Young Atheists Tell What Turned Them Away From Christianity: Learnings for the Church?

© 2013 The Wired Word 

www.thewiredword.com 

A recent project to interview students at several American colleges and universities who self-identify as atheists has concluded that a key reason many young people leave Christianity is because they do not encounter strong, convinced, proselytizing Christians in the churches they attend during their teen years.
The project was undertaken by staff of the Fixed Point Foundation, a nonprofit group that describes its mission as "to seek innovative ways to defend and proclaim the Gospel and to prepare Christians to do the same."
While the project's findings seem significant, it does not appear to be a "study" in the sense of interviewing a representative sample with numerical tallies being recorded and measured against a control group. The report of the project, written by Fixed Point's executive director Larry Alex Taunton and published last month in The Atlantic, describes general conclusions but does not tell how many colleges were visited or the number of students interviewed. The Wired Word has not yet received a response to its request to Fixed Point Foundation for such details.
Nonetheless, the report refers to a spread of colleges and universities across the country and to "a flood of enquiries" from students willing to be interviewed, so we assume the responses are reasonably representative. According to Taunton's article, Fixed Point contacted campus atheist groups seeking volunteer participants. These groups, described in the report as "atheist equivalents to Campus Crusade," meet regularly for fellowship, to encourage one another in their unbelief and to proselytize. Their members "are people who are not merely irreligious; they are actively, determinedly irreligious," wrote Taunton.
In response, the foundation heard from many students willing to tell the story of their journey to unbelief. The volunteers ranged from "Stanford University to the University of Alabama-Birmingham, from Northwestern to Portland State."
"It was not our purpose to dispute their stories or to debate the merits of their views. Not then, anyway," said Taunton. "We just wanted to listen to what they had to say. And what they had to say startled us."
The project finding that's likely of most concern to congregations is that many of the "strategies" employed in churches for decades to engage teenagers are not particularly effective in making them disciples of Jesus Christ. As one student put it, "Church became all about ceremony, handholding and kumbaya."
The students reportedly spoke freely and willingly with the Fixed Point interviewers. The foundation gleaned seven broad themes from the participants' stories:
1. The participants had attended church. Most of the participants had chosen their unbelief position in reaction to Christianity.
2. The mission and message of their churches was vague. The participants heard a lot about community involvement, being good and doing good, but "seldom saw the relationship between that message, Jesus Christ and the Bible." As one student explained, "The connection between Jesus and a person's life was not clear."
3. They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life's difficult questions. Participants said they found church answers to questions about evolution vs. creation, sexuality, the reliability of the biblical text, Jesus as the only way and other topics unconvincing. Some said that church services "were largely shallow, harmless and ultimately irrelevant."
4. They expressed their respect for Christians who took the Bible seriously. The project concluded that church people shouldn't waste time worrying about whether the Christian message will turn youth off; youth respect people with conviction, provided they know what they are talking about. A political science major at Dartmouth said he was drawn to Christians who obviously believe their faith. "I really can't consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn't trying to convert me."
5. Ages 14-17 were decisive. Far from choosing unbelief in college, most of the participants said the decision took place during their high school years.
6. The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one. While students spoke of rational reasons for their move to atheism, many also described an emotional transition.
7. The Internet factored heavily into their conversion to atheism. None of the interviewees mentioned being influenced by the works of well-known atheists, but many gave vague references to YouTube videos and website forums.
Taunton spoke of the "lasting impressions" of these discussions: "That these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable. I again quote [a participant]: 'Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven't seen too much of that.'"
"Sincerity does not trump truth," Taunton added. "After all, one can be sincerely wrong. But sincerity is indispensable to any truth we wish others to believe. There is something winsome, even irresistible, about a life lived with conviction."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity. The Atlantic
Learning From Young Atheists: What Turned Them Off Christianity. Christian Post
What Larry Alex Taunton Learned from Atheists Isn't the Least Bit Surprising. Patheos (A response from an atheist)
Fixed Point Foundation website
The Big Questions
1. Do you agree that stronger, more authentic Christian people are the most influential evangelism means the church has? Why or why not? What do you think is more effective in maintaining faith in young people: stronger biblical arguments, stronger relationships or setting an example?
2. Can a Christian fulfill his or her calling without sharing the gospel with others? Explain your answer. How do you define faith sharing?
3. Name some things your church's youth group has done. What were those activities intended to teach teens? Do you think they accomplished that goal? What might have worked better?
4. If you had any struggles with unbelief, at what age did they occur? If you can identify what things helped you resolve your struggles in favor of faith, how might those things be replicated in youth ministry today?
5. What is the most important thing about being a Christian? In what ways have you conveyed this to young people in your church? To people outside your church?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Ecclesiastes 12:1
Remember your creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come, and the years draw near when you will say, "I have no pleasure in them" ... (No context needed.)
The author of Ecclesiastes struggled to find meaning in life, and along the way, he tried several means to find it, including self-indulgence, lavish spending and sensual pleasures. Of those, he pessimistically concluded "All is vanity and a chasing after wind" (1:14).
In the end, however, he did come to a few conclusions: Go your way, appreciate your family and passing pleasures, value wisdom and learning, and then this: "Remember your creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come, and the years draw near when you will say, 'I have no pleasure in them'" (12:1). In other words, start with God even while young, because God provides a baseline of meaning.
Questions: What might the author of Ecclesiastes say about how we should do youth ministry today? What might he say about how straightforward and passionate we should be about presenting the gospel message to teens? What might he say about church programs aimed at youth that include large entertainment components?
The author of Ecclesiastes is upfront about the apparent meaninglessness of much of what happens in life, but does not shy away from observing and describing it. How important is it to approach discussions about belief and doubt from a stance of realism? Are you tempted to gloss over or sugar-coat difficulties?
Acts 8:30
So Philip ran up to [the chariot] and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" (For context, read 8:26-39.)
The Philip in this story is not the apostle by that name, but one of the seven men chosen to assist the apostles in serving the church community (see Acts 6:1-5). Eventually, an angel directed this Philip to go to the Gaza road. There, he met an Ethiopian who was reading the book of Isaiah. So Philip asked him, "Do you understand what you are reading?" When the man said he did not, Philip began to interpret the text and led the man to Christ.
Questions: In what ways might the simple question, "Do you understand what you are reading/hearing/seeing?" be a touchstone for youth ministry? Have you ever been asked a basic faith question by a young person? How did you respond? Do you find yourself on occasion using religious jargon without explaining what you mean, and assuming that everyone is on the same page? How patient are you with others in their faith journey?
Hebrews 3:12-14 (The Message)
So watch your step, friends. Make sure there's no evil unbelief lying around that will trip you up and throw you off course, diverting you from the living God. For as long as it's still God's Today, keep each other on your toes so sin doesn't slow down your reflexes. If we can only keep our grip on the sure thing we started out with, we're in this with Christ for the long haul. (For context, read 3:7-19.)
In 3:7-11, the author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 95:7b-11 with its command "do not harden your hearts" (v. 8, cf. Psalm 95:8). Then, in the verses quoted above, he begins to sermonize on that theme from the psalm. He sees heart hardening as the result of "evil unbelief ... that will trip you up and throw you off course, diverting you from the living God."
While we may or may not want to call unbelief in and of itself "evil," from a Christian standpoint, if it turns a person away from God, it does that person eternal harm.
Question: Here in Hebrews, "unbelief" means unfaithfulness, not intellectual doubt, but how might the two be related?
Hebrews 5:12-14
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. (No context needed.)
Here, the author of Hebrews challenges his readers, who are not new Christians, to grow up spiritually. He finds them still needing the beginners' understanding of salvation, when, in his opinion, they ought to be ready for "solid food" -- a mature understanding of the faith.
One TWW team member recalls as a child attending a Vacation Bible School in a strongly evangelical church and coming away spiritually hungrier than she was before the week started: "I was encouraged to speak to the director of the VBS, which I did, telling her (in simpler terms, of course) that while I liked entertainment and fun as much as the next person, without the bread, milk and meat of the Word, it was just so much whipped cream fluff with empty calories that would leave children just as spiritually malnourished as those who had no access to spiritual food at all. I have no idea how the director reacted, but I believe many people are starving for better spiritual nutrition because parents and churches are afraid people will opt out of the church if we don't 'give them what they want,' the spiritual sugar, fat and caffeine that makes us bloated, lethargic, obese and unhealthy spiritually.
Another TWW team member recollects when their Sunday school adopted a new curriculum sight-unseen. While the lessons were entertaining, they were all "thou shalts" (Law) and no "Jesus did this for you" (gospel). He writes: The teachers ended up rewriting most of the lessons before use because the message was so off. It was dropped as soon as the subscription expired. Over a decade later, that curriculum is still around, which means that many congregations are using it, so it must have its adherents. But a Christianity without the need for Christ's atonement seems to be an oxymoron."
Questions: Is it possible that our own spiritual immaturity hinders our ability to share the gospel with our youth? Is it possible that our youth programs are feeding spiritual pablum when actually, teens are hungry for more substantial spiritual food? How might we determine when the full gospel should be plainly taught? Is there a condescending attitude in our approach with young people and new believers? Are we as ready to learn as to explain?
Revelation 3:15-16
I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth. (For context, read 3:14-21.)
This is part of the risen Christ's message to the church at Laodicea, and it's not complimentary. The church was not doing anything that's outright evil or patently wrong, but it was "neither cold nor hot." In the ancient world, "cold" did not mean "passive" and "hot" did not mean "enthusiastic" or "passionate"; rather cold and hot were used in the sense of "against me" and "for me."
And that was the problem. An outsider visiting the congregation would be unable to tell, from what was being said and done, what the members really believed. Probably young people growing up in the congregation would have had the same problem.
Questions: What's the problem with a "lukewarm" faith? Isn't it better than none at all? There's a question we heard somewhere that asks, "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" How would you answer that? Is your faith a constant hot, cold or lukewarm? What causes changes in "temperature" for you?
For Further Discussion
1. Even if a church does everything in the best possible way in ministry with youth, there's no guarantee that a young person now in the church will not eventually embrace unbelief. But how might that exposure to the full gospel nonetheless function in that person's life, even if the person chooses atheism?
2. Respond to this, from a TWW team member: "I think we need to acknowledge that if we wait until our kids are adolescents to try to build their faith, we've already missed the boat. Scripture says, 'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it' (Proverbs 22:6, KJV). We need to address what constitutes effective Christian education for children. Some churches do nothing more in their children's ministry than babysit and entertain their charges. Why then would we expect our children to view the Christian faith as anything they should take seriously when we don't take it seriously ourselves?"
3. Read some of the reactions to the "Listening to Young Atheists" article at Ship of Fools, and invite class members to respond.
Responding to the News
This is an appropriate time to evaluate how your present youth ministry activities communicate the gospel message and faithfully address the deep questions of life.
Closing Prayer

O God, help us to share our faith intelligently, effectively and in ways that reveal what it really means to us. In Jesus' name. Amen.

J.K. Rowling Unmasked as Author of "Galbraith" Debut Novel

© 2013 The Wired Word 

www.thewiredword.com 

In J.K. Rowling's popular Harry Potter books, the aparecium spell makes invisible writing and possibly other invisible things appear. In an aparecium of sorts, Rowling herself has now been made visible as the author of a new crime novel, The Cuckoo's Calling.
The novel had been released earlier this year as a "debut" book by a former British military man named Robert Galbraith.
The book received surprisingly good reviews for a first-time novelist, but eventually the British newspaper The Sunday Times did some investigating and decided on the basis of word and style analysis, along with the fact that "Galbraith" and Rowling share both a literary agent and a publisher, that it was Rowling's work. After the paper published its conclusion last Sunday, Rowling 'fessed up.
"I hoped to keep this secret a little longer because being Robert Galbraith has been such a liberating experience," Rowling said in a statement released by her publicist. "It has been wonderful to publish without hype or expectation, and pure pleasure to get feedback from publishers and readers under a different name."
The book has since become an overnight bestseller, and the initial print run has sold out. Reprints will include a revised author biography with the statement "Robert Galbraith is a pseudonym for J.K. Rowling,"
The noted American author Stephen King, who wrote several early novels under the pseudonym Richard Bachman but was eventually outed, told USA Today that in these days of the Internet, keeping a popular author's identity hidden is "an impossible secret to keep for long."
But King added that Rowling "is right about one big thing -- what a pleasure, what a blessed relief, to write in anonymity, just for the joy of it."
Still, said King, "Now that I know, I can't wait to read the book."
More on this story can be found at these links:
J.K. Rowling Unmasked as Secret Author of Widely Praised Crime Novel. Slate
Aparecium! J.K. Rowling Revealed As 'Cuckoo' Mystery Author. NPR
Stephen King Cheers J.K. Rowling's Try for 'Anonymity.' USA Today
The Big Questions
1. In what ways does God sometimes work "behind the scenes"? What enables you to recognize his activity?
2. When and in what ways have you benefitted from the work of an unknown Christian?
3. When has a willingness to not receive credit for your efforts enabled something helpful to occur for others?
4. Under what circumstances is anonymity not a good thing?
5. When have you been the beneficiary of an anonymous gift? Have you ever felt supported by prayers even though you had not been notified that you were being prayed for or about who might be praying for you? Have you ever given anonymously to help another through the church or other agencies?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope 
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Esther 4:14
For if you keep silence at such a time as this, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter, but you and your father's family will perish. Who knows? Perhaps you have come to royal dignity for just such a time as this. (For context, read 4:1-17.)
The biblical book of Esther contains the story of a royal decree that Jewish people living in the Persian Empire were to be killed, and how Queen Esther, a Jew herself, though the king didn't know it, saved them by intervening with the king (a dangerous act, depending on the king's mood). The line above is spoken by Esther's relative Mordecai, suggesting that maybe the whole reason Esther had been selected by the king to be his queen was so she could be in the right place to avert the crisis and save her people.
Note that Mordecai says nothing about God having arranged all of this. In fact, the name of God is not mentioned anywhere in the book of Esther. Yet when Mordecai says that if Esther does not help, "deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter," he's likely expressing confidence that God is active behind the scenes and will bring about deliverance for the Jews by other means.
Martin Luther spoke of "the hidden God," whose actions are the opposite of what is patently visible. For example, Jesus' death appears to be defeat, but in it, we are saved.
Questions: What are some signs that God is active in the events of this world? Where do you hope God is working? Where do you think God is most needed? Are some people, in your opinion, better able to receive help from God when they don't know God is involved?
Matthew 6:3-4
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (For context, read 6:1-6.)
These verses are about deliberately practicing anonymity, but their teaching (along with all that Jesus said in the surrounding verses) is that "reward" is not earning God's favor or receiving recognition from others but experiencing God's blessing.
One TWW team member, whom we'll allow to remain anonymous, comments that Matthew 6:3-4 causes this member to think about how our tithes are used. The member says, "I like the idea that my offering is doing God's work, whether that is paying for the overhead of the church or assisting the many charities that the church supports. In some way, it takes me out of the driver's seat of how my tithe should be spent and puts it in God's hands. I feel blessed with the anonymity of this as the one who tithes and relieved that I don't have to make these decisions."
Questions: In what ways have you been blessed by quietly and genuinely meeting someone else's need? Do you derive more satisfaction from giving anonymously, or from getting to see the face of a recipient when they know you are the giver? Many churches have books or plaques that honor those who give memorial gifts. Do you think this text speaks to their situations? What helps us determine which gifts should be anonymous?
Does giving anonymously give some people the freedom to act according to their choice? Does giving anonymously have something to do, in your opinion, with preventing oneself from being inundated by requests from others?
Mark 1:44-45
[Jesus said,] "See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them." But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter. (For context, read 1:40-45.)
Early in Jesus' work, a man with leprosy came and asked Jesus to heal him. Jesus did, but then he asked the healed man to "say nothing to anyone." Clearly Jesus did not want to be identified primarily as a healer. Nonetheless, the man proclaimed what Jesus had done, and so many people then came to him for healing as well that he "could no longer go into a town openly." Jesus was likely concerned that the clamor for healing would keep people from hearing his proclamation of the gospel. Yet, because of his compassion, he did not turn those needing healing away.
Question: When would anonymity about your good deeds free you to do other good things as well?
Mark 14:12-15
[Jesus'] disciples said to him, "Where do you want us to go and make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?" So he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." (For context, read 14:12-16.)
Commenting to this text, preacher Halford Luccock writes, "Notice ... that this householder was anonymous. What a figure in church history ['Anonymous'] has been .... Poet, composer, saint. Turn to your hymnal and look up the hymns 'Anonymous' has written. ... 'Come Thou Almighty King,' 'O Come, All Ye Faithful,' ... 'Fairest Lord Jesus,' and a score of others. How many anonymous people there are in the New Testament -- the centurion who had great faith, the town clerk of Ephesus, a gallery of great souls. They are the hope of the world." Likewise, when God works in the world, it is often done by "Anonymous." "There are no near limits to what a person may accomplish if [he or she] does not care who gets the credit," says Luccock.
Questions: How do you feel about  Luccock's statement that "There are no near limits to what a person may accomplish if [he or she] does not care who gets the credit"? Why do you think he said "near limits"?
John 21:20-24
Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. (For context, read 21:20-25.)
The "disciple whom Jesus loved" is an anonymous person in the New Testament. This disciple was almost certainly a man, since he was present at the Last Supper, which by custom at that time would not have included women, but beyond that, we can only guess at his identity. Nonetheless, as the text above explains, he was the eyewitness behind the gospel of John, so that gospel was based on his testimony. Despite the misunderstanding mentioned in the text about him not dying, the way this disciple "remained" with the community was that his testimony would live on and continue to be heard and read in John's gospel.
Because this disciple is referred to using this terminology only in the gospel of John, he is sometimes assumed to be John, but others think not. John was from Galilee, but after Jesus committed the care of his mother to this beloved disciple, he took Mary to his home, which allowed her to remain near Jerusalem (John 19:26-27; Acts 1:14). Thus, this disciple's home was likely in or near Jerusalem, not far away in Galilee. Based on this, some have surmised that he was Mark or Lazarus or the owner of the upper room or some other follower of Jesus who was not one of the Twelve.
Questions: While the possible identity of the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is of interest to Bible students, does it matter in terms of believing his testimony as recorded in the book of John? Why or why not? How have you benefited from John's gospel specifically?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this: Regarding being helped without knowing the source, consider the story of the poem "The Touch of the Master's Hand." It was written by Myra Brooks Welch (1878-1959), a church musician at the Church of the Brethren in LaVerne, California. After she developed crippling arthritis at a relatively young age and could no longer play music, she took up writing poetry by grasping pencils in her gnarled hands, eraser side down, and plunking out her verse on manual typewriters. After the poem was published in the February 26, 1921, issue of the Gospel Messenger, it was copied and recited over and over again, usually attributed to "Anonymous." Welch took that in good humor, but her most famous poem was almost never credited to her. Yet it did great good, having inspired many. (NOTE: We are not suggesting that people's creations should be usurped simply because those works can do some good. Copyright laws enable many people to make their living, and should be respected.)
2. Have you heard the saying, "A miracle is a coincidence in which God chooses to remain anonymous"? Fittingly, the source of the saying is unknown. Is the saying helpful? Why or why not?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to consider where a concern for receiving credit is interfering with something God is calling you to do.
Closing Prayer

Thank you, O Lord, for all the anonymous people through the centuries who have passed the knowledge about and testimony to the Christian faith on to us. Enable us to do all the good we can in the spirit of Christian charity and grace. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Crash of Asiana Flight 214: When Does "Oh My God" Become a Prayer?

© 2013 The Wired Word 

www.thewiredword.com 

Last Saturday, Fred Hayes, a self-described "aviation buff," and his wife Gina were watching planes land at San Francisco International Airport. Shortly before noon, he noticed a Boeing 777 approaching for a landing. The video Hayes was shooting at the time captured his voice as he said to his wife, "Look at that one! Look how its nose is up in the air."
At that instant, the tail section of the plane, Asiana Flight 214, suddenly hit the seawall that separated the runways from the bay and broke off.
On the video, Hayes can be heard exclaiming, "Oh my god! It's an accident!"
The rest of the plane careened out of control, cartwheeled down the runway and eventually came to rest right side up.
As all this was happening, Hayes uttered "Oh my god!" five more times, with his inflection changing as what he was seeing began to sink in. In fact, here at The Wired Word, we are inclined to spell his last couple of repetitions as "O my God," for as we listened, it seemed to us that what started as exclamations of surprise had become something prayerful. The last thing Hayes can be heard saying on the video is "O Lord have mercy."
The plane, with 307 souls on board, had originated in Shanghai, China. Despite the horrific crash and extensive destruction of the plane, the crew and most of the passengers were able to escape before the aircraft erupted in flames and smoke.
Two teenage girls, however, were killed, and 182 other people were hospitalized with injuries ranging from severe scrapes to paralysis. Investigators are looking into reports that one of the teenage girls may have died from being run over by an emergency vehicle responding to the accident.
Hayes' video is the only known footage of the tragedy. When CNN later interviewed him, he said he and his wife initially assumed everybody on board was "in bad shape," but added that they were happy to learn that "not everybody on the plane lost their life." He's wearing sunglasses, so you can't see his eyes, but he appeared to be having some trouble with his composure.
Hayes' words while witnessing the crash reminded us of a report about a flight attendant on American Flight 11, the first plane to be rammed into the World Trade Center on 9/11. She was Madeline Amy Sweeney, the 35-year-old mother of two small children. As the hijacking was underway, Sweeney, in the rear of the plane, managed to phone an American flight service manager in Boston. With remarkable calm, she told the manager what was happening, and identified the hijackers by their seat numbers. Sweeney reported that two flight attendants had been stabbed and that a business-class passenger had been killed by a hijacker who cut the man's throat. Moments before 8:46 a.m., she spoke of seeing water and buildings. And then, after a brief pause while she apparently grasped what was about to happen, came her last transmission. She exclaimed, "O my God! O my God!"
More on this story can be found at these links:
Asiana Flight 214 Was Traveling Slower Than Recommended on Landing. CNN (includes Hayes' video and interview)
"Large, Brief Fireball," As Plane Landed. CNN
The Big Questions
1. Because "Oh my god" is so much a "throwaway" and even profane expression among many people today (and "OMG!" is likewise a throwaway while texting), what determines when or if it becomes a prayer?
2. Think about the expressions "God bless you" and "God damn you." Both expressions appear to be making a request of God, so are both a prayer? Explain your answer. (In Hebrew, barak can be translated as both "bless" and "curse," depending on the context. In Job 2:9, Job's wife is generally quoted as advising Job to "curse God, and die," but it can just as easily be translated "bless God, and die.")
3. Why do so many expletives employ sacred names? What does this say about the power of the Divine Name that it is used in cursing, even by nonbelievers? Is there a curse as powerful that does not involve faith-related terms?
4. What is the primary difference between something that is secular and something that is sacred?
5. When, if ever, have you said something like "Oh my god" thoughtlessly? If you do not use this phrase, what do you say instead? Do you say anything when you hear someone say "Oh my god" thoughtlessly?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Exodus 20:7
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. (For context, read 20:1-17.)
Leviticus 22:32
You shall not profane my holy name, that I may be sanctified among the people of Israel: I am the LORD; I sanctify you ... (For context, read 22:31-33.)
Exodus 20:7 is one of the Ten Commandments. Note that "LORD" is rendered in all-capital letters, which is the way most English Bible translations denote the underlying Hebrew name of God, Yahweh. In ancient Hebrew, only consonants, and not vowels, were used to reproduce the name, and so, transliterated, it was written as YHWH. The Israelites considered this name too sacred to even say, and so they used substitutes, such as adonai ("my Lord") or "the name." Some devout Jews today write God as G-d so as not to profane the Almighty.
When later Jews inserted vowel markers into the Hebrew consonants, they put the vowels from adonai into YHWH. Translators in a later era were confused by the result, YaHoVai, and thought the sacred name was Jehovah. But there is no such word in Hebrew.
In Leviticus 22:32, when God tells the Israelites not to "profane" his name, he's not particularly talking about profanity in the sense of cuss words, although what he's saying can be applied to our vocabulary. In the Bible, when the words "hallowed," "holy" and "sacred" are used, they denote that the practice or object in question is separated from common use and dedicated for the worship of God. The sacred thing is secured against violation by reverence and a sense of right.
The opposite word from "holy" is "profane," which, in its original sense, meant not something vulgar, but something "common" or "for everyday use." It was a synonym for "secular." "Profane" is from the Latin word profanus, which means "in front of the temple" or "outside the holy place." Thus, to profane something was to use in a common way that which was set apart for holy use.
In Ezekiel 36:21, God charges disobedient Israel with profaning his name among the nations.
Questions: Why do you think the name of God is no longer held in such high regard in our culture? What has allowed it to become for many people a curse word?
Psalm 38:21-22
Do not forsake me, O LORD; O my God, do not be far from me; make haste to help me, O Lord, my salvation. (No context necessary.)
Matthew 26:74
Then [Peter] began to curse, and he swore an oath, "I do not know the man!" (For context, read 26:69-75.)
In the Psalm 38 verse above, there is no question but what the psalmist is saying "O my God" in a prayerful way.
The Matthew 26 verse is about Peter's denying that he was one of Jesus' companions. The verse doesn't tell us what curses and oaths he used, but if he were in our culture today, Peter might have said, "Oh my god! I do not know the man!"
Questions: What is there within us that causes "Oh my god!" or "O my God!" to leap to our lips in moments of anxiety or terror? In such moments, can it be both expressions at the same time? Why? What do you say at times of stress? At such times, when you intentionally address God, what are you likely to say?
Mark 10:47
[Bartimaeus shouted,] "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" (For context, read 10:46-52.)
Luke 18:13
[The tax collector said,] "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" (For context, read 18:9-14.)
Luke 23:42
[The dying thief said,] "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." (For context, read 23:32, 39-43.)
All three of these speakers were praying a form of the short prayer "Lord have mercy."
Regarding Hayes' verbal expressions while filming the plane crash, TWW team member Heidi Mann says, "It seems to me that to say 'Oh my god' might be an easy automatic exclamation because it is so commonly heard these days that it gets in your head -- whether you want it to or not -- and can easily come forth in a time of anxiety. But for someone to exclaim 'Lord, have mercy,' it seems they'd have to have been exposed to it in some specific way, such as through liturgy and/or knowledge of the Bible (as in Bartimaeus calling out to Jesus)."
She adds, "When I was a young pastor, our youth director's baby died at full-term but still in utero; it was discovered later that the umbilical cord got kinked and oxygen was cut off. When I first learned the news, all I could say was 'Lord, have mercy.'"
Questions: What kind of merciful responses have you had to your prayers? When have you experienced depths or heights so profound that your prayer does not require a response, but is simply an acknowledgment of God?
Luke 23:46
Then Jesus ... said, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." (For context, read 23:44-46.)
In his sermon "When Nothing More Can Be Done" (Sermons on the First Readings, Year C, 2006-2007, CSS Publishing) TWW team member Stan Purdum writes, "In an instant when we suddenly comprehend that nothing more can be done, that things really are ending, from somewhere deep inside us sometimes comes the realization that the only refuge we have left is God himself. And there may only be time for the briefest of prayers: 'O my God!'
"When all else is gone, that is our only plea, our only prayer, our only affirmation of faith and our only claim on eternity. 'O my God, receive me!' It was the prayer of Jesus on the cross -- 'Father, into your hands I commend my spirit' -- and it is ours. Commending ourselves to God is what can be done -- the only thing that can be done -- when nothing more can be done.
"Thank God."
Questions: Is "Thank God" a satisfying response to the realization that in the end, commending ourselves to God is the only thing that can be done? Why or why not?
For Further Discussion
1. Comment on this, from a TWW team member: "Some churches use the ancient words of liturgy such as 'Lord, have mercy' and 'Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace.' Some churches -- even within historically liturgical denominations -- don't. Presently, our family attends an ELCA church that does not use the liturgy; I lament that, but we remain with the congregation for other sound reasons. Still, the fact that my boys are not infused weekly with those ancient words saddens me. The words of the liturgy can give Christians a common language when no other words fit the moment (as in the case of the plane crash)."
2. Respond to this: Confessional, a spy thriller by Jack Higgins, is set in the 1980s. The plot involves a Soviet spy, Mikhail Kelly, who has been planted in Northern Ireland for 20 years, using the identity Father Harry Cussane, a Roman Catholic priest. In that role, he performs the tasks of ministry, says the Mass and so forth. But in his real identity, he assassinates both Catholic and Protestant leaders to keep the strife between the groups stirred up and derail any peace initiatives. In time, however, Moscow's goals change, Kelly becomes an inconvenient loose end and they decide to eliminate him. Kelly discovers this and, in a last act of desperation, decides to assassinate the pope, who is visiting England.
    In the final scene, Kelly manages to get into a chapel where the pope is alone, praying. When Kelly, gun in hand, approaches His Holiness, the pope says to him, quite calmly, "You are Father Harry Cussane."
    "You are mistaken," the killer replies. "I am Mikhail Kelly. Strolling player of sorts."
    "You are Father Harry Cussane," the pope says relentlessly. "Priest then, priest now, priest eternally. God will not let you go."
    "No," Kelly shouts, "I refuse it." He aims the gun at the Holy Father and begins to squeeze the trigger.
    At that second, a policewoman who's been on Kelly's trail, bursts into the room and shoots Kelly twice. He falls to the floor, mortally wounded. The pontiff then kneels beside his would-be assassin and gently takes the gun from his hand. He says to him, "I want you to make an act of contrition. Say after me: O my God, who art infinitely good in thyself ..."
    The gunman says, "Oh my God ..." and then dies. (In the book, while both versions of the expression include a capital "G" on God, they are distinguished by the "O" in the pope's use of the phrase and the "Oh" in the gunman's use of it.)
3. Comment on this: There is a 17th-century devotional classic titled The Practice of the Presence of God, written by a lay monk named Nicholas Herman but known in the monastery as Brother Lawrence. He was assigned to work in the kitchen of the monastery. He gave himself to paying attention to God's presence even while going about his kitchen duties. He found himself more and more able to do this and eventually found "That time of business does not with me differ from the time of prayer, and in the noise and clatter of my kitchen, while several persons are at the same time calling for different things, I enjoy God in as great tranquility as if I were upon my knees at the blessed sacrament."
Responding to the News
This is a good time to review how you reverence God in your daily life, including in the verbal expressions you use.
Closing Prayer

"Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to you, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer." --Psalm 19:14

Christians React to SCOTUS Rulings on DOMA and Prop 8

© 2013 The Wired Word 

www.thewiredword.com 

 The two decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court affecting same-sex marriage last week have unleashed a flood of reactions from Christian leaders and laypeople that reflect both sides of the national debate on the issue.
Many Christians maintain true marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and would not describe other types of unions as "marriage." Some would deny those in same-sex relationships the legal benefits that those in mixed-gender marriages receive.
Many other Christians insist that the term "marriage" should be used to describe all legal unions, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and that the legal benefits of marriage should be available to partners in same-gender unions just as they are to partners in mixed-gender unions.
There are Christians who are somewhere in between these two views, holding, for example, that same-sex unions should be legal and that partners should have full benefits just as mixed-gender marriages provide, but that the same-sex unions should not be called "marriages."
Thus, some Christians consider the high court's ruling misguided and a step in the wrong direction while other Christians consider it a welcome step forward.
On Wednesday of last week, the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on a 5-4 vote. DOMA was a 1996 law passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton that forbade the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Under it, people in same-sex unions could not receive the federal benefits and tax breaks that people in mixed-gender marriages could. With DOMA ruled unconstitutional, gay legally married couples must now be treated the same as straight legally married couples in everything from Social Security checks to Pentagon benefits. Further, there is now no federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Also on Wednesday, the court dismissed on technical grounds an appeal that asked it to overturn a lower-court decision striking down the California Proposition 8 marriage law. The decision clears the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California. The ruling does not affect marriage laws in other states, but supporters of same-sex marriage consider that the ruling will be helpful as they seek to change marriage laws in their states.
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 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.
For example, Rev. Mike Boyd of Wallace Memorial Baptist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, regards the Supreme Court's decisions last Wednesday as "an absolute travesty for our nation." He bases this view on Scripture, and said, "The Bible is pretty clear what it has to say about this. Some people take things out of context and try to justify alternatives, but biblically, there are no alternatives."
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.
For example, Rev. Skip Lindeman of La Canada Congregational Church in La Canada Flintridge, California, views the court's decision as a sign of positive social progress. He said, "One thing I've preached about is don't look for scripture to justify your prejudice. Congregationalists believe God is still speaking, so don't place a period where God has placed a comma."
Among the developments in the last century that have fueled this debate among Christians are indications that some people may be born with same-sex orientation. If that is the case, some Christians reason, that means God made such persons that way, and thus the church should not oppose same-sex unions. Other Christians see this as further evidence of the Fall and the ubiquity of the sinful condition in human nature.
Many Christian denominations have responded to the born-that-way conclusion by distinguishing between same-sex orientation and same-sex relations. The Salvation Army, for example, offers the following position statement on homosexuality: "The Salvation Army does not consider same-sex orientation blameworthy in itself. Homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, requires individual responsibility and must be guided by the light of scriptural teaching. Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life."
Another reaction to the high court's rulings comes in the form of proposals that Christian clergy cease to act as agents of the state in making marriages legal. That is, pastors could hold a religious ceremony to bless the unions of any persons their church's polity permitted, but would not be the ones to sign marriage licenses and make the union "official," regardless of whether the couple was mixed-gender or same-gender; that would be up to civil authorities. Some religious leaders on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue have proposed this. The fact that a same-sex couple had a marriage license would not obligate a pastor who opposes same-sex marriage to bless their union. The fact that a same-sex couple could not get a marriage license (36 states still do not grant them) would not prevent a pastor who supports same-sex marriage from blessing their union.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Religious Leaders React to U.S. Supreme Court DOMA Ruling. Glendale News-Press
Christian Leaders Respond to DOMA Decision. Sojourners
Local Churches Offer Range of Reactions to DOMA Ruling. Knoxnews.com
The Real Fights Over Gay Marriage Are Just Starting. Religion News Service
Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony From the Civil Rite? The Gospel Coalition
The Big Questions
1. If the apostle Paul were alive today, and was aware of the conclusions of science about same-sex orientation, would he have a different view about same-sex unions than he had in the first century when he wrote Romans? Why or why not? What does your answer say about your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture?
2.  If your congregation generally opposes same-sex marriage, and if a same-sex couple who has been legally married were to visit your congregation, would you encourage them to continue to attend? If so, what would be your expectation about their involvement in your church? OR If your congregation generally supports same-sex marriage, and if people who are straightforward in their opposition to it were to visit, would you encourage them to continue to attend? If so, what would be your expectation about their involvement in your church? In either case, why?
3. Should the matter of making marriages legal be left to civil authorities and the matter of blessing unions be left to the church? How might separating the two functions affect how unchurched people view the church?
4. Should celibacy be the only option for Christians who have a same-sex orientation? Why or why not?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Matthew 16:18-19
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (For context, read 16:13-20.)
Jesus spoke these words to Peter after Peter had declared that Jesus was the Messiah (v. 16). Some take the "rock" in the verses to refer to Peter, but more likely it refers to Peter's confession of faith that Jesus is the Messiah -- a confession that all followers of Jesus make. At the same time, Jesus grants his followers great authority "to bind or to loose" -- that is, to interpret and implement his teachings.
Questions: How does our task of interpreting and implementing Jesus' teachings apply to societal changes that Jesus didn't address directly? What principles from Jesus should we use in interpreting the gospel for new circumstances?
John 16:12-13
I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (For context, read 16:5-15.)
The words above are part of several things Jesus said to his disciples at the Last Supper. Although Jesus knows that his time with them is about to come to an abrupt end, he does not try to stuff a lot of final instructions into the conversation. In fact, Jesus tells them, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."
Jesus isn't saying that they are resisting learning, but rather that they have not yet had the experiences that will enable them even to perceive what knowledge they will need. There are encounters ahead for them where they will need to know certain things, but from their present viewpoint, they can't even imagine what those things are. In essence, Jesus tells them, "There are some things I need to tell you, but you are not yet in a position to comprehend them."
But then Jesus tells them something that changes everything, and it explains why he is so calm. After he departs, Jesus says, the Holy Spirit will come to guide them and to convey to them what the Spirit hears from Jesus. In other words, Jesus is leaving his disciples with what they can handle at the moment and need for the present, but he is also telling them that when they need more from him, the Spirit is the "mechanism" that will provide it.
Questions: Can these comments from Jesus be applied to us as well? Is it possible that his reference to the Holy Spirit giving additional information means that new revelations from God continue to come to us? When and about what have you experienced this?
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. (For context, read 3:10-17.)
The apostle Paul wrote this to his younger co-worker Timothy. Even if we allow that Paul was referring to the Old Testament (since the New Testament hadn't been written yet), this is a powerful testimony to the authority of Scripture. Christians usually view these verses as applying to all the books that the church eventually included in the Bible in both testaments.
Questions: What, according to these verses, is the purpose of Scripture? What other means does God use to communicate with us?
James 2:8
You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (For context, read 2:1-13.)
This is one of several places where the New Testament quotes Leviticus 19:18 -- "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But here, James uses an unusual term in introducing it, calling it "the royal law." "Royal" is an accurate translation of the underlying Greek word basilikos, which refers to anything having to do with a king or his kingdom. In verse 5, James has just spoken of the poor who love God as those who are to inherit God's kingdom.
Thus, when James speaks of "the royal law," he means the law that applies in the kingdom of God. We know from the gospels as well from other early Christian writings that this "love your neighbor" commandment went back to the teachings of Jesus -- who highlighted it from Leviticus. Thus, in the Christian community, this commandment held a privileged place.
Coupled with the expression in verse 5, "those who love [God]," the royal law is complete, combining love of God and love of neighbor, isolated by Jesus as the central commandments (see Matthew 22:37-40).
Questions: Is "love" as used in this command a feeling or an action? What Christian resources help you to understand what loving your neighbor as yourself means? What helps you know how to apply it to circumstances the Bible doesn't discuss? What helps you to actually do it?
For Further Discussion
1. What does it mean to be living in a world where you apply your understanding of Christian teachings when the world is heading in a different direction? Consider, for example, Christian pacifists who opt out of military service based on their religious beliefs and the Amish, who choose not to engage the modern world of clothing, electricity and luxury. What effect do these choices have on the surrounding culture? What choices do you make to live as citizens of both this world and God's kingdom?
2. Respond to this, from TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey: "In 1949, when the Communists were seizing power in Czechoslovakia, my father and mother were married there in two separate ceremonies: one at city hall and one in the church. The secular rite was required by the state in order for the marriage to be recognized as legal, but it was the church ceremony that held the most spiritual meaning for them."
Responding to the News
Regardless of where you stand on the definition of marriage and who can marry whom, this is an important time to remember we are called to be followers of Jesus. Thus, it is vital that if we disagree with the culture around us, or even with other Christians, we do so in the spirit of Christ, remembering to love our neighbor as ourselves. This is not a time for hate.
Closing Prayer

Help us, O Lord, to be able to perceive your will. Keep us from using our viewpoint on same-sex marriage as a club with which to hurt others. Rather, let us use it as an opportunity to share the good news of the gospel in ways that honor Christ. In his name. Amen.

Supreme Court Defangs Historic Voting Rights Act

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that eliminated a formula applying a portion of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 to nine states and parts of several others. The ruling, with a 5-to-4 vote split along ideological lines, now frees these states and jurisdictions to change their election laws without advance federal permission.
Congress put the VRA in place during the height of the Civil Rights struggle to end practices in several states aimed at keeping racial minorities from voting. The act has been exceptionally effective in ending those discriminatory practices. It has also been criticized for its misuse, with the Justice Department having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in court sanctions for abusing the process.
The law had required Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, as well as  a number of counties and municipalities in other states, including three boroughs in New York City, to submit their voting rules to federal oversight.
The formula for which parts of the nation were covered by the VRA preclearance requirement was set with the passage of the bill in 1965 and was initially set to expire after five years, but the act has been reauthorized several times. Coverage turned on whether a jurisdiction had a voting test in the 1960s and had low voter registration or turnout among minorities at that time.
The coverage formula was last updated in 1975. Congress most recently reauthorized the whole bill in 2006 for 25 years, by large majorities -- 390 to 33 in the House and unanimous in the Senate. President George W. Bush signed the reauthorized bill into law.
The Supreme Court reviewed the law after officials in Shelby County, Alabama, challenged it, seeking a permanent injunction against its enforcement. The court did not strike down the whole law, but ruled that the section dealing with which states and jurisdictions were covered was unconstitutional because it is based on data that is nearly 40 years old (dating from the 1975 update).
"Our country has changed," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions." Critics of the VRA said that the preclearance requirement is a mark of shame for the affected jurisdictions and is no longer justified because it is based on seriously outdated data. The court's majority has now agreed with them.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the dissenters, argued that it should be up to Congress, using "appropriate legislation," to decide when the coverage formula should be changed. She noted that in 2006, "[w]ith overwhelming support in both Houses, Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, [the preclearance provision in the VRA] should continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made; and second, continuance would guard against backsliding. Those assessments were well within Congress' province to make and should elicit this Court's unstinting approbation."
Ginsburg also pointed to the acknowledgment in the majority opinion that discrimination still exists. She then said, "But the Court today terminates the remedy that proved to be best suited to block that discrimination. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has worked to combat voting discrimination where other remedies had been tried and failed."
Many critics of the high court's action also fear that the removal of the "teeth" of the VRA will result in new discriminatory practices in voting.
This decision retains anti-discrimination in voting rights (U.S. Constitution, Article 15), retains equal protection under the law (U.S. Constitution, Article 14) and retains the requirement that all states have a republican form of government (U.S. Constitution, Article 4, "Guarantee Clause").
Although the court's ruling leaves room for Congress to enact oversight requirements based on contemporary data, most observers say that the highly partisan nature of the current Congress makes it unlikely that any new agreement will be reached. More on this story can be found at these links:
"Outrageous" or Overdue?: Court Strikes Down Part of Historic Voting Rights Law. CNN
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act. New York Times
Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al. (The actual ruling)
The Big Questions
1. How ought Christians to view the laws of the society in which they live? Does our faith give us less reason or even more reason to abide by society's laws? Why or why not?
2. Under what circumstances should the wrongdoing of a previous generation set restrictions upon the current generations?
3. How do we determine when a rule or law is no longer needed?
4. If as Christians we are guided by the Holy Spirit, do we still need biblical laws? Why or why not?
5. Is there a sense in which the VRA was holding people accountable for the wrongdoing of their predecessors? Do you have confidence that things have changed sufficiently that the VRA, as it stood, is no longer needed? Why or why not?  Do you have confidence that the law, as it stood, was not being used to in a racially discriminatory fashion? Without laws to prevent discrimination, is it likely people will refrain from racist actions based on their attitudes?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Jeremiah 31:29-30
In those days they shall no longer say:
    "The parents have eaten sour grapes,
      and the children's teeth are set on edge."
But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge. (For context, read 31:27-30.)
These verses quote a proverb, apparently well known in Jeremiah's day, that the sour grapes eaten by parents set their children's teeth on edge. It was a way of saying that children paid for the sins of their parents. While in this life we know that to sometimes be the case, this passage envisions a day when that proverb will no longer apply, when people will be held accountable only for their own sins.
Questions: Where today are people held accountable for the wrongdoings of their predecessors? Is there a time limit or moral limit to legal restrictions based on previous acts of discrimination and violence? Is it your experience that faith brings about change in Christian attitudes and behavior? Do some mask racism in Christian language?
Discuss the concept of "collective guilt," where people categorized in a certain way as members of a group are said to bear the guilt of other people who can also be categorized as members of that group.
Jeremiah 31:33
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (For context, read 31:31-34.)
In the midst of a gloomy time for the people of Israel, when they were suffering the consequences of their failure to live up to God's covenant with them, the prophet Jeremiah tells of a new covenant God would eventually make with them, one where people keep laws not written on stone or paper, but written "on their hearts."
Questions: To what degree do you feel you live under that new covenant? How do you know the content of the law written on your heart? What prompts you to live by it? How do you keep selfishness and the human tendency to sin from overriding the law written on your heart? What is the relationship, if any, between that law and the laws of the land in which you live?
1 Corinthians 11:6
For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. (For context, read 11:4-15.)
In Corinth, and in many portions of the Roman world, a woman whose head was not covered was signifying her availability as a prostitute. Paul seems concerned that though he has been telling people they are free in Christ, they ought still to observe some social customs and laws to prevent offense.
Questions: How does Paul's concern relate to the necessity for laws to prevent societies and parties from acting in a racist fashion to prevent Hispanics, blacks, seniors and the poor from voting? Is this an example of a law that we no longer consider to be relevant? Why or why not? How do we decide which laws are timeless and which are for only a certain time?
Galatians 3:23-26
Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. (For context, read 3:19-29.)
This is the apostle Paul's explanation of how Christians are related to the Law of Moses. He doesn't view the law as unnecessary, but as a "disciplinarian until Christ came." That is, until Christ brought righteousness in a form we could internalize and live by, the outward law established the boundaries of righteous living.
Questions: Following Paul's line of thought here, for Christians, faith in Christ has superseded the law. But is that always the case? What about young or immature Christians? What about human tendency to do wrong (see Romans 7:14-25)? When has knowing God's law kept you from wrongdoing? Does this passage speak to matters of secular law too, or only the Mosaic Law?
1 Timothy 1:9
... the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient ... (For context, read 1:3-11.)
Again, Paul was talking about the Law of Moses here, but his comment applies just as well to laws in general. Most laws were not written for innocent people; they were written for "the lawless and disobedient." Nonetheless, the innocent are required to live by those laws as well.
Questions: Which secular laws do you chafe under? Why? Which biblical laws do you chafe under? Why? Which church laws, written or unwritten, do you chafe under? Why? What should be the Christian's position regarding such laws?
For Further Discussion
1. Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse -- who can understand it?" Jeremiah uses "heart" metaphorically to mean our spiritual, emotional, moral and intellectual core, but he says that that core of our being is "devious" and "perverse." "Perverse," according to the dictionary, means "directed away from what is right or good" and "obstinately persisting in an error or fault; wrongly self-willed or stubborn." The prophet is telling us that at root, we have a tendency to turn away from what is right or good, sometimes even to take a path that we know for certain leads to trouble. What steps should we take to safeguard against perversity in high places and positions of power? What steps should we take to safeguard against it in our own lives?
2. Compare and contrast these two statements:
From Chief Justice John Roberts: "Our country has changed. While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions."
From Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "[The preclearance provision of the VRA] should continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made; and second, continuance would guard against backsliding."
3. Compare and contrast these two statements, from two members of the TWW team:
"We should not forget that the heart of the Civil Rights movement was the Christian commitment of the leaders to equality, including political equality. This was both a civil and a faith movement. People paid with their blood. As a person of color, I am very disturbed by the Supreme Court ruling because my experience on the ground is that there is a good deal of racism that white privilege is sometimes blinded to. ... [This] Supreme Court ruling will allow the institution of rules that deliberately either eliminate or frighten seniors, Hispanics, blacks, the poor and others from voting."
"Many laws that are sold as opposed to racial discrimination, such as affirmative action and, arguably, some sections of the VRA, may also be used as tools to promote or institutionalize racial discrimination. In addition, the constant focus on race, instead of individuals, is itself both a manifestation of and encouragement of racism. When institutionalized, it is the opposite of treating people as equals."
Responding to the News
This is a time for Christians to be politically aware of what changes take place in the voting rules within the jurisdictions where we live. If it appears that such changes are intended to disenfranchise some -- by keeping them from voting or by encouraging fraudulent voting -- it will be important for us to speak up and do what we can to ensure that the right to vote is maintained for all.  

Closing Prayer

O God, thank you for the institutions of our government that allow for review of the laws of our land. We pray that with this new ruling, the progress toward fairness and voting rights for all that was made under the VRA will not be lost. In fact, enable the ending of this law to result in greater efforts to ensure that no one is shut out of or neutralized in the voting process. In Jesus' name. Amen.

 © [2013] The Wired Word www.thewiredword.com.

The Secrets of a 74-Year-Marriage

A couple of celebrities were sitting on the front row of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
on Sunday, June 16. They weren't movie stars, nor were they Washington politicians. Instead, they were Elizabeth and Jack
Holly, who are about to celebrate their 74th wedding anniversary.
"Congratulations. That ... is ... amazing," said one young couple to the 94-year-olds. The Hollys have an impressive
marital track record, as do a number of their offspring. Their son William just celebrated his 50th anniversary, and their
daughter Anna recently made it to her 27th. A couple of grandchildren are about to celebrate their 25th and 26th
anniversaries.
The Hollys were at the National Shrine for its "Jubilarian Mass," which honored about 600 couples who were celebrating 25,
30, 35, 40, 45, 50 or more years of wedded life. More than 850 couples registered to have their anniversaries recognized,
including 11 couples who had made it past the threshold of 70 years. These 850 couples totalled 39,417 years of marriage.
The Catholics of Washington, D.C., are not alone in amassing such a remarkable number. In virtually every congregation in
the United States, there are couples with remarkable marital accomplishments. These unions are rarely without stress and
strain, and many have overcome obstacles of illness, loss and unfaithfulness. But the total years of marriage at most
churches is amazing -- and inspiring.

So what are the secrets of a 74-year-marriage? "We kept busy," said Elizabeth Holly to The Washington Post. "You get home.
You make supper. You go to bed."
"We weren't rich people," she added. "All you got to do is act right. Be right. It ain't hard."
The Hollys admitted that the toughest part of their marriage was raising children -- they gave birth to nine and lost
three. But their commitment to the covenant of marriage has been good for their children, as is true for most children
today.
Two-parent households have considerable advantages in sharing the emotional load (and joy) of raising children. But, as
reported in USA Today, there is also the matter of economics, which is a serious consideration in creating a healthy
family. According to a recent Census report, nearly 40 percent of single-parent households were under the poverty line in
2010, compared with just 10 percent of married family households.

The importance of marriage to children, in terms of emotional and economic security, is something that can be affirmed by
conservatives and liberals alike. With no disrespect to the 43 percent of Americans who are single, it is clear that
marriage is good for both adults and children.
The secrets of a 74-year-marriage are keeping busy and acting right, as Elizabeth Holly said, but also focusing on the
welfare of your spouse and your children. Healthy marriages put family-interest ahead of self-interest, and are grounded in
the kind of sacrificial love that seeks first the welfare of others. Since the earliest days of the church, Christians have
encouraged husbands and wives to provide for one another, to devote themselves to prayer and to do what they can to stay
together and even make each other holy.
Today, however, marriage is on a sharp decline in the United States. Fifty years ago, about three-quarters of American
adults 18 and older were married, while today only 52 percent are. More men and women are living as singles -- even, at
times, while having children -- a state of affairs that can ultimately harm children, making them much more likely to live
in poverty.

Fortunately, two-thirds of Americans are upbeat about the future of marriage and family, according to the Pew Research
Center, and 46 percent of unmarried Americans say they want to get married. This is a desire worth pursuing, as we start
the next 39,417 years.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Md. Couple's Marriage Has Stood Test of Time, If Not Memory, The Washington Post
Renewal of Marriage Vows at 2013 Jubilarian Mass, Facebook
Column: Wedding Days Are Losing Their Way, USA Today
The Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families, Pew Social Trends

The Big Questions

1. What qualities do you see in a husband and wife who remain married for 74 years?

2. How do couples handle the stress and strain of life, and overcome obstacles of illness, loss and unfaithfulness?

3. Should couples remain married for the benefit of their children? Why or why not?

4. From an economic point of view, why should husbands and wives stay together? Why should couples even marry in the first
place? What are the benefits of two-parent families? When should other factors take precedence?

5. Where do you see sacrificial love at work in healthy marriages? Give examples.

6. Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of marriage? Explain.

Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. (For context, read
2:18-25.)

In the story of creation, God forms animals and birds and brings them to the man he has created. The man gives names to the
cattle, birds and animals of the field, but none of them is found to be suitable as a partner for the man. So God causes
the man to go to sleep, and he takes one of his ribs. God makes the rib into a woman and brings her to the man. The man
describes her as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (v. 23).
Questions: Why is a woman especially suitable to be a man's partner? What is the significance of the phrase "bone of my
bones and flesh of my flesh" (v. 23)? Why is it important, emotionally and spiritually, for a man to leave his parents and
cling to his wife?

Exodus 20:14
You shall not commit adultery. (For context, read 20:1-17.)

The Ten Commandments are given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. The first set concerns the relationship between humans and
God, and the remaining group concerns relationships between humans. The prohibition of adultery lies between "you shall not
murder" (v. 13) and "you shall not steal" (v. 15).
Questions: Why is God concerned about adultery? What kind of damage is done when the covenant of marriage is broken? Who are the victims?
Mark 10:9
Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. (For context, read 10:1-16.)
Some Pharisees test Jesus by asking him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus answers by asking them about
Moses, who allowed divorce because of their "hardness of heart" (v. 5). But Jesus insists that "from the beginning of
creation, 'God made them male and female'" (v. 6), and reaffirms that God's intention is for them to be "one flesh" (v. 8).
Concerned for both the women and the children who are hurt by divorce, Jesus stresses the permanence of marriage and then
says "let the little children come to me" (v. 14).
Questions: Are there cases today where divorce should be allowed because of "hardness of heart"? When is it impossible for
husbands and wives to remain "one flesh"? How should the concern of Jesus for vulnerable women and children be demonstrated
today, especially when it comes to divorce?

1 Corinthians 7:4
For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority
over his own body, but the wife does. (For context, read 7:1-16).
In his directions on marriage, the apostle Paul stresses the sense of balance that is created in a marriage, with husbands
and wives giving each other "conjugal rights" (v. 3). His focus is on a mutuality of authority that exists when two people
become one flesh. Paul encourages husbands and wives to provide for one another, to devote themselves to prayer and to do
what they can to stay together and even make each other holy (vv. 5, 10-16).
Questions: In marriage, where do you see a focus not on self-satisfaction, but on serving someone or something that is
bigger than yourself? How is a sense of balance and mutuality of authority experienced in a healthy marriage? Give
examples.
Hebrews 13:4
Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and
adulterers. (For context, read 13:1-6).
The letter to the Hebrews speaks of service that is pleasing to God, including mutual love, hospitality to strangers and
remembering those who are imprisoned. The writer then encourages his audience to hold marriage in honor, and concludes by
encouraging them to keep their lives "free from the love of money" (v. 5).
Questions: What are the particular qualities of marriage that are valued by God? Why is judgment predicted for "fornicators
and adulterers"? What is the significance of this list of pleasing actions for today?

For Further Discussion

1. What factors have led to a decline in marriage over the past 50 years, and what can be done to reverse this trend?

2. In your opinion, what are the actions and attitudes that create long and happy marriages?

3. What role should the church play in supporting couples in their marriages?

4. If you are married, who are your role models and accountability partners as you seek to keep your vows? What problems
would you encounter without them? If you are unmarried, whom do you seek to emulate or to take advice from in your
considerations of marriage?

5. What are the top areas that you think should be covered in premarital counseling today?

6. The "marriage equality" movement is clearly advancing across the country. What impact, if any, do you think same-sex
marriage will have on heterosexual marriage?


Responding to the News
Reflect on the promises that stand at the center of every healthy marriage. If you are married, think about the vows you
have made to your spouse. If you are single, ponder the importance of the commitments you have made to family members and
friends. Reach out to someone who is struggling with promise-keeping, and offer them your support and encouragement.

Is Secrets-Leaker Snowden Jeremiah or Judas?

Whatever else we can say about Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old government contractor who just leaked classified documents that revealed the scope of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program, he has great confidence in his own judgment. He has said that he independently decided that the NSA's program was counter to our nation's principles and thus should be revealed.
Specifically, Snowden, a former technical assistant for the CIA and employee of NSA defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton at the time of the leak (he's since been fired), has identified himself as the source of the unauthorized revelation that the NSA's massive surveillance program collected vast amounts of information about millions of Americans' telephone calls and emails. Snowden has admitted giving the information to both the British newspaper the Guardian and the Washington Post.
The concern is not only that the metadata collected violates privacy, but that it can be used by those with access to the data against personal or political enemies.  (See What's the Matter With Megadata? The New Yorker.)
Speaking to the Guardian, Snowden said that he considers himself different from Bradley Manning, who is accused of passing classified information to Wikileaks, in that, unlike Manning, he "carefully evaluated every single document" he leaked to "ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest."
For his efforts, Snowden has been called a hero by some, including such odd bedfellows as left-leaning Michael Moore and right-leaning Glenn Beck. New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy said that Snowden "has performed a great public service that more than outweighs any breach of trust he may have committed."
Others, however, have branded Snowden a traitor to the nation. Jeffrey Toobin, also a staff writer for The New Yorker, labeled Snowden "a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison."
Many ordinary Americans have lined up on both sides of the dispute. Several Facebook pages supporting Snowden have sprung up, as have some against him. There have been more that 2 million mentions of Snowden on Twitter, and a social media aggregator says that the words "hero" and "traitor" have both been in play in those tweets but that "hero" has been the more frequent of the two. Reader feedback to Internet articles about Snowden run both for and against him.
While many of Snowden's supporters see him as a champion for issues of personal privacy and governmental transparency, his critics say his actions have weakened America's ability to keep the country safe from terrorist attacks. The debate about Snowden's leaks has been characterized as "personal privacy vs. national security" and "constitutional freedoms vs. public safety."
Snowden himself has been called both "a man of conscience" who answered "a higher calling" and "a defector" who has made the United States "the target of international outrage" and who "answered the call of his own ego."
A Gallup poll released this week showed that 44 percent of Americans believe Snowden did the right thing by releasing details about the classified surveillance programs, while 42 percent said it was wrong and 14 percent said they were unsure.
As of this writing, Snowden, a North Carolina native, is believed to be in hiding in Hong Kong. Several members of Congress have called for his extradition to face charges in the United States, possibly for treason.
More on this story can be found at these links:
NSA Leaker Ignites Global Debate: Hero or Traitor? CNN
Why Edward Snowden Is a Hero. The New Yorker
Edward Snowden Is No Hero. The New Yorker
The Big Questions
1. As far as we know, no one has called Snowden a prophet, but bearing in mind that in their time, the biblical prophets were lone figures going against the stream of their times despite personal risk, how do we tell today when someone is being prophetic? Is it possible to tell immediately who is a prophet? How much time is necessary for one to have the proper perspective?
2. Remembering that the biblical prophets were more about forth-telling God's words than about foretelling the future, where does the prophetic voice come into play in our society today?
3. Why do you think discernment is one of the spiritual gifts?
4. When we feel that our conscience is pushing us to take some drastic action that could impact many other people, how can we check whether our conscience is in tune with the Spirit of God or merely with our own ego?
5. When you have agreed to operate by certain rules (such as to not reveal classified material), what, if anything, excuses you from the agreement you have made?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Deuteronomy 18:15
The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet. (For context, read 18:15-22.)
This verse is part of Moses' final address to the people of Israel as they are soon to enter the Promised Land. Throughout the 40 years of wilderness wandering, Moses had been not only their leader, but also their prophet, the one who told them what God wanted for them and from them. Now, however, Moses knows he is soon to die, so among the things he tells his people is about prophets -- true and false -- who would come along after him and how to distinguish those who are true prophets from those who are not.
He gives the people three standards for distinguishing prophets: First, prophets should be from among their own people -- fellow Israelites. Second, prophets should be like Moses himself -- in other words, their teaching should be in line with what Moses taught. And third, not only should they speak in the name of the Lord, but what they say should also prove true.
Admittedly, this third standard, while reasonable, wasn't very helpful, because it was an after-the-fact test, coming when it is too late to change how you responded or failed to respond to the individual claiming prophetic powers, but there you are.
We could try to translate this threefold test into some kind of measuring stick for determining who is and who is not a prophet today, but a better use of this passage for us is to hear Moses' assertion that there would be prophets coming along after him who would preach the true word of God. The prophets were often sent by God to preach during national crises in Israel or Judah, and they generally had messages about specific judgments related to the events of the times, but their larger message was always the same and was always timeless: Our wrongdoings will have consequences, but God will not desert us. God will never be unfaithful to us, even when we are unfaithful to him. God can be relied upon, and is ultimately in charge of all things. Of these truths the prophets were confident.
Many of the biblical prophets were not particularly successful, just faithful to God. A "successful" prophet is one who prevents rather than predicts the future. If the biblical prophets had been more successful, no one would have gone into exile!
Questions: What do you make of the after-the-fact test of who is a prophet? Are there any ways in which that can be helpful today? Why do we tend to hear challenges to societal practices as prophetic but sometimes fail to recognize assurances of God's faithfulness as equally prophetic? Why do we sometimes tend to hear challenges to societal practices -- especially those practices we disagree with -- as prophetic? Who do you see as faithful but not successful prophets today?
Psalm 55:12-14
It is not enemies who taunt me -- I could bear that; it is not adversaries who deal insolently with me -- I could hide from them. But it is you, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend, with whom I kept pleasant company ... (For context, read 55:12-15.)
The whole of Psalm 55 is a complaint about a friend's treachery, and the verses above get at the heart of how the betrayed person feels.
Questions: Can an action that betrays trust ever be the right thing? Why or why not?
Proverbs 11:13
A gossip goes about telling secrets, but one who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a confidence. (For context, read 11:8-31)
This proverb is in a section contrasting how the righteous person acts with how an unrighteous person acts. Being trustworthy and able to keep secrets is seen as a mark of righteousness, while revealing the "dirty laundry" of another is despised. A "gossip" in this context would include someone telling secrets about another in order to seem superior to or to develop a joint sense of superiority over the other person.
Question: Compare and contrast the morality of revealing secrets and keeping secrets.
Jeremiah 38:4-6
Then the officials said to the king, "This man ought to be put to death, because he is discouraging the soldiers who are left in this city, and all the people, by speaking such words to them. For this man is not seeking the welfare of this people, but their harm." King Zedekiah said, "Here he is; he is in your hands; for the king is powerless against you." So they took Jeremiah and threw him into the cistern of Malchiah ... (For context, read 38:1-18.)
In Jeremiah's time, the Babylonians were oppressing Judah, and Jeremiah, hearing God's word, advised Judah's King Zedekiah to submit to Babylon; he gave the same unpopular message to the people. For his efforts, Jeremiah ended up imprisoned in a cistern. He was later released, but he remained an unpopular figure with many because of his advice. Jeremiah wasn't exactly a whistleblower, but he wasn't a voice most people wanted to hear. Nonetheless, he was a bearer of God's word.
Questions: Are there any ways in which Jeremiah can be a model for what is needed to keep a democratic society healthy? If one chooses, as Jeremiah did, to speak the unpopular word to one's culture, what kind of reception and consequence should one expect? Why?
Amos 7:14-15
I am no prophet, nor a prophet's son; but I am a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore trees, and the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said to me, "Go, prophesy to my people Israel." (For context, read 7:10-17.)
Here Amos, a man from the southern Hebrew kingdom, Judah, explains how he felt compelled to go to the northern Hebrew kingdom, Israel, and speak on behalf of God there. He makes the point that prophesying was not something he had a yen to do. He probably never aspired to be more than a farmer who tended animals and crops. He didn't go looking for someplace where he could "serve." But the Lord had other plans, and Amos felt compelled to go "blow the whistle" on wrongdoing in the northern kingdom, where his message was not well received. In fact, the priest of Bethel told him to go home and prophesy there (v. 12). Nonetheless, Amos faithfully did what God called him to do.
Questions: How do you distinguish between a personal opinion you hold passionately and a larger message you feel called to deliver? Can they ever be one and the same?
Amos makes it clear that he is not in the prophecy business for profit. Does that make a difference in considering whether someone is a hero or a traitor?
Imagine you are a citizen of Israel hearing this man Amos tell you of your wrongdoings (for example, read what Amos said to the people of Israel in Amos 2:6-8). How do you think you would react? Why?
1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (For context, read 4:1-6.)
John is here talking about the importance of spiritual discernment, necessary to determine whether those who claim to speak for God actually do so.
Discernment is necessary in society as well.
A TWW team member comments, "[This news story] calls to mind the New Testament passages in the epistles about the need for multiple gifts; along with the prophet we need the person with the gift of discernment. One may be more flamboyant or riveting, but the other is no less important for being, perhaps, expressed more quietly."
Question: Is spiritual discernment better done by individual Christians alone or together in the community of faith? How about discernment regarding things in the culture? Are we better to test our reactions against the views of those who generally agree with us? Why or why not?
How many people are necessary, in your opinion, to properly discern who is a prophet? How important is individual revelation? Do you include individuals who do not automatically agree with your viewpoint as part of the discernment process? How important is it to come to a decision quickly? Can some decisions wait? In your own denomination's life and practice, how do you discern what Scripture and the Holy Spirit are saying to you today?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from a TWW team member: "One way I discern whether one is speaking prophetically is the extent to which that person makes me feel uncomfortable. (Snowden does not make me feel uncomfortable. I tend to agree with Jeffrey Toobin most of the time, and in this case he is spot on [in his article Edward Snowden Is No Hero. The New Yorker). My friend David Radcliff, the head of the New Community Project, has a talent for making people think hard about their Christian commitment. He focuses on environmental issues. I have watched him tell 4,000 teens that every person in Africa could be provided with clean water and a healthier life for a fraction of what they spend on cosmetics -- and he tells them the precise percentage."
2. Comment on this, from a TWW team member: "I remember a colleague who served with me on the governing board of an organization who had the gift of discernment about a situation but didn't say anything at the time. Later on, her instincts were borne out, and she always regretted that she hadn't expressed earlier what the Spirit laid on her heart. She felt if she had, the organization might have been spared some painful experiences we went through because we had not heard any cautionary voices when we really needed them."
Another TWW team member recollects how, after he and his wife attended a set of classes on discerning spiritual gifts, she concluded that her own spiritual gift was discernment -- or as she more earthily put it, "B.S. detection" -- and she has shown this gift in a number of contexts.
3. Respond to this, from a TWW team member: "In the entire biblical narrative, the prophetic one is one of the most difficult to engage. It is hard for most people (including me) to understand all of what they were saying and where they were coming from. In regard to this story [about Snowden], good questions surround the idea of a prophet, what is the prophetic voice and where that comes into play in our society."
4. Whistleblowers are often employees of companies or agencies who become aware of practices they consider wrong within the workplace -- practices that may harm others. And thus, despite personal risk, they expose it. One reporter, in a newspaper story on whistleblowers, stated that such persons "often feel it's their responsibility to speak up for those who can't." Yet often, whistleblowers find themselves threatened and treated with hostility even by some whom the whistleblower believes benefit from having the wrong exposed and corrected. Why might this be so?
5. How can you tell a whistleblower from a turncoat? What is the essential difference? How can you tell a prophet from a traitor? What is the essential difference?
Responding to the News
Is there a quandary in your life or the life of your congregation for which you need discernment right now? Consider discussing it with several mature Christians you trust, lifting the matter in prayer and consulting any Scripture passages that might relate. If possible, give the matter time and see where God leads.
Think about situations from your own circumstances that might either require revealing wrongdoing or avoiding gossip or tale-bearing.
Closing Prayer

Help us, O Lord, as we struggle with matters of conscience, to listen for your voice, either confirming what our conscience seems to be saying or warning us away from mistaken conclusions. And grant us the gift of discernment, that we may think clearly when we are evaluating the claims of others. In Jesus' name. Amen.