How Should We Respond to Thousands of Unaccompanied Minors Arriving at Our Border?

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

There's a growing humanitarian crisis along the United States' border with Mexico as an unprecedented number of unaccompanied, undocumented/alien children and teens, mostly from Central America, are crossing illegally into this country. Most are apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and are being held in overcrowded detention centers while awaiting immigration hearings and probable deportation back to their home countries. En route to the centers after apprehension, some of these young people and other undocumented immigrants have been confronted by angry protestors waving "Return to Sender" and similar signs. In addition, pastors and churches have been prohibited from visiting or donating supplies (e.g., food or toys) to the camps.
As with many issues of national importance these days, this has become the subject of partisan bickering and blaming in Washington. Though both sides have valid points, the White House and Congress will likely have to work together to staunch the inflow of unaccompanied minors, ensure humane treatment of those who make it across the borders and provide timely processing of the detainees through the immigration courts.
Here is a summary of some of the main facts of this story:
1. The number of unaccompanied minors crossing illegally into the United States has been increasing since at least 2012 (some reports say since 2011), with the biggest surge this year. Although the entries are through Mexico, the majority are from Central America. According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection service, an estimated 70,500 children and teens are expected to be apprehended at the border -- including 52,000 from Central America -- in fiscal year 2014. By law, the administration can't deport those minors until they have an immigration hearing, which can take years. (The same law, however, permits Mexican and Canadian minors to be immediately turned back at the border.)
Some of this increase is likely the unintended consequence of a 2008 law, passed without controversy with bipartisan support and signed by President George W. Bush, to curb sex trafficking. The bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone who were not from Mexico or Canada by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.
Other factors pushing the surge include faltering economies in Central America, rising crime and gang violence and changes in how smuggling networks function, the belief that laws are being changed in the U.S. (or will fail to be enforced) to allow minors to obtain permanent residency, the increase in and increasing knowledge of government-provided benefits, the use by drug smuggling cartels of under-18 members as workers in their operations, and the rosy pictures painted by those who can earn money by smuggling them into the U.S.
2. Government agencies are overloaded in their efforts to deal with the huge number of unaccompanied young people. The 2008 law assigns Border Patrol agents the responsibility for screening immigrant minors and holding them for up to 72 hours before transferring them to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). But with so many kids now arriving, the 72-hour period is regularly exceeded, and they are housed in Border Patrol processing centers or in makeshift facilities at military bases.
When the detainees do finally get to HHS, they find a system that was designed to handle 6,000-8,000 kids a year, but which is now responsible for six times that many.
3. According to a recent report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, about 60 percent of children coming in from Central America might be eligible for some kind of humanitarian protection, based on international standards.
4. The U.S. government is attempting to react to this crisis on three fronts, though it is not yet clear how effective or helpful these measures will be:
First, the administration is aiming a public service campaign at parents in Central America to spell out the dangers of sending children to cross the border and to emphasize that they will likely be deported if they do make it in.
Second, because the process for dealing with child migrants is set down by law, the White House cannot implement a faster deportation process without changing the law, so it's asking Congress to make that change. Representatives Matt Salmon (R-AZ) and Paul Labrador (R-ID) are working to introduce a bill to do that this week. It is not certain that the bill will pass.
Third, the administration is asking Congress for $2 billion to address the immediate humanitarian crisis. The money would be used to employ more immigration judges and court staff to deal with migrant minors and to house them in the meantime. It's not certain that Congress will agree to this request, but it's too early to tell.
More on this story can be found at these links:
14 Facts That Help Explain America's Child-Migrant Crisis. Vox 
Immigrant Surge Rooted in Law to Curb Child Trafficking. New York Times 
Obama to Ask Congress for $2B to Ease Immigration Crisis. NPR
Murrieta Immigrant Protests: Mayor Defends His Town's Actions. Los Angeles Times
Guatemalan Boy Left for Better Life, Died Alone. Yahoo! News
The Big Questions
1. Regardless of where we stand on immigration in general, as Christians, what ought to be our first response to this huge influx of unaccompanied minors? Why?
2. In what ways should churches get involved, if at all, in this crisis? Why? Is this a church problem, a problem and opportunity for Christians as individuals or corporately, or a political problem? To what extent -- and how -- can these be separated (or can they)?
3. What broadly accepted American values ought to have a bearing on the handling of this situation?
4. How might our nation's response to this situation enable other nations to shirk responsibility to their own citizens? Does that matter in terms of how we treat the young people at our borders? When does "helping" actually hurt those we perceive to be in need? What long-term consequences likely depend on how we as a nation deal with this situation?
5. Are political agendas helping or hurting in addressing this crisis? How much is this issue informed by racism? Maneuvering for political gain? Nationalism? A desire to preserve the rule of law? The polarization of everything in our country?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Exodus 2:2-3
The woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw that he was a fine baby, she hid him three months. When she could hide him no longer she got a papyrus basket for him, and plastered it with bitumen and pitch; she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds on the bank of the river. (For context, read 2:1-10.)
The woman in these verses is Jochebed (Numbers 26:59), and the baby is Moses. Jochebed and her husband lived in Egypt, where the descendants of Israel were being oppressed. The pharaoh had decreed that all their newborn boys were to be thrown into the Nile because he feared that the Hebrews might become too powerful. When Moses was born, Jochebed hid him for three months until that was no longer feasible. Desperate to save her son's life, she made a watertight basket of bulrushes and put Moses in it. She then let the basket float in the Nile while Miriam, her daughter, kept watch over it from a distance. Pharaoh's daughter, who had come to bathe in the river, found the basket. When she discovered the child, she was moved with compassion and decided to adopt him. The child, Moses, grew up to become the leader of the Exodus, his people's escape from the land of Egypt.
TWW team member Liz Antonson comments, "I am not suggesting that we might be missing an opportunity to experience another Moses-like event. But the narrative of Moses surely gives a glimpse at the desperation of the parents in Central America. How are the parents of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador different from Moses' parents? In desperation they are placing their children in 'baskets or boxes of bulrushes,' but they are not watertight, they are not safe. Their children are not destined for Pharaoh's palace."
Questions: In what ways are the parents of these unaccompanied minors similar to and different from Moses' mother? To what extent might you be projecting your own viewpoints onto the situation in the absence of general or specific knowledge? Should we have a "Pharaoh's daughter" type of response to the children arriving at our borders? Why or why not?
Exodus 22:21 (CEB)
Don’t mistreat or oppress an immigrant, because you were once immigrants in the land of Egypt. (For context, read 22:21-24.)
Exodus 12:49 (ESV)
There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you. (For context, read 12:43-49.)
To be fair, we should acknowledge that in ancient Canaan, there was no such thing as "documented" or "undocumented" immigrants. People moved about to flee drought, find grazing lands for their flocks, avoid invaders, follow opportunities, etc., and they set up their tents wherever they were welcomed, felt safe and could meet their needs. There was no nation-state, so all unclaimed land was available. Thus this command from God quoted above has nothing to do with one's "legal" status as an immigrant. It includes a recognition for the Israelites that there were people living among them who were not Israelites and who had migrated there from other places.
Regardless of how or why these non-Israelites got there, the Israelites were not to "mistreat or oppress" them. What's more, God calls the Israelites to identify with the immigrants, reminding them that their ancestors first went to Egypt as immigrants (to escape the famine in Canaan).

In addition, since the declaration that non-Israelites are to follow the same law as Israelites applied to celebrating the Passover (if they were willing to be circumcised), there was at least a certain effort at assimilation that accompanied their presence.
Questions: When did your ancestors migrate to America? Did they do so legally? What was done at the time to those who tried to immigrate illegally? On what level, if any, can you identify with the unaccompanied children and youth at our borders? What makes it hard to identify with them? What makes it easy? What does it mean today to not mistreat or oppress them?
Genesis 37:28, 36
When some Midianite traders passed by, they drew Joseph up, lifting him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. And they took Joseph to Egypt. ... the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh's officials, the captain of the guard. (For context, read 37:12-36.)
Joseph was an immigrant to Egypt, albeit not by his own choice. He was trafficked there, but that nation eventually greatly benefited from his presence. But what if the Egyptians had blamed Joseph for his presence in Egypt when he had, in fact, been a victim of his brothers' and the Midianites' criminal behavior? Was he a "criminal" for entering Egypt "illegally"?
At various times, immigrants -- some of them our ancestors -- have arrived in America under less than ideal circumstances. Some came as slaves or as political, economic or religious refugees; some seeking opportunity and some adventure; some as invited guests and so on.
Questions: How has our nation benefited from the skills and passion immigrants have brought to the table? How has the nation been harmed by some or ended up harming others (e.g., illegal immigration of Nazi prison camp guards)? What attitude(s) we should adopt toward immigrants to our nation today? Why? We sometimes think of immigrants in terms of what resources they will use, thus creating shortages for people already here. Would we be better to think in terms of how our country might benefit from their presence? Or is it wrong to categorize immigrants as all the same in terms of benefit or lack of benefit to us, rather than treating them as individuals? Explain your answer.
Matthew 18:5
Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. (For context, read 18:1-5.)
Jesus made this statement as the conclusion of his answer to a question from the disciples: "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He first called a child into their midst, and told them they had to humble themselves and become like children to enter the kingdom of heaven. The child here does not denote purity and/or innocence. Children in that society were powerless, without economic resources and vulnerable. Living as "kingdom people" meant renouncing the values of greatness and taking up the humble ways of children.
But with the final statement above, Jesus seems to leave the "object lesson" aspect of the child in their midst and focus on the child himself/herself. Welcoming children is, in effect, welcoming him.
Questions: Should this statement from Jesus be applied to the current border crisis? As Christians, how do we decide which Bible verses we will apply to given situations in our society today? Explain your answer.
Matthew 25:35
... for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me ... (For context, read 25:31-46.)
This statement from Jesus remains a primary standard by which Christians measure their mercy and good works.
Questions: What are the limits, if any, that we should place on welcoming others? Why? Is it possible to be too welcoming? Can deportation -- which does send children back to their parents (assuming they are not orphaned), though still in poverty and in violent surroundings -- ever be part of welcoming? Explain your answer. Do these lines from Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) apply: "Christ has no body but yours, / No hands, no feet on earth but yours, / Yours are the eyes with which he looks / Compassion on this world ..."?
For Further Discussion
1. TWW team member Frank Ramirez tells that in 1976, he and his wife were one of eight couples sharing an apartment entrance on the campus of Bethany Theological Seminary. Only one of the couples had children, an infant daughter who was struggling with ear infections. "For some," says Ramirez, "the crying of the infant made it hard to study and sleep. Some of the students and spouses organized a deputation (thankfully without pitchforks and torches) to tell these parents to 'control' their child. I'll never forget the answer the father gave: 'The children of the world belong to the world.' It was, in part, his way of telling the others that difficulties regarding children are something we share.
     "I've never forgotten that line, and I've used it several times over the years. ... On a larger scale, I've always begun funerals and weddings by reminding folks that both are worship services where God is honored, so children are allowed to make noise and no one has to leave if a baby is vocal. It's the same for Sunday worship."
     Where is it helpful to remind yourself that "The children of the world belong to the world"?
2. Comment on this, from TWW team member Micah Holland: "What is our response [to this crisis]? We do our best to interpret Jesus' teachings in light of our world today, and we do our best to live out the ethics of Jesus. Are these [border crossings] illegal actions? Yes. So we have to follow our country's policies on what is illegal. Does compassion find its way into this conversation? Yes, absolutely. So what is the balance?
     "I wish I had that answer. I guess I have this response: If it is really as bad in these certain countries as some say it is, then yes, we should do something. Simply opening our doors completely can be dangerous on multiple levels. If an undocumented child shows up at our door or in our church, do we help them? Absolutely. But help can look several ways.
     "I look at the larger perspective and think, what can I do as a guy settled into Midwestern America? We don't see the flood of undocumented children up here too much. My wife has been to Haiti. I have been to Guatemala. We both sponsor kids through Compassion International. We feel like this is a step in the right direction, and we pray for these kids regularly."
3. Comment on this, from TWW team member Liz Antonson: "I have a friend who lives in Uruguay. He told me that parents give their children unwittingly to human traffickers in the hopes that their children will no longer be hungry, sick or in danger of violent death. These children are not given to caring homes as promised but handed over for all forms of slavery -- domestic slavery, agricultural slavery, industrial slavery and sexual slavery." Does it change the direction of our anger and outrage over the situation on our southern border to learn that the children are a commodity of a criminal element?
Responding to the News
This is an issue about which we should seek to be well informed, so that we can understand what is at stake for all concerned. It's a good time to pray for those in our national leadership who have to decide how to address this crisis, and for those in the Border Patrol and HHS who are responsible for the welfare of these minors.
Closing Prayer

Help, O Lord, those who live in the midst of such poverty and violence that allowing their children to leave seems preferable to keeping them at home. Be with those in our land who become responsible for the welfare of unaccompanied minors, that they might be strengthened to deal well and wisely with those in their care. And help our nation as its leaders seek solutions to this situation. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Decisions About Sanctioning Same-Sex Marriages Filter Down to Congregations

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

On June 19, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA, meeting in Detroit, voted overwhelmingly to change the definition of marriage from involving a man and a woman to involving two people, in effect sanctioning same-sex marriages. Because that change requires amending the denomination's constitution, the decision will take effect only if a majority of the church's 172 regional presbyteries approve it over the next year.
Another strongly supported action of the General Assembly (76 percent to 24 percent) takes effect immediately: allowing the denomination's clergy to perform same-sex marriages in states where such unions are legal. That ruling leaves it up to individual pastors to decide for whom they will conduct weddings, though presumably the congregations those pastors serve will have some voice in such decisions.
While the Presbyterians are working through their position related to same-sex marriage, some other denominations are also seeking to find their way through this issue that has Christian people on both sides. This is a thorny matter in many churches because it involves decisions not only about same-sex marriage itself but also about the authority of Scripture.
Writing about this matter in the July 7, 2013, installment of  The Wired Word, we said, "Christians who oppose same-sex marriage often do so on scriptural grounds, citing biblical verses such as Leviticus 18:22, which refers to homosexual relations as 'an abomination,' and Romans 1:26-27, which characterizes such relations as 'unnatural.' Christians who support same-sex marriage sometimes argue that the Bible's 'love your neighbor as yourself' command (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39) overrides other commands and that in love, we should extend marriage privileges to all, regardless of their sexual orientation."
In that same installment, we said, "In many cases, the clash of views among Christians on same-sex marriage indicates differing understandings of the authority of the Bible. Some Christians consider the Bible to be a complete and unchanging divine statement with a once-and-for-all kind of authority. Thus, if the biblical writers regarded homosexual behavior as immoral, the changing understanding by society and even by science regarding sexuality cannot negate what Scripture says.
"Other Christians consider the Bible to be the Word of God, but also to reflect the limited worldviews of people in the eras in which the Bible was written. This understanding of Scripture allows that God may send new revelations to us that go beyond what the Bible has stated." (Examples: views on slavery; views on women in ministry; whether or not divorce is allowed.)
Discussions of same-sex marriages are further made difficult because they involve not only Scripture, but also the very definition of the word "marriage," with those supporting same-sex marriage advocating changing the definition and those opposing it insisting that such redefinition misses God's intention.
In the United Methodist Church, the disagreement over both sanctioning same-sex marriages and ordaining clergy who are in committed same-gender relationships has led to talk of the denomination splitting. On May 22, a group of 80 evangelical pastors and theologians issued a statement entitled "Regarding United Methodism's Future." The statement recognizes a rift in the church that it says probably cannot be healed. It suggests that it may be time for the church to split "amicably."
At the same time, another proposal within United Methodism, called "A Way Forward," suggests a compromise where the denomination would officially keep its stated position that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching but would also allow local churches to determine their own course in relating to LGBT persons. Individual congregations could decide whether or not to receive practicing homosexual pastors and whether or not to encourage their pastor to officiate at the weddings of same-sex couples. And annual conferences (the UM equivalent of presbyteries or synods) could decide on their own whether or not to ordain ministers who are homosexual. The goal of this proposal is to allow the churches, pastors and members freedom of conscience while still remaining together in one denomination. The proposal is a kind of third choice -- between staying together in disharmony on the one hand and splitting the church on the other. It's still unclear whether this option will be embraced by those on opposite sides of the issue.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) sanctioned same-sex marriage at its Churchwide Assembly, in 2009. Though not described as such, its decision was a kind of "third way." It gave pastors the freedom to bless same-sex unions and perform same-sex marriage, depending on what is legal in their state, but they are not required to do so. People can now be ordained as ELCA pastors if they are in a committed same-sex partnership or marriage, but a bishop can decline to perform the ordination if he or she isn't comfortable with such. Congregations are free to call (or not to call) pastors in committed same-sex relationships.
One of the resolutions that was part of that 2009 decision reads, "Resolved, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships."
The upshot of all of this is that in some denominations, decisions about how the church will minister to and serve people in the LGBT community may be less a matter of denominational fiat and more a matter of decisions by individual congregations and pastors, and/or by regional assemblies within the denomination.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Presbyterians in U.S. to Allow Gay Marriage Ceremonies. USA Today
Regarding United Methodism's Future. Good News
A Way Forward for a United Methodist Church
An Open Letter .... Good News (a response to "A Way Forward")
Where Christian Churches, Other Religions Stand on Gay Marriage. Pew Research Center
The Big Questions
1. When it comes to divisive and contentious issues in the church, how useful is the decision to "agree to disagree" but continue together as a congregation? Why?
2. What ought to be the prime factors to consider when deciding whether your church will change longstanding policies that some -- possibly including you -- consider untouchable? How much is a decision in matters related to homosexual persons affected by the makeup of families in the congregation?
3. In disagreements with other Christians over major issues where no compromise seems possible, how should we characterize those who disagree with us? Does it seem possible to remain in relationships with other denominations regarding larger ecumenical structures or projects if there is disagreement about particular issues?
4. Are there "third ways" (between staying together in disharmony or splitting) that might be considered for your congregation or denomination when there are matters of significant disagreement? If so, what are they?
5. Under what circumstance is a denominational split a good thing? Under what circumstances is it a bad thing? What factors and history inform your answer to these questions?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Ephesians 4:1-3
I ... beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (For context, read 4:1-16.)
The fact that Paul finds it necessary to urge his readers to make "every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit" suggests that such unity was not always evident in the Ephesian church. It is unity of the Spirit he calls for, however, not necessarily unity -- let alone uniformity -- in opinions or conclusions. Further on in this passage, Paul speaks of coming to "unity of faith" and "to maturity" (v. 13), which suggests he understood that church members grow in understanding at different rates and that there should be a loving quest for understanding and patience while the whole body matures.
Questions: Is unity of the Spirit a biblical command or a goal? To what degree do you consider those who disagree with you regarding same-sex marriage and the church to nonetheless be brothers and sisters in Christ? Does unity require agreement on every issue? Which issues? Does a creed that does not include specific guidance on controversial issues create the possibility of unity? Ought centuries-old creeds be changed to reflect a position on current controversies?
Do you consider disagreements over same-sex marriage to be disagreements within the unity of the Spirit, or between those who remain in and those who reject "the Spirit"? Explain your answer.
Acts 15:6
The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. (For context, read 15:1-29.)
Acts 15 contains the report of the first church council on record. The matter it had to decide was contentious: whether Gentiles first had to submit to Jewish rites -- in effect, adopting Judaism -- before becoming Christians (remember that all of the first Christians, including the 12 disciples and Paul, and Jesus himself, were Jewish). In council, they listened to Paul and Barnabas tell of how eagerly Gentiles had responded to their preaching. In the end, the council, with both Peter and James speaking in favor, decided that Gentiles did not need to adopt Judaism to become Christians.
Questions: Read the full report of this council (vv. 1-29). What examples from that meeting might be models for your discussion of your church's ministry to LGBT people or to people whose beliefs differ radically from yours in other ways today? In what ways, if any, is this council not an adequate example for deciding contentious issues today?
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.)
Actually, according to biblical researchers, it's not just if that person sins "against you," for those two words are missing from some of the oldest manuscripts of Matthew. So what Jesus probably said was, "If another member of the church sins, go and point out the fault ...." Thus, Jesus was speaking of behavior by a single person that hurt not just one other person, but the church itself. He does not discuss what happens if "the church" (or a denomination of the church) sins. No matter which side of a contentious issue a person is on, he or she may believe that "the church" is sinning and is defying God. A literalistic reading of this passage doesn't help much in such cases. Even so, it is likely that Jesus' words may help in how to approach those with whom one disagrees.
Questions: How does a denomination correspond to -- and fail to correspond to -- "the church" or to "a member"? How should you approach those on "the other side," and when do you decide that they should become "as a Gentile and a tax collector"? Might someone on "the other side" just as well think of you that way? Then what? -- if it's going in both directions?
Acts 24:16
Therefore I do my best always to have a clear conscience toward God and all people. (For context, read 24:10-23.)
Paul made this statement as part of his defense before the Roman governor Felix, following his arrest after certain opponents incited a public uproar against him. His opponents claimed that Paul had profaned the temple (Acts 21:27-28), so when Paul here refers to his clear conscience, he is denying that charge.
But his statement has a larger context as well. He says that he always does his "best to have a clear conscience toward God and all people." That can be understood as reflecting his overall commitment to Christ -- expressed in his behavior, speech and belief.
Questions: When a position promoted by some Christians offends your conscience, how do you determine God's will? Can your conscience be misled? Can your conscience be clear even when in a minority? To what extent can individual or congregational conscience trump a mandate from a larger Christian body? Can you respect the sincere beliefs of those who disagree with you?
Philippians 1:27
Only, live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel ... (For context, read 1:27-30.)
Questions: Paul here refers to believers having "one mind for the faith of the gospel." But is that possible? Even quite apart from issues related to same-sex marriage and other highly charged matters, how often do you find members of your congregation to be of one mind? About what can we have one mind? About what is it essential that we have one mind?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from TWW team member Jenni Marner: "We had an interim pastor who had us work through a set of issues and place on a timeline various ideas [such as] hymns vs. contemporary music, women in leadership, discipline of sin, etc. It was a fascinating time of self-reflection of who we are individually and who we were corporately. As a part of that exercise we were encouraged to view our individual ideas as a part of the larger whole. He also encouraged us to come together as one mind as a method to move forward, seeking to pray through the differences and ask God to allow us to have unity within the body. Our church has a history of splits about every 10 years over the latest fad in the church. In the last 15, we have continued to move together and move forward towards loving Jesus more and showing his love to the community we are in."
2. Respond to this, from TWW team member Malia Miller: "Growing up, one of my good friends went to a very conservative church that prohibited many activities that my church allowed. We were able to work through these differences because we had mutual respect, but we had many conversations about what God thought -- particularly about me since I attended the more liberal church.
     "[From my childhood] through my college days, I was very active as a gymnast, which became another topic for my friend and me. She was not permitted to wear shorts in public -- or even at home if any male visitors were present -- and I was tumbling around the gymnasium in a leotard in front of high school boys. I always made sure to dress appropriately when at her home, but I skulked about in guilt wondering what her family and other members of her church thought about someone like me. At a time when I was trying to find my way as a young Christian, these issues could have become 'deal-breakers' for me when deciding whether or not to fully commit to Christ. It was hard to understand how two churches preaching from the same Scriptures could have such different interpretations. I found it very confusing since I really had pure motives and was working very hard to live a Christ-like life."
3. Respond to this, also from TWW team member Malia Miller. She was a high-school-level guidance counselor for many years and now teaches others who are in school to be counselors: "Many teens whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual that I have counseled through my work in the schools struggle with a society that labels them as 'sinful' and judges them for something that they truly feel is as natural to them as heterosexuality is to their friends. They aren't necessarily acting on their feelings in relationships, but they live with the shame and disapproval that is evident all around them. Many of them come from Christian families, which compounds their struggle. This is one of the primary reasons that the suicide rate among LGBT teens is so high. They live in a world that sees them as flawed and that deprives them of freely meeting their need for love and belonging. (I guess my bias here is showing, but I worked with so many LGBT teens in the course of my career who would have never freely chosen the difficult path of being gay if it were a choice.) I, too, have struggled with this issue as a heterosexual Christian trying to understand how to make sense of this in context of the Scriptures, but I rest in the peace of my Lord that I don't have to have all of the answers!
"I don't think these topics are just individual choices. When a church interprets Scripture in such a way that they deem activities or the way one dresses as sinful, there is unspoken judgment about those who do not agree or are just beginning their Christian journey. This creates an environment of shame which is not particularly conducive to spiritual growth. I am not suggesting that boundary lines are unnecessary. However, how a church membership handles those who are still seeking clarity on an issue will determine whether a person feels nurtured or alienated."
4. Discuss this, from TWW team member James Gruetzner: "During my life, I have know people who are adamant that their own propensity to sexual promiscuity, to stealing from others, to lying for their own material benefit, and a host of other things is 'as natural to them as' other feelings are to their friends. I've come to the conclusion that 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' and that our feelings about what is right or wrong tend to be poor yardsticks. Feelings are not nothing, of course, but they aren't normative. The somewhat cliched guidance to 'hate the sin and love the sinner' seems pretty good (and I hope that others might hate the sin in me while loving the sinner that I am). My wife and I (and our congregation) have had little trouble with acknowledging both homosexual activity and divorce as wrong, while at the same time welcoming both homosexual and divorced people into our congregation and into our home on a personal level. Jesus ate with sinners, although he was sinless. Can a sinner like me do any less?"
5. If your congregation is part of a denomination, describe the way that congregations relate to the denomination. Are congregations required to follow the leading of the denomination? Is it purely advisory? On a complicated and/or controversial issue, do you think your congregation would follow or ignore a change in denominational policy if the congregation disagreed?
6. Dan West (1893-1971) was profoundly affected by the life-or-death choices he had to make as a relief worker during the Spanish Civil War. His realization that "these people need a cow, not a cup" inspired him to recruit donations of live, impregnated cows to ship to starving people in other countries, a program that eventually became the ecumenical organization Heifer International. In his home congregation in Indiana, the story is told that West, having argued passionately on a particular subject in church council, found himself on the losing side after the vote was taken. He is remembered to have said that he would now become a passionate supporter of the other side of the issue.
     Have you ever supported your church even when you did not fully agree with their stance on a particular subject or program? Is this possible for a person of conscience? Does the leading of the larger group, whether a congregation, a denomination or Christendom, determine your response to an issue? What does it say if you can only follow your own leaning on a topic instead of that of the larger church?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to remind ourselves that in most cases of disagreement on significant issues in the church, the debate is not between "true" Christians and "false" Christians -- or between Christians and sinners -- but between sincere people who understand the ramifications of their faith differently. It's good to spend as much time listening as talking.
Closing Prayer

Help us, O Lord, in this time of turmoil, to discover what it means to be your faithful disciples, worshiping and working with others you have called. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Pope Declares Mobsters Excommunicated From God

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Mobsters "are not in communion with God"; they are excommunicated from him. That's what Pope Francis declared a week ago in Italy's Calabria region, which is noted as the center of Italy's biggest crime syndicate, the 'Ndrangheta.
The pontiff traveled to Calabria last Saturday on a one-day pilgrimage to meet the father of a 3-year-old boy killed in January along with one of his grandfathers and his grandfather's girlfriend during the region's drug war. The killers set a car afire with all three victims inside.
Hearing that news, the pope had expressed horror and promised to visit the town.
The child's parents were in jail on drug-trafficking charges at the time of the slaying. The mother was released to house arrest after her son was slain. During his time in Calabria, the pope visited the boy's father in jail and also met with two of the boy's grandmothers. According to a Vatican spokesperson, Francis said to the boy's father, "May children never again have to suffer in this way." He also agreed to the father's request that he pray for the boy's mother.
At an outdoor Mass during the trip attended by tens of thousands, Pope Francis spoke against the Calabrian Mafia, calling it "an adoration of evil and contempt for the common good."
"Those who have taken this evil road ... such as the mobsters, they are not in communion with God, they are excommunicated," the pontiff declared as listeners applauded.
According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, excommunication is "the principal and severest censure, ... a medicinal [intended to remedy the situation], spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence." Excommunication is similar to the practice in some Protestant groups of "disfellowshipping" or "shunning" members who have willfully and unrepentantly distanced themselves from God through sinful behavior. The purpose of excommunication and disfellowshipping is to invite the person to change the offending behavior or attitude, repent and return to full communion.
Chad Pecknold, an assistant professor of theology at Catholic University of America, explained that the pope's remarks were not in themselves an official excommunication, because excommunication is "only for individuals," and not entire organizations. But, said Pecknold, what Francis was doing was describing the "self-excommunication" the 'Ndrangheta is already experiencing because of their "serious sin."
About this news, TWW team member Frank Ramirez said, "The story about Pope Francis struck me because he is not only speaking out against an obvious evil; he is also taking a risk that many churches shy from, which is confronting money. The Mafia are not only a crime concern, but they 'atone' by contributing large amounts of cash -- hush money really -- to churches. Crime families also build huge churches and contribute to their parishes. They build private churches. When the local congregation addresses an issue that might directly confront businesses that some of the richer members of a congregation might profit from, those richer members might leave."
In his homily, the pope also spoke about the evils that can occur when the adoration of God is replaced by the adoration of money.
"Your land, which [is] so beautiful, knows the signs of the consequences of this sin," the pope said. "This evil must be fought, must be expelled." He called on the local church to expend itself even more "so that good can prevail."
"When you do not worship the Lord, you become worshipers of evil, as are those who live in the underworld. ... The 'Ndrangheta is this: worship of evil and contempt for the common good," the pope said.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Pope Francis Says Italian Mafia Members Are 'Excommunicated.' New York Daily News
Pope: Mafiosi Are Excommunicated, Not in Communion With God. Official Vatican Network
No, Pope Francis Did Not Officially Excommunicate the Mafia. Vox
Excommunication. New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
The Big Questions
1. Should congregations make regular use of such practices as excommunication or disfellowshipping? Should we make occasional use of such practices? Why or why not? Is it a good thing that some congregations never use such practices? Explain your answer.
2. What unholy things does your church tolerate because to oppose them could have financial penalties for the congregation? What unholy things do you or your church financially support, perhaps because you don't want to make a scene or be perceived as using money to influence things?
3. In what ways do our attitudes and actions toward other people reveal our true spiritual condition?
4. How should Christ's instruction to love our neighbor as ourselves play out when our neighbor behaves in ways that are clearly not God's ways? How do we engage real evil?
5. What is the meaning of "cheap grace"? What's wrong with it? What is "costly grace"?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
1 John 4:20-21
Those who say, "I love God," and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also. (For context, read 4:7-21.)
The meaning of these two verses is so clear that they hardly need commentary, but they provide a strong basis for the pope's comments about how crime against others renders the offender out of communion not only with the church, but also with God.
Questions: In what ways is it harder to love a brother or sister than to love God? In what ways do these verses provide a challenge for you? In what ways are you difficult to love? Are there hot-button issues that are hard for you to listen to and that might make you unapproachable?
Mark 10:25
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God. (For context, read 10:17-27.)
Commentators sometimes try to "soften" Jesus' eye-of-the-needle remark by saying that "the eye of a needle" was actually a reference to a Jerusalem gate that camels had to kneel to move through -- meaning it was difficult but not impossible to get through. But there's no indication that Jesus was referring to such a gate.
In any case, Jesus was at least saying that wealth makes it more difficult for someone to experience God's saving power. In the context leading to this comment, a rich man asks Jesus what he must do to receive eternal life. Jesus' answer is not that the man should give a lot to charity but keep plenty for himself. Clearly, Jesus views this man's riches as an impediment to his salvation.
Note too that in telling the man to give to the poor all he possessed, Jesus wasn't suggesting that by so doing, the man could "buy" salvation. Rather, Jesus was pointing out the entirety of commitment necessary and how this young man, who had kept all the commandments from the time of his youth, still didn't understand the need to focus on those things that would last rather than on those things that were of value for only a short time.
Questions: What are some ways we try to buy or earn our salvation? Why don't they work? When have you tried to "soften" a scripture text for fear or concern about how it might affect another? Which scriptures do you soften or negate because of the way you live your life?
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.)
Actually, according to biblical researchers, it's perhaps not just if that person sins "against you," for those two words are missing from some of the oldest manuscripts of Matthew. So what Jesus may have said was, "If another member of the church sins, go and point out the fault ...." In that reading, Jesus was speaking of behaviors and speech that hurt not just one other person, but the church itself.
What we should note here is that Jesus speaks of a procedure for dealing with the offending person. Confronting the offender is not left merely to the judgment of one individual. If the initial one-on-one conversation does not bring healing, then one or two others in the congregation are to be asked to assist. The next step is to bring the matter to the church. Only if all those processes fail to restore the offender to the fellowship (or bring the offender into fellowship to begin with) is the person to be cut off or expelled from the church.
Questions: These words of Jesus call us to accountability to and responsibility for each other in the church. What is the meaning of these words? How should they be interpreted when the offender is a dangerous person showing no hesitation to do wrong? Have you experienced or offered this pattern of accountability? What was the result?
Have you ever been on the receiving end of a procedure like that described in Matthew 18? Do you listen as well as you would like others to listen to you? When has your mind been changed about your life, your choices and your finances because of a sermon or a "word to the wise"?
Matthew 23:23
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. (For context, read 23:23-28.)
Unlike the mobsters Pope Francis condemned, the scribes and Pharisees did not seem to most people to be evil. But Jesus condemned them for their hypocrisy. In the verse above, he decries them specifically for giving tithes to the temple of even minor things such as the spices they used to flavor their meals while neglecting "the weightier matters of the law."
Questions: Is this another way of saying that we cannot purchase salvation? Why or why not? When has this text spoken directly to you or your congregation? What was your response?
2 Corinthians 9:6-7
The point is this: 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. (For context, read 9:1-12.)
The apostle Paul wrote the words above to the Christians in Corinth to encourage them to give generously to the first recorded church-wide collection for the poor. Paul says that giving "bountifully" will result in receiving bountifully from God.
The problem with what Paul said here, however, is that some people have taken it out of the context of a faithful life and treated it as a promise of God's bountiful care toward those who give generously even while remaining committed to deeply sinful and unrighteous living. That's a serious misreading of Paul's words; he never intended generous giving to be separated from righteous living.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor executed by the Nazis for resisting Hitler, gave us another way to think about this. He wrote that one of the deadliest enemies of the church was "cheap grace" -- such as preaching that an intellectual acknowledgment of God is sufficient for salvation, or such as telling people they are okay without demanding any real dedication or holy living. Bonhoeffer wrote, "Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession ... grace without discipleship, grace without the cross."
The opposite of cheap grace, said Bonhoeffer, is "costly grace," which, though it justifies the sinner, also condemns his or her sin and demands that he or she follow Christ.
Questions: When have you sought absolution without personal confession and repentance? In what ways do you now let your life reflect costly grace? Do we categorize sins and not demand costly grace for those we consider "lesser" sins (murder vs. anger, adultery vs. lust, etc.)?
For Further Discussion
1. Have you ever threatened to leave your church or to stop giving to your church if things didn't go the way you thought they should? What do you think about that threat now? Have you ever not left a congregation or not stopped giving -- perhaps to avoid making a scene, or because you were too comfortable and habituated to your current location -- when, in your view, it was starting to cooperate with sin or evil? What do you think about your choice now?
2. People who threaten to leave congregations over issues/sins are often welcomed in another congregation. Do we have a duty to warn the other congregation or should we let those who have left us have a fresh start elsewhere? Why? How do we, in humility, recognize the possibility -- as unlikely as that may be! -- that those of us staying may have been in the wrong?
3. Does your congregation or denomination practice a form of disfellowshipping which might be called excommunication or shunning? What are the steps involved? How may one be restored to the fellowship?
4. When have you felt very uncomfortable about your church's lack of witness to a pertinent problem because of over-concern for what the financial consequences might be?
5. Have a volunteer read aloud 1 John 3:10-17 and then discuss as a group how the passage applies to today's topic.
Responding to the News
This is a good time to remind ourselves that giving to the church is a part of being a responsible Christian and that giving ought not to be used as a tool of manipulation in the church.
Closing Prayer

O Lord, help the church in all its forms to be faithful in calling people to true righteousness. And let us not turn a blind eye to sin because of financial considerations. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Hoarder Buried Beneath Debris

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Police located the body of Beverly Mitchell, 66, under debris in the basement of her home in Cheshire, Connecticut, 25 miles southwest of Hartford, last Saturday, two days after responding to a postal worker's report of mail piling up outside.
Patrol Sergeant Kevin O'Donnell, one of the first officers on the scene, said Mitchell was buried alive when the floor of the one-story dwelling gave way under the weight of "a waist-high layer" of "mail, packages, bottles, lots of papers, newspapers, magazines ... piled to the ceiling in most rooms."
Finding the woman's body was initially delayed by the dangerous condition of the dilapidated building. Authorities say it appears Mitchell had been dead for about a week before they were notified. The cause of death seems to have been an accident; no evidence of criminal activity has been uncovered.
O'Donnell indicated that social service personnel had been aware of the woman's hoarding tendencies and tried to help, but she declined assistance.
While many people collect things or have trouble keeping their living quarters tidy, hoarders take the behavior to extremes, which can progress to a form of the mental illness known as obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). They have a "Citizen Kane"-like need to accumulate more and more useless junk, paired with an inability to throw anything away, even when their obsession jeopardizes their physical and mental health and safety and that of others.
Hoarding behavior may manifest itself in unsanitary and unsafe living conditions, social isolation, financial ruin and tense relations with authorities, neighbors, family and friends. Hoarders may not eat nutritiously, sleep well or bathe sufficiently because all the stuff they have accumulated prevents them from using areas of their living quarters for their intended purpose. Yet they believe they can't survive without the cocoon of stuff they have spun around themselves and cling to like Linus with his security blanket.
It has been suggested that hoarders may act out of deep-seated psychic pain caused by a traumatic experience such as physical or sexual abuse, rape, robbery or losses sustained during natural disasters. Persons who cling to tangible things may have problems trusting God and feeling safe and secure. They may feel shame or embarrassment over their inability to function normally or to change their behavior, and withdraw even further from human interaction as a result. They may even "create" a hoarding problem to avoid dealing with the real source of their anxiety, which may be too painful to face.
More research is needed to understand the causes of hoarding and discover effective treatments. To say that hoarding is just a manifestation of materialism, greed or selfishness without acknowledging the underlying fears and anxieties that may prompt the behavior would be to oversimplify the disorder. Treatment of symptoms without addressing the root causes of the hoarding compulsion has not generally resulted in long-term, lasting improvement. Hoarders desperately need to experience the grace of God to liberate them from the grip of material things that can never satisfy their deepest need for security, acceptance, love and righteousness.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Connecticut Hoarder Killed by Floor Collapse: Police. Reuters
Hoarding Signs and How to Get Help. How Stuff Works
Compulsive Hoarding. Wikipedia
Hoarding Disorder. Mayo Clinic
The Big Questions
1. What is the difference between a hoarder and a collector? What do the items mean to a collector, and what significance do they have to a hoarder? Do you agree with the statement "We all have a little hoarder in us"?
2. What beliefs, ideas, emotions or experiences might be at the root of hoarding behavior? What are some reasons people hang on to things that have no immediate, intrinsic or lasting value? What might be missing in a person's spiritual life that could lead to hoarding?
3. Have you ever known a hoarder? How was that person affected by the condition? How were others around the hoarder affected?
4. Have you ever been aware of tendencies within yourself to cling to things you really didn't need or that were potentially harmful to you or those around you? Where might such tendencies originate? What, if anything, have you done about them?
5. How comfortable are you letting others touch or borrow your "stuff"? Share about a time you regretted keeping something rather than throwing or giving it away. Share about a time you did not regret throwing something out or giving it away.
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Matthew 12:43-45
[Jesus said,] "When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but it finds none. Then it says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' When it comes, it finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So will it be also with this evil generation." (No context needed.)
Jesus might have been talking about a hoarder when he gave this illustration. Those who attempt to help a hoarder by hauling piles of junk mail out of the house or by removing animals the individual can't care for adequately may be frustrated when they return to find the house filled with more junk or animals than ever, which the person acquired to try to fill the terrible void within, the "God-shaped vacuum" that only God can fill.
Questions: When attempting to gain the victory over sin, how can you be sure to get at its root causes, rather than tinkering with its symptoms alone? How can you be sure you aren't just "rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic"? What needs to happen to ensure that "the last state" of a person doesn't become worse than the first?
Ecclesiastes 3:1, 5-6
For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: ... a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; ... a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away .... (For context, read 3:1-8.)
Question: How do you determine when it is time to gather, when it is time to keep and when it is time to throw or give things away?
Hebrews 12:1-2
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God. (No context needed.)
This passage follows the great chapter recounting stories of historical men and women of faith, whose lives and witness are meant to motivate us to reach for the finish line where Christ Jesus waits to welcome us. In order that we might run the race of faith effectively, the writer urges us to lay aside (fling aside, get rid of, throw off, leave behind) every weight (encumbrance that hinders us or slows us down), especially sin that so easily entangles (clings so closely to, ensnares, distracts or surrounds) us. While an athlete may use weights in training to build muscle and endurance, those weights are left behind during competition. Weights are not in and of themselves evil; in the right context, they can even be helpful. But there is a time and a place for them. Sin, on the other hand, always hinders our progress and may even disqualify us in the end.
Note that we are not equating hoarding with sin but recognizing that anything we cling to, other than Christ, has the potential to get in the way of our experience of the abundant life that only Christ can give.
Questions: At what point does a weight become a hindrance or even lead us into sin? Give an example of something that was once helpful to you that in another context became a hindrance to you spiritually. Besides physical things, what else might we grasp too tightly at times, refusing to let go? What unhealthy attachments, feelings, resentments, regrets, rituals, good works, preferences, ways of living may be preventing you from clinging "simply to the cross"? How do we "fling aside" such weights?
Luke 12:15, 23, 31, 33
And [Jesus] 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 life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. ... Instead, strive for [your Father's] kingdom ... Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. (For context, read 12:13-34; cf. Romans 14:17.)
When a man came to Jesus asking for help in getting half of the inheritance left to his brother, Jesus told a parable about a man who had so much stuff that he had no place to put it all. He decided to stash it all away for a rainy day, sit back and enjoy the ride, but God told him that his life would be required of him that very night (that is, he would die); then what good would all his possessions do him? Jesus points to God's provision and loving care for creation, our inability to control our own destiny and our subsequent need to trust in God's faithful care.
Jesus offers freedom from our dependence upon material things, which are ultimately not life-saving at all. Indeed, giving things we treasure away may in the end save us: "For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 16:25).
Questions: What material things do we "hoard" at the expense of storing up treasures in heaven? What non-material stuff or "baggage" might we cling to that has a deleterious effect on us spiritually? Instead of planning to build bigger barns, how might the rich man have answered his own question, "What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?" (v. 17). What else could he have done with the surplus?
For Further Discussion
1. In 1 Samuel 25:1-42, we learn about a wealthy, mean, surly man named Nabal, who had benefited from the protection David's armies provided his assets, but who refused to give them even a meal for their efforts. "Shall I take my bread and my water and the meat that I have butchered for my shearers, and give it to men who come from I do not know where?" Nabal sneered (v. 11; emphasis ours). David was ready to attack Nabal and all his household, but word came to Nabal's clever wife Abigail, who hurried to load donkeys up with 200 loaves, two skins of wine, five sheep prepared for a feast and additional supplies of grain, raisins and figs for David's men. Her quick action prevented a bloodbath. She told David, "When the LORD has done to my lord according to all the good that he has spoken concerning you, and has appointed you prince over Israel, my lord shall have no cause of grief, or pangs of conscience, for having shed blood without cause or for having saved himself. And when the LORD has dealt well with my lord, then remember your servant" (vv. 30-31). Her selfless words reveal a concern for David's well-being, when she might well have focused on her own fear and anxiety. Ten days later, Nabal died of heart failure. Then David wooed Abigail, and she became his wife.
    How does the story of Nabal and Abigail relate to the problem of hoarding and the spiritual gift of generosity?
2. What other biblical examples of hoarders or of those who were liberated from the need to hoard can you think of? What can we learn from them?
3. Comment on this from Frederick Buechner, who writes in his book Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC: "Avarice, greed, concupiscence and so forth are all based on the mathematical truism that the more you get, the more you have. The remark of Jesus that it is more blessed to give than to receive (cf. Acts 20:35) is based on the human truth that the more you give away in love, the more you are. It is not just for the sake of other people that Jesus tells us to give rather than get, but for our own sakes too." (Emphasis ours.)
4. What value might giving a tithe of what you possess have for you as a giver?
Responding to the News
What might you and your church do to help someone like "Utah Girl," who posted the following comment to the website of the reality television show Hoarding: Buried Alive? "My soon-to-be ex-husband has a bad case of OCD with compulsive shopping and hoarding tendencies. He has filled the garage and the office and other rooms with boxes and garbage. He has put us in a lot of debt and has managed to cash out his retirement money to keep shopping. He is in complete denial and lies to cover up his shopping. He doesn't see reality anymore. I love him and I would do anything to have him back and us be a family again but I think our little kids need a safe environment to live."
Closing Prayer

Creator God, help us to recognize that created things can never take your place. You alone are worthy of our worship. You are the Rock on which we can build our lives with confidence, the Refuge to which we may flee in times of distress. Empower us to face our greatest fears with the courage of the Spirit of Christ. Help us to keep our eyes on Jesus, casting aside every weight and sin that so easily trip us up, that we may finish the race laid out for us in victory. Amen.

Backlash Follows Release of POW Bergdahl

© 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

On May 31, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a U.S. soldier held by the Taliban since June 2009, was released by his captors as part of a prisoner swap brokered with the Taliban by the governments of the United States, Qatar and Afghanistan. In exchange for Bergdahl, the United States released five Taliban detainees who'd been incarcerated in the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They were sent to Qatar, where they are free to move about the country but are not supposed to leave it for a year.
Bergdahl is currently being debriefed and treated at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany. It is projected that he will eventually return to Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, for further recovery.
While the deal has brought relief to Bergdahl's family, the celebrations planned in his hometown were canceled in the wake of considerable backlash to his release. That backlash is based on three objections:
First, those of his former comrades in arms who have spoken say Bergdahl wasn't captured while doing his duty, but rather that he walked away from his post, and there does appear to be evidence of this.
Second, some observers say that at least six American soldiers died trying to rescue Bergdahl. The deaths of those six are not directly tied in a cause-and-effect chain to attempts to rescue Bergdahl, but people familiar with the specific missions say that those soldiers would not have been where they were at the time of their deaths had Bergdahl not left his post and been captured.
Third, some think it likely that the five Taliban prisoners released in exchange will cause problems for the United States again. All five were top Taliban commanders before their capture, and one has reportedly already said he will fight the United States again.
Some members of Congress have criticized the White House for how it executed the swap. The exchange was negotiated without informing Congress, despite a 2013 law that says the administration must give at least 30 days' notice before transferring anyone from the Guantanamo Bay facility. However, when President Obama signed the bill, he issued a signing statement saying that the restriction interfered with the president's executive power as commander-in-chief. Signing statements have been used by previous presidents as well.
In response to the criticism, the president reiterated the American practice of not leaving a serviceman or servicewoman behind. "We don't condition whether or not we make the effort to try to get them back," President Obama said.
A senior U.S. official says that Bergdahl has told military officials that he was tortured, beaten and held in a cage by his Taliban captors after he tried to escape.
More on this story can be found at these links:
The Bergdahl Exchange: Catch Up on the Latest Developments. CNN
Obama: No Apology for Bergdahl Prisoner Exchange. Yahoo! News
How Did 6 Die After Bowe Bergdahl's Disappearance? CNN
Taliban: We Found Bergdahl Alone, Cursing Americans. Newser
Freed Taliban Commander Tells Relative He'll Fight Americans Again. NBC News
Bowe Bergdahl and the Impossible Choices Families of Hostages Face. The Atlantic
The Big Questions
1. To what degree, if any, is God's rescue of us from sin based on our deservedness? If God saves only those who deserve it, who can be saved? Are there any ways in which your answer affects your view of the Bergdahl release? Why or why not?
2. If the reports of Bergdahl's behavior leading to his capture are true, it at minimum can be described as "dumb" or "ill-considered." What does our faith have to say about the dumb stuff we have done that has resulted in harm to ourselves and/or others? Does God hold our foolish actions against us?
3. To what degree, if any, does our salvation depend on our not walking away from the church? Is walking away from church the same as walking away from God? Explain your answer.
4. Regarding the Christian teaching of final judgment, does such judgment determine our salvation/damnation, or are we saved by grace and still judged for our actions? If the latter, what are the consequences of our actions?
5. To what degree, if any, does God's saving us depend on us?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Matthew 10:29-31
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. And even the hairs of your head are all counted. So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows. (For context, read 10:26-31.)
This is a statement by Jesus about human worth.
Questions: How would you apply this statement to the Taliban prisoners who were released from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Bergdahl? What worth do you assign to them? What worth, do you suppose, does Jesus assign to them?
If you were the one captured by the Taliban, what price would you want your country to be willing to pay for your return? What is the actual price, not in the abstract, but in terms of the consequences, and who all will pay it?
Romans 3:22-24
For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ... (For context, read 3:21-26.)
This statement from the apostle Paul answers the question about who deserves rescue from God, and that answer is "no one." Thus, grace is a gift, not a reward.
Questions: To receive rescue from sin, is it necessary that we feel sinful? Is it necessary that we be able to point to obvious sinful behavior in our lives? Why or why not? Do you agree with Paul's "no one" answer? Why or why not?
The fourth-century African theologian Augustine often railed against what he considered the heresy of the Pelagians, who did not share Paul's formulation about original sin and insisted that humanity was basically good. What is your view of humanity and its so-called sinful nature? In your experience, are there people who seem pretty good at the core? Why do people, in the case of the current controversy, always seem to look for the worst in others? Does this say more about them or the people they criticize? Consider the popular t-shirt that displays a child with the words "God don't make junk." What does this say to the Romans text?
Luke 19:10
For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost. (For context, read 19:1-10.)
John 6:44
No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me ... (For context, read 6:41-51.)
Both of these verses point out that God acts to enable us to receive salvation through Jesus before we make a decision to seek him. In fact, as the verse from John indicates, even our impulse to seek Christ is God-given.
Some Christian denominations use the term "prevenient grace" to describe this divine action that precedes human decision (as distinguished from divine "saving grace" that results in salvation). But whether or not that term is used, many Christians recognize after the fact that God was actively wooing them before they were even aware of their need for him.
Questions: Where have you been aware of God awakening your need for Christ before you moved toward him? What made you ready to hear the gospel?
Acts 13:13
Then Paul and his companions set sail from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia. John, however, left them and returned to Jerusalem ... (For context, read 12:25--13:5, 13.)
The "John" in this verse is also known as "Mark" (Acts 12:25), and he was a cousin of Paul's co-worker Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). When Paul and Barnabas set out on a journey to evangelize parts of the Roman Empire, they took John Mark with them, only to have him pull out of the venture after they were on their way. The reason he walked away from the trip is not known, but Bible scholars speculate that it may have been the hardships of the journey, homesickness or even displeasure that Paul had displaced his cousin as the group leader.
In any case, when Paul and Barnabas later were planning a second journey to spread the gospel, Barnabas again wanted to take his cousin John Mark, but Paul objected because of the man's desertion of them on the previous trip. When Barnabas and Paul could not agree on this, the pair separated, with Paul taking Silas instead and Barnabas taking John Mark on an evangelistic trip of their own (Acts 15:36-41).
Given a second chance, John Mark must have grown into his call, for later, Paul describes him as a "fellow worker" (Philemon 24). Also, in 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul specifically asks Timothy to bring John Mark to him "for he is useful in my ministry."
Questions: How much energy should we put into getting people who have walked away from the church to come back? Should we seek to reconcile them, or judge them, or both? Why? What offense are you holding onto? Should there be a shelf date on some of our grudges?
Luke 15:4-5
Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices. (For context, read 15:1-7.)
Good shepherds go looking for their sheep that wander off, and bring them back to the flock. Jesus told this story to make a point about God seeking us.
Questions: Consider these words from the hymn "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing": "Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it/Prone to leave the God I love." To what degree do these words describe your experience? In what specific ways have you been aware of the Divine Shepherd looking for you?
For Further Discussion
1. What might be the effect of rating POWs to decide which ones "deserve" rescue attempts?
2. If it's decided that Bergdahl committed a chargeable offense in walking away from his post, what should his punishment be? Have his five years of captivity by the Taliban been sufficient suffering? Who should decide, and why?
3. How might it affect your view of this prisoner exchange if more U.S. personnel are captured for purposes of swapping them for Taliban detainees?
4. Should this prisoner exchange be measured in mathematical terms of the value of a human life? Why or why not? What biblical perspectives help answer this question?
5. Respond to this, from a TWW team member: "Some walk away from a church after years of faithful membership and serving in leadership roles due to a change in pastors, church leadership, the atmosphere, church bullies and busybodies and for their own needs. Millennials are walking away for a variety of reasons, including their views about premarital sex, inclusion of homosexuals, not being provided meaningful roles in church ministries, noisy members and a host of reasons.
     "I walked away in fourth grade after watching how some church bullies treated a friend of mine while we were on a church-sponsored trip. I decided I did not want to attend a church where people were mean to other people. This was difficult for my grandmother and grandfather, an associate minister in our church and the son of a minister. I found my own way back to my home church after visiting the Baptist church my best friend attended in seventh grade. After visiting my friend's church a few times, I asked my grandmother if our home church had some of the ministries I saw at my friend's church. I returned to my home church in seventh grade and avoided that particular group of church bullies through high school."
Responding to the News
This is a good time to remind ourselves that all people -- including those with whose lifestyle and values we disagree -- are valued in God's eyes, and to consider how that should affect our treatment of such persons.
This is also a good time to review what efforts we make as individuals and as a congregation to bring those who have wandered from the church back into the fellowship.
Closing Prayer

Thank you, O Lord, that you seek us even before we think to seek you, and that you offer saving grace. We pray that you will help those in a position to bring an end to the conflict in Afghanistan to do all they peaceably can to bring that about. In Jesus' name. Amen.

When Religious Conscientiousness Goes Into Overdrive, Anxiety and Dysfunction May Follow

© 2014 The Wired Word 

www.thewiredword.com

In the News
Last week, the CNN website published an article titled "Religious OCD: 'I'm Going to Hell,'" a description of a condition present in some religious people that keeps them from the joys of their faith and causes them to dwell in fear of personal sin and punishment from God.
The condition, called both "religious obsessive-compulsive disorder" (religious OCD) and "scrupulosity," is a subset of the more general obsessive-compulsive disorder. The article's author, Elizabeth Landau, explained that OCD "involves unwanted thoughts ('obsessions') and accompanying behaviors called compulsions that patients use to reduce anxiety." In the scrupulosity form of OCD, Landau said, "the obsessions have a religious or moral underpinning."

Wikipedia describes scrupulosity as "a psychological disorder characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues. It is personally distressing, objectively dysfunctional and often accompanied by significant impairment in social functioning. It is typically conceptualized as a moral or religious form of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) ...."
Landau cities Jonathan Abramowitz, a psychology professor from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He pointed out that people with religious OCD often believe their thoughts are "morally equivalent to actions." He noted that "scrupulosity [effectively] means 'fearing sin where there is none.'" And, he said, scrupulosity sufferers are "walking around with this black cloud of 'I'm going to hell.'"
Landau also tells the stories of two women, one Jewish and one Christian, who became obsessed in childhood with fears about religious shortcomings and developed compulsive religious rituals in unsuccessful attempts to counter those fears. Their compulsions interfered with their family and other relationships, and they were frequently ridden with anxiety. Later, as adults, both sought and received therapy that helped them deal with their religious OCD in healthier ways, thus improving their lives, their outlooks and their ability to experience the blessings of their religious faith.
One of the things they had to confront was their fear of uncertainty. Abramowitz believes that "faith is about being comfortable with your beliefs even if you can't have a 100 percent guarantee about things like hell, whether there is really a God or what it means to be faithful enough. You're taught to have faith, even though you cannot have scientific proof."
For purposes of today's lesson, we think it is important to move beyond the discussion of scrupulosity as a diagnosis. It is, perhaps, an extreme form of religious conscientiousness, but many Christians, without reaching such dysfunctional extremes, still wrestle with matters of a tender conscience and seek to know at what point devotion to God goes beyond what God asks of us.
In her article, Landau mentioned that some historians have suggested that certain giants of Christian history, including John Climacus, St. Ignatius of Loyola and Martin Luther might have been afflicted with religious OCD.
But, at least regarding Luther, TWW team member James Gruetzner comments, "As I recall his history, the times when he might've been what we consider excessive today were when he was in his late teens and his 20s -- more reflective of the emotional and spiritual development of a person becoming an adult than of any significant psychological (or mental) problem. Certainly it did not interfere with his functioning in society. I don't think it's at all uncommon -- or particularly worthy of labeling as a mental problem -- for adolescents and younger adults to be rather intense in some aspects of life. ... some of the examples in the article were of teens who seemed to have outgrown it."
Gruetzner added, "I tend to see a lot of the pop psychology as forgetting that people are on a continuum and, in most cases, not necessarily stuck on one place. Those who do get stuck at an extreme would need to seek special help, while most people, as part of growing up, are better helped by Christian friends, especially the older-and-wiser. How to do each as required -- identifying and encouraging special (professional) help when needed, or just providing help as a friend -- may not be clear at all times.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Religious OCD: 'I'm Going to Hell.' CNN
Scrupulosity. International OCD Foundation
The Big Questions
1. To what degree -- if any -- is Christianity a matter of dos and don'ts? How hard should we work to stay within those boundaries? What should we do, if anything, about inadvertent failures to observe the dos and don'ts?
2. Is "pious devotion" another term for OCD behavior? Defend your answer. If you are disciplined in your devotional life, might others interpret this as OCD behavior? Is this a fair characterization?
3. In terms of practicing our faith, is it possible to be obsessively conscientious? If not, why not? If so, can the matter of being saved by grace be, in addition to redemption, a deliverance from obsessive conscientiousness?
4. How should the expression "Let your conscience be your guide" be adapted, if at all, for people who are following Jesus? When you let your conscience be your guide, whom should you rely on to test your conscience?
5. Who should decide whether a person's fervent prayer and devotional life is normal or obsessive-compulsive? How can the church help in this decision?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Psalm 119:1
Happy are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD. (For context, read 119:1-8.)
Psalm 119 is in praise of God's law (Torah). The psalm is a good example of how important a certain -- and dare we say {ITALIC}healthy -- level of scrupulosity can be: It helps provide order in a chaotic world. Psalm 119 is an acrostic of acrostics -- 22 stanzas of eight lines each, each stanza in turn beginning with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet -- in alphabetical order -- and each of the eight lines in each stanza begins with the same letter of the alphabet. (Not surprisingly, this is more apparent in the original Hebrew, but if you look at Psalm 119 in the NIV, CEB or NASB Bible, you'll see the actual Hebrew letter as a heading over each eight-verse block.)
Additionally, each of the 176 lines in this psalm (except for vv. 2, 37, 90 and 122) uses one of the eight synonyms for God's Torah: law, decrees, precepts, statutes, commandments, ordinances, word, promise. In that regard, although we have chosen to quote verse 1 above, we could have chosen almost any verse from this psalm as a sample.
Questions: When have you found the repeating or habitual religious structures, such as rituals, formulaic prayers, daily devotions, weekly church attendance, etc., helpful in maintaining spiritual order and blessings in your life? When have such things gotten in the way of hearing God's new word for you?
How meticulous are you in your life of prayer and devotion? Do you use a printed guide? Do you follow an outline from a book or other source? What do you think are the advantages to the way you approach prayer?
Matthew 11:28-30
Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (For context, read 11:25-30.)
Many of the common people who heard Jesus carried the burden of an uneasy conscience. Many of them had been taught by the Pharisees and some rabbis a strict and legalistic interpretation of the 613 commandments stated in God's laws given through Moses. These interpretations created a body of requirements much larger than the original laws themselves. It was such a formidable mass of regulation that only a full-time legal specialist could hope to know -- and fulfill -- them all.
The result was that the common people often unknowingly violated one of these interpretations. For the most sincere and devout in their attempts to be faithful to the laws, a guilty conscience must have been a common experience. Some people may have been exhausted in their efforts to satisfy the demands of legalism.
Perhaps it was to such people that Jesus addressed the words above. We who are overwhelmed with responsibilities may hear these words as a call to find relaxation in Jesus. But in the original setting, Jesus' invitation was not addressing the work-burdened. For that matter, he was not addressing the sin-burdened either. He was speaking to those who were trying to live holy lives under the enormous burden of keeping all of those rules the Pharisees had laid on them. They were the "law-burdened."
In comparison to that, Jesus' burden is light. He didn't come to do away with God's laws given through Moses, but to fulfill them by giving them the ultimate interpretation. In fact, his interpretation could be boiled down to two: "Love the Lord with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus didn't mean that God's laws had no value. But he likely meant that the scrupulous attempt to reduce every law to a restrictive set of behaviors missed the point.
He was addressing those who had felt inward moral disapproval, not because they were intentionally doing wrong, but because they were trying to do right but were under constant judgment by an impossible -- and man-made -- standard. To paraphrase Jesus, he was saying, "Come to me, all you whose consciences bleed because you cannot achieve everything you believe is expected of you. And I will give you healing and inward peace."
Note that Jesus did not offer a life with no yoke at all. Freedom is preserved within protective boundaries, and a {ITALIC}healthy conscience is one such boundary.
The yoke of Jesus' day was a wooden collar made for two animals so that they could pull together as a team. The yoke of Jesus is not one he imposes on us, but one he wears with us. His words might be rephrased as "Become my yoke-mate, and learn how to pull the load by working beside me and watching how I do it. The heavy labor of life will seem lighter when you allow me to help you with it."
Questions: In what ways do you find Jesus' "yoke" hard to carry? In what ways do you find it light? In what ways do you feel that Jesus is helping you "pull" your load? Whom besides Jesus do you rely on to help bear this burden or yoke?
Luke 22:19
Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." (For context, read 22:14-20.)
Luke 24:30
When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. (For context, read 24:28-35.)
In the Luke 22 reference above, the gospel writer describes Jesus' actions at the Last Supper, in what became for his followers the institution of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion. In the Luke 24 verse, the gospel writer uses some of the same vocabulary to describe the resurrected Jesus sharing a meal with the two disciples he had joined on the road to Emmaus.
We suspect that Luke uses the same words deliberately, for he understood that in the presence of Jesus, certain actions and words (i.e., "rituals") become the markers of our spiritual lives. Luke says as much, for he says that after the meal with Jesus, the two believers sought out the 11 disciples and "told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread" (v. 35).
Questions: How can we be faithful in our worship so as to recognize Jesus' presence, without fixating on ritualistic acts for our salvation? What litanies or religious practices have been most helpful to you? Where do you see Jesus in the midst of your church's practices?
Galatians 2:16
... yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. (For context, read 2:15-21.)
For those of us who want a guarantee that if we just do certain things perfectly correctly, all will be well with us spiritually, it's good to hear these words from Paul. We are justified by faith, not by works.
Questions: Apply this verse to your own life. What does it mean to you? How do faith and works come together? Where do you draw the line between faith and works in your life of faith? Where do you observe others drawing that line?
1 Thessalonians 5:16-18
Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. (For context, read 5:11-22.)
When Paul advised that we should pray without ceasing, we doubt that he meant we should fixate on praying to the point of compulsion. Rather, he likely meant that being in touch with God regularly is important to the spiritual life and for discovering God's will.
Questions: How can we tell what is a sign from God and what is not? How does salvation come into play? How practical is it to seek to pray without ceasing? Do you tell people you are praying for them all the time whether you are or not? What form does prayer take when it is a constant presence in your life? What are the markers (that others might mistake for OCD behaviors) in your prayer life?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from a TWW team member: "[Until] reading the [scrupulosity] article, I have never considered that one's religious fervor could be considered OCD. Yet, I know in my own journey as a younger Christian that, while I do not see it as OCD, legalism and expectation from the evangelical subculture made me feel that I was not spiritual enough because of my personal struggles. It did produce anxiety, and I guess I was 50 years old before I could ever relax in grace."
2. Respond to this, heard in a sermon: "Faith is not synonymous with certainty; it is synonymous with commitment. Christian faith is not saying, 'I know the truth'; rather it is saying, 'I am entrusting myself to Christ.'"
3. Discuss this, from a TWW team member: "I have had a chance to work with two individuals with religious OCD or scrupulosity, as it is called. These have been hard conversations, and I have actually had to encourage these two to attend church less and help them think that not everything is spiritual. Many moments in their lives were taken as spiritual signs, and the overarching focus was typically on hell and sin. Tough conversations, so this topic hits a few ministry moments for me."
4. Comment on this, from TWW team member James Gruetzner, as quoted in the "In the News" section above: "Those who do get stuck at an extreme would need to seek special help, while most people, as part of growing up, are better helped by Christian friends, especially the older-and-wiser. How to do each as required -- identifying and encouraging special (professional) help when needed, or just providing help as a friend -- may not be clear at all times."
5. In the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, that old statesman tells of living at a boarding house in England in his younger years. There was another boarder, a single woman of 70, who lived up in the garret. As a young woman, she had lived in a convent somewhere in Europe and intended to become a nun, but for some reason, the country did not agree with her, and she returned to England. But she vowed to live as much like a nun as she could. Accordingly, she had given all her estate to charity, keeping only a small amount to live on, and then she regularly gave away even much of that, living on a watery gruel. She was so saintly that the owners of the house let her live there for free, actually deeming it a blessing to have her in the house. Every day, a priest came to hear her confession. Her landlady wondered how the old woman could possibly have anything to confess daily, and asked her about it. The woman said, "Oh, it is impossible to avoid vain thoughts." What observations would you make about this woman?
Responding to the News
It may be that the uneasy conscience is more prevalent among those who attend church regularly than among the population at large, for we are people who really try to understand what it means to live righteously. The burden of undeserved guilt often comes to those who really try to do what they understand as right.
It would be good for us to consider how we use the words "must," "should," "ought" and the like, both with ourselves and when speaking to other Christians, as in statements that start, "To please God, you must ..." or "As a Christian, you ought to ...."
Of course, there are some things that Christians must, should and ought to do, but our reliance on such words to describe our religion may be a cue that we have allowed things to get out of balance in our spiritual lives, and that we have forgotten about grace, mercy and "come unto me, all you that are weary ...."
Closing Prayer

O God, help us to grasp that the yoke Jesus invites us to share is not an intimidating list of dos and don'ts, and that you do not wish to relate to us primarily as a judge. Let our gift to you be not a guilty conscience but a joyful acceptance of your mercy and love. Thank you for giving us, through Jesus, ready admission into your presence. In Jesus' name. Amen.