German Catholics Told, "No Pay, No Pray"

In the News

Have you heard the playful twist someone put on 2 Corinthians 9:7? That verse, in the King James Version, reads "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." Some wit put it this way: "God loveth a cheerful giver, but he accepteth from a grouch." In Germany these days, it could be twisted a little further, to read, "God loveth a cheerful giver, but he accepteth from a grouch. The church booteth the rest."

Unlike in the United States, where church-state separation is a constitutional provision, in Germany, government tax offices collect a religious tax amounting to 8-9 percent of the annual tax bill of registered Roman Catholics, Protestants and Jews and then forward it to those faith groups. This tax amounts to perhaps 3 percent of a member's income. However, if a person officially declares at the tax office that he or she is leaving the faith, that person then no longer has to pay that tax.

Not surprisingly, some people have made the declaration so as to avoid the tax, but have continued to participate in their church.

German Catholics, however, may no longer get away with doing that. A little over a week ago, the German church's bishops issued a decree telling Roman Catholics who stop paying the tax bill that they will be excluded from all church activities, including participating in their parish, becoming a godparent, receiving the sacraments and having a religious burial.

"It's rubbish to assume one could leave the institutional church and remain a Catholic," said Rev. Hans Langendoerfer, the secretary of the German Bishops Conference. "Whoever leaves the church, leaves it completely."

The tax income is no small amount. In 2010, the German Catholic church received about 5 billion euros ($6.43 billion) from the tax, and Protestant churches got about 4.3 billion euros ($5.53 billion). From its funds, the German Catholic church operates a large network of schools, hospitals and charity projects and is a major contributor to the Vatican and Roman Catholic projects around the world.

The amount received by the Catholic church, however, has been impacted by an increase in the number of church-leavers in the last two years following revelations of decades of sexual abuse of children by priests.

The bishops' decree has been criticized by the Roman Catholic reformist movement We Are the Church, who have characterized it as "pay and pray." A spokesperson for We Are the Church said the decree sends the wrong message and "shows the great fear of the German bishops and the Vatican about further serious losses in church tax revenue."

Another group, the Union of Associations, which is loyal to the pope, nonetheless asked why the church would punish Catholics who stopped paying the tax but would permit those called heretics to stay in the church.

"So sacraments are for sale -- whoever pays the church tax can receive the sacraments," the Union of Associations said in a statement, saying the link the decree created "goes beyond the sale of indulgences that [Martin] Luther denounced" at the start of the Reformation.

More on this story can be found at this link:

German Catholics Criticise Sanctions for Those Who Opt Out of "Church Tax."  The Guardian

The Big Questions

1. Keeping in mind the financial state of your own congregation, would your church be better off in the ways that really matter for the kingdom of God if your members were taxed to support the congregation rather than asked to give voluntarily? Why or why not? What are the dangers when churches and the government get too comfortable with each other?

2. Is it possible to maintain a meaningful membership in your church without financially supporting it as you are able? Why or why not? (Suggestion: Take a look at the membership vows you affirmed when you joined the church.)

3. Do you consider efforts by your church to encourage you to contribute regularly as "less spiritual" than your church's efforts to encourage you to pray and read the Bible? Explain your answer. Would you prefer that your pastor never preach about financial giving? Explain your answer.

4. Thinking about all the things you personally spend money on, where on your priority list does giving money to your church fall? Why? How do you determine how much of your income you will give to your church? Are there any ways in which you view your giving to the church as a "tax"? Why or why not? How is a tax, such as done in Germany, different from an enforced tithe (or other amount) as a condition of membership in a congregation?

5. In most churches in the United States, what members give is not made public, even to other members. Thus, it's possible that some people who are quite able to give financially choose not to (or give only a nominal amount) but fully participate in the church otherwise. Is that a matter of sin, spiritual immaturity, selfishness or something else (and if so, what?)?

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

1 Samuel 8:15-17
"He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves"  (For context, read 8:4-22).
Malachi 3:10
"Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing." (For context, read 3:8-12.)

Tithing, which means giving a tenth, is often spoken of as the biblical standard for giving to your place of worship, but in fact, it is just one of the standards the Bible speaks of. What's more, tithing may be rooted in taxation. In 1 Samuel 8, after the Israelites, who had been a loose confederation of tribes to that point, demanded a king, Samuel tried to talk them out of it, using the words in verses 15-17 above.

Nonetheless, as Malachi suggests, giving a tenth, when done in the right spirit, reflects the generosity of God to us.

Questions: Do you think of your giving to your church as a way of thanking God for his generosity? Why or why not? In what ways does the percentage you give (as compared to your total take-home income) reflect your feelings about serving the Lord? (The most recent information we can find says that American churchgoers tithe, on average, about 2.38 percent of their income. See Tithing Hits Record Low. Christian Post.)

Would you be more likely to tithe if that money were automatically deducted from your checking account than if you wrote a check? Would you be more likely to tithe if that money were collected by the government and given directly to your church?

Deuteronomy 16:16-17
"They shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed; all shall give as they are able, according to the blessing of the LORD your God that he has given you." (No additional context needed.)
Luke 21:1-4
"[Jesus] looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury; he also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. He said, 'Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.'" (No additional context needed.)

As we said, tithing is not the only standard for giving that the Bible talks about. Here, in the Deuteronomy instructions for how the ancient Israelites were to give offerings, the standard is two-fold: 1) they should not come empty-handed, and 2) they should give as they are able according to what God has given them. (When Joseph and Mary presented the baby Jesus in the temple, the offering they gave was the small one permitted for the poor. Compare Luke 2:24 with Leviticus 12:6, 8.) Giving as one is able, however, implies that one should make an honest assessment of what one is able to give, not a stingy assessment.

The poor widow was, by the way, giving way more than 10 percent of her income!

Questions: Do you prefer this standard over tithing? Why or why not? If you prefer some other standard, what is it and why do you prefer it? To whom does all the money and wealth belong anyway? How does the concept of being a "steward" enter into this?

Matthew 17:24-27
"When they reached Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax came to Peter and said, 'Does your teacher not pay the temple tax?' He said, 'Yes, he does.' And when he came home, Jesus spoke of it first, asking, 'What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their children or from others?' When Peter said, 'From others,' Jesus said to him, 'Then the children are free. However, so that we do not give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook; take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a coin; take that and give it to them for you and me.'" (No additional context needed.)

During Jesus' years on earth, loyal Jews were expected to pay a tax to support the temple, but given that Jews did not have the taxation authority that their Roman overlords did, some Jews chose not to pay it. The precedent for the temple tax stretched all the way back to Nehemiah's day, when his people said, "We also lay on ourselves the obligation to charge ourselves yearly one-third of a shekel for the service of the house of our God ... for all the work of the house of our God" (Nehemiah 10:32-33).

By Jesus' day, the Pharisees, basing their conclusion on Exodus 30:11-16, considered every Jewish male throughout the world to be liable for the tax. The Sadducees, who, ironically, included the temple priests, argued that the annual tax should be voluntary rather than an imposed tax.

The point of Jesus' comment to Peter is that just as earthly kings do not tax their own children, but others, so also the children of God are free in principle from supporting the temple. But then, Jesus went ahead and paid the tax for both himself and Peter. Most likely, Jesus was not arguing against supporting the temple, but against the Pharisaic interpretation of the tax as mandatory. In fact, in Luke 11:42, Jesus criticized the Pharisees for the strictness of their tithing compared to the laxness of their good deeds: "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God; it is these you ought to have practiced, without neglecting the others."

Considering Jesus' praise for the poor widow and her offering to the temple (Luke 21:1-4), it would seem that he was quite in favor of those who gave to the temple voluntarily.

Questions: In what ways is voluntary giving a measure of one's faith and commitment? Is giving voluntarily more "spiritual" than mandated levels of giving? Why or why not? Does voluntary giving make giving to the church less "essential" when your budget is not stretched?

2 Corinthians 8:12
"For if the eagerness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has -- not according to what one does not have."  (For context, read 8:1-15.)

In the context verses, Paul is talking about a "special offering" for Christians in need in Jerusalem. In this verse, Paul emphasizes that he's not asking people to give more than is reasonable according to what they have, but says that what makes the gift, regardless of size, acceptable is the spirit in which it is given.

Questions: Can a church offering that is viewed by the church as an obligation and collected as tax (or a pledge) nonetheless be given with eagerness? Can the offering still do as much good for the giver as a voluntary offering?

2 Corinthians 9:6-8
"... the one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the one who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that by always having enough of everything, you may share abundantly in every good work."  (For context, read 9:1-15.)

We quoted 2 Corinthians 9:7 in the opening paragraph of the "In the News" section above. We repeat it here, including some of the context. We think it's easy to understand without additional commentary.

Questions: By using the image of sowing and reaping, is Paul suggesting that if we give cheerfully, we'll get a larger sum in return? Why or why not? In what ways is giving away money a source of cheer for the giver?

For Further Discussion

1. Tell why you think the following is or is not true: Someone has said that when we present our offerings in church, the most truthful offertory prayer would be, "Lord, no matter what we say or do, this is what we think of you."

2. Respond to this, from a TWW team member: "As I grew in faith several years ago, I felt God start talking to me about tithing. I was making a lot of money then, and after doing a little calculating, I asked God, 'Do you know how much money you're talking about?!' I was certain that my husband would never even consider making such an extravagant gift. To my surprise, my husband brought up the subject, and it seemed God had been working on him, too! Shortly after that, we began tithing, and ever since that time, the first 10 percent of our joint income has gone to the church. The amount went down as both of us made a career shift to full-time ministry, and it went down even further when my husband lost his job. But we are committed to the tithe, which means 10 percent of our gross earnings. When I reflect on the wondrous gifts God has poured out on me and my family, and when I acknowledge that everything I have and everything I am comes from God, then I am truly grateful that there is a benchmark like the tithe, because otherwise I would feel like I must give it all."

3. Can a church's decisions be affected by being a financial or political partner with a government? Review the Union of Associations' remarks about heretics (presumably those who do not follow a church's rules) being able to remain members while those who refuse to pay a government tax cannot. How much of a role does money play in decisions like this? How does your congregation worshipfully handle offerings?

4. Comment on this, from a TWW team member: "The New Testament Greek word oikonomia suggests not only household, but economy and church. We get the words 'ecumenical' and 'economy' from that Greek word, and the root for 'house' is also in there. The church is an economy. There isn't a wall of separation between what we think of as holy and the offering itself."

5. Respond to this: The news story mentions people leaving the church and what it means to be a part of the church. One TWW team member comments, "What I am noticing more and more is not just the decline in church attendance, but really [a change in] the definition of what it means to be a member. More and more, I see attendance in the church to be sporadic, once or twice a month, and yet many of these sporadic church attendees still feel highly connected to the church and [view themselves as] members of that [faith] community."

Responding to the News

This would be a good time to review your church's membership vows, and remind yourself what you promised when you joined the church. 

Is Driving the Mars Rover Like Praying?

In many respects, Matt Heverly, 36, has responsibilities similar to those of many of us. He has to get his kids to day care, handle the banking, get his car serviced, take out the trash, mow the grass and so on. But he also drives on Mars.

Well, it's not quite like driving his Toyota, but it's driving nonetheless.

Heverly heads a team of 16 rover drivers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, who together are responsible for steering the SUV-sized rover named Curiosity that NASA landed on the surface of the Red Planet last month. The six-wheeled, plutonium-powered vehicle is equipped with cutting-edge scientific instruments designed to analyze the Mars surface and send data back to Earth.

To perform its work, the rover has to move from place to place, and Heverly and his crew make that happen. While they speak of "driving" the rover, the term can be misleading. There's no steering wheel or joystick, and in effect, Heverly and his team members drive "blind." They direct the rover to its next location by typing hundreds of commands into a computer. The "drivers" then go home and return to their daily at-home responsibilities.

The teams working with Curiosity have to work around the problem of time -- that is, it takes 14 minutes for signals to get out to Mars and 14 to get back. By the time they receive confirmation about the signals they've sent, the events have already happened. They can't "drive" in real time. When the Mars day begins, the commands are sent to the rover by radio transmission, meaning that the rover is operating on the computerized instructions while the drivers are mowing their lawns and helping their kids with their homework.

"We definitely win the coolest job contest at cocktail parties," said John Wright, one of Curiosity's drivers. As an example of party conversation, Wright said, "What do you do? Oh, you're an investment banker? Isn't that special. I drive on Mars."

One job drawback, however, is the fear that one of them entered an incorrect code or that even with a correct code, the rover might malfunction. So far, that's not happened with Curiosity, but there's been at least one close call with Opportunity, an older NASA rover still functioning on Mars.

Heverly describes that day as "really scary and really humbling."

Wired Word team member James Berger suggests that the procedure of writing computer code with instructions for what the rover is to do and then going home to pick up the kids from school and waiting until the next day to find out if they sent the proper code sounds something like what sometimes happens when we pray. "We pray in the assurance that God will hear us," Berger said, "and we then open ourselves to hear our Lord's reply." But often, we don't receive an answer right away or know the outcome of our prayer until much later. We pray, go about the business of daily life and eventually, with the perspective of time, gain some understanding of how our prayer was answered.

More on this story can be found at this link:

Mow Yard. Drop Off Kids. Take a Drive on Mars. New York Times

The Big Questions

1. To what degree do you view prayer as "sending" a request and waiting to see what happens as a result? Is that an adequate picture of prayer? Are there other understandings of prayer that are also valid? What are they? To what extent is time important when it comes to praying? If you are aware, for instance, that a surgery for a loved one has already taken place, but you do not yet know the outcome, do you/can you still pray for the desired result until the time you know the outcome? Is it fair to do so? Is God, to your way of thinking, bound by time?

2. Whether people pray or don't pray is sometimes based on their image of God. What is your image of God, and how do you think God views your prayers?

3. To what degree is prayer a two-way conversation? How do you perceive God's answers to your prayers? What is your expectation about "waiting" for our God to respond?

4. Is long-distance praying effective? For example, if you are hospitalized with a serious illness and your pastor phones and prays for you over the phone, is that as helpful as if the pastor were at your bedside? Why or why not?

5. To what degree is "waiting" a spiritual practice? What does it mean to "wait on the Lord"?

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

Isaiah 40:30-31
"Even youths will faint and be weary, and the young will fall exhausted; 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." (For context, read 40:27-31.)

When it comes to spiritual strength, says this passage, the energy of youth is not sufficient. These verses are no guarantee against becoming weary, but their assurance is in the renewal God promises to those who "wait for the Lord," which is a way of saying that we need to take time to listen for him -- but on his schedule, not ours. Those who wait for God "shall run and not be weary." In fact, the Hebrew word translated as "wait" here and in the following passage is translated in the NIV as "hope" -- to wait with high expectations, not merely to await further developments.    

Questions: How does waiting for God's response to your prayers affect your outlook on life and the vigor with which you live? Name some things you would skip rather than wait (for instance, things that might take longer to cook, books you can't receive within a day or so, web pages that don't load quickly, etc.). Does your experience with waiting for God give you any insight with regard to God's wait for us?  

Lamentations 3:25-26
"The LORD is good to those who wait for him, to the soul that seeks him. It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD." (For context, read 3:22-30.)

In the context of that biblical book, waiting had a particularly poignant meaning. The situation that brought about the writing of the book of Lamentations was the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. by the Babylonians. At the time, the temple was also ruined and many of the people of Jerusalem and the Judean nation were forced into exile. The five hymns that constitute Lamentations are, in effect, funeral dirges for Jerusalem.

To understand the spirit of these laments, think of how you would feel if, as unlikely as this sounds, your hometown were captured by the Chinese army, your home and church were burned, and you and your family were forced to live in mainland China as part of an enslaved group. For the people of Judah, the destruction of Jerusalem was all of that. Jerusalem was the center of their national and religious identity, and its destruction was seen as judgment against them by God for their sins as a nation.

Fortunately, the prophets told the people that though they had sinned against God, he was not forsaking them. And so the laments contain not only mourning, but also expressions of hope that God would eventually redeem them from exile. It was that "eventually," however, that occasioned the waiting. We know from history that it was years before the people got to return to Judah, a time long enough that many of the generation that went into exile died. For the most part, it was their children and grandchildren, many of whom were born in Babylon, who were finally given the opportunity to repopulate Judah. For those who were marched out of Judah, the waiting for God to change their circumstances was a long one that required not only patience, but also the kind of faith that says, "What we hope for may not happen in our lifetime, but we believe it will happen, and so we are going to live in that hope."

Questions: How does long-term waiting fit into your life of faith? What have you been waiting a long time for that has not yet happened? Are these things you have prayed for? Have there been events or things you have prayed a long time for that you believe now will never take place? What has this aspect of time taught you about yourself? About God?

Luke 12:35-37
"Be dressed for action and have your lamps lit; be like those who are waiting for their master to return from the wedding banquet, so that they may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks. Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes ..." (For context, read 12:35-40.)

Waiting for the Lord doesn't mean that we should sit around and make no attempt to influence the course of events. We already know that there are times, such as when faced with the opportunity to do some good, when to do nothing is wrong. But beyond that, waiting can also mean a positive use of time. In these verses, Jesus gives us some insight. He describes the situation of servants in a house where the master is away, but rather than just sitting around doing nothing, they have the lamps lit, food that can be served up quickly and everything ready for when the master returns, even if it is in the middle of the night.

That situation is not hard to understand. If you are waiting for family members who are returning home after a long absence or are waiting for guests, you wouldn't just sit and wait, doing nothing. You'd be making sure there were clean sheets on the beds, and that the bathrooms were clean. You might be cooking or making other meal plans. If the visit were to be over Christmas, you might be wrapping presents or putting up the Christmas tree. Yes, you'd be waiting, but in an active way, accomplishing things that needed to be done.

In much the same way, just as the Lamentation passage above tells us that God works for those who are waiting for him, so too those who are waiting for God ought to be active on his behalf. At the very least, we ought not to allow ourselves to become morally reckless.

Questions: Sometimes, though, especially in the face of some tough things in life, there is little we can do. There are circumstances over which we have absolutely no control. In cases where activity is not possible, can patient waiting on divine providence be a faithful response? Why or why not? Does waiting feel like inactivity? How can waiting be an activity? Is it always necessary to be active?

Matthew 8:7-8
"And [Jesus] said to him, 'I will come and cure him.' The centurion answered, 'Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed.'" (For context, read 8:5-13.)

A centurion in Capernaum asked Jesus to heal his desperately ill servant. Jesus responded, "I will come and cure him." But the centurion, declaring his unworthiness to have Jesus in his home, asked Jesus to simply speak the word of healing long-distance. Jesus remarked that the centurion was demonstrating great faith. He told the man to go, and that he would find his servant healed.

Questions: This would seem to answer the question about the efficacy of long-distance prayers, but should we assume that because Jesus could do this, we can too? Can long-distance praying become a form of spiritual laziness? Why or why not?

Recall how, in the story of Lazarus (John 11), Jesus did not make rushing to heal his friend a high priority. When you pray, do you ever have the sense (regardless of whether you think this is actually the case) that God seems occupied with other things and is elsewhere? While Lazarus' sisters Mary and Martha waited, and then berated Jesus for making them wait, Martha also responded with a strong confession of faith. Their wait and their disappointment was eventually followed with greater events than they could have imagined. Can you name events in your life in which waiting was followed by disappointment, but later events led to wisdom or insight that changed your perspective on what happened?

2 Corinthians 12:7-9
"... a thorn was given me in the flesh .... Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me, but he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.'" (For context, read 12:6-10.)

This is the apostle Paul's comment about some unspecified but persistent physical ailment he had. He prayed three times to be relieved of it, but God did not remove it. Instead, Paul wrote that the answer to his prayer is, "My grace is sufficient for you, for [my] power is made perfect in weakness." What Paul asked was not granted, yet Paul found in that response no reason to stop praying.

Questions: How long do you think Paul waited before he understood that the answer to his prayer was "My grace is sufficient for you, for [my] power is made perfect in weakness"? When have you perceived a prayer of yours to have been answered in some way other than in the way you requested? How hard has it been for you to accept that despite your wait, a situation is not going to change, and that you are going to continue with your own thorn in the flesh?

For Further Discussion

1. Respond to this from a TWW team member: "Waiting itself sometimes has a kind of life force about it. You probably know of people who have been terminally ill but who survived longer than their doctors said was possible. Sometimes, when there is something worth waiting for, the person will somehow hang on to be part of the event. Perhaps they have a son getting married in three months and want to be there at the wedding. Or they have a granddaughter expecting a child and they want to see the new baby. Or they want to make it through Christmas and wring out of the waiting period another measure of life."

2. While the Earth is the Lord's, God cannot be seen. You can say that we see God through the eyes of faith, but many do not embrace that belief. Some say they see no evidence of God -- or conclude that if God was ever around, he has disappeared. In what ways is our patient waiting a testimony to others about our faith? In what ways can we share that testimony?

3. Read Matthew 25:1-13. How is that parable related to today's topic? What message do you hear for yourself in it?

Responding to the News

This is a good time to consider how your church communicates the importance of spiritual waiting. 

Pennsylvania Pastors Preach on Political Issues

In the News
 
Last Sunday, a number of ministers in Pennsylvania used their pulpits to speak about political issues. They were participants in an event called "Pulpit Sunday," sponsored by the Pennsylvania Pastors Network (PPN).

The number of pastors who participated in Pulpit Sunday is not known, but more than 1,500 pastors across the state belong to PPN.

PPN is a nondenominational network of clergy who affirm the authority of Scripture, "want to examine public policy issues without politicizing their pulpits, using well-prepared teaching and preaching resources" and "want to engage their congregations in taking part in our political process on a non-partisan basis." (See full PPN goals here.)

According to Karyn S. Price, Public Relations manager for PPN, "Pulpit Sundays are being promoted ... to empower pastors to fulfill their biblical and constitutional duty to preach about moral and cultural issues of the day."

In some churches across America, this may not seem like news, because some pastors often discuss moral and cultural issues, but according to PPN's  president, Sam Rohrer, many pastors have avoided preaching on subjects seen as "political."

Some may have avoided such topics so as not to run afoul of IRS regulations for nonprofit groups, which include churches. Under those regulations, churches cannot espouse or denounce the views of any particular candidate; they can, however, discuss issues, provided the discussion does not exhibit preferences for or against specific candidates. (See a fuller list of what churches can and cannot do while retaining their nonprofit status here.)  

Some preachers have avoided political issues because they consider it their job to stick to "spiritual" topics.

"With topics like sex and politics long being considered as taboo for preachers to address from the pulpit, Bible-believing Christians -- and the society at large -- are left without firm, faith-based instruction on issues of moral or cultural relevance," Price said.

Rohrer, who served nine terms in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, told The Wired Word, "The whole purpose of PPN is not to engage in [political] campaigning, but to be principle-based and encourage, assist and provide pastors with what they need to teach the whole counsel of God."

Specifically, said Rohrer, the whole counsel of God applies to four areas of life: self, family, church and civic realm. "Pastors have the freedom and responsibility to speak on these issues, in intellectually and scripturally sound ways," Rohrer said.

PPN is a project of "Let Freedom Ring," a nonprofit conservative public policy organization. (See Let Freedom Ring's self-description here.)

More on this story can be found at this link:

Pa. Pastors Not Avoiding Politics in Pulpits Ahead of Elections. The Christian Post

The Big Questions

1. To what degree should our politics be based on the Bible? If they are to be based on the Bible, should it be on what the Bible literally says or on the "spirit" of what the Bible says, adjusted for modern times? Explain your answer.

2. Do you want to have political issues aired from the pulpit? Why or why not? How do we know when a pronouncement from a church spokesperson has the weight of "Thus saith the Lord" as opposed to being the opinion of an individual or a sectarian religious group, or the misapplication of Scripture?

3. There are Christians on both sides of many political issues and among the supporters of opposing candidates. What principles can help Christians to discuss these issues and candidates without impugning the motives or judgment of those who don't agree? What has been your emotional response when you have heard religious leaders, your own or others, take a political stand that you sharply disagreed with? What was your opinion of their scriptural reasoning? Do you have the same level of emotional response when religious leaders take a political stand that agrees with your own? Do you do the same level of questioning?

4. Would churches be better to give up their nonprofit status so that political issues and candidates could be advocated for? What would be the likely impact on that church? Jesus said one cannot serve both God and "mammon" (wealth). Would it be a fair comparison to say that preserving one’s tax-exempt status at the expense of prophetic witness is a choice of mammon over God? Explain your reasoning.

5. During election campaigns, many political ads from both parties distort facts regarding the other side and sometimes label opponents using terms (such as racist, scofflaw, greedy, etc.) that are meant to incite passions but aren't true. How can the church help its members get beyond the distortions so as to make informed decisions regarding issues and candidates?

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

Nehemiah 2:17-18
"Then I said to them, 'You see the trouble we are in, how Jerusalem lies in ruins with its gates burned. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, so that we may no longer suffer disgrace.' I told them that the hand of my God had been gracious upon me, and also the words that the king had spoken to me. Then they said, 'Let us start building!' So they committed themselves to the common good." (For context, read 2:1-18.)

Nehemiah was a Jew raised in Babylonia, where many Jews had been exiled after the fall of Judah to the Babylonians and the destruction of Judah's capital, Jerusalem, by the Babylonian army. More recently, however, the Babylonians had been defeated by the Persians, and the new ruler had allowed any exiles who wished to return to Judah, which was now a province of the Persian Empire, to do so. Though many exiles had returned, the walls of Jerusalem remained in ruins, and no one could dwell securely in the city. Learning of this, Nehemiah had gotten permission from the Persian emperor to journey to Jerusalem and oversee the rebuilding of the city walls.

The verses above report Nehemiah's conversation with the returnees, in which he asked them to join the wall-building project. They immediately agreed, and thus "they committed themselves to the common good."

"The common good" is a great phrase. The "common" part implies a sense of community, of responsibility, of a willingness to look beyond one's own needs and desires. It also implies that insofar as possible, the aim is to enhance the well-being of everyone in the society. The "good" part of the phrase indicates that what is sought for all is something that God would approve. And we need both the common and good parts. It's possible for a group to work for their common enrichment through evildoing, such as a gang working together to rob a bank. It's possible for a group to work for their common advancement, such as a cadre of workers clawing their way up the corporate ladder by betraying others. But the common good means blessings for all involved, in a spirit of neighborly love.

It seems to us that the common good should be the basis of political discourse, especially for Christians. When we are talking about a choice between two or more political agendas and/or candidates, the debate is likely to be more helpful when we avoid knee-jerk partisanship and talk instead about which choice is more likely to promote the common good and benefit the most people. (Admittedly, what is meant by "the common good" is not always clear, especially when one looks at long-term effects and consequences.)

Questions: How do you define "the common good" in a political sense? Does it include specific issues, like Social Security, Medicare, immigration issues, military decisions? Why or why not? How might you measure the common-good effect of any given policy or leader? In what legitimate ways can churches support common-good measures within the confines of IRS regulations about nonprofit status?

Psalm 51:17-19
"The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, then you will delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar." (For context, read 51:15-19.)

These verses talk about the nature of sacrifice. In ancient Israel, where the sacrifice of animals was part of the religious practice, there was always the danger that people would go through the motions of offering the animals without changing their lives. Thus, the psalmist reminds us that the real sacrifice behind the offering of the animals is "a broken and contrite heart."

The first 17 verses of Psalm 51 are a prayer of deep contrition, and are usually understood as the prayer of David following his sin with Bathsheba. Since verses 18 and 19 include reference to rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, an event that occurred long after David's time, some Bible scholars suggest that those two verses were added by a later biblical editor to give a concrete example of "right" sacrifice that makes the offering of animals acceptable.

Interestingly, these two verses tie the common-good project of rebuilding the Jerusalem walls to the issue of sacrifice. That can remind us that working for the common good often means some sacrifice on the part of those whose individual interests or gains might be further ahead if nothing were done for the good of all. But that is part of what makes the common good so ... well ... good. Being willing to work where we wouldn't have to, give where we aren't required to, speak up when nobody is forcing us to -- those are holy expressions of loving our neighbor, and they contribute to our neighbor's well-being.

Questions: In what ways might we actually be better off ourselves when we have sacrificed some personal benefit to help build the common good? Name an occasion when you made a decision for the common good at some personal expense to yourself. Do you think that choice was ultimately justified? Should we ever force other people to involuntarily sacrifice for what we see as "the common good" -- even when they see it differently?

Jeremiah 29:7
"But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare." (For context, read 29:1-9.)

The sentence is from a letter that Jeremiah sent to the people of Judah who were in exile in Babylonia, telling the exiles to work for the common good of Babylon, even though they were citizens of Judah.

One way of working for the common good today is by participating in peaceful and legal ways in the public debate about the role of government and about its specific policies. This can also be done in church; IRS regulations for nonprofit groups, including churches, permit such groups to discuss political issues so long as the group does not exhibit preferences for or against specific candidates. (This regulation in no way impinges on the rights of individual church members to speak in favor of or against a candidate, even within the church building, but it cannot be represented as the church's position without running afoul of the IRS rules.)

Questions: Given that within any given congregation, there may be people of different political persuasions, some of which are intensely held, how can discussions aimed at seeking the welfare of your community, state or country be conducted so that they truly help people examine the issues within a biblical context?

Are there times when the common good is prevented because of doctrinaire political stances? Is it possible in the present climate for politicians and citizens to look beyond political victories and instead work together for a common good?

Matthew 5:13-16
"You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven." (No further context necessary.)

One of PPN's stated goals is "Take seriously Jesus' command to be 'salt and light' to the culture."

Questions: What does it mean for the church to be salt and light to the culture regarding politics? What behaviors do we Christians sometimes engage in regarding politics that make us appear to be something less than salt and light?

In the Civil Rights struggle, there were some denominations and churches that spoke prophetically, and were salt or light to the society. Can you name other times when the witness of Christendom has been ahead of societal change and has therefore acted as salt or light? Name an occasion or issue where the society has been ahead of the church and has itself been salt or light.

Mark 12:17
"Jesus said to them, 'Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's.'" (For context, read 12:13-17.)

Jesus said this in answer to a question about whether people should pay their taxes. In doing so, he was avoiding being pulled into a test designed to embarrass him.

Question: Jesus' response here can read as though he were saying "Don't mix religion and politics." Do you think that's what he meant? If not, what did he mean?

For Further Discussion

1. Read Luke 4:9-12, where the devil and Jesus both quote Scripture to prove their case. Looking beyond the fact that most of us believe Jesus got the better of this particular exchange, how should believers discern a proper course when differing Christian bodies quote Scripture to prove, or proof-text, their case regarding a political issue? Is this better done individually or in group study? What sort of group? Should answers come from the pulpit? On which occasions?

2. Regarding discussing politics from the pulpit, one TWW team member said, "I have found it to be one-sided: either a pastor/church is completely embedded with political conversations, or they never mention it at all." What does a healthy balance of political dialogue in a church look like?

3. Why do people tend to get more infuriated over political issues than theological issues?
Do political disagreements that get heated actually blind us to the arguments of those with whom we disagree?

4. If your church or denomination is politically involved, think of a political or social change that it supports but with which you do not agree. What would convince you that your disagreement is mistaken?

5. How might Ephesians 4:15 -- "But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ ..." -- help our political discussions?

6. What is the difference between being "non-partisan" and "non-political"?

Responding to the News
 
This is a good occasion to consider how your church can offer venues to its members for political discussions that are respectful of one another and faithful to your commitment to follow Jesus.