Pressure to Publish Incentivizes Bad Science -- With Consequences for Us All

The Wired Word for the Week of October 2, 2016

In the News

The inner workings of the field of science and research may seem a long way from the everyday concerns of most of us, but consider how often you make decisions about diet, health, lifestyle, product purchases and other matters based on the results of scientific studies.

Now imagine that some of the findings you rely on have been made public not because they are as correct as rigorous testing can demonstrate, but because the findings have likely been published due to their novelty or the level of surprise or excitement they generate.

That, says a study published September 21 by researchers at the University of California, is what often happens when scientists compete for academic prestige and jobs.

In our day, the upward trajectory of scientists' careers depends on publishing as many papers as possible in the most prestigious journals. Those who succeed are the ones most likely to receive grants and jobs and to be held in high esteem.

Regarding this trend, Ed Yong, who covers science for The Atlantic, writes (see article in links list below), "Now, imagine you're a researcher who wants to game this system. Here's what you do:.Run many small and statistically weak studies. Tweak your methods on the fly to ensure positive results. If you get negative results, sweep them under the rug. Never try to check old results; only pursue new and exciting ones.

"These are not just flights of fancy," Yong continues. "We know that such practices abound. They're great for getting publications, but they also pollute the scientific record with results that aren't actually true. As Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet once wrote, 'No one is incentivized to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivized to be productive.'"

That scenario, of course, means the scientist involved is deliberately going for publication success rather than true results. But Paul Smaldino, one of the researchers of the just-released study, says that a similar outcome can happen "even if individuals aren't trying to maximize their metrics."

For the study, Smaldino and his research colleague Richard McElreath created a mathematical model which simulated labs competing with each other and "evolving" -- that is, as researchers varied their methods to achieve success, they passed those practices on to the students they were training, meaning that over time, the very culture of science is changed by natural selection.

This becomes a vicious cycle in which studies that get published because their results seem remarkable help the researcher get grants to conduct more research.

"There will always be researchers committed to rigorous methods and scientific integrity," Smaldino has written. "But as long as institutional incentives reward positive, novel results at the expense of rigor, the rate of bad science, on average, will increase."

There is indication that the problem has already reached significant levels. Recently, researchers found that only 36 percent of psychology studies examined could be reproduced. A major cancer research organization was unable to replicate over 90 percent of the "landmark"” cancer studies evaluated. (See articles in links list.)

It is hoped that studies such as the Smaldino one -- which is itself novel and attention-grabbing -- will raise awareness of this problem and lead to solutions, including changing the incentives to put a premium on transparency. After its results have been replicated, of course.

One solution being employed by almost 40 journals is something called "registered reports." In such cases, journal teams evaluate proposed experimentation ahead of time on the basis of its ideas and plans, before any actual work is launched. Then, for the plans they accept, the journal commits to publish the results, no matter what those findings are. It "moves the focus away from eye-catching results and towards solid, reliable methods," writes Yong. There are also moves to tie grants to registered reports.

More on this story can be found at these links:

The Inevitable Evolution of Bad Science. The AtlanticStudy Warns That Science as We Know It Is Evolving Into Something Shoddy and Unreliable. Science AlertIn Cancer Science, Many "Discoveries" Don't Hold Up. Reuters
The Natural Selection of Bad Science. Royal Society Open Science
Only a THIRD of Scientific Studies Can Be Replicated .... Daily Mail (UK)

The Big Questions

1. Regarding information, which fields or institutions are you most likely to trust? Why? Which ones are you most likely to be skeptical of? Why?

2. What gives any institution or field of inquiry authority and trustworthiness?

3. Regarding the spiritual life, to what do you grant authority? Why?

4. Is knowledge of truth in any absolute, objective sense even possible when declared by human beings? Or is truth always entangled in personal motivations that inherently distort it, whether deliberately or unintentionally? Or something else?

5. Can there be the genuine trust necessary for right understanding when there is not openness? Explain your answer.

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

Deuteronomy 19:15A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing in connection with any offense that may be committed. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained. (For context, read 19:15-21.)

This verse points out that within the judicial system of ancient Israel, witnesses not only provided testimony but also pressed charges against others. In order to enforce truthfulness in such proceedings, at least two and preferably three witnesses were needed to sustain a charge. This suggests a recognition that one witness alone could easily have ulterior motives or be mistaken.

How does this apply to the bad-science story? In good science, the results of a study should be reproducible by others, meaning that there would be at least two studies supporting a new scientific claim. But under the current system, there's not a lot of incentive to spend one's time redoing experiments others have already done and reported.

The biblical idea of two witnesses in court, it seems, is one that science -- and perhaps other disciplines -- would do well to adopt. There are, in fact, some scientists who focus on replicating past studies to see if their results hold, but, said Smaldino, "there are way more results than can possibly be replicated."

Better to have two witnesses or more to start with.

Questions: Do you think there would be more truthfulness and "full disclosure" in our society if people were convinced there would be real consequences for failures in this area? Does the very difficulty of proving skewed results serve in some ways to encourage it?

Ecclesiastes 1:12-14
I, the Teacher, when king over Israel in Jerusalem, applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven; it is an unhappy business that God has given to human beings to be busy with. I saw all the deeds that are done under the sun; and see, all is vanity and a chasing after wind. (For context, read 1:12-17.)

With this statement, the author of Ecclesiastes -- "the Teacher" -- seems to be talking about researching life insofar as he was able. While he never states what methodology he used, his "findings" are that "all is vanity and a chasing after wind."

Questions: Given his conclusion, do you think his research brought him to an accurate conclusion? If not, what might have skewed his work? Would others looking at the same phenomenon as this teacher reach the same findings? Why or why not? Why do you think Ecclesiastes was included in the scriptures?

Proverbs 24:3-4
By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches. (No context needed.)

This old proverb praises both wisdom and knowledge, but of course, one needs accurate knowledge -- not skewed findings -- for wisdom to result.

Questions: Why do you think the Bible speaks of both knowledge and wisdom? Is there a biblical view of science? If so, what is it?

Matthew 6:1Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven. (For context, read 6:1-6, 16-18.)

Here, and in the accompanying context verses, Jesus points out the dangers of doing seemingly good things for "reward." So he counsels his hearers to give alms without calling attention to the gift, to pray behind closed doors and to fast without telling others you are doing so. God will reward you eventually, but working for earthbound rewards subtracts from the power of your deed.

Questions: What is the biblical principle here? In what ways, if any, might this principle be applied to human fields of endeavor that ask for our trust and belief?

Colossians 3:23
Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters .... (For context, read 3:18-25.)

Questions: How is this instruction from Paul applicable to those who work in scientific research? in banking? in journalism? in ministry? where you work?

For Further Discussion

1. Name some information you once relied on to guide how much of a certain food you consumed, and how you now have different information about the effects of that food on your health. What caused the change in information?

2. The idea behind reliability in research is that any significant results must be more than a one-off finding and be inherently repeatable. Other researchers must be able to perform exactly the same experiment, under the same conditions, and generate the same results. How might this apply, if at all, to the spiritual life?

3. Respond to the following: The Smaldino and McElreath simulation only examined only two incentives -- publication rates and replication rates. One TWW team member, who is a physicist, has noticed several other sources of bias over the course of his career:

• Desire to produce what a team leader wants. He writes, "I recall getting screamed at (no exaggeration) by my boss when my experiments, computer model results and recent theoretical analysis by another group of scientists all indicated that a pet idea of his would not work."
• Pressure to conform to what the sponsor (funding source) wants. Many people distrust studies sponsored by big corporations, such as tobacco companies or pharmaceutical companies, believing that scientists will yield to pressure to produce the "right" results. Even greater pressure can be exerted by federal funding agencies, many of which have a definite direction they want studies to indicate. This is particularly a problem when a field of study has only one or a few sources of funding.
• Insertion of one's own biases into the analysis. Scientists are human, and often see what they expect to see.
• Sometimes they just make mistakes. One recent paper in the Journal of Political Science reported that those with several psychoticism traits tended to be associated with "conservative" political views. In reality, they had swapped labels, and have since published a retraction, stating that the psychoticism was associated with "liberal" or "progressive" political views. (They had also swapped ideologies in other areas, originally reporting that neuroticism and social desirability were more associated with "liberal" views when actually they were more associated with "conservative" views.)

Responding to the News

Consider whether something you are struggling with spiritually would benefit from the input of another faithful Christian. While it can be hard for us to know, all on our own, whether something is true or whether God is calling us along a certain path, another Christ-follower -- or two or three -- might be able to affirm or challenge our "findings" and, in so doing, help us discern God's will in a given situation.

Prayer

Grant us discernment, O Lord, that we be neither eager consumers of questionable data that bolster our own positions nor eager deniers of questionable data that challenge our positions. And grant us the wisdom to know when we are confronted with truth. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Footballer Kaepernick Continues Protest, Kneeling During National Anthem

The Wired Word for the Week of September 25, 2016

In the News

Throughout the National Football League's preseason games, Colin Kaepernick, a backup quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, has declined to stand during the playing of the national anthem. He explained that he took this action to call attention to what he perceives as wrongdoings against African-Americans and other minorities, particularly when it comes to certain police actions.

More specifically, Kaepernick said he was demonstrating support for the Black Lives Matter cause, sparked by a series of killings by police of young black men. Questioned by reporters after the first time he did not stand for the anthem, Kaepernick said, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

While he initially remained seated while the anthem was played, starting with the preseason game on September 1, he opted to kneel during the anthem, explaining the switch as an attempt to show more respect to former and current U.S. military members while still registering his protest. He said he made the decision after having a conversation with former NFL player and U.S. military veteran Nate Boyer.

As Kaepernick's protest continued, some other athletes, including footballers Eric Reid, Jeremy Lane, Jelani Jenkins, Arian Foster, Michael Thomas and Kenny Stills, as well as U.S. women's national soccer team player Megan Rapinoe, have also knelt during national anthem playings at their events. A number of U.S. military veterans have voiced support using the social media hashtag "veterans for Kaepernick," and Kaepernick's jersey was briefly the top-selling jersey on the NFL's official shop website.

While acknowledging some of the criticism, President Obama commended Kaepernick, declaring that he was "exercising his constitutional right" concerning "some real, legitimate issues that have to be talked about." The NFL commissioner, who had refused to allow the Dallas Cowboys to honor police officers slain at a Black Lives Matter protest, ironically was quoted as saying that he supports "players when they want to see a change in society," although he coupled it with a statement that "it's important to have respect for our country, for our flag."

Opposition to Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the anthem has been made in four areas:

1. The desire for politics-free sports. Some people want sports -- as well as much other entertainment -- be politics-free zones. They look upon sports venues as places where people can come together and, for a while, forget about what divides them from each other on a more significant basis than the team they support.
2. An expectation of community. One way people show that they are a community is by joining their fellow citizens in what might be called "rituals of unity": public demonstrations that, despite differences, show that Americans have a basic unity. Thus some view Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the national anthem as a declaration, "I'm not part of your community."
3. A belief by some that the Black Lives Matter movement is basically in the wrong. In particular, that it is harmful to race relations in general and to both black and non-black citizens overall, and encourages divisiveness and animosity.
4. A perception by some that by refusing to stand for the anthem, Kaepernick is being unpatriotic and disrespectful.

The opposition has manifested itself in various ways. One unidentified NFL executive called Kaepernick "a traitor," and some NFL fans have posted videos of themselves burning Kaepernick jerseys. One store uses a Kaepernick jersey as a doormat, providing an opportunity for customers to wipe their feet in protest.

Some people who disagree with Kaepernick have also come in for criticism. At a high school football game in Alabama, Pastor Allen Joyner who was a volunteer announcer, resigned after he was reported to have said, after calling people to stand for the anthem, "If you don't want to stand for the national anthem, you can line up over there by the fence and let our military personnel take a few shots at you since they're taking shots for you." Joyner says that he was misquoted, explaining, "I never said anybody should be shot. My words were, 'If you don't want to stand for the national anthem, please go sit at the baseball field and let some of our folks take a shot at reminding you of the price our military paid for your freedom to sit.'" Whatever he actually said, school officials quickly denounced his remarks.

Kaepernick was baptized Methodist, confirmed Lutheran, and attended a Baptist church during his college years. At a speaking engagement at a local church last year, he said, "My faith is the basis from where my game comes from. I've been very blessed to have the talent to play the game that I do and be successful at it. I think God guides me through every day and helps me take the right steps and has helped me to get to where I'm at. When I step on the field, I always say a prayer, say I am thankful to be able to wake up that morning and go out there and try to glorify the Lord with what I do on the field. I think if you go out and try to do that, no matter what you do on the field, you can be happy about what you did."

Kaepernick has several tattoos, with Bible verses among his inkings.

In the United States, one's refusal to participate in patriotic ceremonies and rituals -- such as standing for the playing of the national anthem or refusing to say the pledge of allegiance -- is protected by the 1946 U.S. Supreme Court decision West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette regarding freedom of expression. Writing for the majority position, Justice Robert Jackson said:

To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

More on this story can be found at these links:

The Colin Kaepernick Story Appears To Be Over. Forbes
Colin Kaepernick Explains Why He Sat During National Anthem. NFL.comColin Kaepernick Kneels During National Anthem While Former Green Beret Nate Boyer Stands Beside Him. Los Angeles TimesJelani Jenkins: Why I Knelt During the National Anthem -- And Why It's Time to Stand Up. TIME
Colin Kaepernick: Why His National Anthem Protests Have Touched a Nerve. Christian TodayColin Kaepernick and a Landmark Supreme Court Case. The New Yorker

The Big Questions

1. Should U.S. citizens be expected or encouraged to participate in public patriotic rituals where they are in attendance? Why or why not? What do such rituals demonstrate? What does refusal to participate demonstrate? Would you answer the same way if the question were about church members' participation in Christian rituals, such as recitation of the Apostles' Creed or the communal praying of the Lord's Prayer? If so, why? If not, why not?

2. When, if ever, have you decided that something that was legal needed to be changed and thus, taken an unpopular stand against it? Like Kaepernick, did you find yourself basically supported by the establishment, or, like Pastor Joyner, were you basically opposed by those in power? What did you learn from that process? In what way, if any, were you blessed by your participation? Was there a time you did not take a stand against a popular sentiment that you felt was wrong and later regretted that you did nothing?

3. Over time, some people who at the time regarded as wrong certain protests, such as those in the 1960s over civil rights, have come to view them as a necessary right. Other protests, such as blocking black children from entering previously all-white schools, have come to be viewed as absolutely wrong. Do you think Kaepernick's protest will stand the test of time? Why or why not?

4. What is the story behind the word "Protestant"? In what way, if any, does it apply to this lesson?

5. Are there any ways that Kaepernick could have chosen to raise his concerns that might have been more effective than not standing for the anthem? If so, what are they?

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

Daniel 3:10-12You, O king, have made a decree, that everyone ..., shall fall down and worship the golden statue, and whoever does not fall down and worship shall be thrown into a furnace of blazing fire. There are certain Jews ... Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These pay no heed to you, O king. They do not serve your gods and they do not worship the golden statue that you have set up. (For context, read 3:1-30.)

This is part of the narrative that eventually has the three Jewish men, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, thrown live into the blazing fire of a furnace because they refused to bow to King Nebuchadnezzar's golden statue.

We know from the story that God protected the three men and they were unharmed by the fire, but they had no assurance of that in advance when they refused to bow. They were serving Godwhatever it might cost them. When the king gave them a chance to relent and bow, they said, "If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king, let him deliver us. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up" (vv. 17-18).

Questions: What is the significance of the young men's assertion that whether or not God delivers them from harm, they will not obey the ruler? What principles might you draw from this biblical story as guidance for when you are considering participating in an act of protest? How certain do you have to be that you are following God? How do you respond and react when others assert that you are disobeying God?

Daniel 6:10Although Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he continued to go to his house, which had windows in its upper room open toward Jerusalem, and to get down on his knees three times a day to pray to his God and praise him, just as he had done previously. (For context, read 6:1-28.)

Daniel was a Hebrew man who had been forced into the service of the Babylonian kingdom. Once there, because of his wisdom, excellent spirit and God's hand upon him, he eventually rose to a position of high leadership and authority. Unfortunately, his success aroused professional jealousy among other leaders in the empire. So they created a decree that outlawed petitioning any God or man other than the king for 30 days, and persuaded the king to sign the decree. The penalty for disobeying was for the offender to be thrown to the lions.

As a faithful Jew, Daniel wasn't willing to stop praying to God, and so he chose to respond to this decree in a faithful, nonviolent way. He had already been in the habit of praying to God three times a day, so he continued that practice.

But he did his praying in front of an open window where he could be clearly seen disobeying the king's command. This is recorded in verse 10, quoted above, but it is one place where the original Hebrew can be interpreted in a couple of slightly different ways. One of them is as the version above has it, which makes it sound like he had always prayed in that location. The other possible reading has it that he now made a point of doing his praying at the window -- that he took deliberate measures to be seen breaking the king's command.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether he'd always prayed in that spot or not. The fact was, now knowing that he could be executed for praying, he took not a single step to hide his practice. He continued to pray thrice daily, just as he had always done, and he did it where he was certain to be seen.

In other words, Daniel committed an act of civil disobedience. His prayer practice became not only an act of spiritual devotion, but also a strategic tactic against the decree.

Biblical commentator John E. Goldingay contrasts Daniel's action here with Jesus' instruction to pray in private (Matthew 6:5-6). But Goldingay reconciles the two, saying, "When prayer is fashionable, it is time to pray in secret, but when prayer is under pressure, to pray in secret is to give the appearance of fearing the king more than God." (From John E. Goldingay Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, 131.)

Daniel here is a model of a nonviolent resister. Note the following:

• He was a good and valued citizen in every other way.
• He realized that he could not be faithful to his God if he let this decree go unchallenged.
• His method was really nonviolent.
• When Daniel decided to defy the decree, he accepted that he would be likely to suffer bad consequences.
• His action was a testimony to what was right.
• Daniel's action brought about a change in the heart of at least one person, the king himself.

Questions: In what situations today might Daniel serve as a model for you? Why? Under what circumstances might you decide not to take a public stand? In what other ways could you communicate biblical truth without taking a public stance? How would you determine what a particular situation requires?

Luke 10:10-11
But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, "Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near."(For context, read 10:1-12.)

This is among the instructions that Jesus gave to the 70 missionaries he sent out in pairs to the places where he intended to take his message.

Note the word "protest" in Jesus' instruction. While not quite the same as a refusal to stand for the national anthem, the shaking off of the dust from one's feet is, like not standing, a symbolic act intended to convey a message.

Questions: In what ways have you "shaken the dust off your feet" to show you do not wish to be associated with a particular movement or popular opinion of our day? Was your expression of disapproval noticed? What was the reaction? When has someone's symbolic act caused you to rethink your opinions or actions? Did any change ensue? When have you committed a symbolic act to send a message? What was the outcome?

For Further Discussion

1. Read Nate Boyer's open letter to Kaepernick, and discuss it as a group.

2. Respond to Kaepernick's comment regarding his symbolic action: "To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way."

3. Consider India's struggle for independence from the British Empire. While there were incidents of violence in that struggle, it was the nonviolent acts of civil disobedience led by Mahatma Gandhi that led to the end of British rule there in 1947 and India's independence. Gandhi said he "found much consolation in reading the book of the prophet Daniel in the Bible" and declared Daniel to be "one of the greatest passive resisters that ever lived." Gandhi appears to have been especially impressed with the matter of Daniel's faithful prayer by the open window, and he used that theme when he was helping the Indians in South Africa with their struggle against the discriminatory "pass laws" in that country. Gandhi said that the Indians there should "sit with their doors flung wide open and tell those gentlemen [the South African authorities] that whatever laws they passed were not for them unless those laws were from God."
            Others have noted that the fact that it was the British who were the target of the protests meant that Gandhi was not just eliminated outright. Had it been against a more traditional conqueror, Gandhi might not even have been a footnote in history books.

Responding to the News

This is an appropriate time to consider whether there's anything you should do to advance justice for all in our nation.

Prayer

Help us know and respond faithfully, O Lord, when you are calling us to act. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Other News This Week

Standing Rock Sioux and Other Tribes' Protest of Dakota Access Pipeline Temporarily Halts Construction

The Wired Word for the Week of September 18, 2016

In the News

On September 9, a federal judge denied a request from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to order the company Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) to halt construction of the partially completed controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. The following day, the departments of the Army, Interior and Justice issued a joint statement indicating that the Army Corps of Engineers will not grant permission to drill under the Missouri River until the corps has reviewed the case.

Then on Tuesday, September 13, the North Dakota National Guard, in conjunction with highway patrol officers dressed in riot gear, confronted protesters, some of whom had chained themselves to construction equipment in an effort to stop workers from continuing to bulldoze land they hold sacred. About 20 people were arrested, including journalists and medics.

Over Labor Day weekend, six tribe members, including one child, were bitten by dogs handled by security guards working for the Dakota Access Pipeline company. At least 30 were pepper sprayed, according to tribe spokesman Steve Sitting Bear. Four security personnel and two dogs were also injured. Kandi Mossett, of the Indigenous Environmental Network, said the Native Americans are committed to "nonviolent direct action."

Members of 200 tribes from across the United States and Canada have flocked to the Dakota prairie land in increasing numbers since April to demonstrate solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux in what some call "the largest unification of Native American tribes in decades."

Jessie Weahkee of Albuquerque, who traveled 17 hours from Albuquerque with a truck full of supplies for the protesters living at the camp, told a reporter, "It's about our rights as native people to this land. It's about our rights to worship. It's about our rights to be able to call a place home, and it's our rights to water."

Calling themselves "protectors" rather than "protesters," the Standing Rock Sioux object to the 1,172 mile-long crude oil pipeline, claiming it crosses ancient burial grounds, significant tribal cultural sites, and waterways essential for their survival, including the Missouri River, the tribe's only source of water. Tribal leaders also argue that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to fulfill their legal obligation under the National Historic Preservation Act to consult with them on a "government-to-government" basis before issuing a permit for the $3.8 billion project.

According to a statement submitted to the court by tribal preservation officer Tim Mentz, the Standing Rock Sioux were only recently given permission to survey the private land in question. Less than 24 hours after the tribe provided the court with evidence of the presence of culturally significant artifacts on the land, the ETP began bulldozing a 150-feet-wide swath of topsoil two miles long in the disputed area.

Tribal Chairman David Archambault II lamented, "This demolition is devastating. These grounds are the resting places of our ancestors. The [artifacts] ... there cannot be replaced. In one day, our sacred land has been turned into hollow ground."

The 30-inch diameter pipeline, which is designed to carry about half a million barrels of crude oil per day from Western North Dakota's Bakken and Three Forks production areas through South Dakota and Iowa to the port city of Patoka, Illinois, is scheduled to be operational by the end of 2016. Almost all of the route is on private land. A federal permit is only required for the 3 percent of the pipeline that crosses waterways.

The ETP claims that shipping oil by pipeline is "more direct, cost-effective, safer and [more] environmentally responsible" than using trains or trucks. Supporters point to the creation of 8,000 to 12,000 local jobs during the construction phase, with increased tax revenue for state and local governments. The pipeline, which is 48 percent complete, is touted as an important part of a national security strategy to help reduce America's dependence on foreign imports of oil.

One of the activists told reporter Amy Goodman: "No one owns this land. This land belongs to the Earth. We are only caretakers. We're caretakers of the Earth. We win every day when we stand in unity. We stand, and we fight."

More on this story can be found at these links:

Dakota Access Pipeline Co. Attacks Native Americans with Dogs and Pepper Spray.Democracy NOW!North Dakota Oil Pipeline Protest Turns Violent. Denver Post
Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
The Legal Case for Blocking the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Atlantic
Protests Persist Over Dakota Access Pipeline. Wall Street Journal
Breaking: Riot Police Begin Mass-Arrests at Dakota Access Pipeline, FB Censors Video.theantimedia.org

Applying the News Story

TWW team member Jim Berger, who served as a Presbyterian pastor in Petersburg, Alaska, from 1978-1993, working extensively for Native American rights, remarked: "This is a debate about Native American rights, mineral rights and spiritual traditions. Throw in water rights and the protection of water for the future generations and you have a free-for-all."

Alaskan tribes fought for decades for recognition of their land claims, Berger explained. The Alaska churches (Presbyterian and Episcopal) have been partners with the tribes in their fight for sovereignty over their lands.

This news story presents issues of fair and just distribution of resources, property rights and responsibilities, and conflicting priorities and values of different forces within a society. We will explore how Christians can navigate these often confusing and prickly matters.

The Big Questions

1. As a way of viewing this struggle from the Standing Rock Sioux perspective, consider how you would feel if the Army Corps of Engineers bulldozed graves in Arlington National Cemetery to enable more people throughout the country to have a less expensive supply of heating oil? Or if your family plot were disturbed to make way for a business, nonprofit or infrastructure such as a highway? Would it make a difference to you why the land was commandeered? Why or why not?

2. What (if any) should be the role of the church in matters of land use, property rights and Native American legal claims?

3. When is "eminent domain" justified, and when is it just a legal form of stealing? Who decides when "eminent domain" should apply, and what factors should be considered in such decisions?

4. When it comes to your property, what "rights" do you consider "inviolate" or "inalienable," and why do you put them in this category?

5. People on both sides of the pipeline debate may believe in protecting the environment, yet arrive at very different conclusions about proper use of resources. What scriptures and biblical principles guide you in the way you think about these issues?

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

Genesis 13:11-12So Lot chose for himself all the plain of the Jordan, and Lot journeyed eastward; thus they separated from each other. Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled among the cities of the Plain and moved his tent as far as Sodom. (For context, read 13:5-12.)

After a sojourn in Egypt, Abram and his nephew Lot made their way back to Bethel, a border town north of Jerusalem. Because the land could not support both of their households, herds and flocks, the elder Abram graciously gave Lot first choice of territory. Lot chose fertile land on the east side of the Dead Sea, and Abram took what was left, settling in the vicinity of Hebron. It is a nice change of pace to see one side, especially the more powerful side, step back and give in, but that is what Abram did, to avoid strife.

Questions: How does this incident compare with what is happening in North Dakota right now? Is there anything we can learn from Abram's actions that might apply to that conflict? When have you yielded to someone in a weaker or subordinate position? What would motivate someone to give up an advantage voluntarily?

Genesis 26:19-22But when Isaac's servants dug in the valley and found there a well of spring water, the herders of Gerar quarreled with Isaac's herders, saying, "The water is ours." So he called the well Esek [which means "contention"], because they contended with him. Then they dug another well, and they quarreled over that one also; so he called it Sitnah [which means "enmity"]. He moved from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; so he called it Rehoboth[which means "broad places" or "room"], saying, "Now the LORD has made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land." (For context, read 26:12-22.)

In this incident, Isaac moved to Philistia during a famine, where the Lord blessed him so much that the local people grew envious and resentful. Each time he dug a well, they laid claim to the water. So he kept moving, relinquishing any claim to the wells he had dug, until he found a place where no one bothered him anymore.

One of the local legends in Elkhart County, Indiana, concerns two farmers who, early in the 20th century, had a disputed boundary. At one point they ceased trying to resolve it and instead planted a long row of trees over the area of the disputed boundary and ceased trying to develop it.

There is a grave in the middle of a county road in Indiana where a descendant of Pocahontas was buried in a "family plot." When the county wanted to remove the cemetery for a new road, the descendant, armed with a shotgun, planted himself there. The upshot was that the road went around the grave, which was marked with an explanatory historical plaque. When the road was later improved again, the plot contained six other family members. The gravesite remains in its original location, with the road going on either side of the grave.

Questions: Do you see Isaac and his people as more analogous to the U.S. government, the builders of the pipeline or the Sioux in the lead story? Explain. When there is a property dispute, what guidelines should believers use to determine ownership? Should the history of treaty negations by the federal government against native peoples have any bearing in the current dispute? What should a Christian do when his or her property rights have been violated?
While Isaac withdrew from the conflict over water rights and moved on, the two Elkhart County farmers and the descendant of Pocahontas chose different ways to handle their disputes. What creative conflict resolution techniques have you found effective in transforming a dispute over property ownership?

Deuteronomy 19:14
You must not move your neighbor's boundary marker, set up by former generations, on the property that will be allotted to you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess. (No context needed.)
Deuteronomy 27:17
"Cursed be anyone who moves a neighbor's boundary marker." All the people shall say, "Amen!" (No context needed.)

These statutes are part of Mosaic law regarding how the people of Israel were to conduct themselves in relation to their neighbors. We have selected two from a variety of laws for their application to the matter of possession of property. The first indicates that boundaries established by former generations were binding on subsequent generations. They were not to be moved arbitrarily, whether boldly in broad daylight, or surreptitiously, an inch at a time, under cover of night. To do so would be to invite a curse from all the people.

Questions: In what way might a person who moves a neighbor's boundary marker be "cursed"? Other than wanting to avoid a curse, what might be some positive reasons to respect a neighbor's boundary markers? How might Robert Frost's poetic line, "Good fences make good neighbors," apply here?

Genesis 31:51-53
Then Laban said to Jacob, "See this heap and see the pillar, which I have set between you and me. This heap is a witness, and the pillar is a witness, that I will not pass beyond this heap to you, and you will not pass beyond this heap and this pillar to me, for harm. May the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor" -- the God of their father -- "judge between us." (For context, read 31:44-55.)

After Jacob left his father-in-law Laban's house in the dead of night to return home, Laban, hurt and angry, pursues him. The men exchange words, air their grievances, and come to an understanding, which they seal with a meal and the establishment of a heap of stones to mark their covenant not to pass the pillar of stones in order to harm each other.

The Mizpah "Benediction" spoken by Laban, "The LORD watch between you and me, when we are absent one from the other"(v. 49), really means that Laban didn't trust Jacob out of his sight, and when they were out of sight, he asked God to do the watching for him, to ensure that Jacob treated Laban's daughters that he had given him in marriage well.

Questions: What might be a modern equivalent of a heap of stones that Christians could use to mark an important commitment not to harm someone with whom one has had a disagreement? What is the significance of calling on the God of their fathers to judge between them? How might our relationships with people improve if we were more mindful that God willjudge between us?

For Further Discussion

1. Discuss this comment from TWW team member Jim Berger: "Mineral rights, drilling rights, and other rights may exist beneath property a person owns. The subterranean rights, of which an owner may not be aware, may have priority over the surface rights. Just because you hold the title to the ground under your feet does not necessarily mean you own the rights to the earth beneath the surface."

2. Respond to these two accounts:

TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey recalls how the local government took one of her father's rental properties, citing "eminent domain," so a university could develop the land for a long-forgotten purpose. The university razed the house and others on the block, and the land then sat dormant for years before any construction took place. While her father did receive some remuneration, he was forced to sell against his will at a time and price not of his choosing, and the community lost affordable housing units for years.

Another TWW contributor, David Lee, who is of Kiowa heritage, writes: "I know of one situation, when I-65 was created, where the highway bisected a farm, leaving a corner on one side and the rest on the other. Because of right of way, they could do nothing with that corner of ground, and then the city/county government swooped in to put a building on it, but never finished. The 'owner' still couldn't use it for the farmland it was. Pipelines are no different from highways, in that they have to have so much right of way over which the owner has no control."

If you have any experience with "eminent domain," share it with the group.

3. In some churches, it sometimes seems like a person or a family acts as if it "owns" a piece of common property in the church, such as the kitchen, the church lawn, a pew or church procedures. What is the difference between a healthy respect for property rights and a toxic insistence on control of property that one does not legitimately possess? When different peoples have different ideas about what constitutes property rights or whether something can be owned at all, how might you mediate such a dispute?

Responding to the News

This might be a good time to explore what positions your denomination has taken with regard to Native American concerns.

You might also want to initiate contact with Native American tribal councils in your area, to gain understanding and empathy for their people and culture, build better relationships, provide meaningful support for their community, and discover how to pray most effectively for them.

Prayer

Creator of the earth beneath our feet, hear our prayer for wisdom as we seek to be good stewards of the resources you have placed at our disposal. Spirit who breathes life into our bodies, inspire us to care for one another as Christ Jesus cared for us. Help us to listen carefully to others, so that we may hear not only their words, but feel their heartbeat. Amen.

'Jacob's Hope': Porch Lights Burn All Weekend in Memory of Minnesota Boy Abducted in 1989; Remains Just Found

The Wired Word for the Week of September 11, 2016

In the News

Thousands of people across Minnesota and elsewhere in the nation left their porch lights burning throughout the Labor Day weekend in response to the news that the remains of Jacob Wetterling had been found. Wetterling was 11 years old when he was snatched by a masked abductor from a country road not far from his home in St. Joseph, Minnesota, on October 22, 1989.

"Our hearts are broken," Jacob's mother Patty Wetterling said in response to the news. "We have no words."

On Sunday evening, October 22, 1989, Jacob, his younger brother Trevor, age 10, and a friend, 11-year-old Aaron Larson, were cycling home from a store where they had gone to rent a video, when a masked gunman stopped them, ordered them to throw their bikes into a ditch and lie face down on the ground. He eventually released Trevor and Aaron, telling them to run toward a nearby wooded area and not look back or they would be shot. This was the last time Jacob was ever seen.

Over the years, on the anniversary of his disappearance, many people left their porch lights on in a show of support for his family. This Labor Day weekend, thousands of porch lights have been left on once again.

When the news broke that Jacob's remains had been found, someone started a Facebook event called "Lights on for Jacob Wetterling," and soon 15,000 people had pledged to participate. Many posted pictures of their lit porch lights. Minnesota state Rep. Peggy Flanagan tweeted a picture and wrote, "Almost every light on my street is on tonight. We are Jacob's hope."

Jacob's mother responded via Twitter, saying, "Our family is drawing strength from all your love & support. We're struggling for words at this time. Thank you for your hope."

Jacob's abduction caused an extended investigation, with some 50,000 leads pursued. It also led to the establishment of a national sex offender registry in 1994.

Authorities were led to the location of the body by Danny Heinrich, 53, who was long a suspect in the case. He was in federal custody on child pornography charges and reportedly, some deal on those charges required him to reveal the location of Jacob's body. On Tuesday, Heinrich admitted in federal court to abducting, sexually abusing and killing Jacob.

TWW editorial team member Micah Holland, who is about the same age as Jacob would be and was raised in Minnesota, remembers how the news of Jacob's disappearance changed his childhood.

"Before his abduction, I was able to ride my bike all over the place and would not come home until the street lights would come on," Holland said. "My brother and I had a ton of freedom."

But after Jacob's abduction, said Holland, things changed. "We began having to check in with my folks, allowing them to know where we were at all times. We had many conversations about interacting with strangers, and there was just a different feel about leaving the house. Friends of mine would share the same mindset. I am not sure about the rest of the country, but his abduction changed much in Minnesota. We were less free, but more safe."

In 1990, Jacob's parents founded an advocacy group dedicated to child safety, now known as the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center. A statement on the center's website, posted after the news of the finding of Jacob's remains broke, reads:

We are in deep grief. We didn't want Jacob's story to end this way. In this moment of pain and shock, we go back to the beginning. The Wetterlings had a choice to walk into bitterness and anger or to walk into a light of what could be, a light of hope. Their choice changed the world.
This light has been burning for close to 27 years. The spark began in the moments after the abduction of Jacob Wetterling, when his family decided that light is stronger than darkness. They lit the flame that became Jacob's Hope. All of Central Minnesota flocked to and fanned the flame, hoping for answers. The light spread statewide, nationally and globally as hearts connected to the 11-year-old boy who liked to play goalie for his hockey team, wanted to be a football player, played the trombone, and loved the times he spent with his sisters, brother and parents.
Today, we gather around the same flame. The flame that has become more than the hope for one as it led the way home for thousands of others. It's the light that illuminates a world that Jacob believed in, where things are fair and just.
Our hearts are heavy, but we are being held up by all of the people who have been a part of making Jacob's Hope a light that will never be extinguished. It shines on in a different way. We are, and we will continue to be, Jacob's Hope.
Jacob, you are loved.

In 2010, the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center merged with the National Child Protection Training Center. According to their joint website, "The move is an effort to combine the groups' resources and strengthen their common efforts to ensure every child grows up in a healthy, safe world free from abuse, exploitation and abduction."

More on this story can be found at these links:

Jacob Wetterling's Remains Found on Paynesville-Area Farm. Star TribuneJacob Wetterling: Lights Left on in Memory of Boy Who Was Abducted. CNNJacob Wetterling Resource Center
Confession in Boy's Death Solves Case That Haunted Minnesota AP

The Big Questions

1. When used metaphorically, light and darkness often contrast good and evil. We live in a world where darkness has not been able to extinguish light, but neither has light been able to expel darkness. What, if anything, makes you believe that light will win?

2. What does it mean that God is light? What does it mean to walk in the light?

3. How is "light" related to "hope"?

4. What, if anything, do you personally do to fight darkness?

5. What deliberate measures does your church take to ensure that all children in its ministries are safe without stifling their learning and development? What are some of the discussions your congregation has had with parents on this topic?

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

John 8:12… I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.(For context, read 8:12-20.)
Matthew 5:14-16
You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven. (No context necessary.)

We have juxtaposed these two statements from Jesus because together, they include an important assertion about his followers. In the John verse, Jesus says that he is the light of the world, but in Matthew, Jesus saidwe, his disciples, are. That should bring us up short! But we can understand that in labeling his followers, including us, "the light of the world," he wasn't saying that we generate that light ourselves, but rather that we carry the light that he is and take it where it can be seen.

Thus, in this passage, Jesus tells us to be useful carriers of the light that he is.

Questions: Where have you been able to bring this kind of light? Are you more likely to curse the darkness or light a light? Why?
Many Minnesotans turned on their porch light in sympathy with Jacob's grieving family. When have you figuratively "turned on a porch light" to aid someone who is walking in darkness? When has someone shown solidarity with you in your time of struggle?

John 1:4-5
… in [Christ] was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. (For context, read 1:1-14.)

John said the light shines in the darkness. In that sense, the light of Christ in our day is like a lamp in a dark room, where it illuminates the subject but does not dispel the darkness in every corner. The light of Christ does not eradicate all darkness, at least not yet. But neither can the darkness overcome the light.

In the biblical view, neither darkness nor light is a passive thing. Darkness, as John's gospel pictures it, is not just the absence of light. Rather it is actively hostile to the light of God.

TWW editorial team member Frank Ramirez suggests the following paraphrase of John 1:5: "The light shines in the darkness and the darkness doesn't get it." There's a sense that those who choose darkness don't get why we choose light. While Satan is sometimes used to personify darkness, Christianity sees darkness not so much as an outside force as a drive within us that urges us to disregard God.

Questions: According to John in the context verses, who or what fails to comprehend the light? (See vv. 5, 10, 11.) Who received the light? (See vv. 12-13.) Does it sometimes seem as if those who choose extreme darkness are not capable of receiving God's light? How do you think God reaches people who seem beyond our understanding or help?
Jacob's abduction led to the establishment of a national sex offender registry in 1994. Might this be considered an example of some form of "light" shining forth from the darkness? Explain your answer.

Ephesians 4:18
They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart. (For context, read 4:17-24.)

In context, the "they" in this verse are pagan unbelievers, but with its "darkened in their understanding," "alienated from the life of God" and "hardness of heart" vocabulary, it also can be applied to the perpetrator of this awful crime upon Jacob Wetterling. The perpetrator needs the light of God as do all of those who struggle with dark thoughts.

Authorities have said that although Danny Heinrich has confessed to abducting, abusing and murdering Jacob, he has expressed no remorse.

There is evidence, by the way, that the perpetrator himself was sexually abused as a child, which reminds us of the long tail dark acts can have.

Questions: What do you think Jesus would say to the man who killed Jacob? Why?

1 Thessalonians 4:13
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. (For context, read 4:13-18.)

Hope seems a difficult word to use in the context of the finding of Jacob Wetterling's remains. His family had been clinging to a hope that somehow, he might still be found alive. There had even been pictures of him appropriately aged to show what he might look like at an older age, in hopes of someone recognizing him. "We didn't want Jacob's story to end this way," says the statement on the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center website, and we're certain that no one of good will wanted that ending.

But the apostle Paul wrote the statement above to address the concerns of his fellow Christians who were expecting Jesus' return in their lifetime and wondered what would happen to those Christians who had already died. Would they be left out when Jesus returned?

Paul assured his readers that the deceased Christians were by no means kept from being with Christ for eternity, and thus Paul urged his readers not to "grieve asothers do who have no hope." (Hope here seems to include all that Christ promised.)

Understand that Paul was not chiding the Thessalonians for grieving. They were as sorrowful as anyone else when their friends and loved ones died, and Paul saw nothing wrong with that. But he was not simply saying what we sometimes hear when a loved one dies, that they are "in a better place." Rather his point was that death is not only a force against us, but against God, and God is already moving against death and will be victorious. Part of God's action against death took place at the resurrection of Jesus, and the rest will take place at the general resurrection of all the faithful when the kingdom of God fully dawns.

Thus, Paul was not telling the Thessalonians not to grieve or to be any less sad when their loved ones died, but he was saying that they should understand what had happened within a different frame of reference. Without the gospel, we view death as an end. With the gospel, we view it as a passage to the future God has prepared.

Questions: Admittedly, this is a different kind of hope from that which included the desire for Jacob to found alive, but how might it help those who are grieving his loss now? How does this kind of hope help you, if at all, regarding your loved ones who have died?

1 Corinthians 13:13
And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three .... (For context, read 13:1-13.)

Biblically speaking, hope, along with faith and love, make up the "big three" of Christianity. They are the things that the apostle Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 13, remain, that have enduring quality, when all else fails. "And now faith, hope, and love abide," is how he put it, and he meant that when we look for the qualities that are distilled from the experience of the believing life together, these three things are the solid footing on which we stand: faith, hope and love -- even if seen only darkly as through a distorting glass.

But when the Bible speaks of hope, it is not talking about any ole thing we wish will come to pass. In fact, the Bible is quite explicit that some hope is not solid ground, but in fact is sinking sand. The Bible is clear that hope based on the accumulation of goods or wealth, or based on position or anything else that is not God is false hope. Thus, those who place their hope in such inadequate things are likely to be disappointed.

The hope anchored in God is not some sort of wishful thinking that those of us with strong enough gumption muster up from some inner core. No, rather it is an ultimate belief that when all else fails, when every other support gives way -- even when darkness is intruding deeply into our lives -- we remain in God's hands.

Questions:Imagine yourself in the place of Jacob's family. In what ways might the porch lights being on have helped you in your grief? If you were to write a letter to the grieving Wetterling family, what would you say to them? How would you phrase it?

For Further Discussion

1. Respond to this, from TWW team member Mary Sells: "As Christians, the greatest hope we have is for eternal life with Jesus, the light of the world. Do we realize how much we need the light? In this world I am so aware of the effect of light on me. Now, in the last days of summer in Florida, we have many overcast days or rainy days where the time of daylight is so precious. How much easier it is to awaken to bright sunshine, than to the murkiness. And isn't that how our spirit responds to God! When we let the world and its lack of hope bring us low we feel the darkness inside; yet one beam of hope from God lights our gratitude and fortitude. I'm sure the family of this murdered young boy needed the light, to believe in the light for these many years. We can only pray that God's light will continue to sustain them."

2. Read and respond as a group to the statement put out on the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center website (quoted in the "In the News" section above).

3. Discuss this statement: The Bible entertains no thought that darkness is equal in power to God's light. God is the absolute Sovereign who rules over the darkness and the powers of evil.

Responding to the News

Now is a good time to review the measures your church takes to protect the children in its care, to make sure those measures are as thorough as they can be.

This is also an appropriate time to make a donation to a child-safety advocacy organization, such as the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center, or to a group with similar aims within your denomination.

Prayer

O God, be present with comfort with the family of Jacob Wetterling. Help us to do all we can to protect the children you have entrusted to us. Come with light into the darkness of that world. In Jesus' name. Amen.