Israeli Diplomats Fail to Resolve Own Labor Dispute, Close Embassies

 © 2013 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Last Sunday, an unresolved two-year labor dispute, seven months of mediation and two weeks of sanctions against Israel's foreign service union culminated in a full-blown "indefinite" strike by the 1,200 members of that nation's diplomatic corps. As a result, all 102 Israeli embassies, consulates and diplomatic missions around the world have been shuttered.
The workers committee of the Foreign Ministry called the strike, the first of its kind since Israel was founded in 1948, to protest inadequate wages (which range from $1,700-$2,600 per month), low pensions and insufficient compensation for spouses of employees who relocate to foreign posts. The union claims that fully a third of the diplomatic corps quit the service in the last 15 years due to poor working conditions.
The shutdown negatively affects those seeking to obtain visas to immigrate or travel as tourists to Israel and employers hoping to hire foreign workers. Israel will not be represented at the United Nations or in any other international gathering or forum, nor will its ambassadors offer any consular services.
At least 25 visits to Israel by foreign officials, including a planned trip by Pope Francis in May, have been postponed or canceled as a result of the work slowdown that began March 5, when wage talks broke down. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned trip to Latin America in April has also been scratched.
Workers committee chair Yair Frommer accused the Treasury of declaring war on the foreign service and its "dedicated employees who struggle daily for Israel."
Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman deplored what he called the "irresponsible" decision of the workers committee, which he said "has no benefit, and will only cause more damage to the ministry's workers [and] ... will come at the expense of the country's citizens."
The Finance Ministry, which says the diplomatic corps received a 20 percent wage hike two years ago, claims that the union now wants another raise for their highest-level members, and is "holding the citizens of Israel hostage and harming the vital interests of the state." In addition to endangering the security of the nation, the work dispute is blamed for costing the Israeli economy millions of dollars.
The Treasury advised the union to end the strike and return to labor negotiations.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Israel Closes Embassies Around the World as Diplomats Strike. Reuters
Israel Closes Embassies All Over the World as Diplomats Go on Indefinite Strike. RT News
Foreign Ministry Goes on Strike, All Israel's Embassies and Consulates Abroad to Close. Jerusalem Post
Israel's Foreign Ministry Employees Strike, Closing Embassies. Jewish Telegraphic Agency
The Big Questions
1. What do you consider to be fair compensation for your service to God?
2. Have you ever felt like "going on strike" against God because you didn't think you were getting adequate compensation for your faithful service? What did you do about it?

3. Which is a greater challenge: for you to make personal sacrifices for your faith, or to watch those you love make sacrifices because you have chosen to follow Christ?
4. If those tasked with carrying God's message of salvation were to go on strike, what would be the consequences?
5. What is your relationship to the "diplomatic corps" of the kingdom of God? Are you waiting to be called to serve, in active service, disgruntled and grumbling, on full-blown strike against the working conditions, a resident of a nation without an active embassy or something else?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Proverbs 25:19
Like a bad tooth or a lame foot is trust in a faithless person in time of trouble. (No context needed.)
Proverbs 13:17
A bad messenger brings trouble, but a faithful envoy, healing. (No context needed.)
Proverbs 25:13
Like the cold of snow in the time of harvest are faithful messengers to those who send them; they refresh the spirit of their masters. (No context needed.)
These verses demonstrate the importance of faithfulness in the execution of the messenger's job. In the 1945 movie The Valley of Decision, starring Gregory Peck and Greer Garson, a Pennsylvania steel mill owner's attempt to end a strike ends in bloodshed when his son fails to deliver his message to his foreman to pay off strikebreakers and send them home.
Questions: Explain the metaphor comparing a faithless person in time of trouble to a bad tooth or a lame foot. Why is a bad messenger as bad as having no messenger at all? What could make a Christian a bad messenger for God? How could a Christian carrying God's message "refresh" God's Spirit?
Matthew 19:27-29
Then Peter said in reply, "Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?" Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life." (For context, read 19:16-30.)
After a rich young man chose his possessions over following Jesus, Peter wondered what they would have because of the sacrifices they had made to follow the Lord. Jesus assures his disciples that they will receive a great reward, including eternal life.
Questions: Is it important to you that you have a reward waiting for you at the end of this life? Why or why not? What is the nature of the reward you hope to receive for your service to Christ?
Matthew 20:13-15
But [the landowner] replied to one of [his employees who had worked all day], "Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?" (For context, read 20:1-16.)
The metaphor of a labor dispute in this parable serves to illustrate the human tendency to pursue what we imagine to be our "rights" out of greedy, selfish motives, all the while begrudging others any blessings God may choose to grant them that we feel they don't "deserve." The employer hired people who worked different numbers of hours, and then paid them all the same wage. Those who worked longer hours felt they were entitled to greater benefits than those who had not worked as long. Though the employer paid them the wage he had promised to pay, they were dissatisfied and grumbled that he had made those with less seniority on the job "equal" to those who had "borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat."
Questions: Instead of seeking happiness in a certain wage or benefit package, in what could the workers in this parable have chosen to take delight? How would that have changed the ending of the story? What happens to our motivation to turn in a good day's work in God's kingdom when we begin to worry about whether we will get "our just deserts" (or desserts!) compared to what other workers in God's kingdom may get? Compare the laborers who began the day on the job with the elder son in Luke 15:25-30. What real-life people do these characters from Jesus' parables represent?
2 Corinthians 5:19-20
... in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (For context, read 5:14-20.)

In Ephesians 6:20 Paul calls himself "an ambassador in chains" for the sake of the gospel. The word "ambassador" comes from the Greek word meaning presbyter or elder and refers to a senior representative of government, a sort of "Secretary of State," an emissary, envoy or messenger with authority to speak for and negotiate terms of peace for his or her government. Here Paul illustrates by his own faithfulness -- spreading the gospel even while in prison -- that those sent by God with the message of reconciliation must be willing to suffer as Christ suffered out of love for those to whom they are sent.
Questions: To whom has God sent you with his message of reconciliation? Have you delivered his message? How was it received?
Acts 20:20-21, 24
I did not shrink from doing anything helpful, proclaiming the message to you and teaching you publicly and from house to house, as I testified to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus. ... But I do not count my life of any value to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the good news of God's grace. (For context, read 20:20-24.)
Paul tells the elders of the church at Ephesus that no matter what imprisonment or persecutions he might face, his priority would always be to proclaim, teach and "testify to the good news of God's grace."
Questions: What gives your life value? What gave Paul the power to keep declaring the message of Christ in the face of opposition? How can you tap into that same power?
For Further Discussion
1. Discuss the irony that a union representing diplomats cannot reach an agreement with their government.
2. Examine 1 Thessalonians 2:1-9 to identify what Paul says did and did not motivate him and his coworkers to declare the gospel in spite of great opposition, mistreatment and suffering. How do their motives compare with your own?
3. "The scripture says, 'Don't put a muzzle on an ox while it treads grain,' and 'Workers deserve their pay'" (1 Timothy 5:18 CEB). Here Paul discusses compensation for women and elders involved in various ministries, quoting Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7. The former quotation suggests that everyone, including the animals who are part of our communion and essential to our shalom, both our economic and spiritual well-being, deserve the rewards of our shared labor. The second quote is of Jesus addressing his disciples, reminding them that their work has worth and that there is nothing shameful about compensation.
     Do you value your work at home, in church or in the workplace more when you are compensated? What form, including but not exclusively economic, does compensation take in your life? Have you ever heard people make derisive comments about what a pastor is paid? What an artist is paid for his/her work? What housework is worth? Where do you see individuals undervalued and undercompensated? Who do you think is overcompensated in our society?
4. Leviticus 19:13 says, "Do not withhold a hired laborer's pay overnight" (CEB). The context (19:9-14) is concerned with justice for resident aliens, neighbors and disabled individuals. The warning at the heart of this passage speaks against swearing and desecrating God's name, suggesting that mistreatment of those on the margins of society is on a par (and shares the same gravity) with the misuse of God's name. Jesus addressed the plight of hired or day laborers in parables. Such individuals, who often lack appropriate documentation and who fear reprisals so they do not report mistreatment, are especially vulnerable.
     When have your wages, whether economic, spiritual or emotional, been withheld? Did you continue to work regardless of the situation? Have you ever felt that others considered your work less worthy, and therefore less worthy of compensation?
Are you aware of the presence of day laborers in your community? Who advocates for them? How do their rights compare with those in more established professions, like those who work for the Israeli diplomatic agencies?
Responding to the News
Consider who among your acquaintances needs the message of peace, the good news that God sent his Son to save us, that God reigns (Isaiah 52:7), and pray for an opening to share that good news this week.
Closing Prayer (based on Luke 16:13; 12:43)

O God, make us more concerned with fulfilling the mission and carrying the message of reconciliation you have given us than with the rewards we may receive when our work is done. May you find us at our posts, delivering your message of reconciliation, when you return again to receive us unto yourself. Amen.

Search for Flight 370 Is Largest Ever

 © 2013 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is a deepening mystery that has dominated the news since the plane vanished from radar during a routine flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing, China, on March 8. Even with 26 nations now involved in the search, the whereabouts of the plane, which was apparently diverted, remain unknown.
While both the jet's transponder and its ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) appear to have been intentionally switched off while the plane was still aloft, it continued to send out "pings" that were picked up by a satellite for several hours after the aircraft disappeared from radar.
Although a catastrophic accident cannot be ruled out, the available evidence suggests there was some form of intentional human intervention in the flight. Thus, authorities are investigating the background of those on board, especially the crew in the cockpit.
Finding the plane quickly is important not just because of the possibility that anyone aboard is still alive, or even to solve the puzzle of its disappearance, but also because someone might have taken the jet to use it as a weapon. If that's the plan, locating the aircraft quickly could deny those intending to do harm the time to prepare it for such a mission.
Even assuming the plane was intentionally steered off course, the length of time the pings continued to be received by a satellite leaves open the possibility that it was over open water when the fuel ran out and that it eventually fell into the ocean. As of Tuesday, the revised search area includes a northern arc from the Kazakh-Turkmen border to northern Thailand, as well as a southern arc from Indonesia to the southern Indian Ocean. The designated search zone in the Indian Ocean has been described as comparable in size to Texas. Australian officials, who are leading the hunt there, assisted by planes from the United States and New Zealand, say thoroughly covering that area may take weeks.
NPR described the whole effort as the "largest-ever multinational air-sea search."
The two "black boxes" aboard the plane are built to send out locating pings for 30 days. As of this Sunday, half of those days have passed. Once the pings stop, finding the wreckage, if the plane did indeed crash, will become even more difficult.
The airliner being used for Flight 370 was a Boeing 777-200ER. That plane is considered one of the safest aircraft based on its accident safety record and high number of flight hours.
Flight 370 carried 12 crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations, with the majority being Chinese.
As we were preparing to publish this lesson, news media reported that two objects have been spotted floating in the southern Indian Ocean, leading to speculation that they could be part of wreckage from Flight 370. Ships are enroute to investigate further. Check news media sources for updates.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370: Get Up to Speed .... CNN
Search for Flight MH370 Reportedly Largest in History. NPR
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Wikipedia
The Big Questions
1. Why does grieving often seem even more painful when the grieved-for person's death cannot be verified?
2. In your experience, is it important to the grieving process to be able to view the remains of a loved one? Why or why not?
3. What does the Bible mean when it speaks of "the lost"? In what way, if any, does that term relate to people who are missing? Some Christians use the term "lost" to describe people who don't (to their knowledge) have a relationship with Christ. Is that a useful or accurate term? If so, in what way is it possible to be "lost" from God?
4. To what degree are you troubled by things that remain a mystery, such as the fate of Flight 370? How does dealing with mystery apply to matters of faith?
5. Does the nature of the victims' possible passing, that perhaps involved a terrifying plunge of a craft from high in the air to the ocean, change the way you look at this disaster? Some suggest the passengers may have gradually passed out for lack of oxygen, perhaps even without knowing what was happening. Does the manner of their passing matter to you as you picture this event? Does the not knowing add to the horror?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Genesis 5:23-24
Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him. (For context, read 5:18-24.)
This Enoch, not to be confused with a man of the same name who was Cain's son (Genesis 4:17), was one of Noah's ancestors. Genesis tells us the length of his lifespan, that his father's name was Jared, that Enoch was the father of Methuselah and "other sons and daughters" (v. 22), and that he "walked with God." Then the Genesis author adds this unusual comment: "then he was no more, because God took him."
The much later writer of the book of Hebrews interprets that this way: "By faith Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death; and 'he was not found, because God had taken him.' For it was attested before he was taken away that 'he had pleased God'" (Hebrews 11:5). That may well be what the Genesis author intended.
In contrast, an old rabbinic source says, "Enoch was a righteous man, but he could easily be swayed to return to do evil. Therefore, the Holy One ... hastened and took him away and caused him to die before his time."
However, it's also possible that the Genesis comment was an interpretation of the fact that Enoch disappeared and that his body was never found. His loved ones may have found comfort in the belief that God took him.
There is an essential unfairness to the Enoch story, in that other patriarchs live incredibly long lives and Enoch, though long-lived by our standards, seems to have his sojourn cut short in a mysterious manner that implies in a sense that he is missing. He is nevertheless considered blessed and especially favored by God.
Questions: Is the idea that God "took" a loved one a source of comfort when we cannot understand or explain the disappearance or death of that person? Why or why not? Is there a sense that God "takes" each person's life when that person dies? If so, what does that mean?
Certainly it seems as if most of the people involved in that fateful flight do not deserve what may have happened to them. What special blessings do you pray for the missing and their loved ones? Is it appropriate, in your opinion, to say that "God took them" as God took Enoch? What would you say to family members who might ask, "Why me?"
Psalm 139:7-12
Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.
If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast.
If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light around me become night,"
even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is as bright as the day,
for darkness is as light to you. (For context, read 139:1-18.)
Romans 8:38-39
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (For context, read 8:31-39.)
Here are two powerful biblical testimonies -- one from each testament -- that nothing, not even our being among the missing as far as humankind is concerned, can remove us from God's sight.
Questions: In what circumstances do you find these verses comforting? Why? In what circumstances do you find them worrisome? Why? Are you, or were you, prepared to hear these words at the time of a great loss? Would it be appropriate to read them to someone who is grieving over the mystery of loss? In what ways is it possible to "grow into" these sorts of Scriptures as we come to grips with loss?
Matthew 10:29-31
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. And even the hairs of your head are all counted. So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows. (For context, read 10:26-31.)
These verses remind us that not even one human life, which may seem "small" (not to that person's loved ones but in the whole scheme of things) falls to the earth without the awareness and concern of our heavenly Father. In the case of the people on board Flight 370, they may have literally fallen to the ground. Jesus' words above remind us that even a disastrous end does not indicate that God doesn't care for them."
Question: Why does God value us so highly?
Ezekiel 37:13-14
And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves, and bring you up from your graves, O my people. I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you on your own soil; then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken and will act, says the LORD. (For context, read 37:1-14.)
These are the concluding words in Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones, a vision intended to convey that God would create new life in dead Israel (see v. 11).
Questions: What is the larger message of this vision? How might it apply to those who are missing? Do you find it comforting, or even possible, during times of grief to live by faith with the aid of these words?
Luke 15:4-6
Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, "Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost." (For context, read 15:1-7.)
This parable from Jesus, like the other two also included in Luke 15 -- the lost coin (vv. 8-10) and the lost son (vv. 11-32) -- emphasizes the joy when one who is lost is found. Admittedly, the lostness in these three stories refers to a spiritual condition rather than a physical one, but Jesus uses physical lostness to illustrate that spiritual concept and the joy of finding one who has been missing to illustrate God's joy when we are spiritually found.
Note too, that in the lost sheep and lost coin parables, the shepherd and the woman, respectively, as stand-ins for God, actually go looking for that which is lost. And while the father in the prodigal son parable hasn't organized search parties, he does see his son while the young man is "still far off" (v. 20), suggesting that the father has been watching the road for his son's possible return.
Questions: What do these parables suggest about God and the missing? The parable speaks of the Good Shepherd leaving the other 99 sheep while looking for the lost sheep. While the energies of the nations searching are taken up by this event and our emotional energy is focused on it, are we wrong in not thinking of the other "99" news stories, concerns, crises that are going on during this time? Are you able to think about other news stories or do you think you (or the news stations) are becoming addicted to the mystery surrounding this event? Are you aware of other things that might be neglected because of the compassionate focus on this mystery?
For Further Discussion
1. View the story at 60 Years Post Disaster, Still No Answers, in which a woman whose father disappeared 63 years ago when a flight vanished talks about how hard it is to deal with, and discuss your reactions.
2. Read the story of the 1948 Los Gatos flight that inspired the Woody Guthrie song "Deportee." Listen to the song, sung by Woody's son Arlo, or read the lyrics. Then discuss your reactions.
3. Recall the movie Castaway, in which Tom Hanks' character is missing for seven years and returns only to find that his girlfriend has married and has a child. Although life literally stopped for him, the rest of the world moved on. The movie ends with Hanks' character trying to begin anew to find happiness in relationship with others despite the loss of the "love of his life" and what could have been. At times, the waiting for Christ's kingdom feels a bit like the girlfriend's wait. Unlike her character, we have the advantage of knowing that Christ will return; however, we struggle to keep the faith as we move through this life. How do we deal with waiting as part of the faith journey?
4. When have you experienced a time when a loved one was "missing in action"? Did that individual eventually show up? Have you ever been the one who was out of contact with folks worried about you? Were you surprised, humbled, startled, pleased, annoyed at the reactions of others?
5. This lost-jet story seems to change by the hour. As you share some of what you have recently heard, role-play how you would feel as a family member wishing to know something about the fate of your loved ones. Is the frustration of many of the family members justified? Does the unknowing add to the sense of horror or despair? Is it possible to take any comfort at all in the thought that God knows what has happened, even though, despite concerted efforts, relatively little is known at the time of this writing?
Responding to the News
This is a time for prayer for those on Flight 370 and their loved ones. It's also a good time to reach out to friends and acquaintances who have missing loved ones.
Closing Prayer

We thank you, O Lord, that we can never be missing in your love. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Arizona Governor Vetoes 'Religious Freedom' Bill

 © 2013 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Late last month, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a controversial bill that would have permitted businesses and others in that state to deny service to anyone based on religious beliefs. The measure, S.B. 1062, would have permitted not only business owners, but also churches, other legal entities and individuals, to use it as a defense when charged with discrimination.
Though worded more broadly, the bill was generally understood as enabling a refusal of services to homosexuals in situations where to provide the service would go against the "sincerely held religious beliefs" of the provider.
The Arizona bill was sparked when neighboring New Mexico courts ruled that a photographic artist who produces photojournal stories of weddings must also produce photojournal stories of same-sex weddings (the artist does provide portrait photography of homosexuals: the photographer's objection was to being required to tell a positive story about something she believed wrong. She also has refused to do photojournals of polygamist "weddings" and violent events. A baker in Colorado and a florist in Washington state have both faced similar lawsuits.
In a similar case, Hobby Lobby is seeking to escape the federal government's imposition that they be forced to fund abortions as part of their employees' health insurance -- something the owners strongly oppose.
In vetoing the Arizona bill, which was supported by social conservatives, Brewer said it had "the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want."
Civil Rights groups and many Democrats had opposed the measure, but so had several Republicans, including both of Arizona's GOP U.S. senators and former presidential nominee Mitt Romney. One of those senators, John McCain, said afterward, "I appreciate the decision made by Governor Brewer to veto this legislation. I hope that we can now move on from this controversy and assure the American people that everyone is welcome to live, work and enjoy our beautiful State of Arizona."
There had also been considerable threat of economic loss to the state when Major League Baseball, the National Football League, Arizona's Super Bowl Committee, the Hispanic National Bar Association and several business organizations denounced the bill.
Public opinions continue to run strong on this matter (see the difference in the two opinion pieces included in the links below), with some considering it an issue of religious freedom and others viewing it as an issue of civil rights.
Actually, there is currently no law in Arizona that prohibits people in business from following their religious beliefs regarding to whom they offer their services. The bill was designed to forestall the imposition of such requirements on religious people by courts.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Arizona Governor Vetoes Controversial Bill ... Fox News
Text of Arizona SB 1062
After the Veto. New York Times (opinion)
The Terms of Our Surrender. New York Times (opinion)
New Mexico Photography Business Seeks Supreme Court Review. Heritage Foundation

A Firsthand Account
For discussion, you may wish to consider the following firsthand account which a married couple, who have asked to remain anonymous, shared with TWW.
"On this subject, we have a vested interest ourselves since we have a bed-and-breakfast establishment (B&B). We have housed gay couples before (we see refusal to provide basic services such as housing or food as unjust, no matter what our personal views of a person's lifestyle). But we have not felt comfortable marketing to the wedding market, because the issue of gay marriage touches on our understanding of the meaning of marriage and on our religious views. While we would make a distinction between the rights of people to form civil contracts or unions as their own religious beliefs permit, we would not be comfortable hosting a wedding between homosexuals on our premises because it is also our home. We have both been pastors and could be again in churches that might also feel as we do, and it could be construed as our giving tacit approval or even celebrating such relationships when we do not feel the Bible gives us that flexibility.
"So for us to be required to host a wedding we find objectionable on religious grounds seems to infringe on our constitutional right of freedom of religion. What are our options?
   1. To acquiesce to the force of the state and agree to host such a public event which could be publicized beyond any control of ours and which would portray our business in a manner that is completely counter to our religious beliefs.
   2. To refuse to provide this service to homosexual couples and risk one or more lawsuits that could drain us of our livelihood and even our very home.
   3. To not offer the service to anyone, homosexual or heterosexual, out of fear of lawsuits and reprisals.
This last option is pretty much where we are, but unfortunately it means we are losing potential income that could be forthcoming from the weddings of heterosexuals. We don't see any of these options as optimal.
"We don't feel free as Americans to run our business as we see fit, in a way that reflects who we are as people of faith with a particular set of beliefs that may not be popular but to which we have a constitutional right.
"We don't see any easy way out of this conundrum. We feel less free with each passing year (politically speaking)."
One TWW team member responds: "I think your remarks get to the heart of the subject, and weddings, after all, are one place where church and state intersect. Even if you could say such and such sort of wedding took place on our premises and we did not officiate, some people are color-blind to these matters and any association is anathema. In our social networking age, no deed is ever forgotten -- or left unpunished."
The Big Questions
1. When should religious conviction be allowed to trump a generally applicable law? Is a generally applicable law that is opposed to religious freedom in effect the establishment of a state religion on the matters the law touches upon?
2. Should individuals and/or businesses be forced to act in a manner that is antithetical to their religious beliefs? And if they refuse, should they be penalized and punished to the point of losing their jobs, their homes, their reputation, their livelihood? Use reason and Scripture to flesh out your answers.
3. Is there a point at which practices arising from religious belief become sinful discrimination? If so, where is that point and how can we recognize it? If not, why not? What discrimination is righteous, what discrimination is a matter of liberty, and what discrimination is sinful? On what basis do you make these judgments?
4. Should churches be permitted more leeway than private businesses in making distinctions between what they will and won't do? Explain your answer.
5. To what degree is living the Christian life and applying it to real situations a matter of fresh thinking? What are the risks of being static or monochromatic in our understanding of what it means to follow Jesus? What are the benefits?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Romans 13:1
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. (For context, read 13:1-7.)
To take these words of Paul's out of the context of the early church, we might think he is advising us to obey unquestioningly whatever law the governing authorities pass. But in Paul's day, Christians were still a new group in the Roman Empire and could bring brutal repression upon themselves if they challenged the governing powers.
In addition, Paul points out the legitimate sphere of governmental authority: "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad .... [They are] the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer" (vv. 3-4).
Fortunately, except for a few periods of severe persecution, the Roman authorities often left Christians alone. And the social order Rome enforced throughout its empire, as well as the roads the Romans built, made travel for spreading the gospel relatively safe. Thus, Paul and other Christians saw God's hand in that social order and urged obedience to those who enforced it.
This advice was probably not intended to be universal or to apply to every government, no matter how repressive or notorious.
Questions: How might Paul advise us regarding the kinds of denial of service that the Arizona bill would have made legal had it not been vetoed? How might Paul advise us regarding lawsuits against businesses whose owners decline services to same-sex couples? How might the command to love our neighbor as ourselves affect how we view human laws?
Daniel 6:10
Although Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he continued to go to his house, which had windows in its upper room open toward Jerusalem, and to get down on his knees three times a day to pray to his God and praise him, just as he had done previously. (For context, read 6:1-28.)
Daniel, a faithful Jew, was living in Babylonia where a new edict had just outlawed praying to anyone but the Babylonian king. Anyone who did so was to be killed. Daniel, however, continued praying to God, and not in secret, but deliberately where he would be observed doing so, so as to cause a confrontation on this matter. Eventually, he was thrown to the lions, but God kept him unharmed, and the edict was rescinded.
Questions: Why do you suppose, biblically speaking, Daniel's resistance of a Persian law was blessed by God, but Paul (see Romans 13:1 above) did not recommend that Christians resist Rome's laws?
Not all resistance against laws the resisters consider ungodly ends as well as did Daniel's. Sometimes, the lions feast. How should that possibility affect our decisions about how to act where faith and the legal system intersect?
Ezra 7:26
All who will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed on them, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of their goods or for imprisonment. (For context, read 7:11-26.)
These words come from a letter Persian King Artaxerxes gave to the Jewish scribe Ezra authorizing Ezra's journey from Babylon to Judah to teach the law of God to the Jews living there.
Judah, at that time, was part of the Persian Empire and, of course, was neither a republic nor a democracy, and Artaxerxes was not a Jew. Still, he seems to know enough about the law of the Jews' God to call for them to obey it, and he apparently assumes that God's law is in line with "the law of the king."
The penalty for not obeying this combined law of God and law of the king is severe: death, banishment, confiscation of their goods or imprisonment. Such potential outcomes surely squashed most resistance to the royal authority, but it may also have confused many of the people about where God's laws ended and where the king's began.
Questions: How do we distinguish God's laws from human laws today? How do we determine where human laws are a violation of God's?
Acts 4:18-20
So they called them and ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in God's sight to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard." (For context, read 4:1-22.)
After Peter and John were found teaching about Jesus in the temple and also healing, the Jewish council took the pair into custody and ordered them to cease and desist. The verses above include the answer the two disciples gave. It was both courageous and a statement of religious conscience.
Questions: How might this biblical incident apply to those who advocated the Arizona bill? How might it apply to those who urged its veto? How does it apply to you? Based upon what you know, who would be harmed by the bill's enactment? Who might be harmed by its failure to be enacted?
John 4:7, 9
A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink." ... The Samaritan woman said to him, "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 4:1-29.)
Here, Jesus is breaking down cultural, religious and gender barriers that were commonly accepted at the time.
Question: When are we to hold fast to long-cherished religious traditions, and when are we to relinquish them so that something more important might take root?
For Further Discussion
1. What advice would you give the couple who own the B&B and whose firsthand account is included above?
2. To what degree should religion and business mix? Why?
3. While the Arizona bill would have enabled denial of services to same-sex couples, it could have been applied more widely. A Hispanic person we know said, "I was troubled by the [Arizona bill] since it was a first step to allowing people to claim they had religious objections to Hispanics and might have given traction to some of the Aryan nation groups." A firearms civil-rights activist noted that the bill might also be a first step to allowing people to claim that they had religious objections to citizens carrying firearms, and given traction to some anti-gun groups. Others have pointed out that the law might be used to deny service to people with disabilities. What other possible unwanted applications of it might have occurred?
4. Respond to this, from another TWW team member: "Some people seem to think that people only have the right to their beliefs if they don't impact the way they live or the choices they make in their business. It's the privatization of faith -- the idea that you can be a person of faith as long as you practice it only for an hour or two on Sunday, and live the way the rest of the world wants you to live the rest of the week. Sometimes Christians are the first in line to promote this kind of thinking."
5. Consider this comment from Russian writer Nicolas Berdyaev and decide how it applies to today's topic: "It would be a mistake to think the average [person] loves freedom. A still greater mistake would be to suppose that freedom is an easy thing. Freedom is a difficult thing. It is easier to remain in slavery."
Responding to the News
Being aware that our view of same-sex marriage may color our response to this news story and the personal religious conflict it can raise -- and also that not all Christians agree about same-sex marriage -- this is a good time to pray for God's guidance in helping us avoid knee-jerk reactions to it and to consider whether it is calling for any fresh thinking about what it means to follow Jesus.
Closing Prayer

Keep us moving in our faith, O Lord, that we may ever be open to your direction and will. In Jesus' name. Amen.

U.S. and Europe Have Limited Options to Deal With Ukraine Crisis

 © 2013 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

When Russian troops moved into neighboring Ukraine's Crimean peninsula on February 28, Russian leader Vladimir Putin said it was to protect his nation's interests and those of Russian people living there. This came after the Ukrainian parliament ousted pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Leaders in the United States and Europe, however, view the Russian incursion as an act of aggression and a violation of Ukraine's sovereign territory.
Although, as of this writing, there have been no reported military clashes, Moscow now has, according to Ukrainian sources, an estimated 16,000 troops in Crimea and has effective control of that peninsula. Crimea has strategic significance to Russia, as it hosts a Russian navy base and two air bases.
The Russia-based media source RT maintains that this claim of 16,000 Russian troops being deployed ignores the fact that the 1997 Partition Treaty between Russia and Ukraine allows the Russian navy to have 25,000 troops in Crimea, and that many of these were already there. For more of this Russian interpretation of events, see the RT article, Russia's 25,000-troop Allowance & Other Facts You May Not Know About Crimea. Be aware that RT, formerly called Russia Today, is funded by the federal budget of Russia.
Although the Western nations don't accept Russia's stated reasons as valid justification for Russia's current actions in Ukraine, most observers say that the objecting countries have only limited options for pressuring Russia to pull back. And so far, it appears that no threatened actions or diplomacy have caused Putin to alter his course regarding Ukraine.
The United States and its allies have ruled out military options, at least at present. And since Ukraine is not a NATO member, the United States and Europe are not obligated to come to its defense.
The European Union, which has significant trading connections with Russia, could pay a sharp price for confronting Moscow over Ukraine. In particular, somewhere between a quarter and a third of the EU's natural gas imports originate in Russia.
Among the options on the table, the West could impose economic sanctions on Russia, but the Kremlin has threatened to hit back if that happens. Russian lawmakers are drafting a law that will allow that nation to confiscate assets in Russia belonging to U.S. and European companies if it faces sanctions.
The United States has already put on hold all military-to-military engagements with Russia, including exercises, bilateral meetings, port visits and planning conferences.
Further, the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Britain, the seven nations that normally participate with Russia in an annual meeting of the world's industrial powers known as the G8 Summit, have suspended their participation in the upcoming summit that had been scheduled for June in the Russian Olympic venue at Sochi.
Prior to Russia being included, the seven nations were known as the G7. In 1998, they agreed to add Russia to reflect the changing geopolitical dynamic after the Cold War and breakup of the Soviet Union. Revoking Russia's membership would isolate Putin diplomatically, but at present, he seems little swayed by that possibility.
The Western leaders have also pledged a financial assistance package to Ukraine, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry traveled this week to Ukraine's capital, Kiev, to show support for that country's new government.
Some have suggested that the United States could reverse its decision to scrap the missile defense site it had intended to build in Poland, and to which the Kremlin had objected. (The United States opted for missile defense systems located on U.S. Navy warships instead.)
Other options to pressure the Kremlin include visa bans, asset freezes and isolation by the international community on trade and investment, as well as ongoing diplomacy.
The crisis in Ukraine began three months ago when protesters took to the streets after President Yanukovych rejected an agreement to strengthen ties with the European Union in favor of seeking closer ties with Russia. The protests continued until the country's parliament removed Yanukovych, assigned his power to a temporary president and scheduled new elections. Yanukovych fled Kiev and is now in Russia.
This news story is still developing. Check with media sources for updates.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Russia Keeps Pressure on Ukraine With Crimea Stand-Off. BBC
Putin: Troops to Bases; Warning Shots in Crimea. ABC News
Analysis: Limited U.S., European Options in Ukraine. Washington Post
Western Leaders Scramble to Respond to Russian Incursion. Fox News
Timeline: How the Crisis in Ukraine Unfolded. Independent.ie
How the Western Press Is Getting It Terribly Wrong in Ukraine. Forbes
The Big Questions

1. In our personal lives, what is a Christian response to troublemakers who are intractable, uninterested in negotiating and not fazed by possible unpleasant consequences of their destructive actions?
2. What biblical models can we use when dealing with conflict? Is there any one of them that should always be employed? Why or why not? Are conflicts between nations (governments) different in kind than conflicts between individuals? Explain your answer.
3. Under what circumstances of conflict should peacemaking not be the immediate goal?
4. Do you think Jesus meant his teaching about turning the other cheek to be taken literally? Explain your answer. When the cheek being hit is someone else's, especially someone who is vulnerable, what is our responsibility?
5. Have you ever been in the position to forgive someone for something they did, knowing they did not consider themselves wrongdoers, or perhaps even that they were content with their chosen actions? Were you able to forgive?
6. How might your answers to the five questions above apply to situations of domestic violence?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Genesis 13:9
Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if you take the right hand, then I will go to the left. (For context, read 13:1-12.)
When Abram and his nephew Lot, along with their families, flocks and herds, were living together in the hilly desert region of southern Canaan, it soon became clear that the land could not support both clans in close proximity. This led to strife between Abram's herders and Lot's. So Abram made the offer to Lot stated in the verse above. Lot chose what appeared to be the better land, and Abram made do with the other.
Question: This is one biblical model for handling conflict, but it means that the one making the offer must be prepared to come out the "loser" in the settlement. Under what family or relationship circumstances today might this model be a Christian way to handle a conflict?
Proverbs 16:14
A king's wrath is a messenger of death, and whoever is wise will appease it. (No context needed.)
Since this verse is in the Bible, it can be called a biblical model for handling conflict, though we may be hesitant to do so. The reality of appeasement is that it usually leaves the person doing the appeasing feeling unsatisfied, and it sometimes emboldens the aggressor to demand further concessions.
Questions: Are there any circumstances in everyday life where appeasement is the right and Christian thing to do? Can it ever be a step toward real peacemaking?
In the case of Putin, does this mean that we should simply give him his way (as happened with his intervention in Georgia in 2007) to appease him? Or does this suggest that we ought to be aware of the hornet's nest we will stir up if we stir up the wrath of rulers?
Jeremiah 29:7
But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (For context, read 29:1-14.)
After the people of Judah were forced into exile in Babylon, the prophet Jeremiah wrote them a letter with a thus-says-the-Lord instruction, that they were to work and pray for the good of their conquerors' city, Babylon, "for in its welfare you will find your welfare."
This biblical model applies at least to situations where we are the "defeated" or the "loser" in a conflict, and where the outcome is not the one we wanted.
Question: Where in your life might working and praying for the welfare of someone who has bested you be the right thing to do?
Matthew 5:39-41
But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. (For context, read 5:38-42.)
Jesus said this, along with some other startling things, such as "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (v. 44) in the Sermon on the Mount, while talking about dealing with those with whom we are in conflict. Notice that he did not add, "Of course, these things aren't really realistic when you're dealing with this week's crisis."
Questions: Where and in what forms have practiced the instruction Jesus gave here in the Sermon on the Mount? What was the outcome? What did you learn?
How many sermons or Bible studies have you heard which suggested you ought to put this into practice? When have you heard this text explained away (especially during times of armed conflict) from the pulpit?
Matthew 18:15-17
If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (For context, read 18:15-20.)
Questions: What would you call this biblical model for handling conflict? When have you applied it? What was the outcome? Would you use it again? Explain your answer.
Psalm 144:1
Blessed be the LORD my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle. (For context, read 144:1-11.)
Luke 22:36
[Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (For context, read Luke 22:35-38.)
Romans 13:4
... But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the [ruler] does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (For context, read Romans 13:1-7.)
It is common and temptingly convenient to cite Scriptures that call for peacemaking and even non-violence. Yet there are a significant number of Scripture texts that also approve violence; the above are only a selection. Almost every Scripture in our alternate lesson, "Other News This Week," could be in the above list as well. To take the Bible seriously, we need to acknowledge that texts of both kinds exist.
That doesn't mean it is easy -- by no means! Christians have come to varying conclusions in doing so, and a discussion of Scripture, peacemaking, love, violence, war and the like is far, far beyond the capabilities of a one-hour Sunday school lesson.
Yet we want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the breadth and depth of this topic, and to explicitly avoid presenting or leading to simplistic answers.
Questions: What are some principles you might use to reconcile or be informed by these Scriptures and the others in this lesson? How and from where do you derive these principles? How does the aphorism "let Scripture interpret Scripture" apply?
Romans 12:18, 20
If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. ... "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads." (For context, read 12:14-21.)
Here the apostle Paul acknowledges that living peaceably with all is not always possible, but that we should do as much as we can -- "so far as it depends on you" -- to be at peace with others.
In talking about heaping burning coals on an enemy's head, Paul is quoting Proverbs 25:21-22. In his commentary Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Immersion Bible Studies, Abingdon, 2011), TWW team member Frank Ramirez comments, "In ancient warfare, the mistreatment of enemy prisoners was commonplace. Against that, this bit of wisdom attributed to Solomon suggests doing just the opposite. If you really want to get even with your enemies, kill them with kindness. This counterintuitive advice just might work. It is actually a fairly sophisticated strategy for winning a war. Leaving embittered survivors only plants the seeds for the next war. But long-term peace and stability can result from unexpectedly kind behavior."
Questions: What are our Christian options when someone makes it impossible to live peaceably with him or her? What kindness might you heap upon that person?
For Further Discussion
1. As a group, decide what to name the biblical models for handling conflict in each of these texts: Romans 14:19; 1 Corinthians 7:15; Luke 14:31-32.
2. Respond to this: Lincoln was once asked why he tried to make friends with his enemies instead of destroying them. He replied, "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?"
3. Comment on this: The Amish, who practice what they consider biblical nonresistance to evil, believe that in the face of evildoers, one must forgive. However, they differentiate between the biblical command to forgive (from the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors") with the work that is required for the next steps of pardon and reconciliation. Neither of the latter can be achieved without the sinner's willingness to engage in the work required for both.
4. Martin Luther King, Jr., like many other Christian saints, preached the necessity of nonresistance as the only means of combating evil with any chance of long-term success. On the other hand, he applied for a concealed handgun permit (and was turned down, due to Jim Crow laws), had armed bodyguards and was supported by armed groups such as Deacons for Defense and Justice. How do you think these practices relate to action on the international stage?
5. Name instances where bitter enemies have become friends and/or partners.
6. Have your class respond to the information found at "How do you handle workplace conflict?"
Responding to the News
Our options as individual Christians concerned with Ukraine include prayer and financially supporting humanitarian-aid organizations (often those run by our own denominations are the most effective at using our gifts for direct aid to those in need).
Leaders in our denominations might also be in contact with church/faith leaders in the Ukraine, as a show of support, if nothing else. Organizations such as the World Council of Churches and Church World Service will likely reach out in some manner. We may have the opportunity to give financially toward such work.
One TWW team member adds, "Trouble is, somehow prayer and sending money don't always feel like 'enough,' so we get discouraged and disheartened. We need to remember -- and remind one another -- that God took the small offering of the boy with five loaves and two fish and did something huge with it! He can do the same sort of thing today."
Regarding our personal conflicts, it's good to remind ourselves that Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9).
Closing Prayer

O Lord, be in the hearts and minds of all those who have the means and opportunity to work for peace in the places of conflict around the world, that peace may be an ever-growing phenomenon of life on earth, and a foretaste of the world to come. In Jesus' name. Amen.