Even in the Postseason, Baseball Is a 'Game of Failure'

Last Sunday afternoon, the Washington Nationals began their postseason with a 3-2 victory over the defending World Champion St. Louis Cardinals. It was a messy win, with their ace pitcher, Gio Gonzalez, walking seven batters and their highest-paid player, Jayson Werth, failing to get a hit with the bases loaded -- twice!

"I don't really know how we won that game, to be honest," relief pitcher Craig Stammen told The Washington Post. "We pulled it out somehow, and that's kind of how the playoffs go."

In truth, that's kind of how baseball goes. It's a game of failure, with batters rarely getting hits more than 30% of the time. The last time a player hit more than 40% of the time over the course of a season was 1941, when Ted Williams of the Boston Red Sox had a .406 average (406 hits divided by 1000 at-bats).

"In their 3-2 victory," observed sportswriter Adam Kilgore, "the Nationals could not have played worse at times, but in the end they could not have felt better about it." Baseball, like life, includes a lot of mistakes and disappointments, but failures do not necessarily prevent us from emerging victorious. For example, the fact that Gio Gonzalez walked seven batters made him look bad as a pitcher, but it prevented the Cardinals from getting hits. A walked batter is not a hitting batter!

A baseball blogger named Dave, also known as "Bleacher Boy," is very philosophical about this. "Baseball is a huge game of failure," he writes. "You are guaranteed to fail." But individual failures do not mean that the team experiences a loss. He offers this example: "If while at bat, you advance a runner and he gets into scoring position, but you get out, do you fail? Absolutely not. Your batting average will be lower, which looks bad on the surface. However, you are part of a team whose goal is to score runs." If we judge success and failure only on individual performances, we miss the significance of team victories, which often require that one person get "out" in order to bring another person "home."

Flawless performances by individuals and teams are simply impossible in the game of baseball. As of Wednesday morning in the playoffs, the Nationals had won 1 and the Cardinals had won 1. The other National League Division Series was Reds 2, Giants 1. In the American League, the Tigers were ahead of the A's by a count of 2-1. And the Yankees were tied with the Orioles, 1-1. Every team had experienced both victories and losses in their quest to win 3 of 5 games.

In a New Yorker profile of Joe Girardi, the manager of the Yankees, journalist Gay Talese writes, "Like religion, the game of baseball is founded on aspirations rarely met. It generates far more failure than fulfillment." Girardi is an athlete whose life is built around his faith, which has nothing to do with whether his team wins or not. But his faith certainly has something to do with the way he survives in the baseball world, especially in the New York maelstrom.

Girardi is a father of three and has told the press that being a good father is more important to him than professional baseball. He expects the Yankees to be a family-friendly ball club, with players who are courteous to young fans. As a young man, Girardi discovered that "I was playing [baseball] because God gave me a gift, and I would be able to share God's good news through my gift and talent."

Talese reports that when "Girardi is not preoccupied with the health and performance of his team, his mind is often on his father, Gerald, who is now eighty-one and suffers from Alzheimer's, and lives in a nursing home." When the Yankees are playing in Chicago, Girardi will rent a car and drive 170 miles to spend an hour with his father.

"My dad was always there for me," Girardi told the Northwestern University alumni magazine in 1998. "He's the one who played catch with me, he was the one who took me to Cubs games where I could see my favorite players."

Whether the Yankees win the World Series this year or not, baseball men like Joe Girardi are clearly winners in the game of life.

More on this story can be found at these links:

Nationals vs. Cardinals: Washington wins Game 1 of NLDS, 3-2, The Washington Post

Baseball, a Game of Failure, MLBlogs Network

The Crisis Manager, The New Yorker

The Big Questions

1. Rugged individualism has always been an American virtue. How does this affect our ability to handle personal failures?

2. Some say that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." Do you agree? How can perfectionism get in the way of progress?

3. When can personal disappointments actually contribute to overall success? Name some from your own experience.

4. You know the old saying, "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." Is this true? What is most important about "how you play the game"?

5. When is it more important to focus on the success of the group than the performance of the individual?

6. From a Christian point of view, what is the significance of personal failure? How can it increase our faith in God?

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

Genesis 38:26
"Then Judah acknowledged them and said, 'She is more in the right than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah.' And he did not lie with her again." (For context, read 38:1-30.)

Judah does not obey the law which requires him to give his son to his widowed daughter-in-law Tamar. Later when she deceives him into thinking she is a prostitute, he sleeps with her, and then when she is found to be pregnant, he is ready to have her executed, until she confronts him with evidence that he is the one in the wrong. Then he admits his guilt and leaves her alone.

Questions: When does one personal failure lead to another, and what actions can stop this chain reaction? What kind of good can come out of evil?

2 Samuel 12:13
"David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the LORD.' Nathan said to David, 'Now the LORD has put away your sin; you shall not die.'" (For context, read 11:1--12:15.)

David commits adultery with Bathsheba, impregnating her, and has her husband Uriah killed. Then the prophet Nathan tells David the story of a rich man who takes advantage of a poor man. David becomes angry and says to Nathan, "The man who has done this deserves to die" (12:5). Nathan says to David, "You are the man!" (12:7).

Questions: Scripture, like baseball and life, is filled with success and failure. What are the lessons that we learn only from personal failure? How do we get back on the right track? What is God's role in this?

Luke 4:24
"And [Jesus] said, 'Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet's hometown." (For context, read 4:16-30.)

Jesus reads the scroll of the prophet Isaiah in the synagogue of his hometown of Nazareth, and then talks about the work of God in regions outside of Israel, which the people in the synagogue find insulting. They are filled with rage and attempt to throw Jesus off a cliff.

Questions: How is the "debut" of Jesus in Nazareth a personal failure? In what sense is it a success in the eyes of God? What lessons are learned, and what good comes out of it?

Mark 15:34
"At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?' which means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'" (For context, read 15:33-41.)

When Jesus is crucified, he is in agony on the cross and cries out to God with an expression indicating how abandoned he feels, even by God. Then he dies, and the curtain of the temple is torn in two from top to bottom. The Roman centurion who watches him die says, "Truly this man was God's Son!" (v. 39).

Questions: In what sense is the crucifixion of Jesus a human failure? What do you think Jesus was feeling as he hung on the cross? What good came out of his death, both then and now?

John 6:65-66
"And [Jesus] said, 'For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.' Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him." (For context, read 6:60-71.)

Many of the disciples of Jesus find that his teachings about eating his flesh are difficult. They find such words offensive. Jesus tells them that his words are "spirit and life" (v. 63), but some cannot believe. Peter affirms that Jesus has "the words of eternal life" (v. 68), but Jesus knows that one of them will betray him (v. 71).

Questions: Was it a disappointment that Jesus could not convince everyone to follow him? Although Judas betrayed him, how did this failure serve a larger purpose? When is it acceptable not to bat 1.000?

2 Corinthians 12:8-9
"Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me, but he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.'" (For context, read 12:1-10.)

The apostle Paul says that he was given a thorn in the flesh to keep him from being too elated. He asks the Lord to remove it, but this request is declined. Paul learns that God's grace is sufficient, and discovers that "whenever I am weak, then I am strong" (v. 10).

Questions: How is God's grace sufficient for us? When have you found that strength can come out of vulnerability and weakness? Give examples.

For Further Discussion

1. What is the value of personal accomplishments compared to knowing Christ and living the life of a disciple?

2. Thousands of people drive by churches every Sunday morning and fail to come inside and hear the gospel message. Whose failure is this, and why?

3. What is the proper balance between personal success and group success? Are there dangers to valuing one over the other?

4. Jesus sacrificed himself for our salvation. What sacrifices are we asked to make for the good of others?

5. When have you seen a weakness turn into a strength? How do Christians "lead with a limp"?

6. In an achievement-oriented culture, how can we help children to see that there are things more important than winning games and achieving personal success?

7. What are the situations in your life when you have suffered deep disappointment? Did you move closer to God, or farther away? What good, if any, came out of these personal failures?  

Responding to the News

In the heat of a baseball playoff and a presidential campaign season, the focus is on winning. But such victory is not our call as Christians. Look at your family, your church and your community, and identify an area where you can sacrifice and serve.

50 Years Ago This Week: James Meredith Integrates Ole Miss

This week included the 50th anniversary of a landmark event in America's civil rights struggle: the enrollment on October 1, 1962, of James Meredith, a black man, in the University of Mississippi, an institution long closed to black people by the segregationist policies then in force in Mississippi.

Meredith's enrollment did not occur easily. With Ole Miss being a bastion of the Old South, and Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett declaring he was a segregationist and proud of being so, the town of Oxford and the campus itself erupted in violence. It took the intervention of President John Kennedy, 30,000 U.S. troops, federal marshals and national guardsmen to get Meredith to class.

Although Meredith's demand for admission to the school was backed by a federal court order, Barnett had publicly vowed to keep him off the campus and had denounced the federal government. Behind the scenes, however, the governor was on the phone with President Kennedy trying to find a compromise.

Before the violence was over, two people had been killed and more than 200 were injured, including some 160 U.S. marshals. Some historians call the integration of the University of Mississippi the last battle of the Civil War.

Meredith not only enrolled in Ole Miss, but went on to receive a degree in political science, history and French from the school. He later said he sought entry into the university because he "was born in Mississippi and personally never lost the idea that it belonged to me and my kind."

These days, Meredith, now 79, often wears his Ole Miss baseball cap in public.

About 37 percent of Mississippians today are black, and 16.6 percent of the Ole Miss student body is black, as is the current student-body president, Kim Dandridge. She is the fourth black person elected to that position.

Although sometimes described as a civil-rights hero, Meredith rejects the label and dislikes the term "civil rights" because it implies that civil rights are somehow different from rights in general. As he sees it, he was fighting for his rights as an American citizen.

This week Ole Miss held several events to mark the anniversary of Meredith's history-making enrollment. Meredith was invited to attend, but declined, saying he didn't see the point. He remarked to the Associated Press that he'd "never heard of the French celebrating Waterloo" and asked, "Did you find anything 50 years ago that I should be celebrating?"

The university's officials, however, are quick to describe the observance as a commemoration, not a celebration.

Meredith has attended and participated in other events on the campus.

On his website, Meredith writes, "I have long recognized the folly of advocating a change simply because it is right, because it is humane, because it is Christian, because it is in the Constitution, or for any other nonpractical reason. I am aware of another important fact: if I were a white man, I would not give up my favored position unless there was an extremely good reason. The greatest hope for a major change in the basic status of African Americans is to convince the American whites that it is in their best interest. It is my firm conviction that the solution must result in the material improvement of both groups concerned ...." (Recognizing that some people say that today, the "white man" no longer has a "favored position," we would like to concentrate on Meredith's statement that positive changes involve seeking "the material improvement of both groups concerned.")

One TWW team member reports memories from growing up in the South: "My extended family was ethnic German, and more-or-less didn't really think too much about the Jim Crow laws and whatnot. All [family members] were and remained what would nowadays be called 'conservative.' While none were particularly activist -- and generally would naturally side with the 'law-and-order' side of things -- I can remember within the space of a few years the idea that 'all men are created equal' and 'who cares about skin color: we're all Americans' was a winning argument, and they then tried to live that way. In other words, it was the appeal to the Constitution and to Christianity that changed them from going with the Jim Crow flow, to thinking that Jim Crow laws were stupid at best, and evil at worst. (To be fair, being from a historically persecuted minority themselves probably was also a factor.)"

In his book Robert Kennedy and His Times, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. quotes Meredith as saying about his decision to enroll in Ole Miss, "Nobody handpicked me. I believed, and believe now, that I have a divine responsibility to break white supremacy in Mississippi ..." (p. 317).

More on this story can be found at these links:

Integrating Ole Miss: A Transformative, Deadly Riot. NPR
James Meredith Loathes "Civil Rights" Moniker. KnoxNews
James Meredith website
 
The Big Questions

1. Is Meredith right that advocating change because it is right, humane, Christian or in the Constitution is less effective than demonstrating that the change will "result in the material improvement of both groups concerned"? What about changes that Christianity advocates where "material improvement" cannot be demonstrated? What about resisting changes that benefit one group over another? What about resisting changes that Christianity opposes?

2. What is the difference between commemoration and celebration? Where does each belong in the practice of the Christian faith?

3. What outlooks did you once hold that the course of events in your lifetime has caused you to change? What outlooks has maturing spiritually caused you to abandon?

4. About what things within your power to influence do you consider yourself to have a "divine responsibility" to act?

5. While changes in society can be positive, negative or neutral, what resources do we have to help us decide which changes belong in which category (and thus, which ones we as Christians advocate and work for, oppose or simply accept)?

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

Exodus 3:9-10
"The cry of the Israelites has now come to me; I have also seen how the Egyptians oppress them. So come, I will send you to Pharaoh to bring my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt." (For context, read 3:1-12.)

This is God speaking to Moses from the burning bush, telling him that he (God) has heard the cries of the enslaved Israelites and wants Moses to be the human instigator of the action to free them. Moses was being given a "divine responsibility." When he obeyed God, a lot of trouble and resistance followed, but he served as God's agent in breaking Egypt's stranglehold on Israel.

Questions: Clearly, God called Moses to foment change. Where else have you seen God's will expressed through forced changes in society? Off the top of your head, can you name other places in scripture where God advocates for the poor, the suffering and the oppressed? What does Jesus have to say on the subject?

Joshua 17:3-4
"Now Zelophehad ... had no sons, but only daughters .... They came before the priest Eleazar and Joshua son of Nun and the leaders, and said, 'The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance along with our male kin.' So according to the commandment of the LORD he gave them an inheritance among the kinsmen of their father." (For context, read 17:1-6.)

After dividing the land of Canaan between the tribes of Israel during the time of Joshua's leadership, sub-allotments had to be made to the individual clans and families. In normal cases, land was inherited by sons, but God had provided that, if a man had no son, then the daughter was to inherit. (There were also provisions in the case of childlessness; see Numbers 27:1-11.)

Here in Joshua, where the actual division of the land is taking place, Zelophehad's daughters remind Eleazar the priest and Joshua of God's commandment about it given through Moses. When reminded, Eleazar and Joshua comply. Although they live in a patriarchal society, it is apparent that the daughters were able to state their case and be heard successfully.

Questions: As an issue of justice, the plight of Zelophehad's daughters trumped the usual practice of only men inheriting land. What other issues can you think of where justice trumps the laws or practices of the state or your church? Compare this to the issues confronted in the civil rights struggle half a century ago, as well as struggles for rights in our time.

   
1 Samuel 3:10
"Now the LORD came and stood there, calling as before, 'Samuel! Samuel!' And Samuel said, 'Speak, for your servant is listening.'" (For context, read 3:1-18.)

This is from the account of God calling Samuel, and the circumstances make clear that God himself is a fomenter of change. The incident takes place at the end of the period of the judges, when there was as yet no king over Israel. The book of Judges, which describes that period, closes with these words: "In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes" (Judges 21:25). That's where things stand when 1 Samuel begins.

As a result of this free-for-all approach to religion, people weren't hearing much from God -- largely because they weren't interested in listening for him. Chapter 3 opens by saying, "The word of the LORD was rare in those days; visions were not widespread." The person on whom the practice of religion focused in those days was Eli, who was both a judge and the high priest. Samuel was a boy who had been dedicated by his mother to the service of God, and he was living in the worship place, likely carrying out cleaning and serving duties.

One night, the Lord called Samuel and told him that big changes were coming: Eli was out; Samuel was in. Eli had forfeited the blessing of God; God's blessing now fell on Samuel. God had been silent; he would be silent no more. Visions had not been widespread; well, hang on to your seats, because they were coming now. The old ways were over; God was breaking into their lives with a new beginning. Things were changing, and how!

This is not only a story about how we should listen for God; it's also a dramatic announcement of surprising change. And it tells us that one of the ways God works is through change. (See also Isaiah 43:19, where God declares, "I am about to do a new thing.")

Questions: What helps you to discern when God is the fomenter of a change occurring in society? What helps you discern when it is someone or something else fomenting the change? When God calls you to be an agent of change, does God have to call more than once to get your attention? Samuel had some difficulty recognizing that it was God speaking to him. Have you had such a difficulty when you thought God was pushing you in a difficult direction, especially with regard to issues of justice? Did someone help you to recognize whose voice was speaking, as Eli helped Samuel? Were you as willing as Eli to listen to uncomfortable news?

Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, 7
"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: ... a time to break down, and a time to build up; ... a time to keep silence, and a time to speak ..." (For context, read 3:1-8.)

This sampling of lines from the well-known passage in Ecclesiastes 3 reminds us that in some circumstances, actions that promote or even force change can be the right thing to do.

Questions: How do you determine when it is a time to speak in favor of some unpopular change? How do you determine when it is a time to speak against some popular change? What do you say to some who might insist it is not time for certain rights to be granted to others? Do churches and communities, in your experience, tend to resist extending rights to others? When has your church been in the forefront? When has your church lagged with regard to issues of justice?

Galatians 3:28
"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (For context, read 3:23-29.)

At the time Paul made this statement, it was quite radical. Paul knew that racial, gender and economic identity may not be erased legally because that would threaten the empire. But within the communion of Christ, such divisions have no place.

Questions: In light of what Paul said here, do you find it ironic that our churches tend to be ethnically and economically segregated? How have the histories of various denominations led to this? Does that kind of segregation call you to some paradigm-changing action? If so, what action?

For Further Discussion

1. When uncomfortable changes are being pushed in the culture around us, how can you determine if God might be working in them? And if you conclude that he is, what are some ways you can cooperate with those changes? If you conclude that the push is from evil desires, what are some ways consistent with your Christian witness that you can oppose such changes?

2. Respond to this: One day, Wilfred Grenfell, a medical missionary to Labrador, was the guest at a dinner in London with several socially prominent people. A woman seated next to him said, "Is it true, Dr. Grenfell, that you are a missionary?" Grenfell replied, "Is it true that you are not?"

3. Respond to this: Bishop Will Willimon tells this story on himself: He once received a frantic phone call from the parents of a young woman. The parents thought the young woman was throwing away her life, and they requested that the pastor talk some sense into her. So the pastor asked the young woman what had happened. She told him that she had decided to drop out of pharmacy school and devote her life to working with the children of migrant farmers. What in the world had motivated her to do such a radical thing? "It was your sermon yesterday that started me to thinking," she replied. In the sermon, the pastor had talked about how God wants us to do something important with our lives. She had decided that ministering to the children of migrant farm workers was something important and fulfilling she could do with her life. After a long silence the preacher stammered out, "But, Anne, I was just preaching!"

4. To get a feel for the time when Meredith was knocking on the door of Ole Miss, see Bob Dylan's song "Oxford Town" at www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/oxford-town.

Responding to the News
 
It's good to be aware that God may be acting in social changes surging around us, so that we take time to evaluate them carefully before deciding how we will respond.

German Catholics Told, "No Pay, No Pray"

In the News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on this story can be found at this link:

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

The Big Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Further Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to the News

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

Is Driving the Mars Rover Like Praying?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on this story can be found at this link:

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

The Big Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isaiah 40:30-31
"Even youths will faint and be weary, and the young will fall exhausted; but those who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint." (For context, read 40:27-31.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Further Discussion

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

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

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

Responding to the News

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