Thursday, October 27, 2016

Cubs vs. Indians: Long World Series Drought Soon to End for One

The Wired Word for the Week of October 30, 2016
In the News
This week saw the launch of the 2016 edition of Major League Baseball's championship contest, the World Series, a best-of-seven playoff between the American League champion Cleveland Indians and the National League champion Chicago Cubs.
While every World Series is an exciting event for baseball fans, this year's matchup is all the more remarkable because neither of the combatants have won the MLB's ultimate series for a very long time. The Indians have gone 68 years without a championship and the Cubs have been without one for 108 years.
Or, to say it differently, the Indians last won a World Series in 1948 during the Truman administration, while the Cubs last won in 1908 while Teddy Roosevelt was president.
In the intervening time, the Indians have at least gotten to compete in a World Series three times -- in 1954, 1995 and 1997 -- meaning they won the pennant in the American League those years. However, the Cubs have not won a pennant in their league since 1945, a 71-year drought.
That said, the Cubs are the favorite for this series because they won 103 games in the regular season, nine more than the Indians did in their season, and many observers think the Cubs have looked more imposing lately. All of this has renewed great hope in Chicago fans.
Nonetheless, underdogs have come out on top often enough in sporting events of all flavors to keep hope alive for Cleveland devotees as well.
One additional angle that some observers have mentioned is that the elevation of the Cubs to the World Series, whether they win or lose, marks the end of the so-called Billy Goat curse on the team.
According to the legend, in October 1945, when the Chicago Cubs last made it to the series, local tavern owner Bill "Billy Goat" Sianis went to Wrigley Field to cheer on the team in game four as they faced off against the Detroit Tigers. Sianis purchased a ticket for himself and one for his pet goat Murphy, thinking it would bring the Cubs luck.
When ushers stopped Sianis from entering with Murphy. Sianis appealed directly to the club owner P.K. Wrigley, asking him why he couldn't take his personal mascot to the game.
"Because the goat stinks," Wrigley reportedly replied.
So Sianis threw his arms up and cursed the team, declaring, "The Cubs ain't gonna win no more!"
When the Cubs lost the series to the Tigers, Sianis sent Wrigley a telegram asking, "Who stinks now?"
And thus began the Cubs' 71-year dry spell regarding the World Series.
At first, no one took the curse seriously, but as the years of struggling seasons piled up, some fans began to believe it.
But hope continued. For the last several decades, "Wait until next year" was a common slogan for Cubs fans at the end of every baseball season.
By the way, TWW editorial team member Timothy Merrill commented, "I think the Cubs in the Series is an act of God ... some pleasant, feel-good relief from the political mire we've been stuck with ... a respite, an oasis ... you can almost hear a collective sigh of relief across the land ....”
(Before your class meets, check the media for the latest in the World Series.)
More on this story can be found at these links:
Applying the News Story
It's clear from the New Testament that many people in the early church expected the return of Christ to happen soon, perhaps within their lifetime. One of the adjustments that first-century believers had to make eventually was to see their faith as way of living for the long haul, accepting that the Lord's return might not happen quickly after all. And now, as a couple of millennia have passed, the Lord's return is not a hot topic in many places within the church.
Whenever we go on for a long time, constantly expecting something "any day now," we eventually get so used to the expecting that it becomes commonplace, and loses its meaning for us. After all, it's hard for us as a body of believers to stand on the tiptoes of expectancy for 2,000 years. Like Cubs fans we might say "Wait until next year," but without any real sense of likelihood. And so what can happen is that we settle into a kind of routine of our faith and don't look for a return of Christ in any kind of timeframe that matters to us.
Likewise, in the Lord's Prayer, we petition "Thy kingdom come," which many Christians hear as a petition for Christ's return in judgment at the Last Day. But for many of us, that sounds like something we can't comprehend that's in a future so far away as to have no immediate impact on us. (Other Christians hear the petition asking for God's kingdom to come to us personally when we receive Christ.)
Even in the shorter term, the mood in which we live our daily existence can be hopeful -- or something far short of that.
Given all of that, it's important for us to hear what the Bible says about hope.
The Big Questions
1. What are some things for which you are hoping fervently, but for which you've been waiting a long time? How does the delay affect your outlook on that particular matter? Why? How does the delay affect your outlook on life in general? Why?
2. Do disappointments or dashed hopes ever make you feel like you are living under some kind of "curse"? How does your faith address the matter of being "cursed"?
3. What does the idea of Christ's return mean in terms of your faith? How does the kingdom of God figure into your outlook on life?
4. When something you'd once hoped for but eventually given up on actually happens, is that a miracle? If so, why? If not, how would you characterize it?
5. Judging from your experience of life and your understanding of the Christian faith, is Christianity optimistic, pessimistic or realistic? Explain why you answered as you did.
Confronting the News With Scripture and HopeHere are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Proverbs 13:12
Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life. (No context needed.)
Romans 12:12
Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. (For context, read 12:9-21.)
The proverb quoted above is a general observation about the effect of hope that goes unfulfilled for an extended time: It makes the heart sick. But we should not be too quick to apply this observation to the Christian hope, which is the subject of the Romans verse and which can make the heart well.
Note that this proverb says nothing about the type or moral quality of the hope in question. It's possible to hope for things that are immoral, hurtful of others or outrightly evil. The deferral of any of those hopes might make the heart of the one hoping sick, but it would be for the best if those particular things hoped for never became realities.
In contrast, the Romans verse talks about the Christian hope -- a confident expectation, not mere wishful thinking -- which is so life-giving that it's worth waiting for with patience and perseverance.
Questions: Thinking about the things that surface often in your hopes, are there any that, in your best moments, you know would be better not to be fulfilled? If so, how might those hopes be dealt with in ways that bring you peace? How does the Christian hope help you specifically when your heart is sick with waiting?
Luke 19:13He summoned ten of his slaves, and gave them ten pounds, and said to them, "Do business with these until I come back." (For context, read 19:11-26.)
In this parable from Jesus, a nobleman who was going out of town gave 10 of his slaves a pound each and instructed them to "Do business with these until I come back." One invested his pound and earned 10 more. A second invested and earned five more. A third simply returned the pound, unused, and the nobleman was angry at him.
The anger was justified because the third slave had ignored his master's direct instruction to do business with the money.
Jesus told this parable, Luke says, "because he was near Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately" (v. 11). Thus, the point of the parable is about how to behave between his ascension and his return. And the way to behave, the parable suggests, is to be about the business of God, living faithfully day after day, loving God and neighbor.
In other words, living not focused on Jesus' return but on doing his will.  
Questions: If we are to be focused on doing Christ's will, how does hope energize that? Which of the three slaves do you most identify with? Where have you avoided engaging in the business of God? How might you best "invest" your discipleship while waiting for our Christian hope to be fulfilled?
Galatians 6:9
So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up. (For context, read 6:7-10.)
James 5:7
Be patient, therefore, beloved, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious crop from the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. (For context read 5:7-11.)
The meaning of these two verses -- one from Paul and one from James -- is essentially the same, and is perhaps illustrated by this event from U.S. history:
Some 235 years ago, the Connecticut House of Representatives was in session on a bright day in May, and the delegates were working by natural light. But then, right in the middle of a debate, there was an eclipse of the sun, and everything turned to darkness. Some legislators thought it was the Second Coming, and so a clamor arose. Many wanted to adjourn. Others wanted to pray. People wanted to prepare for the coming of the Lord.
But the Speaker of the House had a different idea. He was a Christian, and he rose to the occasion with good logic and good faith. We are all upset by the darkness, he said, and some of us are afraid. But "the day of the Lord is either approaching or it is not. If it is not, there is no cause for adjournment. And if it is, I for one, choose to be found doing my duty. I therefore request that candles be brought." The men went back to their tasks.
That's a pretty good model for us who live in the hope of Christ today.
C.S. Lewis, in his book The World's Last Night, talks about the importance of being at your post when Jesus returns. Even if this means the thing you were hoping to accomplish in this world would then no longer matter, it is best to be about the doing of God's will. Lewis uses the image of the "Second Servant" in King Lear. This unnamed character speaks only a line or two. He comes on stage, sees an evil person preparing to blind someone, rushes forward to stop it and is killed. But though he fails to prevent an evil, he becomes a great character by doing the right thing.
Questions: What post would you like to be occupying when Jesus returns? How might these verses apply to your shorter-term, more earthbound hopes? What will the "harvest" look like?
Romans 4:18
Hoping against hope, [Abraham] believed that he would become "the father of many nations," according to what was said, "So numerous shall your descendants be." (For context, read 4:13-25.)
"Hoping against hope." Now there's a phrase for us. It means hope in spite of apparent impossibility, hope when there is little reason to expect things to come out as we want them to, hanging on when some might accuse us of mere wishful thinking.
Think about the many situations in life to which that could be applied: relationships that are going sour, health that is failing, dreams and goals that run into blind alleys, family members in self-destructive behavior, diagnoses that leave no room for long-range plans, and more.
There are times in life when we say, "What's the use? It's over." And sometimes we are right. But then something happens and there's an unexpected but beneficial turn of events and we are forced to admit that hope can be given up too soon. It's difficult to know when is too soon, but there it is.
In the case of Abraham, God had made a specific promise to him, so the issue was somewhat different from some of our hoped-for resolutions. The message from Abraham's story is not "just keep hoping no matter what," but "trust what God tells you." That's often hard to do when circumstances seem to render a desired outcome improbable. But if it were easy, Paul would not have described it as "hoping against hope."
And let us not forget that Abraham believed in a promise that would not be fulfilled until after his lifetime. The only portion of the promised land he ever owned is the tomb where he buried Sarah (Genesis 23:1-20.).
Actually, in this chapter from Romans, Paul talks of several things that would seem highly unlikely. He characterizes God as one who "justified the ungodly" (v. 5), who "gives life to the dead" (v. 17) and "calls into existence the things that do not exist" (v. 17). All of these divine works are things that are impossible by human standards, but their reality is fundamental to Christian faith. The basis for our "hope against hope" is trust in the God who created the world.
From the biblical point of view, holding stubbornly to hope, even in the face of growing hopelessness, may not be denial so much as leaving room for God to act.
Questions: Where does the phrase "hoping against hope" resonate with your experience? Who are some people today who you see as models of hopefulness? From where, do you suppose, do they draw their strength? Are you willing to pour your energies into something that may not be completed in your lifetime but is nonetheless worth doing in the name of Jesus?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from a sermon by Cornelius Plantinga Jr. titled "In the Interim": "It's the climax of the human drama. Christ coming to finish what he started. Christ coming to gather his saints and vindicate his martyrs. In this event -- we Christians confess -- in this climactic event all the hopes and fears of all the years come together one last time.
            "So why does the Second Coming make some of us squirm? What is it about this topic that makes us uneasy?
            "One problem is that we don't know how to read the literature, and, in particular, we don't know how literally to read it.
            "Another problem is that the church has been expecting Jesus to return for a long time, and he hasn't done it yet. ... and so after a while people settle down. People settle into a kind of 'everydayness in their faith,' and they quit scanning the horizon.
            "The way this plays out for [many Christians] is in a kind of interim faith, a common-sense Christianity that stays fairly close to the ground. We don't deny the big, booming events such as the Second Coming, but we don't think about them very much either. We've still got church and sacraments, after all; we've got scripture and prayer; we've still got the golden rule and the Ten Commandments. We've got Christian pop music to make us feel right at home in the world. And every week we faithfully spend some of our money and time on kingdom causes. That's ground-level Christianity, and it's just enough religion to keep us going.
            "Why does the Second Coming make us restless? We have trouble with the literature, as I said. Also, we can't figure out God's schedule. I'll propose a third reason. A lot of us have been secularized enough by now that our view of the world has flattened out, and the Second Advent of Jesus Christ doesn't fit into a flattened-out world very well. It's too fantastic, we think. …"
2. Discuss this, from TWW editorial team member Stan Purdum's sermon "The Case for Faithful Delay": "Hope's evil twin, of course, is despair, and, says preacher and writer Frederick Buechner, it 'has been called the unforgivable sin -- not presumably because God refuses to forgive it but because it despairs of the possibility of being forgiven.'
            "John Claypool, long-time rector of St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Birmingham, Alabama, has said, 'Given our limited knowledge, despair is always presumptuous.' In other words, we really do not know whether or not a situation is hopeless until it is resolved. For that reason, hope is always a proper response to difficulty. To give in to despair before the outcome is known presumes we know what only God can know.
            "Obviously, there is always the danger of false hope. It is possible, especially when strong emotions and terrible loss are involved, to grasp illusions and call them real. But when matters are still unresolved, if our choices are between hoping too much or too little, the story of Abraham suggests that we would do well to err on the side of excessive hope.
            "When a good outcome we really did not expect, even though we were hoping, suddenly appears, it forces us to re-evaluate our view of what is real. We are compelled, however briefly, to step back from our skepticism and entertain the belief that good news is a possibility.
            "To hope for a peaceful outcome of any conflict -- well, that's hoping against hope. But for Christians, that isn't an unreasonable thing to do."
3. Talk together about this: The one thing in common with all four gospels is that most or all of Jesus' male disciples fled with the arrest of Jesus (with the exception of the Beloved Disciple in John). In contrast, while the women who witnessed his death and went to the tomb on the third day may have given up hope, but did not fail in faithfulness. The act of going to the tomb because of their faithfulness led to their being present when hope was restored with the resurrection of Jesus.
4. Consider together this, from Isaiah 40:31: "... but those who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint."
5. For fun, share Steve Goodman's piece, "A Dying Cub Fan's Last Request."
Responding to the News
This is a good time to review your denomination's understanding of the kingdom of God and the implications of that for how we should live in the present.
This is also an appropriate time to review what spiritual disciplines you practice to keep your hope in God vibrant. If you've become lax about any of them, consider whether the practices should be refreshed and given a higher priority in your schedule.
Prayer
O God, we thank you for the promise of your kingdom to come. Help us to live as citizens of that kingdom in the present age, enabled to do so through the hope that you give us. In Jesus' name. Amen.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, October 20, 2016

The Democratic Process: We Talk, Argue, Campaign, March, Vote; We Don't Firebomb

The Wired Word for the Week of October 23, 2016
In the News
Last weekend, someone threw a firebomb through the window of a Republican party office in Hillsborough, North Carolina, and spray-painted an adjacent building with a swastika and the words "Nazi Republicans leave town or else." The blaze did a good deal of damage to the inside of the office before going out on its own.
Within hours, however, one Massachusetts Democrat took action to raise money to reopen the building.
David Weinberger set up a GoFundMe page with the goal of raising $10,000 to help rebuild the GOP office.
On the GoFundMe page, Weinberger wrote:
As Democrats, we are starting this campaign to enable the Orange County, North Carolina, Republican office to reopen as soon as possible. Until an investigation is undertaken, we cannot know who did this or why. No matter the result, this is not how Americans resolve their differences. We talk, we argue, sometimes we march, and most of all we vote. We do not resort to violence by individuals or by mobs.
Within 40 minutes of posting the page, the goal was reached and surpassed, for a total of $13,117. At that point, no further donations were accepted. Instead, Weinberger suggested that those who still wished to give, contribute to a North Carolina classroom through DonorsChoose.
Among those who appended comments to the GoFundMe page were some who voiced conspiracy theories and others who wanted to argue politics. A few said that the matter should be left for insurance coverage to pay for, and there were even a couple of comments from people who seemed to misunderstand the fundraising effort. Many more comments, however, were supportive, as these samples indicate:
"I'm a Democrat but I don't believe in violence," wrote one man who made a $25 donation.
Another said, "I lean more towards the conservative side, but want to say that I feel everyone involved in this fundraiser is a class act. Thank you for showing everyone that, regardless of political affiliations, we are all Americans and we take care of each other."
Still another wrote, "Not a Republican, but we all stand together against such anti-democratic violence."
Even after donations were closed, comments continued. One person wrote "Bravo, folks -- I'm sorry I missed the cutoff for donations. This is exactly the necessary and appropriate response."
Another said, "I am voting for Hillary, but I condemn this violence, and attack on our voting process. The people responsible for this must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If the campaign had not been cut off, I would have donated. I am sorry that this happened to my fellow citizens."
More on this story can be found at these links:
The Big Questions
1. To what degree should Christians engage in political discussions, and why?
2. In what ways, if at all, do you engage in political discussions with people who support a candidate you do not support? What do you do if the conversation becomes heated? Is what you do when it becomes heated the same as what, according to your Christian faith, you feel you should do?
3. In what ways, if any, do you try to give the views of those you don't agree with politically a fair hearing? If you don't do this, should you? Why or why not?
4. To what extent should strong opinions on a single issue, such as abortion or who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court justice, affect how we engage with people who see that issue differently?
5. When, based on a discussion with someone who supported your candidate's opponent, have you reconsidered who you would vote for? What made that conversation helpful and/or persuasive?
Confronting the News With Scripture and HopeOne of the difficulties of using the Bible to discuss the actions of citizens who have the right to vote to select leaders is that the people of the Bible did not live under that form of government. Thus the Bible offers no verses specifically about living in such a society. Nonetheless, the following verses may be helpful:
2 Chronicles 36:1
The people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah and made him king to succeed his father in Jerusalem. (For context, read 35:20--36:4.)
As indicated above, the people of the Bible did not live in societies where leaders were selected by an electoral process. Before the time of King Saul, they essentially lived in a loose confederation with ad hoc leaders, and before that, as self-governing tribes and clans. From the time of King Saul on, for the most part, the people of the Bible lived in monarchies, sometimes under foreign rulers. Such was the case after the exile and in the time of the New Testament.
The verse above is from the final years of Judah's monarchy, after King Josiah had been killed in battle with the Egyptians. It reports that following Josiah's death, the people made Josiah's son Jehoahaz their king, but it doesn't tell us what process led to Jehoahaz's enthronement.
The verse does say "the people of the land" made Jehoahaz king (the parallel verse in 2 Kings 23:30 says they "anointed" him), and "the people the land" may simply mean the subjects of that kingdom, but more probably it means a group of influential leaders. Whatever the case, it wasn't a democratic process. In fact, given that kings were normally succeeded by their oldest male offspring, the selection of Jehoahaz may have been a foregone conclusion.
And, under the circumstances, with a threat from Egypt close at hand, it may have been an act of desperation as well. (As it turned out, Jehoahaz reigned only three months before the Egyptians deposed him, took him in chains to Egypt, levied a tribute on Judah and installed his brother Eliakim, also known as Jehoiakim, in his place.)
The verse above does illustrate that the Judahites believed that some sort of governmental structure with a leader at the head was necessary.
Questions: What are your thoughts about the political process under which we select our president? How, if at all, would you like to see it changed? Why?
Matthew 7:12
In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets. (No context needed.)
This is the "Golden Rule," from Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. The "law and the prophets" refers to the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament), which was the scripture available in Jesus' day, and so Jesus is saying that the essence of scripture is contained in this Golden Rule principle.
The excellent paraphrase of the Bible, The Message, words the verse this way: "Here is a simple, rule-of-thumb guide for behavior: Ask yourself what you want people to do for you, then grab the initiative and do it for them. Add up God's Law and Prophets and this is what you get."
Questions: Might the GoFundMe me page be seen as an application of the Golden Rule? Why or why not? When have you done something similar for someone who opposed your views?
1 John 4:20Those who say, "I love God," and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. (For context, read 4:16-21.)
Questions: Who today are the "brothers and sisters" to whom this verse refers? Could they include the supporters of your candidate's opponent? Why or why not? How do you feel about the "liars" accusation in this verse?
What is the love to which this verse refers? Is it a warm feeling? a neighborly obligation? a sacrificial action? material giving? an absence of malice? forgiveness for wrongs? all of the above?
Romans 12:18, 20If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. ... "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads." (For context, read 12:14-21.)
Here the apostle Paul acknowledges that living peaceably with all is not always possible, but that we should do as much as we can -- "so far as it depends on you" -- to be at peace with others. That seems especially applicable during political seasons.
In talking about heaping burning coals on an enemy's head, Paul is quoting Proverbs 25:21-22. In his commentary Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Immersion Bible Studies, Abingdon, 2011), TWW team member Frank Ramirez comments, "In ancient warfare, the mistreatment of enemy prisoners was commonplace. Against that, this bit of wisdom attributed to Solomon suggests doing just the opposite. If you really want to get even with your enemies, kill them with kindness. This counterintuitive advice just might work. It is actually a fairly sophisticated strategy for winning a war. Leaving embittered survivors only plants the seeds for the next war. But long-term peace and stability can result from unexpectedly kind behavior."
(The Romans, who were warlike and severe, adopted a modification of this policy, in some cases, elevating conquered peoples to Roman citizenship. Paul, for example, was a Roman citizen [Acts 22:25]).
By the way, we mean no parallelism between the "burning coals" and the firebomb. The first was simply a figurative expression, with roots in ancient ceremonies; the latter was a criminal act.
Questions: What are our Christian options when someone makes it impossible to live peaceably with him or her? What kindness might you heap upon that person? In the current rancorous political environment, might support or kindness from opponents have the effect of leaving people less embittered? Where have you tried to show graciousness to someone who disagreed with you politically?
For Further Discussion
1. Discuss together Romans 14:1 -- "Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions."
2. Respond to this: Hillsborough, North Carolina, where the GOP office was firebombed, is the hometown of Steven Petrow, who writes the Civilities column for The Washington Post.Writing in The Post after the incident, he said, "Like just about everyone in my hometown, I was first shocked and then saddened to hear that the county GOP headquarters was firebombed Saturday night, with a swastika and the words 'Nazi Republicans leave town or else' spray-painted on a nearby building. ... But what interested me more was the reaction of the friends and neighbors who posted over and over on Mayor Tom Stevens Facebook page: 'We are not this.' And: 'This is NOT representative of our community.' No, this act is not representative of the 6,000 souls who live here, but it is yet another example of the hate and violence that can explode just about anywhere. My hometown. Your hometown.
            "Thank God no one was hurt. But make no mistake, the impact of the firebombing is frightening in a completely different way. As Stevens, a registered Democrat who, like everyone who runs in our town's nonpartisan elections, serves without a party affiliation, said: 'Its hateful message undermines decency, respect and integrity in civic participation.'"
            Stevens went on to tell more about the damage and the investigation, and then concluded, "As I left the charred offices Monday morning, Republican campaign workers were busy: New phone lines were about to be installed. Glass was set to be replaced. Campaign literature for state GOP candidates was being handed out to passersby. All as it should be three weeks before Election Day. As Stevens told me: 'If anything, all these efforts reflect who we are in this community. We can and do have differences, but we believe in civil discourse and have faith in our civic processes.' And this, I believe, is how Hillsborough is representative of the best in America." (See full article here.)
3. Discuss this: While we aren't suggesting that the political differences in the United States are on the scale of Christian-Muslim conflicts in places like Nigeria, it's worth noting that people working for peace there emphasize respect, dialog and compassion, which is beneficial in any disagreement.
            Musa Mambula, a Church of the Brethren leader in Nigeria, has been acknowledged by his home country of Nigeria for his contributions toward the betterment of Nigerian society. This year, he was honored with the Custodian of Nigerian Dream Award at the Nigerian Rebirth Conference in Abuja, Nigeria. 
            Speaking to a denominational gathering recently in the United States, he told how the EYN (Church of the Brethren in Nigeria), in an age of persecution and terrorism, is facing the challenges of Boko Haram, and nonetheless working to build Christian-Muslim relations. Mambula commented: "In the challenges we are passing through, I am emphasizing our peace stand: tolerance, respect for each others' religions, dialogue and community -- showing real, deep love for our neighbors. We do not believe in retaliation. We must show love, compassion and forgiveness and preach peace."
Responding to the News
This is a good time to recall 1 Timothy 2:1-2, which says, "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity." Here the apostle Paul offers direction that we Christians should take to heart, both now and after the presidential election, regardless of who wins.
This is also a good time to consider what the relationship is between godliness and prayer, and to contemplate why Paul says prayer should be about matters not only related to the church, but far beyond it as well.
Prayer
Lord God, as this election approaches, help us to better understand the issues and concerns that confront our country, and how the gospel compels us to respond as faithful citizens. We ask for eyes that are free from blindness so that we might see each other as brothers and sisters, one and equal in dignity. And no matter who is elected, may his or her leadership take us in the right ways. In Jesus' name. Amen.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Nobel Prize in Economics Awarded to Two Professors for Work on Contracts

The Wired Word for the Week of October 16, 2016
In the News
"Modern economies are held together by innumerable contracts," said the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, this past Monday, in explaining why it had awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science to two professors employed in separate Boston-area universities for their work in improving the design of contracts.
One awardee, UK-born Oliver Hart, 68, has been a professor at Harvard since 1993. The other, Finland-born Bengt Holmstrom, 67, has been a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1994.
The Nobel Prize was given to the pair for work they had done collaboratively as well as for that which they had done separately, but all in the field of contracts. They will split an 8 million Swedish kroner ($924,000) award.
Hart's work starts from his observation that contracts are incomplete instruction manuals that cannot specify what to do in every case, since not everything that comes up can be anticipated. Instead, contracts can spell out how decisions should be made.
"His research provides us with theoretical tools for studying questions such as which kinds of companies should merge, the proper mix of debt and equity financing, and which institutions such as schools or prisons ought to be privately or publicly owned," the academy said in summarizing his work.
Holmstrom's focus has been on employment contracts, an area in which conflicts between owners and employees are inherent. He spelled out the benefits of simple contracts between an "agent" who is paid by a "principal" in order for the principal to achieve some "benefit." The most common example is an employee being paid by a business owner, but it is just as applicable to everyday life, such as a waitress being paid by a customer. He also pointed out that in compensation arrangements with executives and senior managers, there is value in deferring some remuneration until the results of that person's work had been evaluated.
However, Holmstrom also argued that executives shouldn't be rewarded for gains that reflect a broader change in the industry's fortunes, or punished for setbacks beyond their control. This principle has not been widely adopted in executive pay arrangements.
Similarly, many people will tip a waitress less when the food comes out prepared badly or is delayed -- and tip more generously when the food is more tasty, even though the cook, not the waitress, is responsible for the results.
In a 1986 paper the two men co-wrote, they observed that actual contracts are often much simpler than theory would predict, noting that companies do not include a complete set of expectations. To do so would be counterproductive, and would encourage too much reliance on results that are easily quantified versus those that may be less easily measured but which may be more important to the company overall.
This stems in part from Holmstrom's seminal work on the "moral hazard of teams," where only the team results can be measured, allowing a relative freeloader to benefit from the extra hard work of more industrious team members. This has been extended to multi-tasking, where there can be many different actions and a difficult-to-measure result. In all of these, specifying incentives in a contract is both difficult and complex, and may not be soluble.
In summary, the academy said, "The new theoretical tools created by Hart and Holmstrom are valuable to the understanding of real-life contracts and institutions, as well as potential pitfalls in contract design."
The Wired Word talked with Dr. Ed Schroeder, a retired professor of economics living in New Jersey. He said, "I'm familiar with Holmstrom's work -- I read some of it for my dissertation, back in the 1970s. I know Hart's name, but am not really familiar with his work in detail. What occurs to me, about both, really, is that they are trying to answer questions that really matter, unlike many economists."
More on this story can be found at these links:
The Big Questions
1. What contracts or covenants do you currently live under? Which ones, if any, are directly connected to your life of faith? Which ones, if any, are not directly connected to your life of faith?
2. Do you consider any of the covenants of which you are a part flawed in their design? If so, how might they be improved, if at all? If they are not flawed, what makes them acceptable as they are?
3. In his work, Holmstrom argued that people shouldn't be rewarded for gains or punished for setbacks beyond their control. Where do you see this principle illustrated in covenants you live under? Where do you wish it was applied but isn't?
4. What are the differences between a covenant made between you and another person and one made between God and you? What are the similarities? What negotiating room, if any, do you have in a covenant with God?
5. The Bible is divided into the Old and New Testaments. Considering that "testament" is a synonym for "contract," "covenant" or "agreement," what do you understand to be the essence of the "old" covenant and of the "new" one? In what ways do you as a Christian live under both of them? Or do you live only under the new one?
Confronting the News With Scripture and HopeHere are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
2 Samuel 5:3So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron; and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel. (For context, read 5:1-5.)
Although the other scripture texts included in this lesson refer to God's covenant with people, the same word is also used in the Bible for the contracts made between humans. In the verse above, for example, the contract is between the people of Israel and David, who until that point had been king only over the tribe of Judah (2 Samuel 2:4). Now, as this verse explains, the rest of the tribes of Israel agreed to his kingship over them as well. This was not a case of having no choice or being forced. These tribes sought this arrangement, and, in effect, they made a contract with David for him to be their king.
Some other biblical examples of contracts between human beings include Genesis 21:32; Joshua 9:6; Ruth 4:7-8; 1 Samuel 18:3; and Ezekiel 17:13-14. There are others as well.
Questions: In terms of agreements between yourself and others, when would you be likely to use the term "covenant" rather than "contract"? Why? Is there any "feeling" difference between the two words, and if so, what is it?
James 5:4
Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. (For context, read 5:1-6.)
Here James chides certain "rich people" (v. 1) for in effect, breaking a contract between themselves and laborers they have hired to mow their fields. Even if the contract was not in writing, it was binding: The laborers would do the requested work and the owners would pay an agreed-upon wage. But some owners, knowing the laborers did not have the resources to force the payment of those wages, simple did not pay them.
Questions: For what kinds of arrangements are contracts essential today? When is a verbal contract enough? Is it better to have most arrangements under actual contracts? Why or why not?
Psalm 105:8-11
[God] is mindful of his covenant forever, of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant that he made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Isaac, which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant, saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan as your portion for an inheritance." (For context, read 105:1-45.)
These verses refer to the "big" covenant of the Old Testament, the one for which the Old Testament is named -- the "contract" between God and the people of Israel. This psalm is a hymn of praise for God's faithfulness to the covenant and his care for the people.
The covenant itself, as given by God through Moses at Mount Sinai, is contained in Exodus 19--24 and more expansively in Exodus 19:1--Numbers 10:10. It is sometimes called the Mosaic covenant, the law of Moses, the Sinaitic covenant, or, in the recent wording of the Common English Bible, the "Instruction scroll" (e.g., Deuteronomy 28:61; Joshua 1:8).
This covenant has the Ten Commandments at its center and includes other God-given commands and conditions by which Israel was to live. Most importantly, however, it is the God-initiated act by which the God of all creation unilaterally made an abiding commitment of fidelity to the people he had chosen: Israel. Rather than primarily being a set of rules, the covenant was the basis for a lively relationship between God and his people.
This covenant did call for an oath of fidelity from the people as well, but as subsequent events in scripture show, the covenant could not be broken by Israel's disobedience. That said, the people of Israel later came to understand their sinfulness as a serious violation of their side of the covenant. In fact, after the fall of Judah, many of the people felt that God had abandoned them because of their sins. But they later discovered, and the prophets declared, that God had not terminated his covenant; on the contrary, God considered himself still bound to it.
God's covenant with Israel differs from those made between human parties (see, for example, 1 Samuel 18:3, where Jonathan made a covenant with David). Human-to-human agreements are usually parity covenants and are bilateral, where both parties essentially have equal status. Divine-human covenants, however, are more like an ancient suzerainty treaty where one party is a more powerful entity than the other, and where the terms of the agreement are stated unilaterally by the more powerful party and imposed on the weaker party. In the case of God's covenant with Israel, however, the imposed terms were for the well-being and health of the people.
Questions: Do you consider the Ten Commandments binding for you? Why or why not?
Hebrews 8:6-8, 10
… [Jesus] is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one. God finds fault with them when he says: "The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah …. I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (For context, read 8:1-13.)
The words within the quote marks in the passage above are from Jeremiah 31:31-34 (we've abbreviated the quote here). The writer of Hebrews, however, is quoting them to show a scriptural basis for the idea of a new covenant, one different from the old one discussed in the Psalm 105 verses above. In the Jeremiah context, the quoted material is a looking-ahead view where God promises the people of Israel and Judah that he will make a "new" covenant with them after their fall into captivity and exile. In that sense, God was really promising a renewal of the existing Sinaitic covenant rather than an altogether new one.
Nonetheless, the unidentified New Testament writer who authored the book of Hebrews, looking back at these words from Jeremiah through the lens of the risen Christ (and perhaps remembering Jesus' words at the Last Supper about the "new covenant in my blood" [Luke 22:20]), heard in them the promise of a covenant that was truly new and was extended beyond Israel and Judah to Christians. (The apostle Paul did as well: See 2 Corinthians 3:5-6, below.)
Thus, the writer of Hebrews quotes these words from Jeremiah but then adds his own understanding: "In speaking of 'a new covenant,' [God] has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear" (8:13). The writer of Hebrews also identified Jesus as "the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, because a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant" (9:15).
Questions: What do you understand the "terms" of the new covenant to be? Do you trust yourself to know the difference between right and wrong in all circumstances, such as in a covenant written on the heart? Do you trust others to know? If so, who?
2 Corinthians 3:5-6... our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (For context, read 3:1-18.)
The apostle Paul, speaking of himself and his coworkers, wrote the words above. He goes on in the context verses to speak of how the old covenant in a sense serves as a veil that obstructs the view of Christ (see especially v. 14).
We can perhaps make a connection with the news story in that Paul here spoke of the original covenant as being superseded by a new one that was less dependent on things that can be quantified -- like keeping the letter of the commandments -- and more dependent on matters not quantifiable -- like the things of the Spirit.
Questions: In what ways have you found that the "Spirit gives life"? What is the essential difference, as Paul sees it, between the old and new covenants?
For Further Discussion
1. What contracts have you signed without reading? When, if ever, has this omission caused you a problem? (End User agreements for instance).
2. Bearing in mind that a contract is essentially a formal form of promise-making, respond to this, from author William Willimon: "One of the difficult characteristics of all promises … is that they have an inherently future quality about them. A promise is not kept until it is fulfilled. … My promise places me at the mercy of the future, indicating that I will so order my life between now and then as to keep my promise, come what may. For me to quibble over the way the future shapes up and then to advance this as a reason for breaking my promise is unfair. … One cannot have control over a promise. One must put oneself at the mercy of it." (From "Promises to Keep," Quarterly Review, Winter, 1981.)
3. Comment on this, from Frederick Buechner, from his book Wishful Thinking: Some people "claim that whereas to respond to the Old Covenant is to become righteous, to respond to the New Covenant is to become new. The proof, they might add, is in the pudding."
4. Discuss this, from TWW team member Stan Purdum's sermon "El Shaddai": "From time to time in the Bible, God introduced himself by a new name, and in Genesis 17, God does just that. He says to Abram, 'I am God Almighty' -- or at least that's how most English translations of the Bible render the new Hebrew name for God that appears there. The actual Hebrew term is El Shaddai. Unlike the more general name for God, this one appears only 48 times in the Old Testament, and when it does, it is usually at times of significant emotion for the people involved.
            "If you had been in Abram's place -- desperately wanting a child and wanting to believe God but thinking that what he had promised would no longer come about -- how would you feel? Would you not be feeling very vulnerable and perhaps worried that somehow you had done something to displease God? Might you not be feeling the need for some tenderness?
            "It was at such a moment for Abram that God introduced himself by this new name,El Shaddai. The El part of the name, which is the shortened form of Elohim, means 'God,' but the precise meaning of the Shaddai part of this name is uncertain. Bible scholars say that translating it as 'Almighty' is only a reasonable guess at its meaning. It's possible that it is related to the ancient term, shadu, which means mountain -- thus 'God of the mountains.' It is also possibly derived from the Hebrew word shadad, meaning 'to plunder,' 'overpower' or 'make desolate.' This would give Shaddai the meaning of 'destroyer,' representing one of the aspects of God, and in that context it is essentially an epithet. But Shaddai may in fact be derived from the Hebrew word shad, which is invariably used in scripture for a woman's breast, the place where a child is cuddled and nursed. As applied to God, it conveys a side of God that is tender and nurturing, the way a mother cares for her child.
            "Whatever its precise meaning, it is significant that the Bible first mentions this name for God in the context of his promise-keeping. When God comes to Abram and introduces himself as El Shaddai, he comes for a specific purpose -- to remind Abram that he keeps his promises. God comes with comfort, but it is comfort with substance -- a covenant. Abram, now renamed Abraham as a reminder that God will keep his promise, will be the father of a great nation, through a son who is yet to be born.
            "This reality of a kept promise is vital to understanding anything about God at all. In fact, without the idea of promise, God is the impersonal Creator, but not Someone to whom we mere humans can relate.
            "But kept promises are part of what define God's character. It's been rightly said that the Bible is largely a record of humans breaking their promises and God keeping his. 
            "The two major divisions of the Bible, the Old Testament and the New Testament are essentially other terms for the Old Promise and the New Promise. And yet, from God's side, they are the same promise -- he will be our God. The 'old' and 'new' refer to how we connect with God's promises. Under the old testament, it was by rule keeping and sacrifice. Under the new testament, it is through Jesus Christ."
Responding to the News
This is a good time to think about promises we have made, and what we need to do to be faithful to them.
Prayer
O Lord, our great Promise-Keeper, help us to be faithful people who live by promise. In Jesus' name. Amen.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, October 7, 2016

Shimon Peres, Last of Israel's Founding Leaders, Dies at 93

The Wired Word for the Week of October 9, 2016
In the News
Shimon Peres, the elder statesman of Israel, died September 28, two weeks after suffering a massive stroke at the age of 93. His obituary in The New York Times declared that he "was laid to rest as an Israeli prince of peace." He is considered the last link to Israel's founding generation.
Over his lifetime of service to Israel, Peres served in several leadership positions, including defense minister, foreign minister, prime minister and others. His most recent office was that of president, a position Peres held from 2007 until his retirement in 2014.
Prior to the 1948 war for independence that established the nation of Israel, Peres was assigned responsibility for manpower and arms. In 1948, during the war, he was appointed head of Israel's navy. At war's end, he became director of the Defense Ministry's delegation in the United States.
In a political career spanning nearly 70 years, Peres later served twice as the prime minister of Israel and twice as interim prime minister, He was a member of 12 cabinets. When he retired in 2014 from Israel's presidency, he was the world's oldest head of state.
While Peres would have liked his legacy to be peace for Israel, the reality of the situation over the years meant that many of his efforts had to be focused on his nation's security when its peace was threatened. He helped to develop Israel's nuclear options and stood up to Palestinian Arab demands when he deemed it necessary for Israel's well-being.
However, he did make significant efforts for peace. Along with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Peres, who was then Israel's foreign minister, won the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize for the talks that produced the Oslo Accords.
Sadly, the Oslo Accords did not produce a lasting peace, and conflict remains.
In 1996, Peres founded the Peres Center for Peace, which describes itself as a "non-profit, non-political, non-governmental organization focused on promoting lasting peace and advancement in the Middle East by fostering tolerance, economic and technological development, innovation, cooperation and well-being, all in the spirit of President Peres' vision." Its logo is a stylized dove and olive branch with the word "peace" in Arabic, Hebrew and English. It seeks "to advance the creation of a real, effective and durable peace" that is implemented in three core fields:
  • medicine and healthcare
  • peace education (through sports, the arts and technology)
  • business and environment
At Peres' funeral, which was attended by more than 80 foreign leaders, United States President Barack Obama described Peres' work to attain security for the state of Israel as well as peace with the Palestinians, but Obama went on to say that "of course we gather here in the knowledge that Shimon never had his dream of peace fulfilled."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Applying the News Story
In the introduction above, we described a point of similarity between Peres and Moses in that both were closed out of a "Promised Land." In Moses' case, it was the actual Promised Land of Canaan; in Peres' case, it was the metaphorical Promised Land of peace and security for his nation. Both men devoted their lives to leading their people to the edge of that land.
There are a few other points of similarity as well: Like Moses, Peres was a warrior when he needed to be. Like Moses, Peres was up against a force as intransigent as a pharaoh. Like Moses, he was leading a people who often disagreed with his decisions. And like Moses, Peres died not only revered by many, but also hale and hearty almost to the end.
But mostly, we are focusing on the matter of goals not reached.
The capricious unraveling of legitimately earned fulfillments happens to most of us at some time or other. It happens, for example, when we realize that our marriage, although intact, is never going to reach the level of companionship we had hoped for. It happens when the company we have worked for faithfully for years downsizes us out of our job or dumps us without an expected and promised pension. It happens when the church in which we labor fails to grow. It happens when we reach retirement with plans to travel or enjoy a life of leisure in some other way, only to have it all shot down by a sudden loss of health. And it happens in other ways too.
The Big Questions
1. When have you felt shortchanged by life with no way to get what you've worked hard for or assumed you are entitled to? Especially how do you feel when you have paid your dues, done your homework, burned the midnightoil, kept your shoulder to the wheel and your nose to the grindstone, when you have poured your heart, mind and strength into reaching a goal or fulfilling a dream, and then found that the reward is going to elude you despite all that?
2. How might your answer to Question 1 change, if at all, if you perceived that it was God who slammed the door you had expected to go through?
3. When you've served God faithfully and things still don't work out, what does that do to your faith? Can God be trusted even then? Why or why not? What, if anything, helps you maintain your faith in God despite such turns of events?
4. What role does the question "Where does God want me to go from here?" have after you are shut out of some reward you deserved?
5. What do you gain when you fail to achieve benchmarks you've worked hard for? What does a church gain after its members work hard to help the church grow only to see it shrink?
Confronting the News With Scripture and HopeHere are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Deuteronomy 34:4-5
The LORD said to [Moses], "This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, 'I will give it to your descendants'; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there." Then Moses, the servant of the LORD, died there in the land of Moab, at the LORD's command. (For context, read 34:1-8.)
Moses spent the last four decades of his life leading an ungrateful, contentious and recalcitrant mob of ex-slaves and their descendants out of Egypt to a land where they could be free, a land promised to them by God. To do that difficult job, Moses left behind a settled life with his family. He'd had to convince the Israelites to take the risk of leaving Egypt -- no easy task -- and once they'd finally agreed, he'd had to face down Pharaoh, one of the most powerful men in the world at time.
During the years in the wilderness -- made all the longer because the fickle Israelites wouldn't trust God and barely trusted him -- Moses had endured pursuit by Pharaoh's army and been forced to take on hostile peoples who didn't want this horde of foreigners tramping through their lands. Yet Moses had held his massive group together and gotten them at last to the border of the Promised Land. But it was no picnic.
And now, with his charges about to enter that land -- reportedly flowing with milk and honey -- God tells Moses that he can view the land from a high vantage point, but he will not live to enter it. Instead, one of his lieutenants will lead the people into Canaan.
Surely, this privilege should have been reserved for Moses. He'd earned it with his sweat, prayers, tears and grit. It was rightfully his. He was entitled to some milk and honey. But God said "No," and there was no court of appeals.
According to Numbers 20:2-12, God excluded Moses from the Promised Land because Moses had somehow demonstrated a lack of trust in God during an incident in which the people were demanding water. What that lack of trust was is not clear -- perhaps because Moses struck the rock instead of verbally commanding it to yield water or perhaps because of some other failure on his part not recorded in the story.
Questions: How do you explain this turn of events? How would you defend God from someone who said God played a dirty trick on poor old Moses?
Looking at the Numbers 20 story, does Moses' being excluded from the Promised Land for whatever the infraction was seem like a just punishment? Does there have to be a reason for every slammed door? Explain your answer.
What Promised Land have you realized you may not attain? Is it a goal for your children or grandchildren? Have you made your peace with those things you will not accomplish after all in this life?
Luke 12:16-21
Then [Jesus] told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God." (For context, read 12:13-21.)
The rich man in this parable also has a slammed door experience, and like Moses, he dies before entering his promised land. But perhaps we have less sympathy for him than for Moses because God's message to him implies that he was using his wealth to benefit only himself.
Questions: Are you more accepting of the slammed doors of your life if you feel that you deserved the outcome that happened? Why or why not? Are you more likely to accept being closed out of a "promised land" if the goal was for you alone rather than for others as well?
Psalm 23:1, 3
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. … He leads me in right paths for his name's sake. (For context, read 23:1-6.)
That God will lead us "in right paths" is a conviction born of faith.
Questions: When things don't work out as we think they should, and, in fact, something that is rightfully ours is irretrievably snatched away or put out of our reach, can that outcome still be interpreted as being on the "right path"? How can we test that interpretation? Should being led by God in the right paths be understood as a promise to faithful people? Why or why not?
Can the path we have originally chosen somehow equip us for the real path God seems to have chosen for us?
James 4:13-15Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a town and spend a year there, doing business and making money." Yet you do not even know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wishes, we will live and do this or that." (For context, read 4:13-17.)
James here notes the uncertainty of life, but not as a cause for alarm. Rather, he sees in it reason for our complete dependency on God. There's nothing inherently wrong with making plans, but we always need to allow for the fact that God may intervene in our lives in ways we cannot anticipate. As Proverbs 27:1 says, "Do not boast abouttomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring."
Questions: Is every unexpected thing that happens to us God's will? How do we know? How does God's will work with our appointment calendar? How easy do you find it to switch paths when God seems to have a different idea for your life (or just for today) from yours?
Romans 12:2
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God -- what is good and acceptable and perfect. (For context, read 12:1-2.)
Questions: What, if anything, helps you "discern what is the will of God," as this verse says? What if you are trying to follow his will but meet only with failure? How much of your original path was determined by the world, by your family or by someone other than you or the Lord?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from TWW team member Mary Sells: "I was struck by how much we count on God doing ourwill on our timeline and how hard it can be to accept that we cannot know the will or the mind of God. It reminded me that trusting in God and looking for the cues and clues he sends is so important as we work toward anything, any worthy goal. I believe God puts a flame in our heart to know we are on the path he desires, even if we do not see the result. Therefore our prayers must include asking for the endurance required to stay the course for God's sake, not ours."
2. Comment on this, from TWW team member Malia Miller. She said that while serving on a church committee doing annual reports, the committee members discussed that so much of what they do as a church and individually cannot be quantified, yet that is often how they are measured. Miller said, "As the church changes through time, it is sometimes hard to 'stay the course' when we try to impose worldly measures to other-worldly goals. The result often feels like failure, but it is helpful to know that God knows the heart."
3. Respond to this, from TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey: "Sometimes to fail in the eyes of the world is to succeed in God's eyes, and the inverse is also true, that to succeed in the world's eyes may well mean that we fail in God's eyes."
            She also said, "If I judged my own ministry by the churches I've served as pastor or on staff, I might consider myself a failure, since three don't exist anymore and others are in decline. But I don't take it personally. The churches Paul started you can't find on the map any more either."
4. Discuss this: One pastor tells of conducting a funeral for a parishioner who died suddenly in his mid-60s, just a few months after he'd retired, despite appearing to be in good health right up to the moment he died. His wife and grown children were stunned by his death and deeply hurt by it. They'd expected they'd have many more years with him. The funeral was sad, of course, but the next Sunday, both the wife and children took exception to something the pastor said in the worship service and, in what seemed to be anger all out of proportion to the comment, got very upset and raged at the pastor. He was baffled at first, but as he continued ministry with that family, he eventually realized that they were angry at God for this sudden slamming of the door that the man's death was for them. But it's hard to acknowledge anger at God. So what happened, the pastor concluded, was that the anger at God came out at him. As their minister, he was, in effect, God's representative.
5. Peres' final government position was as president of Israel. In that nation's system, the president is the head of state as compared to the prime minister, who is the head of the government. The Head of State is an honored and trusted person who represents the country in ceremonial and official capacities, which leaves the head of government free to be reviled and insulted without insulting the country. Is there an "honored head of state" in your church who represents your congregation in an honored and unofficial capacity?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to remind ourselves that when we don't receive an expected reward, this is not God going back on his word. God never promised that we won't have to relinquish anything in this life, but he has promised to be with us through whatever happens.
He has promised us that nothing can separate from his love -- not disappointment, not slammed doors, not pain, not worry, not tragedy, not even death, can separate us from him (see Romans 8:38-39).
And he has promised us another world beyond this one, the ultimate Promised Land, toward which we go.
This knowledge about God may not make things any less painful now, but it does set us free to walk away from the tombs of our former hopes when the burial of those hopes is over and done. And it helps us remember that we are not failures as people even though some important dreams of ours have not succeeded.
The finest kind of faith is not that which grows out of easy times, but that which continues to trust God's promises despite being closed out of our personal promised lands in this life.
Prayer
Help us to count on what you have actually promised, O Lord, and not treat our wishes as though they were divine promises. But when life slams doors in our face, give us your grace, and bolster our trust in you. In Jesus' name. Amen.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)