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.

Lance Armstrong Stripped of Tour de France Titles

Throughout the last decade of his storied career as a professional bicycle racer, Lance Armstrong, winner of seven consecutive Tour de France titles from 1999 to 2005 and a bronze medal in the 2000 Olympics, has been pursued by accusations that he doped to enhance his race performances. On August 23, Armstrong officially ended his fight against the charges now being levied against him by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), while maintaining his innocence.

Armstrong, who never failed any of the approximately 500 drug tests taken on him over the course of his career, continues to deny the charges but announced that he would no longer expend energy fighting them. In response, USADA stripped him of his seven Tour titles and all other titles and awards from August 1998 forward and banned him for life from participating in any sport that follows the World Anti-Doping Code.

The full evidence against Armstrong has not yet been made public. Although he passed all the drug tests, USADA maintains that he doped in ways that were not detectable by the testing methods in use at the time and that the charges are based on the eyewitness testimony of 10 individuals and on two blood tests from 2009 and 2010 respectively that are "consistent with" but not conclusive for blood doping. Two of the individuals are Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, both of whom raced on teams with Armstrong and have admitted doping themselves, but the others have not been officially identified.

Opinions within the bicycle-racing world and among fans are mixed. Some believe Armstrong's denials. Some believe that he doped, especially because several other riders who raced during the period of Armstrong's victories have either admitted to or have been sanctioned for doping. Some of those who believe he used performance-enhancing drugs say that if Armstrong doped, it doesn't detract from his accomplishments because he was racing against others who also doped, and he still won.

In the last few years, professional bike racing has gone to great lengths to prevent the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Many controls and tests are now in place and there is a zero-tolerance practice toward any who are found in violation, with significant penalties and suspensions to follow.

Many see USADA's efforts in the Armstrong case as an attempt to clean up the past and send a message about penalties in store for racers who cheat in the future. Some professional cyclists and fans praise USADA for their work, but others believe that USADA overreached in Armstrong's case. There is an eight-year statute of limitations for doping charges, but USADA went beyond that with Armstrong by claiming he led a doping cover-up, a circumstance that permits the agency to issue penalties beyond the eight-year limit.

Peter Flax, editor-in-chief of Bicycling magazine, puts blame on both sides: "I am absolutely convinced that [Armstrong] did [dope], but I'm also convinced that he is the victim of a witch hunt."

While USADA has announced the title stripping and lifetime ban against Armstrong, it's not yet quite a done deal. The International Cycling Union (ICU), the world's governing body for cycling has battled with USADA over jurisdiction in the Armstrong case, and it's possible they will appeal his penalties to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. At minimum, the ICU is waiting for USADA to show the evidence against Armstrong before signing on to the penalties. It is also unclear what the operators of the Tour de France may do in response to USADA's action.

Even USADA has indicated there is still some room for possible changes in its ruling. In an interview with USA Today last Sunday, Travis Tygart, head of USADA, said that even now, if Armstrong met with USADA and admitted to the charges, the penalties might be applied only to the last eight years, meaning that Armstrong would retain five of his Tour titles. To some observers, however, this sounded somewhat desperate on USADA's part, as if pleading for Armstrong to vindicate the agency's pursuit of charges against him.

One problem as yet unaddressed if the stripping of Armstrong's Tour titles stands is who then is awarded the wins. In almost every case, the riders who took second place have since been found guilty of doping as well. A few observers have suggested that all Tour results from 1999 to 2005 should be voided, but that penalizes those who did race clean.

The Wired Word is not in a position to render an opinion about Armstrong's guilt or innocence in this matter. However, we did take note of an article in The New York Times on August 12 in which former professional cyclist Jonathan Vaughters, who is now CEO of Slipstream Sports and the Garmin-Sharp professional bike racing team, told why he doped as a rider and why he is now an advocate for making bicycle racing free of doping. He explained his passion for the sport and the years of training and sacrificing he had done to get a chance to compete on the professional level. When he finally made a pro team, he was told by others in the sport that doping was necessary to "level the playing field."

Vaughters explained, "Doping can be that last 2 percent. It would keep your dream alive, at least in the eyes of those who couldn't see your heart. ... How much does that last 2 percent really matter? In elite athletics, 2 percent of time or power or strength is an eternity. ... in the Tour de France, 2 percent is the difference between first and 100th place in overall time," Vaughters said.

Vaughters said that winning the Tour de France is "very possible" without doping and has been done clean. "But," he said, "winning isn't possible if anti-doping regulations aren't enforced. If you just said no when the anti-doping regulations weren't enforced, then you were deciding to end your dream, because you could not be competitive. It's the hard fact of doping."

"The answer," said Vaughters, "is not to teach young athletes that giving up lifelong dreams is better than giving in to cheating. The answer is to never give them the option. The only way to eliminate this choice is to put our greatest efforts into anti-doping enforcement."

Vaughters added, "The choice to kiss your childhood dream goodbye or live with a dishonest heart is horrid and tearing. I've been there, and I know. I chose to lie over killing my dream. I chose to dope. I am sorry for that decision, and I deeply regret it. The guilt I felt led me to retire from racing and start a professional cycling team where that choice was taken out of the equation through rigorous testing and a cultural shift that emphasized racing clean above winning. The choice for my athletes was eliminated."

"I know that huge strides have been made by many since my time to rid sports of doping," Vaughters said. "Athletes have the knowledge and confidence that nowadays, the race can be won clean. If the message I was given had been different, but more important[ly], if the reality of sport then had been different, perhaps I could have lived my dream without killing my soul."

Read Vaughters' full article at How to Get Doping Out of Sports. New York Times.

More on this story can be found at these links:

Armstrong Drops Fight Against Doping Charges. New York Times
Lance Armstrong Statement. The Associated Press
Who'll Get His Tour de France Titles? No Easy Answer. Sporting News
USADA: Armstrong Could Have Kept 5 Tour de France Titles. USA Today
Lance Armstrong Doping Campaign Exposes USADA's Hypocrisy. Washington Post

The Big Questions

1. Vaughters indicates that in the era when doping in bike racing was common, to choose not to dope was, in effect, choosing to end one's dream. What kinds of choices like that do most of us face at one time or another?

2. What should we do when choosing to do the right thing means that the odds of success are then stacked against us? To what degree is teaching our young people that doing the right thing is its own reward likely to be successful? To what degree is teaching that doing the right thing is pleasing to God likely to be successful? To what degree are you convinced about these things?

3. Are we right to expect a "level playing field" in life? Explain your answer.

4. Whether or not we have any interest in sports, ought we be concerned about fields of endeavor where participants are faced with choices that can result, as Vaughters said, in "killing my soul"? What's the difference, if any, between cheating in sports to gain a victory and cheating in medical school to graduate with a higher GPA and better chance at a higher salary?

5. What obligation do we have as Christians to assist others who find the field of life tilted against them? Why?

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

Psalm 20:7
"Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (For context, read 20:1-9.)

The theme of Psalm 20 is that in the day of trouble, God will answer the need of those who trust him. Thus the psalmist mentions that while some rely on the machinery of war, those who trust God rely on him.

Substitute sports victories, possessions or anything else people value for chariots and horses, and the verse still works. Trusting God, of course, implies choosing the paths of righteousness.

Questions: Are there any fields of endeavor where the path-of-righteousness rules don't apply? If so, give some examples. If not, why not?

Psalm 22:12-13
"Many bulls encircle me, strong bulls of Bashan surround me; they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion." (For context, read 22:1-24.)

Bashan was a region of ancient Israel northeast of the Sea of Galilee in what is today southern Syria. It was known for the cattle raised there. During certain times of the year, the cattle were allowed to forage in free-range fashion. In the more densely populated areas, a herdsman might be employed to make sure the animals did no harm, but out in the countryside, the herds were left unsupervised, and while grazing, some of the bulls took on the behavior of wild animals. Thus, it was possible that some hapless person in Bashan might suddenly find himself surrounded by bulls, and the potential for the animals doing harm to the person was quite real.

The bulls of Bashan were an actual situation for those folks. For us, the bulls represent demands we cannot ignore, obligations we cannot get out of, duties we cannot shirk, responsibilities we cannot evade.

Regarding Lance Armstrong, the bulls of Bashan could represent the charges against him, but we wish to use the verse carefully; we are not assuming either Armstrong's innocence or his guilt. Either way, however, the charges probably make him feel surrounded.

Psalm 22 is a lament. The lament psalms typically describe a situation in which one is harried by enemies, is exhausted and may be giving up. Dr. Robert W. Neff, a Hebrew scholar and Old Testament expert, says the difference between a complaint and a lament is that a complaint implies that someone can fix your problem, while a lament suggests there is no solution.

Questions: Can you recall situations in which you were convinced you were right but where you stopped fighting, deciding either that there was no solution or that if there was one, the cost of achieving it was too high? (Examples might include tax audits, government bureaucracies, intractable neighbors, insoluble family problems, conflicts unresolved with the death of a loved one, etc.) What were the pluses and minuses of giving up the fight? In retrospect, do you think you should have kept fighting? Did others express their opinion about your decision to stop resisting? What did you think of others who may have given up a fight out of exhaustion or from a sense of futility?

Hebrews 11:32-34
"And what more should I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets -- who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight." (For context, read 11:1-3, 29-40.)

Hebrews 11 is often described as a "roll call of faith heroes." Yet the individuals named in the verses above all had some pretty big flaws. Gideon saved Israel by routing the Midianites, but later slipped into idolatry (Judges 8:27). Barak delivered Israel from the Canaanites, but had to rely on the courage of Deborah to do so (Judges 4:8-9). Samson helped Israel against the Philistines, but did so mostly out of a desire for personal revenge (Judges 16:28). Jephthah saved Israel from the Ammonites, but thought God needed a stupid vow to help him, and he ended up sacrificing his daughter as a result (Judges 11:29-40). David was a great king of Israel, who also committed adultery and murder (2 Samuel 11:1-27). Samuel was a great prophet of Israel, but he was unable to pass on his moral values and faith to his sons (1 Samuel 8:3).

Questions: What qualifies a person, flaws and all, to be considered a giant in a field of endeavor? Can we have heroes without flaws? If someone is a recognized authority in one area, do you excuse flawed views on other subjects? In the case of Lance Armstrong, should his tireless work raising money to fight cancer through his Livestrong Foundation (or his own battle against cancer, for that matter) negate some of the criticism by those who believe he practiced doping while racing?

James 4:17
"Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin." (No additional context needed.)

Read this statement from James against the backdrop of a person tempted to cheat simply to "level the playing field." The verse is very straightforward: If you know what is right but don't do it, you are committing sin.

Questions: Does this verse mean that in a case where doing the right thing stacks the odds against you, losing is better than cheating? Why or why not?

In some instances in sports, the question of whether a rule was broken is glossed over or even laughed at -- such as the case of the famous Immaculate Reception by Franco Harris or the system used to steal signs when Branca hit his famous home run against the Brooklyn Dodgers. Do we wink at cheating when it is our team that wins?

1 John 3:21
"Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have boldness before God ..." (For context, read 3:18-22.)

Read this verse against Vaughters' comment that his decision to use performance-enhancing drugs made it impossible to live his dream of being a competitive bicycle racer without killing his soul.

As one TWW team member put it, "If the world condemns us, that does not make us guilty. If the world praises us, that does not make us innocent or praiseworthy. It is God's judgment of us that matters."

Questions: What does "heart" represent in this verse? How important is it to not be condemned in our heart? Why?

For Further Discussion

1. Assume Lance Armstrong is indeed innocent of the doping charges. Defend his decision to decline to fight the charges any longer.

2. To what level are you comfortable with the idea of using substances to improve performance? Is it okay for truck drivers to use amphetamines to stay awake on long hauls so goods get to your local store on time? Did you ever pull an all-nighter in college with the help of pills? Are some of these kinds of situations okay but not others?

3. Comment on this, from Vaughters: "I made the wrong decision [about doping], but I know that making the right decision for future generations must begin by making the right choice realistic. They want to make the right choice. This is the lesson I have learned from young athletes and why I have made it my life's work to help make the right choice real. They must know, without doubt, that they will have a fair chance by racing clean. And for them to do that, the rules must be enforced, and the painful effort to make that happen must be unending and ruthless."

4. Question 3 above raises the issue of how we teach the young to rely on internal vs. external controls. What is the role of self-control in making ethical decisions? Why is self-control one of the fruits of the Spirit? Why is self-control more important than having the power to take a city? (See Proverbs 16:32: "One who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and one whose temper is controlled than one who captures a city.")

5. Doping is regularly considered wrong, but most people regularly break the speed limit when driving. What is the difference? What example does this set for others? It is suspected that many people cheat on their taxes, often not reporting certain kinds of income. To the extent that you feel comfortable saying so, what laws, if any, do you feel it is appropriate to ignore? What is the difference between a law that is unjust and a law that is inconvenient?

Responding to the News

This is a good time to think about how we present moral values to our young people. Sometimes doing the right thing is costly. It is useful to talk about the importance of a heart that does not condemn, and why pleasing God is more important than pleasing self.

Drought Devastates North America

The historic heat wave and dust bowl conditions plaguing much of the continent have resulted in devastating crop loss, financial hardship, alarmingly low water levels, higher prices for fuel such as ethanol and scarcer food supplies. Ranchers and dairy farmers are feeding their livestock hay meant for consumption next winter and wonder how they will manage when that runs out. "You have a choice: Spend money to buy hay or spend money on fuel to get hay. We may be looking for hay again in October," Illinois rancher Jim Gardner explains. Some may be forced to slaughter or sell at a loss animals they can't afford to feed or water, while animal shelters scramble to find adequate resources to purchase a dwindling supply of hay for farm animals dumped on their doorstep.  

Water along river corridors is increasingly sparse or non-existent. "The ponds are gone. They're just big craters now. The trees are dropping leaves, diminishing what little shade they have," Gardner writes. The Salamonie River has receded so much that three towns, including Monument City in northeast Indiana, intentionally submerged in 1965 when the river was dammed in order to build a reservoir, have begun to reappear.  

An estimated 62 percent of the continental U.S. is suffering from drought conditions, with more than 24 percent experiencing extreme or exceptional drought -- the two worst classifications. Nearly 1,600 counties in 32 states have been designated natural disaster areas. Governors across the country have issued burn bans and water restrictions to minimize the chance of wildfires as rivers, reservoirs and wells run dry. "I noticed several creeks and ponds that are no longer there," Marie Lowe of Pawhuska, Oklahoma, says. "One creek named Lost Creek appears to be literally lost. In Newkirk, a pond located near a casino is no longer there, and neither are the cattle that used to drink out of it."  

About 40,000 shovelnose sturgeon were killed in Iowa in just one week as water temperatures reached 97 degrees. Officials said the dead sturgeon, which sell for more than $110 a pound and whose eggs are used for caviar, were worth nearly $10 million. So many fish died in one Illinois lake that the carcasses clogged an intake screen near a power plant, lowering water levels to the point that the station had to shut down one of its generators. Kansas also has seen declining water levels that pulled younger, smaller game fish away from the vegetation-rich shore lines and forced them to cluster, making them easier targets for predators, according to fisheries chief Doug Nygren of the Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism.

Rhoda Auerbach, a retired San Antonio resident, describes the impact of the drought: "I couldn't open the side door because it faces west and the heat is so extreme that it fused the weather stripping to the door frame. ... The dog next door was lying under my outdoor faucet praying for a leak. I opened my car door using gloves so I wouldn't singe my hands."

In Olney, Illinois, lumberyard worker Kenneth Zimmerle labors outdoors through 100-degree days and no rain. "Some days I am so exhausted from the heat, I have been going to bed before 8 p.m.," Zimmerle writes. "This triple-digit heat has also affected our business since it is almost impossible to put shingles on in this type of weather. There are only a few hours a day that this can be done."

More than 3,000 heat records were broken over the last month. The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts the lowest corn yield in 15 years. Kayla Stanley of Napoleon, Michigan, states: "People ... are painting their grass green because of water bans. The last time we cut the grass was months ago. No rain equals no growing grass. Nature is screwing with us."

Teresa Pena-Raney's peach orchard in Hazen, about 50 miles east of Reno, Nevada, has seen a local water irrigation consortium shut off their water supply for as much as eight months at a time. "A lack of water and drying trees are an everyday concern for my family. I've watched my parents' dreams [be] shattered over the last year, and I fear no end is in sight," Pena-Raney writes. "This just doesn't mean agricultural water, either; this meant water to residents' wells, too. ... With the water, we can save our farms. In the meantime, I'm just going to keep hauling water in buckets until the last tree is gone."

More on this story can be found at these links:

Thousands of fish die as Midwest streams heat up, USA TODAY
Drought diaries: How no water, extreme heat are hurting Americans, Yahoo! News
Midwest drought reveals Indiana ‘ghost towns,’ Yahoo! News
Study links current events, climate change, The Spokesman-Review
U.S. Plagued by Drought, Bleak Expectations for Crops, PBS Video

?The Big Questions

1. How has this year’s drought impacted you? How do you think the drought will affect you in the months ahead? How does the current drought compare to other natural calamities that you have experienced? How did those disasters affect your faith?

2. Has spiritual aridity in your own life uncovered aspects of your past that had long been submerged? When have you experienced spiritual dryness in your own life? In your church? What led up to the period(s) of spiritual drought? What effect has that drought had on you? On your family? On your community?

3. What remedies have you found to relieve the problem of spiritual drought? Are there measures you can take to prevent the likelihood or the severity of spiritual drought in the future?

4. Isaiah describes a just, righteous king as "streams of water in a dry place ... the shade of a great rock in a weary land" (Isaiah 32:1-2). How can leaders fulfill this role for the people?

5. Why is water in the form of rain or rivers a good metaphor for spiritual life and health?  

Some Questions and Bible Verses

The prophets proclaim the word of the Lord that: "By my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a desert; their fish stink for lack of water, and die of thirst" (Isaiah 50:2). "I have called for a drought on the land and the hills, on the grain, the new wine, the oil, on what the soil produces, on human beings and animals, and on all their labors" (Haggai 1:11).

Questions: Who is responsible for the severe drought conditions we are experiencing in our nation? Is drought a sign of God's judgment or punishment upon America, or something else? What produces spiritual dryness?

Psalm 1:1-3
"Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers; but their delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law they meditate day and night. They are like trees planted by streams of water, which yield their fruit in its season, and their leaves do not wither. In all that they do, they prosper." (No further context needed.)

Jeremiah 17:8  
"They shall be like a tree planted by water, sending out its roots by the stream. It shall not fear when heat comes, and its leaves shall stay green; in the year of drought it is not anxious, and it does not cease to bear fruit." (No further context needed.)

Psalm 107:4-9
"Some wandered in desert wastes, finding no way to an inhabited town; hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted within them. Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress; he led them by a straight way, until they reached an inhabited town. Let them thank the LORD for his steadfast love, for his wonderful works to humankind. For he satisfies the thirsty, and the hungry he fills with good things." (For context, read 107:1-43.)

Questions: According to these scriptures, what spiritual disciplines can aid us in preventing or ameliorating severe spiritual drought in our lives? When we engage in such spiritual practices, what is the effect on our emotions?

Genesis 41:29-31
"There will come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt. After them there will arise seven years of famine, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt; the famine will consume the land. The plenty will no longer be known in the land because of the famine that will follow, for it will be very grievous." (For context, read 41:1-57.)

God revealed the coming years of plenty and years of famine to Joseph so that action could be taken to conserve resources for the day when they would be desperately needed. We see here how God not only planned ahead to save his people from physical extinction, but also preserved Jacob's family, from which the Redeemer of humankind would one day descend.  

Questions: How do you respond to the knowledge that God is always at work behind the scenes to accomplish his plan of salvation, even when it is not obvious to us? What do you think would have happened if Joseph and Pharaoh had not listened to the Word of the Lord and had failed to act upon God's warning? How should we prepare individually and corporately for hard times?  

John 19:28
"After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), 'I am thirsty.'" (No further context needed.)

Questions: Jesus spoke these words from the cross. But he experienced thirst throughout his life on earth, just as we do. What is the significance of his words? How is it possible that the one who said he gives living water could himself be thirsty? How do you feel when you realize he willingly experienced your desperate thirst so that your spiritual thirst for God might be satisfied?

Psalm 63:1  
"O God, you are my God, I seek you, my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you, as in a dry and weary land where there is no water." (No further context needed.)

Amos 8:11  
"The time is surely coming, says the Lord GOD, when I will send a famine on the land; not a famine of bread, or a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." (No further context needed.)

Questions: How thirsty are you for God? Are you as desperate to hear the words of the Lord as our parched land, fish, cattle and wildlife are for water in this dry and weary land? What are you doing about it?

Responding to the News

Spend some time each day this week meditating on one or more of these passages about spiritual drought and God's promise of relief:

Isaiah 35:1-10
Isaiah 41:17-20
Isaiah 44:1-4
Isaiah 49:10  
Matthew 5:6
John 4:13-15, 28
John 6:35
John 7:37-39
Revelation 7:14b-17
Revelation 21:5-6
Revelation 22:1-2

You may wish to close with the singing of a hymn or praise chorus, such as "As the Deer."
 
Closing Prayer

God of the Ages, we ask for your help in determining the path we should walk. Help us to make decisions that are ethical, healthy and in accordance with your long-term plans for us. May we always remember to take the time to rest, and to listen for your voice, that we may remain spiritually hydrated. In Jesus' name. Amen. 

Peacemaker Annan Quits Syria

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that Nobel Peace Prize winner Kofi Annan would step down from his position as international peace envoy to conflict-torn Syria at the end of August. Former U.N. Secretary General Annan, 74, agreed in February to act as a special representative for both the United Nations and the Arab League to negotiate a peace plan. Initially he received unanimous backing from the Security Council.

But as fighting intensified in Damascus, Aleppo and elsewhere, it became clear that Annan's hopes for a lasting ceasefire would not materialize anytime soon. The seasoned diplomat cited "finger-pointing and name-calling," as well as lack of international support for his peace mission, as factors that contributed to his decision to quit the field. Annan attributed the ineffectiveness of his peacemaking mission to "the increasing militarization on the ground and the clear lack of unity in the Security Council" that undermined his ability to broker a peaceful solution to Syria's civil war.

Syria expressed regret that Annan was going. British Foreign Secretary William Hague and French Ambassador Gerard Araud both expressed the view that Annan's six-point peace plan for Syria, which called for the Syrian government to withdraw its heavy weapons and troops from populated areas and for anti-Assad fighters to put down their guns, was still the best option for securing an end to the conflict. But Araud said the U.N. observer mission would likely "disappear" on August 19, the day its recently renewed mandate expires.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice failed to mention the United Nations in a recent statement, suggesting the international body was becoming increasingly irrelevant in efforts to resolve the Syria conflict.

The fighting for Syria's two biggest cities, Damascus and Aleppo, intensified as the country continued its rapid slide into full-scale civil war after peaceful protests began against the government of President Bashar al Assad a year and a half ago. Violence has already claimed an estimated 18,000 lives. Up to three million Syrians are struggling to find adequate food, water, fuel, housing and medical care.

As nations supporting Assad and those supporting rebel forces faced off in a war of words, none seemed willing to accept responsibility for the failure of the peacemaking mission. Louay Hussein, a Syrian writer and opposition activist, said in an e-mail: "The responsibility of the failure of Mr. Annan in his mission is the responsibility of the international community, and not the Syrian parties to the conflict."

Algeria's former foreign minister Lakhdar Brahimi, 78, who served as a diplomat in South Africa following its apartheid era; as U.N. envoy to Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, attacks; and in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, has been suggested as the probable successor to Annan in the Syrian peace initiative. "Millions of Syrians are clamoring for peace," Brahimi said. "World leaders cannot remain divided any longer, over and above their cries."

More on this story can be found at these links:

Resigning as Envoy to Syria, Annan Casts Wide Blame. New York Times
Frustrated Annan Quits as Syria Peace Envoy. Yahoo! News
Syrians Agree to Lakhdar Brahimi's Bid as Annan's Successor. Ahram Online
Expected Annan Replacement Urges Powers to Unite on Syria. Reuters

The Big Questions

1. Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9), yet he declined to arbitrate a disagreement between two men over the distribution of their inheritance (Luke 12:13-14). He is called the Prince of Peace, yet he said he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34). He told his disciples to bring a sword to the Garden of Gethsemane yet rebuked Peter when he used it, saying, "... all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Then he healed the man injured by that sword, who was part of the crowd who had come to arrest Jesus. How are we to understand this enigmatic Christ who Paul says is our peace? How do we interpret what he taught about peace-making in light of how he lived?

2. Annan embarked on his peacemaking mission in February, yet a mere six months later he determined that he could not succeed in his goal. If, as Ecclesiastes 3:8 says, there is "a time for war and a time for peace," is there a right time for peace-making and a time to withdraw from the peacemaking effort?

3. "I accepted this task, which some called 'Mission: Impossible,' for I believed it was a sacred duty to do whatever was in my power to help the Syrian people find a peaceful solution to this bloody conflict," Annan said. In what sense is peacemaking a sacred duty for the Christian? Is peacemaking really an impossible mission? If so, why should we attempt it at all?

4. Even though Kofi Annan was sent as a peace envoy by the United Nations, that international body was not united in support of his mission. Is it possible for a would-be peacemaker to succeed without the backing of those who sent him? Is it possible for warring parties to foster peace elsewhere when they cannot make peace among themselves?     

Confronting the News With Scripture

Psalm 120:6-7
"Too long have I had my dwelling among those who hate peace. I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war." (For context, read 120:1-7.)

Questions: What reasons might people or nations have to prefer war over peace? Can you think of a situation in which you preferred to remain at odds with someone rather than seeking to be reconciled? What motivated you to maintain the status quo instead of pursuing peace?

Proverbs 10:10
"Whoever winks the eye causes trouble, but the one who rebukes boldly makes peace." (For context, read 10:9-12.)

Questions: How might international leaders be "winking the eye" about the Syrian conflict, thus causing more trouble? Could it be said that Annan's six-point plan was a bold rebuke? Then why has it not made peace?

Proverbs 22:10
"Drive out a scoffer, and strife goes out; quarreling and abuse will cease."
Proverbs 26:21
"As charcoal is to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome person for kindling strife."
Proverbs 28:25
"The greedy person stirs up strife, but whoever trusts in the LORD will be enriched."
Proverbs 29:22
"One given to anger stirs up strife, and the hothead causes much transgression."
Proverbs 30:33
"For as pressing milk produces curds, and pressing the nose produces blood, so pressing anger produces strife."

Questions: How have scoffing, quarreling, greed and anger in the international community, as well as among the combatants on the ground, contributed to strife in Syria?

Luke 12:13-15
"Someone in the crowd said to him, 'Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.' But he said to him, 'Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?' And he said to them, 'Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.'" (For context, read 12:13-34.)  

Around three centuries before Jesus, the comic playwright Menander (whom Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:33 -- "bad company ruins good morals") wrote a play called The Arbitrators. Two slaves have a dispute. One of them has found an abandoned baby with a valuable piece of jewelry. He does not want the baby, so the second slave adopts him. However, the second slave thinks the baby should get the medallion because it may give him a clue to his identity when he's an adult. They stop a free citizen and ask him to arbitrate. The citizen says he can't be bothered, and the slaves remind him that everyone has a stake in justice and should help adjudicate when asked. Apparently this was a common attitude in the ancient world. Justice is something all were required to take part in. It's not just a question of whether a U.N.-appointed mediator backs off.

Question: Are we obligated to step into the role of judge or arbiter every time we are invited to do so? Why or why not? When should we accept that responsibility, and when might it be best to decline that role?

Have you ever tried to wriggle out of jury duty? When there's a dispute in the church, how do you respond?

Proverbs 26:17
"Like somebody who takes a passing dog by the ears is one who meddles in the quarrel of another."  
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 is the difference between legitimate peacemaking efforts and meddling in the quarrel of others? When is it appropriate to bring a third party into a conflict situation? For what purpose? When is it not appropriate? In the context of conflict in the family of God, comment on this, from team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey: "Triangulation is strangulation."

Closing Prayer
 
God of Peace, who sent your Son to make peace with us when we were determined to fight you with every fiber of our being, help us to pursue what makes for peace and mutual upbuilding, to depart from evil, do good, and seek peace, that we may be true and blessed children of God who make peace whenever it is in our power to do so. In Jesus' name. Amen. (based on Psalm 34:14; Matthew 5:9; and Romans 14:19)