katrina killed more than 1,800 people across the Gulf Coast region, and many thousands more were displaced by that catastrophe, which TWW referred to at the time -- without exaggeration -- as a "disaster ... of biblical proportions." In New Orleans alone, an estimated quarter of a million residents fled the city, and half of them have never returned.
Among those who escaped Katrina's wrath were the more than 200 members of a non-denomination church called Smoking for Jesus Ministry, which had been founded in 1996 on New Orleans' rugged east side. The name comes from Revelation 3:16 -- "So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Its members don't want to be lukewarm toward Jesus.
Many in the congregation didn't have cars or the money to evacuate, but in the 24 hours before the storm hit, the church organized transportation to get its members out of the city together before Katrina unleashed her fury.
They first tried to settle in southeast Texas, about 40 miles from New Orleans, but the second major storm to smack the area, Hurricane Rita, drove them on. Over the next six weeks, they caravanned some 1,000 miles, visiting eight Texas communities, staying in church retreat centers and hotels. Finally, they came to Marble Falls, a town about an hour northwest of Austin, where they settled. One of Marble Falls' claims to fame is that it was the first town in the United States to elect a female mayor, in 1917.
According to the church's pastor, Willie Monnet, God's Spirit led them to that location.
Most residents of Marble Falls are white, while the Smoking for Jesus folks are black, but according to a Yahoo News story about the church's odyssey, the whole county welcomed them. In time, they were able to purchase a 56-acre ranch in nearby Kingsland that had once been the site of an orphanage and already had a church building. Since then, eight families from the congregation have purchased lots on the campus and built new homes.
Several members have also started businesses in the area or work in the Real New Orleans Style Restaurant that the church opened in Marble Falls, which has become a popular eatery.
The church has now grown to about 300 members, including some local people of other ethnicities. Pastor Monnet says, "We have a mixture now ... 'cause they wanna figure out what we smokin' here."
It sounds like they are high on the Lord.
In occurs to us here at The Wired Word that the members of the Smoking for Jesus Ministry had become people of the "diaspora." (Pronounced di-AS-po-ra, the word is from a Greek root meaning "to spread about" or "to sow.") Diaspora usually refers to the scattered members of a religious community separated from the main body of fellow believers because of circumstances not of their own choosing -- and usually unpleasant. While the members of the Smoking for Jesus Ministry no doubt found fellow Christians already in Marble Falls, they may still be considered people of the diaspora in terms of being driven out of their hometown by circumstances beyond their control.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Hurricane Katrina Forced Their Church From New Orleans, but ... Yahoo News
Smoking for Jesus Ministry
The Big Questions
1. How does diaspora fit into God's plans for people of faith? Is there a sense in which all Christians are people of the diaspora, and if so, what is the homeland from which we are separated?
2. Think about a time when you may have reluctantly relocated (perhaps because of a job, a spouse's job, a health reason, etc.). What responsibility, if any, did you feel toward the people in your new location? Why?
3. When, if ever, have you felt that the Lord was active in a relocation you hadn't expected to make?
4. When has a relocation given you fresh insight or renewed vigor in your faith? Why? If you have not relocated, how has staying put contributed to your faith?
5. What does it mean that God is both localized (close to you) and unbounded (involved with the whole creation)?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
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 is from a letter the prophet Jeremiah wrote to the people of Judah shortly after they arrived in Babylon, where they'd been forced by the Babylonians. Some apparently argued that the stay there would be short, but Jeremiah had heard different news from God. Although Jeremiah said the people would be allowed to return to their homeland eventually, that was to be many years in the future. In fact, it would be so far in the future that many in the exiled generation would no longer be alive. The Judahites had become people of the diaspora.
In the interim, said Jeremiah, the people should not only resign themselves to a lengthy stay, but should actively seek the welfare of the land where they had been taken. They were actually to work for the good of Babylon. They were not to forget who they were or where they came from, but neither were they to think of themselves merely as short-term visitors.
Questions: Remembering that "diaspora" is from a Greek root meaning "to spread about" or "to sow," in what positive sense does the definition "to sow" apply to Jeremiah's advice to those in exile? How does it apply to you, whether you are away from your homeland or not?
How reluctant or eager has your church been to abandon location and security, whether literally by moving, or figuratively by creating new programs, advocating for abandoned populations or in other ways changing the character and face of the church?
Psalm 137:4-5
How could we sing the LORD's song in a foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither! (For context, read 137:1-9.)
Psalm 137 is a lament of the Jews in exile in Babylon. Clearly, from the verses above, they would rather have been back home in Jerusalem. In fact, their anger at their captors is also expressed in the psalm quite graphically (read verses 8-9).
Also, in a time when the exiles thought of Jerusalem's temple (by then destroyed by the Babylonians) as the throne of God, how, they wondered, could they sing God's song in this foreign land? Without a temple, they couldn't even offer the prescribed sacrifices. Some may have even wondered if God's rule applied in the land of the Babylonians.
But in this foreign land, the Jews found ways to continue the worship of God. The prophet Ezekiel and many priests were in exile with them, and Jeremiah sent messages from Jerusalem encouraging prayer and fasting. They kept the traditional feasts and Sabbath days. They held house meetings for instruction in God's laws. These practices, in fact, were the foundation of the synagogue system, which did not exist before the exile.
The exiles discovered that their religion was not dependent on location and the temple. They learned that their faith could survive and be practiced in any geographical setting and culture.
Questions: When have you used a relocation as a reason to not connect with a new congregation? When has a relocation hampered your worship of God? How did what you carried with you from your former church help you contribute to your new congregation?
Is your congregation grieving in some ways because it can't get back to an imagined perfect past? Has your church grieved and then settled into the 21st century? How about you individually?
Matthew 6:31, 33
Therefore do not worry, saying, "What will we eat?" or "What will we drink?" or "What will we wear?" ... But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (For context, read 6:25-34.)
We don't know what Bible passages Pastor Monnet used for his sermons to his flock while they were searching for a new home, but Matthew 6:25-34 (from which we've quoted a representative sample above) strikes us as a good candidate.
Questions: In what ways does this passage fit the circumstances of a congregation forced by circumstances to move? In what ways does this passage apply to you? Do you or your congregation worry about the "small stuff" instead of focusing on living by the Sermon on the Mount?
Acts 2:44-45
All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. (For context, read 2:43-47.)
Acts 2:43-47 tells of the Jerusalem church in its infancy functioning in a communal way. It reminds us of the importance and value of congregations as church "families" who take care of one another, which, indeed, was what the Smoking for Jesus Ministry did after hearing the weather forecast in the wee hours of August 28, 2005.
Questions: How does your church function as a family to take care of its members' needs? How is this aspect of Christianity being lost in our society today? How does a church distinguish itself from other non-religious organizations (civic clubs, social groups) that provide support and care to their members?
Luke 17:20-21
Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you." (No context needed.)
It's one of the paradoxes of the New Testament that the kingdom of God is spoken of both as something that is yet to come (as in the Lord's Prayer: "Your kingdom come" -- Matthew 6:10), and something that is already here.
Questions: How might the verses above apply to today's news story? Would someone who visited or began to attend your church, or someone in the community who does not worship there, think of your church as an outpost for the kingdom of God? Do people see God's light shining through your church?
For Further Discussion
1. Discuss this: The odyssey of the Smoking for Jesus Ministry is not unique. According to the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus (A.D. 110-180), quoted by the Roman historian Eusebius, after the murder of James the Just (a brother of Jesus) in A.D. 62, Simeon the cousin of Jesus became the leader of the Jerusalem church. Then certain members of that church received a vision to get out of there, due to coming persecution. As Eusebius records it, "But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation vouchsafed to approved men before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella" (Eusebius III, V, 3).
2. Respond to this, from the book The Household of God: A People of the Covenant Bible Study on the Pastoral Letters by TWW team member Frank Ramirez: "Some time in the second century an anonymous Christian composed a letter to an official named Diognetus defending believers as good citizens, countering rumors that Christians participated in strange and unnatural practices with the argument that Christians are nonconformists who challenge the world's standards, yet do their best to be good neighbors."
     That Christian wrote: "For Christians don't come from other countries, speak a different language, or act differently. They don't have their own economies, or dialect, nor do they have bizarre lifestyles. ... They live according to chance in both Greek-speaking and foreign cities, and dress the same, eat the same foods, act the same in all the rest of life's ways -- except that they also [live] paradoxically differently because of their citizenship. They live in the same countries, but they are foreigners. They take part in the political life of their land, but they endure the hardships of aliens. ... They live on the earth but they are citizens of heaven. ... They are put to death, but they are brought to life. They are made poor, but they make many rich. ... People curse them but they bless in return. They honor those who insult them. ... Simply put, Christians are to the world what the soul is to the body" (Ramirez's translation).
     Ramirez goes on to say, "However, the author then lists several contemporary customs, such as disposing of unwanted children or sharing spouses, which Christians do not take part in, but adds that 'They are poor, yet they make many rich; they are in need of everything, yet they abound in everything.'"
3. What does it feel like to be part of a supportive environment at your church? Have you ever been faced with a crisis where the whole group participated in achieving a positive outcome?
4. Many church groups are made up of people who probably would not have otherwise met: people of different economic levels, ages, backgrounds, outside interests, etc. How do you create harmony and the oneness of Christianity despite the differences? Is there an invitation process that helps diverse new people to join your church? How are they welcomed as part of the whole, despite any differences they bring?
5. Discuss how these verses apply to today's story and to your life: "[God] comes alongside us when we go through hard times, and before you know it, he brings us alongside someone else who is going through hard times so that we can be there for that person just as God was there for us. We have plenty of hard times that come from following the Messiah, but no more so than the good times of his healing comfort -- we get a full measure of that, too" (2 Corinthians 1:4-5, The Message).
Responding to the News
Today's story is a good reminder that we should look for and even expect that God may use even the catastrophes of our life to renew our faith.
It's also a good time to review how your congregation can best provide the "family" type of care to its members.
Closing Prayer

O God, help us to live faithfully for Jesus Christ wherever we are. And help us never to lose contact with "Christianity Central." In Jesus' name. Amen.

Friday, September 4, 2015

Fleeing Hurricane Katrina, Church Finds New Place of Ministry Hundreds of Miles Away

© 2015 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
The news this week is about a smokin' hot church, but we start with a bit of retrospective.
When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the United States on August 29, 2005, The Wired Word was a new curriculum, in its third month of publication (our 10th anniversary was this past June). Here's how we opened our "In the News" section the following Sunday:
Monday night and on into Tuesday of this week, a category-5 hurricane, dubbed Katrina, tore into the Gulf Coast, with winds in excess of 150 mph and a devastating storm surge, inflicting catastrophic damage in the coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, including the cities of New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile, Gulfport and surrounding communities. In New Orleans, the levees protecting the city were breached and as much as 80 percent of the city is in standing water, up to 20 feet deep in some places.
As we now know, Katrina killed more than 1,800 people across the Gulf Coast region, and many thousands more were displaced by that catastrophe, which TWW referred to at the time -- without exaggeration -- as a "disaster ... of biblical proportions." In New Orleans alone, an estimated quarter of a million residents fled the city, and half of them have never returned.
Among those who escaped Katrina's wrath were the more than 200 members of a non-denomination church called Smoking for Jesus Ministry, which had been founded in 1996 on New Orleans' rugged east side. The name comes from Revelation 3:16 -- "So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Its members don't want to be lukewarm toward Jesus.
Many in the congregation didn't have cars or the money to evacuate, but in the 24 hours before the storm hit, the church organized transportation to get its members out of the city together before Katrina unleashed her fury.
They first tried to settle in southeast Texas, about 40 miles from New Orleans, but the second major storm to smack the area, Hurricane Rita, drove them on. Over the next six weeks, they caravanned some 1,000 miles, visiting eight Texas communities, staying in church retreat centers and hotels. Finally, they came to Marble Falls, a town about an hour northwest of Austin, where they settled. One of Marble Falls' claims to fame is that it was the first town in the United States to elect a female mayor, in 1917.
According to the church's pastor, Willie Monnet, God's Spirit led them to that location.
Most residents of Marble Falls are white, while the Smoking for Jesus folks are black, but according to a Yahoo News story about the church's odyssey, the whole county welcomed them. In time, they were able to purchase a 56-acre ranch in nearby Kingsland that had once been the site of an orphanage and already had a church building. Since then, eight families from the congregation have purchased lots on the campus and built new homes.
Several members have also started businesses in the area or work in the Real New Orleans Style Restaurant that the church opened in Marble Falls, which has become a popular eatery.
The church has now grown to about 300 members, including some local people of other ethnicities. Pastor Monnet says, "We have a mixture now ... 'cause they wanna figure out what we smokin' here."
It sounds like they are high on the Lord.
In occurs to us here at The Wired Word that the members of the Smoking for Jesus Ministry had become people of the "diaspora." (Pronounced di-AS-po-ra, the word is from a Greek root meaning "to spread about" or "to sow.") Diaspora usually refers to the scattered members of a religious community separated from the main body of fellow believers because of circumstances not of their own choosing -- and usually unpleasant. While the members of the Smoking for Jesus Ministry no doubt found fellow Christians already in Marble Falls, they may still be considered people of the diaspora in terms of being driven out of their hometown by circumstances beyond their control.
More on this story can be found at these links:


The Big Questions
1. How does diaspora fit into God's plans for people of faith? Is there a sense in which all Christians are people of the diaspora, and if so, what is the homeland from which we are separated?
2. Think about a time when you may have reluctantly relocated (perhaps because of a job, a spouse's job, a health reason, etc.). What responsibility, if any, did you feel toward the people in your new location? Why?
3. When, if ever, have you felt that the Lord was active in a relocation you hadn't expected to make?
4. When has a relocation given you fresh insight or renewed vigor in your faith? Why? If you have not relocated, how has staying put contributed to your faith?
5. What does it mean that God is both localized (close to you) and unbounded (involved with the whole creation)?

Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:


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 is from a letter the prophet Jeremiah wrote to the people of Judah shortly after they arrived in Babylon, where they'd been forced by the Babylonians. Some apparently argued that the stay there would be short, but Jeremiah had heard different news from God. Although Jeremiah said the people would be allowed to return to their homeland eventually, that was to be many years in the future. In fact, it would be so far in the future that many in the exiled generation would no longer be alive. The Judahites had become people of the diaspora.
In the interim, said Jeremiah, the people should not only resign themselves to a lengthy stay, but should actively seek the welfare of the land where they had been taken. They were actually to work for the good of Babylon. They were not to forget who they were or where they came from, but neither were they to think of themselves merely as short-term visitors.
Questions: Remembering that "diaspora" is from a Greek root meaning "to spread about" or "to sow," in what positive sense does the definition "to sow" apply to Jeremiah's advice to those in exile? How does it apply to you, whether you are away from your homeland or not?
How reluctant or eager has your church been to abandon location and security, whether literally by moving, or figuratively by creating new programs, advocating for abandoned populations or in other ways changing the character and face of the church?

Psalm 137:4-5 
How could we sing the LORD's song in a foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither! (For context, read 137:1-9.)

Psalm 137 is a lament of the Jews in exile in Babylon. Clearly, from the verses above, they would rather have been back home in Jerusalem. In fact, their anger at their captors is also expressed in the psalm quite graphically (read verses 8-9).
Also, in a time when the exiles thought of Jerusalem's temple (by then destroyed by the Babylonians) as the throne of God, how, they wondered, could they sing God's song in this foreign land? Without a temple, they couldn't even offer the prescribed sacrifices. Some may have even wondered if God's rule applied in the land of the Babylonians.
But in this foreign land, the Jews found ways to continue the worship of God. The prophet Ezekiel and many priests were in exile with them, and Jeremiah sent messages from Jerusalem encouraging prayer and fasting. They kept the traditional feasts and Sabbath days. They held house meetings for instruction in God's laws. These practices, in fact, were the foundation of the synagogue system, which did not exist before the exile.
The exiles discovered that their religion was not dependent on location and the temple. They learned that their faith could survive and be practiced in any geographical setting and culture.
Questions: When have you used a relocation as a reason to not connect with a new congregation? When has a relocation hampered your worship of God? How did what you carried with you from your former church help you contribute to your new congregation?
Is your congregation grieving in some ways because it can't get back to an imagined perfect past? Has your church grieved and then settled into the 21st century? How about you individually?

Matthew 6:31, 33 
Therefore do not worry, saying, "What will we eat?" or "What will we drink?" or "What will we wear?" ... But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (For context, read 6:25-34.)

We don't know what Bible passages Pastor Monnet used for his sermons to his flock while they were searching for a new home, but Matthew 6:25-34 (from which we've quoted a representative sample above) strikes us as a good candidate.
Questions: In what ways does this passage fit the circumstances of a congregation forced by circumstances to move? In what ways does this passage apply to you? Do you or your congregation worry about the "small stuff" instead of focusing on living by the Sermon on the Mount?

Acts 2:44-45 
All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. (For context, read 2:43-47.)

Acts 2:43-47 tells of the Jerusalem church in its infancy functioning in a communal way. It reminds us of the importance and value of congregations as church "families" who take care of one another, which, indeed, was what the Smoking for Jesus Ministry did after hearing the weather forecast in the wee hours of August 28, 2005.
Questions: How does your church function as a family to take care of its members' needs? How is this aspect of Christianity being lost in our society today? How does a church distinguish itself from other non-religious organizations (civic clubs, social groups) that provide support and care to their members?

Luke 17:20-21 
Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you." (No context needed.)

It's one of the paradoxes of the New Testament that the kingdom of God is spoken of both as something that is yet to come (as in the Lord's Prayer: "Your kingdom come" -- Matthew 6:10), and something that is already here.
Questions: How might the verses above apply to today's news story? Would someone who visited or began to attend your church, or someone in the community who does not worship there, think of your church as an outpost for the kingdom of God? Do people see God's light shining through your church?
For Further Discussion
1. Discuss this: The odyssey of the Smoking for Jesus Ministry is not unique. According to the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus (A.D. 110-180), quoted by the Roman historian Eusebius, after the murder of James the Just (a brother of Jesus) in A.D. 62, Simeon the cousin of Jesus became the leader of the Jerusalem church. Then certain members of that church received a vision to get out of there, due to coming persecution. As Eusebius records it, "But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation vouchsafed to approved men before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella" (Eusebius III, V, 3).

2. Respond to this, from the book The Household of God: A People of the Covenant Bible Study on the Pastoral Letters by TWW team member Frank Ramirez: "Some time in the second century an anonymous Christian composed a letter to an official named Diognetus defending believers as good citizens, countering rumors that Christians participated in strange and unnatural practices with the argument that Christians are nonconformists who challenge the world's standards, yet do their best to be good neighbors." 
     That Christian wrote: "For Christians don't come from other countries, speak a different language, or act differently. They don't have their own economies, or dialect, nor do they have bizarre lifestyles. ... They live according to chance in both Greek-speaking and foreign cities, and dress the same, eat the same foods, act the same in all the rest of life's ways -- except that they also [live] paradoxically differently because of their citizenship. They live in the same countries, but they are foreigners. They take part in the political life of their land, but they endure the hardships of aliens. ... They live on the earth but they are citizens of heaven. ... They are put to death, but they are brought to life. They are made poor, but they make many rich. ... People curse them but they bless in return. They honor those who insult them. ... Simply put, Christians are to the world what the soul is to the body" (Ramirez's translation).
     Ramirez goes on to say, "However, the author then lists several contemporary customs, such as disposing of unwanted children or sharing spouses, which Christians do not take part in, but adds that 'They are poor, yet they make many rich; they are in need of everything, yet they abound in everything.'"

3. What does it feel like to be part of a supportive environment at your church? Have you ever been faced with a crisis where the whole group participated in achieving a positive outcome?
4. Many church groups are made up of people who probably would not have otherwise met: people of different economic levels, ages, backgrounds, outside interests, etc. How do you create harmony and the oneness of Christianity despite the differences? Is there an invitation process that helps diverse new people to join your church? How are they welcomed as part of the whole, despite any differences they bring?
5. Discuss how these verses apply to today's story and to your life: "[God] comes alongside us when we go through hard times, and before you know it, he brings us alongside someone else who is going through hard times so that we can be there for that person just as God was there for us. We have plenty of hard times that come from following the Messiah, but no more so than the good times of his healing comfort -- we get a full measure of that, too" (2 Corinthians 1:4-5, The Message).
Responding to the News
Today's story is a good reminder that we should look for and even expect that God may use even the catastrophes of our life to renew our faith.
It's also a good time to review how your congregation can best provide the "family" type of care to its members.