Friday, March 31, 2017

Gaza Strip Killing Raises Middle East Tensions

The Wired Word for the Week of April 2, 2017
In the News
Last Sunday, the only civilian crossing at the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel was closed by the militant Islamist movement Hamas. Israeli troops went on high alert, and tensions between Israel and Hamas reached their highest level since 2014, when the two enemies fought a 50-day battle. That fighting led to the deaths of 74 Israelis and more than 2,100 Palestinians.
According to The Washington Post, the closing of the border crossing was a response to the death of a senior Hamas operative, allegedly shot with a silencer-fitted pistol in the garage of his home in the Gaza Strip. Mazen Fuqaha, a 38-year-old senior commander in the military wing of Hamas, was shot at point-blank range, a killing that Hamas is blaming on Israel. Both Israel and the United States consider Hamas a terrorist organization.
Fuqaha spent nine years in an Israeli prison after being convicted of taking part in planning the suicide bombings that killed dozens of Israeli civilians in the early 2000s. Those deaths occurred during what was called the second "intifada," or uprising. He was one of more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners released in 2011 in exchange for an Israeli soldier named Gilad Shalit. After his release, Fuqaha was not allowed to return to his childhood home in the West Bank. Instead, he was expelled to the Gaza Strip, and from that location he oversaw the military operations of Hamas in the West Bank.
In an interview with Al Jazeera, Fuqaha's wife said the family had just returned from an outing. Her husband left to park the car in their garage and did not return. She thought he had gone to visit some neighbors, but then learned from a friend that her husband was dead. "I couldn't believe it at all. It was a shock," she said. "He received death threats all the time since his release in 2011, but he never paid any attention to it."
The checkpoint that has now been closed is called the Erez crossing. It is a civilian checkpoint used frequently by Gazans seeking health care in Israel and the West Bank, as well as by aid workers and foreign journalists. This is the first time Hamas has closed the Erez crossing. Another checkpoint exists on the border with Egypt, but that one is usually closed.
Hamas has set up checkpoints across the Gaza Strip in the hope of catching the people who might have been involved in Fuqaha's killing. Hamas's military wing issued a statement: "We say it clearly that the crime was planned and conducted by the Zionist enemy. And the enemy will be responsible for the crime consequences." Israel has not yet commented on the death.
Calling Israel "the Zionist enemy" is not unusual for Hamas, though it is notable at a time in which the organization is trying to improve its global image. According to Haaretz, Hamas is formulating new policies which will include, for the very first time, acceptance of the pre-1967 borders for a Palestinian state. The organization hopes that this position will help it break the boycott from foreign countries and international organizations. (It should be noted, however, that this new policy does not include a recognition of Israel's right to exist, and it accepts pre-1967 borders that give Israel's enemies a significant high-ground military advantage.) Hamas will also declare its independence from any outside party such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned in Egypt. This move is designed to improve relationships with Egyptian authorities.
While Israel has carried out assassinations of Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip in the past, the attacks have always been launched from the air, using missiles and jets. Such a killing at point-blank range would be nearly impossible for Israel to achieve without having people inside the Gaza Strip who either support Israel or are merely opposed to Hamas. No such attacks have occurred since Israel withdrew from the territory and all Jews were expelled in 2005.
Although no one has claimed responsibility for the attack, Israeli media has reported that it was similar in style to the killing of a Hamas drone engineer in December, outside his house in Tunisia. That killing was linked to the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In addition, Palestinian media have published a report by Fuqaha's father. He says that officers from Shin Bet, Israel's security agency, visited him several times. They said that if his son did not stop his attacks on Israel, they would get hold of him.
Troops and civilians in southern Israel have been put on alert as the region prepares for renewed clashes between Israel and Hamas. Said Amos Yadlin, former director of military intelligence in Israel, "Hamas could decide that Fuqaha was assassinated by Israel and retaliate, and then we will retaliate to the retaliation, and we could be in another clash very quickly."
More on this story can be found at these links:
The Big Questions
1. The cycle of violence between Israelis and Palestinians has been going on for years. What trusts have been broken? Where do you see possibilities for improvement in the relationship? What can be done to stop the endless retaliations?
2. Where do you see ancient animosities in American life, and how can they be addressed? What can you do to be a peacemaker in your community?
3. Abraham Lincoln used military force against his enemies, but he also asked the question "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?" Where have you seen enemies turned into friends? How was this accomplished? When has this not been possible?
4. Jesus the Messiah is called "the Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6), but his followers are often at odds with one another. What church fights have you witnessed? What, if anything, was done to resolve them?
5. Many families have a history of grudges and resentments. Where do you see opportunities to make peace in your own family? Why is this work so difficult?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Genesis 4:8-10
Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let us go out to the field." And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" And the LORD said, "What have you done? Listen; your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground!" (For context, read 4:1-16.)
In the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve have two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain is a tiller of the ground and Abel is a keeper of sheep. Each brings an offering to the Lord, but only Abel's offering receives God's approval. This makes Cain very angry. God warns him that "sin is lurking at the door" (v. 7), but Cain falls prey to sin and murders his brother Abel. God's penalty is that the ground will no longer yield to Cain its strength, and he "will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth" (v. 12).
Questions: In one of the first stories of human life in the Bible, one brother kills another. What does this tell you about human nature? Where do you see fierce struggles between close relatives in your family, your church, your community and the world? How can people confront this sin and "master it" (v. 7)?
Judges 4:21
But Jael wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to [Sisera] and drove the peg into his temple, until it went down into the ground -- he was lying fast asleep from weariness -- and he died. (For context, read 4:1-24.)
According to the book of Judges, Sisera is the commander of a Canaanite army who has been cruelly oppressing the Israelites for two decades. Through the prophetess Deborah, God tells Barak, son of Abinoam, to raise a military force and defeat Sisera. Barak is hesitant and insists that Deborah accompany him. Barak defeats Sisera's forces, killing all his soldiers, but Sisera is able to escape on foot. Since Sisera has friendly relations with Heber, Sisera takes refuge in the tent of Heber's wife Jael. This appears to be a great hiding place because normally, only the husband or father can enter a woman's tent. When Sisera falls asleep, Jael commits a sneaky assassination by driving a tent peg into his head.
Questions: When, if ever, are ruses and assassinations acceptable in warfare? When are they not? What principles can be used to guide our actions and our judgment of others in such cases? What is your personal assessment of the action Jael took?
Proverbs 25:21-22
If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat; and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink; for you will heap coals of fire on their heads, and the LORD will reward you. (No context needed.)
These verses from the book of Proverbs suggest that the best revenge is no revenge at all. The image is striking -- by providing food and drink to your enemy, you may eliminate them altogether. Your enemy will at last cease to exist because they will become your friend. The apostle Paul quotes this proverb and expands on it in Romans 12, ending with the verse "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (v. 21).
Questions: Can you think of a time when you reached out to an enemy with kindness, or when someone you disliked reached out to you in similar fashion? What was the result? How could this proverb be applied to the current situation in the Middle East? How could it be applied to the fractured political situation in our country?
Matthew 5:9-10
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (For context, read 5:1-12).
At the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus proclaims God's favor to those who try to live according to the values of his kingdom. Among the blessed ones are the "peacemakers" and those who are "persecuted for righteousness' sake." Jesus does not bless the peace-lovers or peace-seekers, but instead the peace-makers -- indicating that this goal requires action. He also proclaims God's favor to those who are persecuted for seeking a right relationship with other people and with God. This kind of righteousness often leads to opposition and suffering.
Questions: When have you had to do the hard work of peacemaking in your family, church or community? What opposition did you encounter? When have you been persecuted for pursuing righteousness? What blessing, if any, came from this pursuit?
Luke 4:24-26
And [Jesus] said, "Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet's hometown. But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon." (For context, read 4:16-30.)
Jesus begins his ministry in his hometown of Nazareth by going to the synagogue and reading from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He says, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (v. 21). The people are amazed at his gracious words, and Jesus suspects that they will want him to do miracles among them. But he reminds them of the story of Elijah, who was sent by God to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon, even though there were many widows in Israel. The message is that God cares for people outside our borders, and does wonders when insiders and outsiders work together. The people of Nazareth become enraged by the words of Jesus and try to throw him off a cliff.
Questions: Why do the people of Nazareth expect God and Jesus to work for their personal benefit? What causes them to feel such rage toward Jesus? When have you worked with an "outsider," and what discoveries have you made? Why is God encouraging us to move beyond our comfortable borders of culture, race or nationality?
2 Corinthians 5:18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation. (For context, read 5:16-21.)
The apostle Paul says that "if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation" (v. 17). At the heart of this new creation is reconciliation, which is the resolution of disputes between God and humankind, and between human beings, one with another. Paul understands that God has reconciled us to himself through Christ, and the result of this work is that we are given the ministry of reconciliation. As "ambassadors for Christ" (v. 20), we are to carry the message of reconciliation forward and to do whatever we can to repair broken relationships.
Questions: Where do you see opportunities to repair broken relationships in your family, your church or your community? What actions should you take in the work of reconciliation? Why is this ministry so central to the Christian faith?
For Further Discussion
1. The article "Breaking Faith" by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic raises the question of whether worshiping with people of other ethnicities makes you more sympathetic to them. "Although American churches are heavily segregated," says Beinart, "it's possible that the modest level of integration they provide promotes cross-racial bonds." When, if ever, has this been true for you? What insights have you gained?
2. Golda Meir, the former prime minister of Israel, said, "What we hold against Nasser [the president of Egypt] is not only the killing of our sons but forcing them for the sake of Israel's survival to kill others." What is the true cost of war? Beyond the loss of "our sons," where do you see damage being done by "forcing them" to kill others, even if that is the least harmful choice? How can this deadly cycle be broken?
3. In Luke 6:27-28, Jesus says, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you." Our love is generally reserved for those who are affectionate to us, but Jesus challenges us to love our enemies. What does this mean to you? How can it be done? In what situations have you done good to people who hated you, and what was the outcome?
4. Our country is highly fractured and polarized along political lines, andPsychology Today suggests that we are also divided psychologically: "Reactions on the Right and Left have less to do with politics, and are dictated by what increases or reduces their personal anxieties.When liberals and conservatives view the same presentation of facts, they respond in very different ways emotionally and psychologically." What first steps could be taken to get people talking about their anxieties and emotions? Where do you see opportunities to reach across these divides and work for reconciliation?
5. The letter to the Hebrews advises us to "pursue peace with everyone, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (12:14). The author makes a link between peace and holiness, suggesting that our relationships with one another are connected to our relationship with God. Where do you see evidence of this link? How can you pursue both peace and holiness?
Responding to the News
Look for a place in your family, church or community in which tensions are rising. Listen carefully to where the grievances lie, and find ways to encourage open and honest communication. Perform the work of reconciliation by taking concrete steps to resolve the dispute.
Closing Prayer
Almighty God, we thank you for reconciling us to yourself through your Son Jesus Christ, and for giving us the ministry of reconciliation. Help us to work for greater understanding and peace, through all we say and do. In Jesus' name. Amen.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Planets Possibly Life-Friendly Found Orbiting Nearby Star

The Wired Word for the Week of March 26, 2017
In the News
Seven planets, all close in size to Earth, and at least one warm enough to have water and sustain life, have been spotted around a dwarf star in the constellation Aquarius, astronomers announced late last month. The discovery raises the likelihood that the hunt for alien life beyond our solar system can begin within the next decade, as the newest generation of telescopes come on line.
"Life" here means biological activity using water as a solvent. This excludes other possible types of biochemistry, and, of course, does not necessarily imply intelligent life.
That star is named Trappist-1 after the two-observatory telescope from which it was first seen, the TRAnsiting Planets and PlanetesImals Small Telescope, located at the ESO La Silla Observatory in Chile and at Oukaïmden Observatory in Morocco. Additional planets were subsequently observed from other telescopes around the world.
Trappist-1, called a dwarf star because in comparison to sun-like stars it is significantly smaller and fainter, is 39 light years away from Earth and not visible to the naked eye. It is close enough that transiting planets affect the light being detected from it, making it possible for the coming generation of telescopes to study its planets for signs of life.
Though Trappist-1 is 2,000 times fainter than our sun, the proximity of its planets means that at least the fifth of the seven planets, designated as 1-f, has a temperate climate that could possibly support life. Planets 1-e and 1-g, the fourth and sixth from the star, are also within what astronomers say is the habitable zone of the Trappist-1 system.
All the planets in the habitable zone are thought to be tidally synchronized (locked), with one side always facing their star, similar to how one side of the moon faces the earth.
David Charbonneau, an astronomy professor at Harvard University who was not involved in this study, said a growing number of astronomers are getting excited about what he called "the M-dwarf opportunity" -- the study of planets around faint dwarf stars. "It's a fast-track approach to looking for life beyond the solar system," he said.
Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate at NASA, spoke with even more certainty. "The discovery gives us a hint that finding a second Earth is not just a matter of 'if' but 'when,'" he said.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Applying the News Story
For Christian theologians, the possibility of finding life on planets beyond our own solar system has theological implications, some of which we've posed in "The Big Questions" below.
Rev. Lucas Mix, an Episcopal priest and astrobiologist who has a doctorate in evolutionary biology, commented, "I have always seen the search for life elsewhere to be an opportunity to understand basically the way we relate to the universe. My greatest hope would be that we find life somewhere else because when we find life somewhere else, we can start to talk about what it means to be alive and not what it means to be us."
Mix said the existence of life on other planets is not a challenge to the idea God loves humans and created them on this planet.
Over the centuries, Christians have usually not had a problem talking about the existence of non-human "intelligent" life. The angels are, of course, mentioned in the scriptures, but many cultures have posited the existence of human-like life. Almost always these creatures are said to be without souls. To most modern-day people, discussions of elves, fairies, leprechauns, trolls, and the like, seem almost silly, but the theological implications of the existence of such beings has a long history. Our ancestors from centuries ago wouldn't have any theological difficulty discussing non-human extraterrestrial intelligent life.
The Big Questions
1. When humans are in space, are they in a realm where God's rule over them is in any way different? Or, to ask it another way, how earthbound are God's laws?
2. How might the exploration of space expand our understanding of God? Have images from orbiting telescopes, automatic probes, or reports from humans who have ventured into space, had an impact on you, and if so, what impact?
3. Could it be possible that we would have something to learn from other civilizations with regard to faith and practice? How might we know that?
4. How might Christ's instruction to love our neighbors apply to alien beings from other realms in the universe?
5. If we find intelligent life forms in space, should we send Christian missionaries to them? In other words, should we assume that their races are also "fallen" and in need of a savior in the same way that humankind is?
Confronting the News With Scripture and HopeHere are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Hebrews 11:3 (NIV)By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (For context, read 11:1-3.)
Though verses 1-3 provide the immediate context for this verse, the larger context includes all 40 verses of Hebrews 11, with verse 3 being the first of 18 sentences that begin with "By faith …." Verse 3 suggests that a good starting point for the faith discussion is the affirmation that God formed "the universe" (or "worlds"; NRSV), not simply our planet.
This affirmation is declared elsewhere in scripture as well. See, for example, Psalm 33:6; Acts 17:24 and Revelation 4:11.
Questions: What is the importance of God being the Creator of the universe/cosmos rather than just our solar system? What, if anything, interests you about the possibility of finding intelligent life on another planet? Why? Would you want to become an ambassador from Earth to an extraterrestrial civilization?
Job 38:31-33 (CEB)
Can you bind Pleiades' chains or loosen the reins of Orion? Can you guide the stars at their proper times, lead the Bear with her cubs? Do you know heaven's laws, or can you impose its rule on earth? (For context, 38:1-3, 31-33.)
This is part of God's response to Job's demand for a hearing regarding his righteousness. God tells Job to pull himself together and consider the larger picture. When Job does that, he sees that God has ordered the universe, and it isn't always about us, it isn't always about Job, it isn't always about me. (Psalm 8:1-4 and 19:1-6 also make this point.)
Although we are not sure what specific constellations or stars are translated here as "Pleiades," "Orion" and "the Bear" (different translations translate the underlying Hebrew words differently), Job knows, and God demands to know if Job can corral them or put them in order. Obviously he cannot, but the implication is that God can -- and does. Thus, the Bible views God as Lord of the whole cosmos.
The word translated above as "reins" can also be rendered as "bands." Biblical commentator Rabbi Victor E. Reichert writes that Orion is considered "the fool." He "... is regarded as a Titan who absurdly rebelled against God in primeval times and was for ever bound to the sky by means of three stars known as the 'girdle.' Perhaps the thought is that in spite of [Orion's] turbulent character, the Almighty relaxes his bands, because, however dangerous he may be, God can, when he will, contemptuously leave him at large." (Reichert, Job with Hebrew text and English Translation, The Soncino Press, 1946, 201.)
Questions: How does viewing the night sky make you feel about your relationship with the Creator? Why?
Psalm 8:3-4When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? (For context, read 8:1-9.)
The vastness of the night sky convinced this psalmist that human beings are but a small piece of God's larger creation, and yet he rejoiced at the care God gives to mortals, and creating them just "a little lower than God" (v. 5).
Looking down at Earth from above might evoke similar awe. Mike Massimino was on two missions to repair the Hubble Space Telescope and got to see Earth from outside his spacecraft. In his book Spaceman, he tells of looking down at our planet and thinking,"Wow. How much God our Father must love us that he gave us this home. He didn't put us on Mars or Venus with nothing but rocks and frozen waste. He gave us paradise and said, 'Live here.' It's not easy to wrap your head around the origins and purpose of the universe, but that's the best way I can describe the feelings I had."
Questions: Does our status in the created order as "a little lower than God" mean that we will rank above any alien rational beings we might encounter during the exploration of space? What problems could such a view cause? What responsibilities might such a view imply? In light of this compliment how do we avoid getting a big head?
Jonah 1:3
But Jonah set out to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD. ... (For context, read 1:1-10.)
Most people know the story of Jonah being swallowed by the great fish, but less well known is the mindset that put Jonah on the sea to begin with. God came to Jonah and instructed him to go to Nineveh, a city of one of Israel's enemies, and warn them that unless they repented of their sins, God would destroy them.
Jonah did not want the Ninevites to be spared, and so he fled Israel, possibly thinking that in doing so, he would also leave Israel's God behind. He boarded a ship for Tarshish, likely a city in what is now Spain; then it was the end of the known world. He apparently had a parochial view of God's realm, which he thought was limited to Israel. He was soon to find out that no matter where he went, he could not escape God.
The psalmist made the same point poetically: "If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol [the place of the dead], you are there" (Psalm 139:8).
Questions: How might space exploration make us question whether God is indeed present in all of the cosmos? How might it confirm that he is present in it all?
Romans 8:22
We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now ... (For context, read 8:18-23.)
This is from the apostle Paul, who was saying that whatever sufferings his Christian audience was experiencing in the present were insignificant when compared to the great glory to come in the kingdom of God. He went on to say that the whole creation is waiting to be delivered from some kind of suffering.
In other words, it is not our planet alone that is in need of salvation of some kind.
Question: In writing about "whole creation," Paul may have meant only that which could be known from earth in his day -- a limited universe. Yet is there any reason not to give his words cosmic meaning?
For Further Discussion
1. TWW team member Frank Ramirez points us to one of his favorite science fiction stories "A Rose for Ecclesiastes," by Roger Zelazny (1963), in which a linguist/poet named Gallinger, raised in a fundamentalist home by a father who is a strict minister, brings hope to a dying Martian race by translating Ecclesiastes into Martian, demonstrating that a biblical poet could tell us that life is pointless, yet people continue anyway. (See a plot summary here.) If you were in Gallinger's position, what Bible book would you translate for them? Why?
2. C.S. Lewis once said he thought of the distances of space as part of God's quarantine zone, in order to protect the universe from our fallen nature. In Lewis' Space Trilogy, the philologist Ransom encounters unfallen races on Mars, and is present on Venus when that planet's Eve faces the same temptation as in Genesis 3. What would a planet be like where there was no need of redemption because that people (whatever they might look like) had never fallen? Is it possible to achieve maturity as an individual or a group without some sort of sin? Does one need God if one does not need redemption?
3. C.S. Lewis, who penned both defenses of Christianity and science-fiction stories, once wrote, "Our loyalty is due not to our species but to God. Those who are, or can become, [God's] sons, are our real brothers even if they have shells or tusks. It is spiritual, not biological, kinship that counts." What is your reaction to Lewis' statement?
4. The words "universe" and "cosmos" are often used interchangeably, but by strict definition, cosmos implies something that universe does not. Cosmos means the universe, but considered as an orderly, harmonious whole, as a realm quite distinct from something chaotic. From the Christian perspective, which word is more descriptive of the dominion we explore when we launch space shuttles and other spacecraft? Why?
5. After Christ returns and we have eternity to spend with him, is it possible that God might send us to planets with sentient beings to interact with them the way Jesus did with humans on earth? Might we literally become "little Christs" willing to sacrifice our lives so that other species might also come to know how much God loves them?
Responding to the News
The discovery of planets that could contain intelligent life opens interesting future possibilities about how to relate to rational beings who are different species from us. In the present, however, we are challenged by how to relate to other human beings who are different from us. This is a good time to remind ourselves that God is Lord of all whom he has created, and do our best to avoid acting toward others out of prejudice and preconceived notions.
Prayer
O God, although we have been thinking about things that are, at present, only possibilities, help us to carry our best understanding of Jesus and your will for us into whatever new worlds we explore. In Jesus' name. Amen.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, March 17, 2017

Americans Have Become More Comfortable With Women in Power -- With Some Exceptions

The Wired Word for the Week of March 19, 2017
In the News
In general, Americans are more accepting than ever of women in places of influence or power in American Society, though some notable differences that some see as obstacles remain for women in the workplace and in the ministry.
These are among the findings of a just-released study by the Barna Group, a research organization that is "a go-to source for insights about faith and culture, leadership and vocation, and generations," according to its website. It adds, "Barna Group has carefully and strategically tracked the role of faith in America, developing one of the nation's most comprehensive databases of spiritual indicators."
The study, which was conducted on behalf of Pepperdine University, looked at attitudes about women being in the upper echelons of the workplace, politics and the church. In all three areas, the study found a general growing positive acceptance of women in influential roles, though there are differences between the attitudes of men and women, members of generational groups, adherents of political parties and people of different religious persuasions.
Barna found that most Americans are comfortable with women in politics. While Hillary Clinton did not succeed in her run for the U.S. presidency, 85 percent of Americans are open to the possibility of a female in the White House, with 98 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans supporting that possibility. (It is unclear how respondents interpreted the question. Did they hear it as "deliberately picking a female president because she's female" or as "picking a president who happens to be female"? How respondents interpret questions is important in polls, but is difficult to ascertain.) Support was more unanimous for gender balance in Congress.
Nonetheless, while Barna did not note this, misogyny remains an issue in the political realm. The New York Times (see article in links list below) recently observed that both Hillary Clinton and Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to President Trump, though far apart politically, have been criticized for their clothing selection, their hairstyles and appearance, and both have been depicted as haggard and are routinely called "witch" and other derogatory names.
One TWW team member noted that there are instances in which males as well are criticized for hairstyles (has any class member not heard a criticism of the president for his hairstyle?), clothing (bow-tie or bolo-tie wearers especially), appearance and are sometimes called nasty names as well.
"The two women are at opposite ideological poles, but they stir up the same lingering cultural discomfort with ambitious, assertive women," the Times article said. There are negatives associated with ambitious and assertive men as well, of course.
Regarding the workplace, the study, after noting that the number of women there has grown from 27 percent in 1948 to 47 percent in 2015, found that both men (75 percent) and women (78 percent) are comfortable with the idea that women may outnumber men in the workplace in the future. Younger generations are the most comfortable with that possibility. Of those respondents Barna identified as "evangelicals" only 52 percent indicated comfort with the idea, "perhaps," said the report "due to a more traditional interpretation of women's roles as primary caregivers in the home."
Barna defines evangelicals as people who fit these nine criteria:
  • have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today;
  • believe that their faith is very important in their life today;
  • believe that when they die they will go to heaven because they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior;
  • strongly believe they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians;
  • firmly believe that Satan exists;
  • strongly believe that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works;
  • strongly agree that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth;
  • strongly assert that the Bible is accurate in all the principles it teaches;
  • describe God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today.
Barna does not use church attendance or denominational affiliation as criteria for the evangelical classification.
For Christians who don't meet Barna's nine criteria for "evangelical," Barna has a separate category: "practicing Christians." This includes those who attend a religious service at least once a month, who say their faith is very important to their lives and self-identify as a Christian. In the Barna designation, practicing Christians represent a much larger segment of the U.S. Christian population than do evangelicals.
When asked if they'd be comfortable with a female CEO, 94 percent of all adults in the survey said yes (90 percent of men, 97 percent of women, 77 percent of evangelicals, percentage of practicing Christians not reported).
Despite their growing presence in the workplace, however, 59 percent of women surveyed said significant roadblocks still make it harder for women to get ahead. When asked specifically about these hurdles, women identified fair pay (67 percent), equal opportunity for promotion (56 percent) and maintaining a work/life balance (41 percent) as the most important issues facing working women.
No questions were asked of men concerning obstacles they faced in getting ahead in the workplace, so no comparisons are possible.
The realm with the least acceptance of women in top leadership, according to Barna, is the ministry, though 79 percent of Americans are accepting of a female priest or pastor.
"As is the trend, more women than men are comfortable with a female in the pulpit (84 percent versus 75 percent)," the report said. "Evangelicals … express by far the lowest levels of comfort (39 percent)" said the report, which interpreted this by saying "Evangelicals by definition … have a more traditional interpretation of the scriptures, particularly concerning female ordination."
In contrast, Barna found that 62 percent of practicing Christians support women in the pulpit. And perhaps surprisingly, Catholics (80 percent) are slightly more comfortable with a female priest or pastor than Protestants (74 percent). "So while the general population are affirming of female priests and pastors," the report said, "there are differences in the various factions of the church."
In Protestant churches today, 9 percent of senior pastors are women. This is triple the percentage of 25 years ago, Barna said. Most of those women lead mainline congregations rather than evangelical churches.
In interpreting the results, Roxanne Stone, editor-in-chief at Barna Group said, "This study -- and the cultural realities it uncovers -- are immanently significant for the church. More than half of most congregations are women. They are increasingly part of the workforce; they are rising in the ranks at work and they are finding immense value in their jobs. Yet, they often feel conflicted when it comes to their work and motherhood." Stone invites church groups to think about how to help women deal with all of this.
We might add that church groups should also be invited to think about how to help men deal with conflicts between work and fatherhood.
More on this story can be found at these links:
The Big Questions
1. Are you comfortable with the idea of women in high positions of leadership in the workplace? in politics? in the church? In each case, explain why or why not. How does your view of scripture and God's will inform your answer?
2. Do you believe that the church should help women get ahead in their chosen non-family fields because they are women? If so, should the church also help men get ahead in their chosen non-family fields because they are men? What is the purpose, as you see it, of the church concerning a person's desire to get ahead in a career, in family, or in other situations? Explain.
3. What might the term "vocational discipleship" mean for you, regardless of your sex?
4. Should the church encourage men to take on more of the household duties and emotional labor associated with family life? Why or why not? Should the church encourage women to do less of the household duties and emotional labor associated with family life? Why or why not?
5. Using Barna's definitions, do you consider yourself an evangelical, a practicing Christian or belonging to some other category of churchgoer? Does such labeling help or hinder Christian fellowship and mission? Explain your answer.
Confronting the News With Scripture and HopeHere are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Judges 4:8-9
Barak said to her, "If you will go with me, I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go." And [Deborah] said, "I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." Then Deborah got up and went with Barak to Kedesh.(For context read, Judges 4:1-23.)
This text is set against the backdrop of some 20 years of suffering in Israel at the hands of their Canaanite oppressors. God sent this adversity in response to Israel's ongoing rebellion against the rule of law -- divine law.
Now God hears the cries of the people and sends some help in the form of Barak and Deborah. Despite God's assurance that the Israelites will prevail, Barak was not confident they'd succeed, and only agrees to raise and lead an army against the Canaanites if Deborah will confirm her faith in the promised victory by going along on the military campaign. Deborah agrees, but she warns Barak that the road they take will not bring him glory, because God is going to deliver their enemy into the hand of a woman!
Deborah goes against all previous type recorded in scripture to that point. She is a woman. She is a judge, the only female judge in Israel. She is also a prophet, and the only person in the book of Judges who is both a judge and a prophet. Her person and her leadership are treated with respect, as evidenced by Barak's attitude toward her and the references to her in scripture where she is called "a mother in Israel" (Judges 5:7).
Questions: God evidently had no problem turning over the deliverance of the Chosen People to a woman, when cultural, religious and traditional conventions would have normally been opposed to such a venture. What does this say to us about God, and about our need for effective leadership? Having read this story, can we now say that a woman should not ever be considered for a position of leadership over both men and women solely on the basis of sex? Why or why not?
John 4:9The Samaritan woman said to [Jesus], "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.) (For context, read John 4:4-26.)
Jesus' treatment of women was radical for the times. He routinely conversed not only with women, but with foreign women, as is the case in this text. Whereas Jewish tradition prohibited females from being taught, Jesus accepted women in his entourage and taught them (notably Mary Magdalene). His language betrays his counter-cultural understanding of women as equals of men when he refers to them as the "daughters of Abraham."
Although his disciples are all males, women played a prominent role in his post-resurrection ministry. In fact, God has women as the first and main witnesses of the resurrection, meeting Jesus and attesting to his resurrection before he appears to any male followers. Jesus frequently criticized the way in which widows were treated and he was not too sympathetic with current divorce laws which were weighted heavily in favor of the husband.
Questions: How have cultural biases against women changed in your lifetime? Have all of these changes been good? Why or why not?
Galatians 3:28
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (For context, read, 3:26-29.)
This text is the most well known of all biblical texts that speak to the equality of men and women in the eyes of God. The context is a discussion of the Law of Moses where class and gender distinctions were common. Under the new covenant of Grace, brought to us by Jesus Christ, Paul notes that the cultural biases and barriers have been torn down.
Question: "All of you are one in Christ Jesus." Discuss how this is true in an absolute, objective sense, and how it may not be true in actual practice in the church and in the world. What should the church do about this, if anything?
1 Timothy 2:11-12
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. (For context, read 2:9-15.)
Many scholars believe this pastoral letter to Timothy was written by the apostle Paul about A.D. 65. Indeed, that Paul is the author is the traditional view. Some other scholars, however, believe this letter was written much later and attributed to Paul. (The attribution of authorship to well-known historical figures was common in that day. Assigning authorship to a pseudo but highly regarded author was thought to give the document more weight and authority.)
Why is this important? If First Timothy was written later, perhaps even in the first half of the second century, it would show that the developing church was moving toward a gradual reinstatement of the patriarchal attitude that predated Jesus' ministry. Indeed, there is evidence, such as Paul's words in Galatians 3:28, that the early church welcomed full participation by women.
But many argue that, as the church grew and expanded, church leaders advised members to practice the conventional subjection of wife to husband women so as not to appear different from general society in every respect and thus gain wider acceptance of the church. This verse from First Timothy could be an example of such advice, some scholars say.
Whichever the case, it is in the scriptures and needs to be understood in the context of the rest of the epistle, neither dismissed nor taken out of context.
Questions: Some churches use this text in support of not ordaining women to the priesthood or pastoral office. Many churches, however, do not observe the writer's instruction here and other observations about women in the church, such as the head covering required according to 1 Corinthians 11:5. Why do these wide-ranging biblical interpretations exist in the church? How do you regard verses such as these? Why?
For Further Discussion
1. Agree or disagree: There is no biblical reason to prohibit a woman from holding the office of President of the United States. Explain your reasoning.
2. Debate the following statement: God does not hold us to the cultural and social customs and mores of the ancient world in which the Bible was written. How can one differentiate between what is a social custom or more and what is a binding comment on the nature of people or society?
3. Discuss situations in the workplace where you, as a woman, had a number of men who were your employees or over whom you had authority. Or, discuss situations in the workplace where you, as a man, were accountable to a female boss or supervisor. What sort of adjustments did you need to make, if any? Similarly, discuss where you, as a female, had a male supervisor, or where you as a male had female subordinates. How do the sexual differences play out in today's workplace? How should they play out?
4. Many critics of Christianity claim that the Bible is wildly patriarchal -- that is, men play the dominant roles in leadership, government and family. Without a doubt, most of the cultures in the Bible had fairly well-defined and different roles for men and women. Today, some Christian groups believe that God's design for marriage has the husband as "head of the house," each loving his wife as "Christ loved the Church," basing their view in part on biblical texts. Do you think that this perspective explains, at least in part, why it took so long for women to get the right to vote, and to be accepted not only in the political process as well as in arenas outside the house that were considered the domain of men (medicine, law, science, for example)? Why or why not?  
Responding to the News
This is Women's History Month, and thus, a good time to look for ways to celebrate the gifts of women in your community of faith, through worship and special recognition ceremonies.
It's also a good time to consider whether there are "bans," spoken or unspoken that prevent women from playing certain roles in the church, and whether they should be lifted or maintained.
It is also a good time to recognize and celebrate the manifold contributions of women as mothers and homemakers.
Prayer
O God, thank you for empowering us all, male and female, with special and unique gifts. Help us to glorify you as we work together for the greater good and for the improvement of life around us. Help us to support each other as we seek to do your will and share your love. In Jesus' name. Amen.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 9, 2017

House Considers Replacement Health Bill

The Wired Word for the Week of March 12, 2017
In the News
On Monday, some House Republicans unveiled a health-care bill they call the American Health Care Act (AHCA) which they want to pass to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed by Democrats in Congress without Republican support in 2010 and signed into law by then president Barack Obama. Now that Republicans have the majority in both the House and the Senate and is the party of the current president, Donald Trump, the bill has a chance of becoming law, either in its present or revised form.
Whereas the ACA has frequently been called "Obamacare," the AHCA is already being called "Trumpcare," although it is missing some of the items Trump requested in his address to a joint session of Congress recently. Nonetheless, he has declared "our wonderful new healthcare plan is out for review and negotiation," indicating his support for it at least as a starting point.
Republicans have opposed the ACA from its inception and have made several efforts to repeal or change it while Obama was in the White House. While in general, Republican philosophy doesn't like federal government support of entitlement programs, some observers have claimed Republicans' opposition to the ACA has been more because it was program of the Democrats. Though invited by Democrats to participate in drawing up the bill that became the ACA, Republican leadership refused.
Politics aside, however, many Americans have a stake in what ultimately comes from Congress on this matter, for about 20 million of us currently benefit in some way from the ACA. Initial analysis of the proposed AHCA, suggests that it would leave more people uninsured than does the ACA. However, the AHCA bill is still in early stages and may be amended, if it passes at all.
There are observers who maintain that the ACA also harms some who get coverage under it, though it is difficult to calculate benefits versus harms. For example, consider a 22-year-old who remains on his parents' insurance plan through age 26 instead of purchasing a less-expensive and ACA-forbidden catastrophic health insurance plan on his own. The parents' insurance premiums go up and the possibly more suitable insurance plan is unavailable. Such a person is counted by the Department of Health and Human Services as one of the 20 million who benefit, yet can possibly be counted as a person harmed.
Some say the AHCA as currently proposed would have similar shortcomings. The House Freedom Caucus, which includes many veterans of the Tea Party movement, and some Senate allies, have dubbed the AHCA as "Obamacare Lite."
It should be noted that "health insurance" is not "health care" -- and, in fact, most current health "insurance" policies mainly are funding-stream mechanisms with only a small insurance component. Nonetheless, as medical services and costs are structured in the United States today, not many people could afford adequate health care throughout their lifetime without some form of health insurance, whether that comes from private pay, as a benefit of employment or from a government program.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Applying the News Story
At issue with both the ACA and AHCA is this: Should all Americans have access to affordable health care and should the federal government be involved in providing that?
The Big Questions
1. As a Christian, are there any reasons you would not want every American to have equal access to health care? If so, what are they? In terms of what's possible, is "equal access to health care" actually a thing that can exist or even be approached in a free society? Explain your answer. What do you think Jesus would say about this matter?
2. While "the devil is in the details" of whichever plan addresses this matter, do you agree that in principle, universal affordable health care is a moral issue? Why or why not? What is actually meant by each of the words, "universal," "affordable" and "health care"? Is there any way this goal can be approached without government involvement, and if so, what way?
3. What meaning did Jesus' healing ministry have for his overall mission? What do you make of the fact that in Nazareth, Jesus was able to perform only a few healings because of unbelief among the local people (Matthew 13:58)?
4. Is Christianity as much concerned with the well-being of our bodies as with the well-being of our souls? Explain your answer.
5. Political territorialism aside, what values should national legislation reflect when it comes to health care? Or should the government keep out of it, and if so, would the viable alternatives instead see that no one was financially shut out of adequate health care?
Confronting the News With Scripture and HopeHere are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
1 Samuel 2:8He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. (For context, read 2:1-10.)
This sentence is from the prayer of Hannah, the mother of Samuel. She had been childless, but God answered her prayer about that, and she eventually bore a son. In gratitude, Hannah brought Samuel, as a young child, to the worship center at Shiloh to serve the Lord there under the tutelage of the high priest Eli (all of this is recorded in chapter 1 of 1 Samuel). Her prayer follows the presentation of her son to Eli.
The words of Hannah's prayer do not refer specifically to her situation, but are more in general praise of God. And one of the things she notes about God is his care for the needy, mentioned in the verse above.
In the Bible, God's concern for the poor and needy is not a side issue; it is a major theme of scripture, in both the Old and New Testaments.
Questions: Given that people with low incomes often have difficulty affording both health insurance and medical care, how does this verse apply to your view of health-care legislation? How does it apply to your own responsibility for the health care of others? How do some people use "the government's responsibility" to avoid their own responsibility?
1 Samuel 30:24… For the share of the one who goes down into the battle shall be the same as the share of the one who stays by the baggage; they shall share alike. (For context, read 30:1-25.)
The story in 1 Samuel 30 comes from the period when David, who later became king of Israel, was in fact an outlaw in Israel.
He didn't intend to be. In fact, he had served Israel's king, Saul. But as David was successful in that position, Saul became jealous of David's reputation and sought to kill him. David was forced to flee for his life from Israel, and eventually, some 600 men joined him, forming a kind of private police force.
David, his men and their families settled in Ziklag, a town under Philistine control. From there, they raided some non-Israelite villages belonging to other enemies of the Philistines.
Eventually, while David's men were out of town, some Amalekite raiders overran Ziklag, plundering the goods, burning the buildings and capturing the women and children. When David and his men returned and discovered what had happened, they were already weary from three days of travel, but nonetheless set out in pursuit of the Amalekites. By the time they came to the stream called the Wadi Besor, 200 of the men were so exhausted they could not continue, so David allowed them to remain there. The remaining 400 went on without them. This reduced group caught up to the Amalekites and killed them. They freed their families, reclaimed their goods, and took the goods, flocks and herds of the Amalekites as spoils of war.
Returning, David and the 400 came upon the 200 men who had been left behind. As the latter came out to cheer their victorious compatriots, some of the "corrupt and worthless fellows" (v. 22) among the 400 said that the 200 should not receive a share of the spoils because they did not participate in the fighting. They were willing for the 200 to reclaim their wives and children, but didn't want them to receive any of the wealth that had been seized from the Amalekites.
David, however, would have none of it, and made the statement in the verse above about all sharing alike. By so doing David reinforced the sense of cohesion among his men and showed that he understood some of what it takes to make a mob of individuals into a fighting force. From a military standpoint, David's decision acknowledges that those in reserve, who guard the supplies, or who are recuperating also contribute to the military action. This is reflected in the adage coined by the poet John Milton: "They also serve who only stand and wait."
Given the political environment of health-insurance legislation, it's worth noting that there were political overtones to David's share-and-share-alike ruling. His action was generous, but it also helped to build a broad base of support for him so that later, when the throne of Israel became vacant, David was the man the common people want to put there.
Questions: If you were among the 400 who did the fighting, how would you feel about sharing the spoils of your battle with the 200 who couldn't keep up? Would there be some resentment there? While the spoils of war are fungible and not the in same category as health care, which is not fungible, should the "share-and-share-alike" principle apply to health care? to health insurance? Why or why not?
Luke 10:8-9
Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you; cure the sick who are there, and say to them, "The kingdom of God has come near to you." (For context, read 10:1-12.)
These words from Jesus were part of his instructions to the 70 people he sent out on a mission throughout Palestine. Note that Jesus told them to not only proclaim the news that the kingdom of God has come near, but also to cure the sick. And he never says to the 70 that the proclamation is more important than the curing. In another place, Luke records that people came to Jesus both to "hear him" and to be "healed of their diseases" (Luke 6:18).
Both of these examples are from Luke, but all four gospel writers report Jesus' healing ministry. While Jesus may not have considered those first-century healings as his main ministry, he clearly considered them as part of his work and integral to his whole mission.
TWW team member Liz Antonson, who worked for more than 30 years in a health-care system points out that until recent times, hospitals were the product of religious charity. Several Christian denominations created and ran hospitals. But she says that in her lifetime, that has changed. Hospitals with names like St. Luke's and St. Elizabeth's are no longer religious institutions, except in name only. Antonson adds, "The demise of charity care to the poor and nearly poor and the not poor in our country has been directly due to the construct of commercial government insurance.
"Charity organizations have turned to commercial and government insurances for reimbursement," she says, "and the ministry of providing for the sick and dying is gutted."
Questions: Does Jesus' emphasis on healing suggest how he might view health-care legislation? If so, what does it suggest? Is Antonson's view correct that insurance has caused the demise of charity care? Would charity care be sufficient today, given the size of the population?
Matthew 7:12In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.(No context needed.)
You no doubt recognize this as the "Golden Rule." It is included in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, and, it seems to us, has a straightforward application to the universal health-care debate: I want adequate and affordable health care for myself, so, in line with Jesus' teaching, I want the same for others as well.
Questions: Is universal affordable health care a "love your neighbor" issue? Is it a matter of general ethics? Both? Neither? Should there be exceptions? Explain your answer. Are wanting it for all and who should pay for it two separate issues? Why or why not?
Luke 10:34-35He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, "Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend." (For context, read 10:25-37.)
This is from the well-known parable of the Good Samaritan. A man on a journey was beset by robbers, who beat him and left him by the roadside. Two men, a church ruler and a church worker (to use modern terms) passed by, electing not to help the victim -- nor, in today's context, seeking to get the church or government involved. An outcast, however, did help the victim. He used his own possessions -- medicine, transportation, lodging payment -- to help. He took charitable responsibility to be "a neighbor" to the victim.
Questions: Does this model of personal charity -- to be a neighbor to those who need medical care -- work in our society today? If so, who might be left out? If not, why not?
For Further Discussion
1. If you, or someone you know, has benefited from the ACA, consider sharing that story. If you, or someone you know, has been negatively impacted because of the requirements of the ACA, consider sharing that story.
2. Back in 2009, when the ACA was being worked on, an editorial in The New Republic said, "One reason we're talking about reform today is that our system forces Americans to pay too much for what are, frequently, substandard results. But another, perhaps more important reason is that our system leaves a large number of Americans, including many members of the middle class, profoundly vulnerable to the effects of illness. People losing their life savings or their homes because of their medical bills, people skipping necessary care because they can't afford it -- these things should not happen in a responsible, modern society. We can't stop people from getting sick, but we can stop sickness from ruining people's lives -- or taking their lives away altogether." How might this be addressed by the new proposed bill?
3. There are Christians who believe that health care would be significantly better, less expensive, and more available were government to be much less involved with financial and other controls. Some argue that health-care decisions and payments are personal responsibilities, and that those who truly cannot afford health care should be helped by charitable organizations, including churches, not by government. Discuss why this is or is not adequate.
Responding to the News
Some of the material and biblical texts from this installment of The Wired Word could be used as the basis of a parish-wide discussion that goes beyond the class or small group.
This is also a good time to speak as a church to your legislators about this legislation.
Prayer
O God, who calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves, help us grasp the size of the "neighborhood" you have in mind and then, in your name, to do our best. Through Jesus we pray. Amen.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)