Ban Lifted on Women in Combat

The U.S. military will lift its ban on women serving in combat roles, opening to them about 230,000 posts that have
previously been reserved for men. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made this announcement on January 24, praising women for
their courage and sacrifice on and off the battlefield. He stated that the "goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that
the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender."
Currently, women cannot be assigned below the brigade level to fight on the ground. This has effectively barred women from
infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineer and special operations units of battalion size (about 700 troops or fewer). The
armed services will have until January 2016 to open these positions to women.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported that military service chiefs support the change
unanimously, saying that "the Joint Chiefs share a common cause on the need to start doing this now and to doing this
right."
President Obama announced that he also strongly endorses Panetta's decision, which he believes will "strengthen our
military, enhance our readiness and be another step toward fulfilling our nation's founding ideals of fairness and
equality." He is confident that the "armed forces will ensure a smooth transition and keep our military the very best in
the world."
Lynsey Addario is a photographer for The New York Times who has covered the war in Afghanistan and has often focused on
female soldiers. She acknowledges that the lifting of the ban is a huge step historically, but notes that women have
actually been doing more and more fighting over the past decade. Although Americans can disagree about whether women should
be on the front lines, the reality is that they are already there.
"They're at bases all across Afghanistan, and they're playing different roles," said Addario to The New York Times, "from
black ops pilots to doing triage in forward-operating medical centers. They're engaging women in villages of Helmand that
are covered with landmines. They are getting shot at. They are dying, and they are getting injured."
In Addario's experience, the women who join the military and want to be in combat "believe in fighting for their country.
They want to be doing something to help fight the wars that we've been fighting for over a decade. … They have a goal, and
they want to accomplish it. And they don't want to be told they can't do it because they're women. A lot of them are
extremely ambitious, very dedicated. They work out all the time [and are] very intelligent."
The military will not need to lower its physical standards as it opens combat roles to women. However, an Army general said
on January 24 that it may need to review the standards for some positions. The military already has different physical
standards based on age and sex for the Army and the Marines. While standards may change, they will be set at the same
demanding level for men and women who want to serve in the infantry and other combat arms specialties. Both men and women
will need to have the strength to carry a comrade who has been shot or lift heavy rounds of ammunition.
Opening combat roles to women reminds The Wired Word editorial team member Frank Ramirez of "the need for African Americans
to be more actively involved in the Civil War, in actual combat and not just grunt work, and the same with the Japanese-
Americans during World War II who fought in the European theater." He recalls that Hispanic and Anglo soldiers had to deal
with each other and help each other in Japanese prison camps, an experience that changed their views of each other. Ramirez
predicts that women in combat will have the positive effect of "opening doors to further acceptance and advancement."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Pentagon makes women in combat rule change official, USA TODAY
Women shooting on the front lines, The New York Times
Women, men must meet same combat standards in military, USA TODAY

The Big Questions
1. Why has there been a ban on women in combat? What purposes did it serve?
2. Where do you see physical challenges for women on the front lines? How about emotional challenges for both women and
men?
3. What spiritual challenges are raised by the lifting of this ban?
4. Do you see roles in the military that would be best performed by women? By men? Why? Be specific. Outside the military,
are there tasks that you believe are best performed by either men or women?
5. The integration of the United States military helped the advancement of race relations in this country. Do you predict
that this new change will have a similar effect on gender relations, and if so, how?
6. What are the implications of this decision, if any, on churches that reserve certain roles for men?
7. Which of your cultural attitudes about men or women have changed over the years? Which have been reinforced by your own
experience?

Confronting the News with Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Judges 4:21
But Jael wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to [Sisera] and drove the peg into
his temple, until it went down into the ground -- he was lying fast asleep from weariness -- and he died. (For context,
read 4:1-22.)
Deborah is a prophetess and judge of Israel who summons Barak to wage war against Sisera and his army. Barak says that he
will not go into battle without her, and she agrees to go. She predicts that "the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a
woman" (v. 9). Barak and 10,000 warriors engage Sisera and his army, and the army of Sisera is defeated. Sisera flees to
the tent of Jael, a woman who welcomes him, gives him drink and shelter, and then kills him.
Questions: What role does Deborah play in the defeat of the army of Sisera? Why is Barak reluctant to go to war without
her? What does the action of Jael tell you about the abilities of women in combat?
Psalm 23:4
Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I fear no evil; for you are with me; your rod and your staff -- they comfort
me. (For context, read 23:1-4.)
Psalm 23 has comforted generations with its promise that the Lord watches over his people in the most extreme
circumstances, even through "the darkest valley," or what the King James Version calls "the valley of the shadow of death."
In the 2002 film We Were Soldiers, "the valley of the shadow of death" is referenced multiple times. In the 2011 film War
Horse, a British soldier recites the beginning of the psalm while crossing no-man's land.
Questions: How is faith in God a resource on the front lines? In your experience, are women more likely than men to talk
about their faith? Where might there be opportunities for women in combat to share their faith with the men around them?
John 20:18
Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"; and she told them that he had said these things
to her. (For context, read 20:1-18.)
Mary Magdalene is on the "front lines" on Easter morning, arriving at the tomb of Jesus while it is still dark. She sees
that the stone has been removed, so she runs and makes a report to Simon Peter and the beloved disciple. Peter and the
beloved disciple investigate the empty tomb and then return to their homes. Mary keeps vigil at the tomb, weeping, until
two angels speak to her. Then the resurrected Jesus speaks to her and tells her to take a message to the disciples.
Questions: What qualities does Mary Magdalene have that would serve a military woman well on the front lines? Why does
Jesus reveal himself first to Mary, and ask her to deliver a message to the male disciples? What does this tell you about
the distinctive roles of men and women?
Galatians 3:27-28
As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is
no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (For context, read
3:23-29.)
The apostle Paul explains that people were "under the law" until Christ came (vv. 23-24). But now, we are all children of
God through faith in Christ, with no distinctions between us based on culture, economic status or gender. Christ has
created a new freedom and equality among his followers.
Questions: What are the implications of Christian equality for military service? For life in the church? For society at
large? For relationships between men and women?
Ephesians 6:13
Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done
everything, to stand firm. (For context, read 6:10-17.)
In the face of personal challenges, Paul urges us to "be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power" (v. 10). He
urges us to put on the whole armor of God, including the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shield of
faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit (vv. 14-17). This equipment is needed to fight battles against
"the spiritual forces of evil" (v. 12).
Questions: In addition to the equipment issued by the United States military, what weapons and protective items do both
women and men on the front lines need? Are there particular dangers that women face in combat that men do not? What will
enable them to serve well and remain faithful?
Philippians 4:13
I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (For context, read 4:10-14.)
Paul has learned to be content with whatever he has -- whether little or plenty, being well-fed or going hungry. He has
endured the kind of hardships that we often associate with life on the front lines. Through it all, he discovers that
Christ has strengthened him to "do all things."
Questions: What particular hardships do women face in military service? How is Christ involved in strengthening soldiers
for service to country? What differences, if any, would be experienced by women and men?
For Further Discussion
1. Would you want your daughter, sister or wife to serve in a combat role? Why or why not?
2. The United States military is often described as a meritocracy, where good performance is the basis of advancement. How
does this serve women well today?
3. Does your church allow women to serve on the "front lines"? When, where, and how?
4. Allowing women to serve in combat roles will increase their chances for advancement up the military chain of command.
What kind of advancement is permitted for women in your church community? If there are bans that you think should be
lifted, explain why.
5. Paul says that "there is no longer male and female" in Christ (Galatians 3:28), but clearly there are differences
between men and women. Which differences should be affirmed and celebrated?
6. What are the dangers involved in opening combat roles to women, besides the obvious risk of injury and death? Where do
you see risks to men, women and overall military readiness?
7. Women are central to the health and vitality of most Christian congregations. What distinctive qualities do they bring
to their work in the community of faith? Are some of these qualities also important to military service? Which ones?

Responding to the News
Look for ways to celebrate the gifts of women in your community of faith, through worship and special recognition
ceremonies. Consider whether there are "bans" that prevent women from playing certain roles in the church, and whether they
should be lifted.

Original "Dear Abby" Advice Columnist Dies

Dear Abby: My wife sleeps in the raw. Then she showers, brushes her teeth and fixes our breakfast -- still in the buff. We're newlyweds and there are just the two of us, so I suppose there's really nothing wrong with it. What do you think? -- Ed
Dear Ed: It's O.K. with me. But tell her to put on an apron when she's frying bacon.
Letters to the "Dear Abby" advice column were written to Abigail Van Buren, the pen name for Pauline Phillips, who started answering personal questions in 1956 and died this month at age 94 (it is unknown whether her advice on frying bacon stemmed from personal experience). She had been ill with Alzheimer's disease for more than 10 years. The New York Times described her as "a trusted, tart-tongued adviser to tens of millions."
Daughter Jeanne Phillips, who took over her mother's column in 2000, told USA TODAY that her mother "was wonderful -- an amazing, charismatic, caring, caring woman. She loved and had a deep concern for other people." But at the same time, her mother did not hesitate to offer saucy words of wisdom.
When a young woman wondered whether she had gone too far in a 21st birthday celebration with her boyfriend, Abby was a truth-teller:
Dear Abby: I usually don’t go in much for drinking, but I had three martinis. During dinner we split a bottle of wine. After dinner we had two brandies. Did I do wrong?
Abby's response: Probably.
Abby could be down-to-earth, honest, funny and wise. People appreciated her guidance and wrote letters to her saying, "You changed my life," which reminded her of the importance of her work. But she always maintained a sense of humor, which came through in creative solutions to problems:
Dear Abby: I have always wanted to have my family history traced, but I can't afford to spend a lot of money to do it. Have you any suggestions? -- M. J. B. in Oakland, Calif.
Dear M. J. B.: Yes. Run for a public office.
At her best, Abby offered responses that showed wisdom about a range of issues, from human sexuality to the tax code:
Dear Abby: Are birth control pills deductible? -- Bertie
Dear Bertie: Only if they don't work.
Pauline (Abby) had a long professional rivalry with her identical twin sister, Esther, the advice columnist known as "Ann Landers," who died in 2002. They were born on July 4, 1918, in Sioux City, Iowa, to Russian Jewish immigrants. Her father started out as a traveling salesman and later became the owner of a movie theater chain. Pauline and Esther were inseparable as children, dressing alike, sharing purses and even sleeping in the same bed at times.
The sisters went to Morningside College together, where they co-wrote a gossip column in the student newspaper. Just before turning 21, they were married in a double ceremony, followed by a double honeymoon. But the wedding was preceded by a dramatic incident worthy of a "Dear Abby" column. At the last minute, Esther ditched her fiance and brought in a substitute groom, marrying Jules Lederer, a salesman who went on to form Budget Rent-a-Car.
In 1955, Esther took over the "Ann Landers" column for The Chicago Sun-Times, and asked her sister Pauline for help. "By responding to the overflow from the wildly popular Ann Landers column, she discovered that she wouldn’t make a bad advice-giver herself," reports The Washington Post.
Pauline called The San Francisco Chronicle, identified herself as a local housewife and stated that she could do a better job than the newspaper's current advice columnist. The editor decided to give her a chance, and after Pauline submitted some writing samples, she was given the job at a salary of $20 per week.
According to The New York Times, Pauline "chose her pen name herself, taking Abigail after the prophetess in the Book of Samuel ('Then David said to Abigail, "Blessed is your advice and blessed are you"') and Van Buren for its old-family, presidential ring."
"Dear Abby" was an immediate success, and the column was quickly syndicated. But Pauline's success led to an estrangement from Esther. The twins did not speak for five years, reconciling only in the mid-1960s. Their professional and private lives became permanently intertwined.
"A life of advice is to walk the finest of lines," writes advice columnist Carolyn Hax, "of between knowing and guessing; entertainment and empathy; compassion and criticism; between trying to help and presuming to; between being a public resource and a punch line."
Until she retired in 2000 and turned her column over to her daughter, Pauline continued to give pithy advice to her readers. When one writer asked how to cure the wandering eye of a married man, "Dear Abby" had a simple and straightforward answer: "Rigor mortis."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Pauline Phillips, flinty advisor to millions as Dear Abby dies at 94, The New York Times
Original 'Dear Abby' advice columnist dies at 94. USA TODAY
Pauline Phillips, better known as 'Dear Abby,' dies at 94, The Washington Post
A life of giving advice is to walk the finest of lines, The Washington Post

The Big Questions
1. Where can Christians obtain wise counsel that is in line with God's will?
2. What is the criteria we should use to separate bad advice from good? How do we do that?
3. Advice columnists often use humor in their responses to serious questions. When is humor helpful, and when it is hurtful?
4. "Dear Abby" once said that her views and advice on a number of topics, including premarital sex, had changed over the years. When should we change our views, and when should we not? How do we remain faithful to a constant God in an ever-changing culture? When does the distinction C.S. Lewis makes between "morality" and "propriety" come into play (His classic example was of a young woman in a South Seas culture for whom going  what we call "topless" was a non-issue)?
5. "Dear Abby" and "Ann Landers" had a lifelong rivalry. How do you think their competition hurt their relationship, and how did it motivate them to achieve success?
6. Advice-givers such as "Dear Abby" cannot continue their columns forever, but must pass their work to the next generation. What is involved in a healthy transition?

Confronting the News with Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Genesis 3:12
The man said [to God], "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate." (For context, read 3:1-21.)
Adam and Eve are placed in the Garden of Eden and told by God to eat of every tree in the garden except "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (2:16-17). The serpent quizzes Eve on the instructions of God, and questions whether they will really die if they eat the fruit of that tree. Eve eats some of the fruit of the tree and gives some to Adam, and he eats it. Then they realize that they are naked, and they hide themselves from God.
Questions: What does the serpent do to undermine the instructions of God? Why does Eve follow the advice of the serpent, and why does Adam follow in the footsteps of Eve? Where do you see this same tendency in the world today? Eve made a decision without consulting another; whom do you call on or consult when you have an important decision to make? What part does your faith community play in helping you make important decisions?
Genesis 30:1
When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister; and she said to Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!" (For context, read 30:1-24)
Rachel and Leah are sisters who are both married to Jacob. Rachel is Jacob's favorite, but Leah is the first to bear children and gives him four sons. Rachel envies her sister, and offers her maid Bilhah as a wife so that Bilhah will have children with Jacob. Leah responds by offering her maid Zilpah as a wife, and Zilpah has children with Jacob. After Leah has two more sons and a daughter with Jacob, Rachel is finally able to conceive, and she gives birth to Joseph.
Questions: Why are siblings so competitive, whether they are Rachel and Leah or "Dear Abby" and "Ann Landers"? How is such envy destructive? What good came out of Rachel and Leah's rivalry?
Genesis 41:15-16
And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "I have had a dream, and there is no one who can interpret it. I have heard it said of you that when you hear a dream you can interpret it." Joseph answered Pharaoh, "It is not I; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer." (For context, read 41:1-45.)
Joseph is in the dungeon in Egypt, but he has developed a reputation as an accurate interpreter of dreams. In particular, he interprets the dreams of a chief baker and a chief cupbearer, and his predictions turn out to be exactly right. When Pharaoh has a dream about sleek cows and fat cows, he calls on Joseph to offer an interpretation, and Joseph states that God will offer the answer he needs. Joseph listens to Pharaoh's dream, explains it and offers a proposal for dealing with the famine that is to come. Pharaoh is so pleased with his proposal that he gives Joseph authority over all of Egypt.
Questions: Joseph is held in high esteem by Pharaoh, but he quickly gives the credit to God. How is such an action linked to the ability to give good advice? Where are faithful advisers to be found today? Joseph shares this God-given wisdom with a foreign king to preserve life. Are we tempted to keep wisdom -- economic, religious, political -- within our family, region or nation?
Proverbs 1:32-33
For waywardness kills the simple, and the complacency of fools destroys them; but those who listen to [Wisdom] will be secure and will live at ease, without dread of disaster. (For context, read 1:20-33.)
Wisdom is personified as a woman who "cries out in the street" in Proverbs (1:20), calling people to love knowledge, fear God and accept her reproof. She criticizes those who ignore her counsel, and predicts that they will experience panic, calamity, distress and anguish.
Questions: Where do you hear the Wisdom of God calling out today? What are the consequences of ignoring God's counsel? Wisdom is portrayed as shouting so loud it is almost embarrassing. Is this the way that conscience works, in your experience? How easy is it to tune it out and ignore it?
Matthew 13:54
[Jesus] came to his hometown and began to teach the people in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power?" (For context, read 13:54-58.)
When Jesus comes to Nazareth, the people are astounded by his wisdom and deeds of power because they know that he is the son of a simple carpenter. They are offended by him and do not believe in him. Jesus does not do many deeds of power there, because of their unbelief (v. 58).
Questions: What is the source of the wisdom of Jesus? Throughout his ministry, how does he express it? Where do you find godly wisdom in people without extensive formal education? How is this kind of wisdom linked to deeds of power?
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (For context, read 1:18-31.)
Paul is trying to teach and inspire the Christians in Corinth to carry on the work that he has started. He wants to transition the leadership of the church from its founders (Paul and Apollos) to the Corinthians themselves. Paul reminds the Corinthians that they were not necessarily wise by human standards, but that they now have "life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God" (1:30).
Questions: Where is the wisdom of God found in Jesus? How is it different from the wisdom of the world? How can we share this with others, in particular the next generation of church members and leaders?

For Further Discussion
1. Where do you go for advice about personal problems? What are the characteristics of a good adviser?
2. Advice columnists offer guidance to people they have never met face-to-face. List the pros and cons of this type of assistance.
3. "Dear Abby" and "Ann Landers" have reached millions of people through newspaper columns, but print media is declining as online media continues to rise. How will the next generation of columnists dispense their advice?
4. What is the role of the church in offering counsel to people? How can it do a better job of offering good advice?
5. Where do you see a need for Christ-centered wisdom in the world today? How can "Christ crucified" be shared with people around us?
6. What wisdom have you gained through your study of the Bible? Give a specific example of a scriptural truth that has improved your life.
7. Advice columnist Carolyn Hax says, "A life of advice is to walk the finest of lines, of  between knowing and guessing; entertainment and empathy; compassion and criticism." We walk this line as Christians when we try to help others. How do you keep from falling to one side or the other?
8. In the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit when he says, "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever" (14:16, Holman Christian Standard Bible). How does the Holy Spirit act as a counselor to you individually, and to the church?

Responding to the News
Like "Dear Abby," Christians should love and have "a deep concern for other people." In the week to come, listen carefully to a friend or a neighbor who is struggling, and offer your most caring and constructive advice. Remember that the wisdom of God is found in Jesus Christ, the one who died to bring us forgiveness and new life.

Lance Armstrong Admits Using PEDs

In the News
On Monday, Lance Armstrong, the former U.S. cycling legend who was recently stripped of his seven Tour de France victories and banned for life from the sport, sat down with Oprah Winfrey and admitted that he'd used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and had pressured others racing on his teams to do so as well. This came after years of strong denials and attacks by Armstrong against those who insisted he had doped throughout his bicycle-racing career, during which he dominated the sport.
Editor's note: Because of our publishing deadline, we are writing based on news reports about the Armstrong interview as well as on comments from Oprah Winfrey on CBS This Morning the day following her meeting with Armstrong. The full interview will air in two parts on Thursday and Friday, January 17 and 18, on the OWN channel.
The cyclist's confession came just days after voters in the Baseball Hall of Fame induction process gave no ballplayer -- not Barry Bonds, not Roger Clemens, not Sammy Sosa and not any other -- sufficient votes to be inducted into the Cooperstown HOF, due to suspicions that those players had used PEDs.
Speaking Tuesday on CBS This Morning, about her two-and-a-half-hour interview with Armstrong, Winfrey said, "We were mesmerized and riveted by some of his answers. I feel that he answered the questions in a way that he was ready."
Armstrong's decision to admit to doping is a stunning reversal of his long practice not only of denying PED use, but also of ruthlessly intimidating doubters, blacklisting skeptical reporters, bullying critics and attacking the reputations of people in the professional cycling world who insisted he wasn't racing "clean."
While the doping charges swirled around Armstrong for years, and while several other riders had been found guilty of using PEDs and served suspensions as a result, Armstrong maintained that he never used them. He often defended himself against claims to the contrary by saying that he had not failed even one of some 500 drug tests administered throughout his career. (In reality, there were fewer than 300 administered.)
All of that, along with Armstrong's impressive cycling-race victories, came crashing down in late August when the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) charged him with both doping and leading a doping conspiracy inside the sport. When Armstrong declined to meet with USADA to address the charges, that agency stripped him of his seven Tour wins and all other titles and awards from August 1998 forward, and it banned him for life from participating in any sport that follows the World Anti-Doping Code. The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the world governing body for international competitive cycling events, subsequently supported the USADA ruling, making it final.
Initially, many who had not followed the case closely questioned on what basis USADA could "attack" an American "hero" and continued to believe Armstrong. But then in October, USADA released its "Reasoned Decision," a 202-page document that outlined its case against the cyclist, including never-before-published analyses of Armstrong's 2009 and 2010 blood profiles, as well as testimony from 26 witnesses. Along with supporting documents, the whole dossier came to more than 1,000 pages. It detailed, among other things, how Armstrong and those on his teams were able to beat the drug testing.
The report portrayed Armstrong as a ruthless competitor, willing to go to any lengths to win. USADA chief executive Travis Tygart labeled the doping regimen employed by the team Armstrong led as "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."
Given the overwhelming weight of USADA's evidence, almost all support for Armstrong, including that of his commercial sponsors, evaporated after the report was made public. He also stepped down from his position with the Livestrong cancer charity he started to keep it from being affected by his fallen status.
While most welcome Armstrong's confession, many observers see the admission as coming too late to gain him any sympathy or warrant a reduction in the lifetime ban.
The admission of guilt may have legal consequences for Armstrong as well. For one thing, former teammate Floyd Landis has filed a whistleblower suit on the grounds that public money was used to buy doping products while Armstrong raced for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal Service, and it’s possible the Department of Justice will join that suit. The penalty against Armstrong could be as much as $90 million, three times what the Postal Service paid the team.
For another, the Sunday Times of London is suing Armstrong for $1.6 million to recover an amount it paid him to settle a libel lawsuit over a 2004 article they ran that included allegations that he had used PEDs.
For still another, in 2005, SCA Promotions, based in Dallas, had tried to deny Armstrong a promised bonus for a Tour de France win because of doping allegations, but were forced to pay in an out-of-court settlement. After the USADA report was released, SCA threatened to bring suit to recover the more than $7.5 million from that settlement.
It's also conceivable that Livestrong donors may demand compensation after Armstrong's confession. The foundation has raised more than $500 million since he founded it in 1997.
Estimates are that Armstrong's net worth is about $100 million. It's possible that his lawyers secured an out-of-court agreement with the government before he talked with Oprah, but CBS News reported on Tuesday night that government officials rejected an Armstrong offer to repay $5 million in restitution and cooperate with investigators as a witness. In any case, the confession increases the likelihood that he will be in legal jeopardy on more than one front for some time.
So why has Armstrong decided to confess now?
One reason may be to help Livestrong. Even though the cyclist has severed his connection with the charity, it's still associated with him in the public mind. Shortly before his meeting with Oprah, Armstrong visited the Livestrong Foundation headquarters for a private meeting with the staff during which he apologized to them for the stress they'd endured because of him. According to a foundation spokesperson, Armstrong also urged them "to keep up their great work fighting for people affected by cancer."
He has expressed a desire to be allowed to compete in marathon and triathlon events, a pursuit he started after retiring from bicycle racing. Most of those events are under the World Anti-Doping Code and, thus, are now closed to him. Under the code, it's possible for the lifetime ban to be reduced to eight years, although, since Armstrong is already 41, even that term could effectively preclude his participation except in age-group events. However, if Armstrong is able to give USADA further information, possibly testifying against others who knew about or facilitated doping, a shorter negotiated term might be possible. People familiar with his plans say Armstrong will not testify against other riders.
David Howman, director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which also has a voice in lifting any lifetime ban, said on Tuesday that Armstrong's confession on TV is not sufficient. He must confess to doping under oath and aid the fight against cheating in the sport if he hopes to mitigate the ban.
One of the most intriguing pieces of information Armstrong might be able to clarify is a charge that he actually did fail a doping test in 2001 but "bought" his way out of it by making a $100,000 donation to UCI. That organization's president, Pat McQuaid, acknowledged that Armstrong made the donation but says it was "to help develop the sport." McQuaid said further that Armstrong is the only rider ever to have made a donation to the governing body and that in hindsight, the decision to accept the money while the cyclist was still racing was regrettable.
There are also claims that UCI allowed other drug-cheating riders to go unpunished.
One other possible reason for Armstrong's confession is that since there are others in the doping conspiracy whose cases are yet to be heard by USADA -- most notably Johan Bruyneel, the director of the teams on which Armstrong won his Tour titles -- Armstrong could be subpoenaed in their cases, and the confession frees him to testify without lying under oath. Doing the latter, or even "taking the Fifth," could have unpleasant legal consequences for him.
Regardless of what may have prompted Armstrong to finally confess, Winfrey described him as "forthcoming" in the interview and said she was "satisfied by the answers." On CBS, she was asked if Armstrong was emotional. She said he was "a couple of times," and added, "But that doesn't describe the intensity at times. ... I would rather people make their own decisions about whether he was contrite or not."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Armstrong Tells Oprah He Doped to Win. CBS News
Armstrong Admits Doping, and Says He Will Testify. New York Times
Analysis: The Ever-Shifting Ground Beneath Lance. VeloNews
Armstrong Apologies to Livestrong Staff Before Oprah Interview. VeloNews
A Decade of Denials for Armstrong. VeloNews
USADA's Reasoned Decision (full text)
To Forgive? (Will Armstrong Be Forgiven?) Bicycling
The Big Questions
1. Does a person have to actually be contrite for an admission of guilt to "count" with God? Why or why not? (In your answer, explain what you mean by "contrite.") What is the relationship between confession and repentance? Was there ever an occasion when you apologized because you thought you had to, but did not feel sorry in your heart? When have you apologized and truly felt sorry for what you have done? Were there occasions when another apologized to you and you questioned that person's sincerity? How did that make you feel?
2. Define these four words: confession, forgiveness, restitution, redemption. How are they related?
3. Is there a difference between admitting a wrongdoing and confessing a wrongdoing? If so, what is it?
4. Does confession carry the same weight and significance when it results in some benefit or payback to the one who confesses, as opposed to when it doesn't? Does it have the same significance when the one confessing seems to have been backed into a corner by compelling evidence and has few other options but to confess? Explain your answer.
5. Some cancer survivors who have been helped by the Livestrong Foundation couldn’t care less about whether Armstrong doped. And the fact is, there would be no Livestrong without Armstrong's victories on the bike. So how are they helped, if at all, by a confession from Armstrong? Should Armstrong's character matter to those helped by the foundation he established? Why or why not? How might Romans 8:28 ("We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose") fit into your answer?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Numbers 5:6-7
When a man or a woman wrongs another, breaking faith with the LORD, that person incurs guilt and shall confess the sin that has been committed. The person shall make full restitution for the wrong, adding one-fifth to it, and giving it to the one who was wronged. (For context, read 5:5-10.)
In the law God gave the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, he included provisions about confession and restitution. Note that this instruction says that when one person wrongs another person, he or she is thereby "breaking faith with the Lord." The implication is that all sins, even those committed against fellow humans, are ultimately against the law of God, who wills for us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves (as God said elsewhere in the law -- see Leviticus 19:18).
Under the law God gave Israel, there were arrangements to square such wrongdoing: The wrongdoer was to confess the sin to God (and presumably, to the one wronged) and make restitution.
The idea of restitution makes clear that while confession brings forgiveness, it is to be linked with whatever can be done by the wrongdoer to set things right.
Questions: In what ways is doing something wrong to one's neighbor a sin against God? What are we to do when making restitution is not possible?
Psalm 51:4
Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your sentence and blameless when you pass judgment. (For context, read 51:1-17.)
According to the superscription on this psalm, it was written by King David after being confronted about his adultery with Bathsheba. Since David sought her out and eventually had her husband killed, his sin was directly against both of them as well as his own wives. Yet in the verse above, David confesses that his sin was against God alone. Ultimately, all sin is against God, whose holiness and moral laws define good and evil.
Questions: What else besides praying this prayer do you think David needed to do to be restored in his faith? In what ways can Psalm 51 be a model prayer for confessing and repenting? How is forgiveness possible when certain consequences of an action, in this case the death of Uriah, cannot be undone? Are you amazed, intrigued or appalled by those who forgive the murderer of a loved one?
Proverbs 28:13
No one who conceals transgressions will prosper, but one who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy. (No context needed.)
We might want to argue with the first phrase of this proverb; it seems that many who conceal transgression do in fact prosper, at least in this life. But in the thinking of the wisdom teachers who wrote Proverbs, real prosperity was linked to righteousness before God, which is implied by the second phrase above. The "mercy" obtained by the one who "confesses and forsakes" transgressions is from God. Those who do not confess and forsake do not obtain it.
Questions: Besides not obtaining God's mercy, what are the dangers of concealing your transgressions? Are there any sins that should be confessed only to God but be concealed from others? Why? What are the results within us that others may not see when there is no attempt to confess transgressions to God?
Luke 18:13
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" (For context, read 18:9-14.)
This is from Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, who both went to the temple to pray. The Pharisee's prayer was self-congratulatory while the tax collector's prayer was confessional. He didn't state specific wrong deeds, but admitted plainly that he was a sinner. And Jesus said that of the two, only the tax collector went home justified (made right with God).
Questions: This parable was originally addressed to "some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt" (v. 9). Is that whom it is addressed to now, or is it addressed to others? In what ways do you hear it as addressed to you? In addition to responding as individuals to this parable, can you think of ways that we as a congregation, as the church at large or as a nation should receive and respond to this parable?
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (For context, read 1:5-9.)
The "he who is faithful" in this verse is God, whose very character is faithfulness and justice, as well as love. John is saying that our sins separate us from God, but that God wants no "pound of flesh" from us. He'd rather have our confession, which opens the channel for his mercy and forgiveness to flow to us.
After we confess our sin, God's forgiveness makes us spiritually clean again, but often there is a great deal of emotional, psychological and relational damage (and, in some cases, legal and financial consequences as well) to be dealt with. God's forgiveness, however, given up front when we confess our sins, is the first and most important factor in our restoration.
One Greek word sometimes translated "confess" is homologeo, which basically means "to say the same thing" and then "agree, admit, acknowledge." In that usage, we confess our sin when we "say the same thing" God says about it. As long as we try to justify our self or pussyfoot around it, we have not yet truly confessed. We say, "What I did wasn't so bad" or "It wasn't any worse than what others did" or "I didn't really hurt anyone," but what does God say about our sin? "The person who sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:20). That sounds much more serious than when we speak about our sin.
On the human relations level, those we have sinned against don't experience our verbalization about our sin as confession unless we "say the same thing" about what we did that they would say about it. It takes empathy and a shift from self-focus to really see how our actions impacted others negatively. When that happens, our admission changes from begrudging confession of guilt because we got caught to grief over the hurt we caused God and others.
Questions: This verse could be described as "pure gospel." Why? There is an almost mathematical precision to it: If this takes place, then this other must happen. This may not be our actual experience, when apologies are not received or accepted, or when despite words of forgiveness, we do not feel that a relationship has been renewed and a clean slate adopted. Is this only possible with God? Can people operate in this way? Should it be this easy?
For Further Discussion
1. How do you think Armstrong's confession should be received by the general public? By those he raced against? By those whose reputations he impugned? By those whose careers he caused to stall or collapse? By donors to Livestrong?
2. In his book The Innovator, G. William Jones has a modern parable titled "Confession Is Good for the Cell." Read this summary of it to your class and then ask them to talk about what it might mean.
In the story a man, Hymie, is imprisoned despite his repeated protestations of his innocence. Hymie spends every day of the first year of his incarceration not only proclaiming his innocence to all around him, but also writing long letters to legislators about the injustice done to him and dreaming of how he was going to sue the state when the governor finally had his written apology and notice of release hand-delivered to Hymie's cell.
One day, however, Hymie looked out his cell window and noticed the greening grass, the buds opening and other signs of springtime. It was too much for him -- everything living, growing and changing but him. He felt like a bee trapped in amber, while the rest of the world went on around him. He collapsed onto his bunk, defeated. When his evening tray arrived, the turnkey joked, "Here you go, Mr. Innocent."
Here's the rest of the parable in Jones' own words:
"I'm not innocent," Hymie croaked, weary with it all. "I'm guilty. Guilty as hell."
"What did you say?" the turnkey asked, strangely excited, holding his breath to catch the soft answer.
"Guilty," sighed Hymie. "I'm guilty."
Immediately there was a rattling of the key in the lock, and when Hymie raised his head the door didn't look right. When he got up and gave the door a tentative push, it swung open broadly into the dusky, deserted corridor.
Peeping timidly down the corridor, Hymie saw that other gates were hanging open before him all the way to the front gate. There was still enough sunlight left to give him a glimpse of the greening grass and the bursting buds beyond.
3. Respond to this: Etymologically, the word "confess" differs little from the idea of "profess" -- to admit, acknowledge, own up to. It was long used in the sense of professing one's faith. Thus, summaries of key doctrines are sometimes termed "confessions of faith," as in the Westminster Confession, the Confession of Augsburg and others. When we recite the Apostles' Creed, we are confessing our faith.
In Roman Catholicism, the term "confessor" is used to describe a saint who did not die a martyr's death but whose life exemplified the Christian faith. Christian martyrs are those who confessed their faith even to the point of laying down their lives. Confession, as the word is more commonly used today, still means to profess, but in the sense of professing or owning up to one's wrong actions and guilt.
Responding to the News
This is a good time to remind ourselves, in the words of 1 John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Closing Prayer
O Lord, while it's all too easy for us to see the sins and failures of others, help us to see ourselves as you do, admit to you our sins, and receive your mercy. In Jesus' name. Amen.

French Actor Gerard Depardieu Becomes Russian Citizen

On January 3, French film star Gerard Depardieu was granted Russian citizenship in a surprise decree from Russian President Vladimir Putin. The move, which bypassed the usual Russian citizenship process and waiting period for outsiders, was officially done because of the actor's "outstanding services to cinematography," including acting in Russian-made films. But practically, the move enabled Depardieu to avoid paying high French taxes on the wealthy and gave Putin an opening to move on his goal to streamline his country's citizenship procedure.
The Russian citizenship grant came about after Depardieu recently declared he was moving to a Belgian village just across the border from France, which would permit him to avoid France's proposed new 75 percent income-tax rate on people making more than a million euros ($1.3 million) a year, up from the current 41 percent. The 75-percent plan has been struck down by France's highest court, but the government is reworking the plan to increase taxes on the super-rich.
After the French prime minister branded Depardieu's plan to move to Belgium as "shabby," the actor facetiously declared, "Putin has already given me a passport." While that wasn't true, when Putin learned of the comment, he said, "If Gerard really wants a Russian resident permit or passport, consider that done." The film star then accepted the offer.
Russia's income-tax rate is a flat 13 percent. Russian officials see this as a powerful enticement for other big-earning immigrants as well. According to the World Bank, from 2008 to 2011, the French economy grew at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent, while the Russian economy grew at an average annual rate of 4.3 percent.
Depardieu reportedly said that it wasn't the taxes themselves that bothered him, but the way France "spits on success." He also complained about the way the media had treated him.
On Sunday, Depardieu flew to the town of Saransk, about 300 miles east of Moscow, where he was welcomed by the governor, who invited Depardieu to settle there and offered him an apartment of his choice. The actor has not yet said where in Russia he will take up residence, but did say he didn't want to live in Moscow because it is too big. He prefers a village.
Commenting to a French TV station about his move, Depardieu said, "I have a Russian passport but I remain French, and of course will keep dual Belgian nationality." He has not renounced his French citizenship, but has threatened to do so, and also to turn in his French passport and social security card.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Gerard Depardieu's Comic Russian Adventure. Bloomberg
Vladimir Putin Welcomes Gerard Depardieu to Russia. The Telegraph
Actor Gerard Depardieu Welcomed as Russian Citizen. CBC News

The Big Questions
(A note on terminology: This lesson includes references to two realms, one being God's kingdom and one being the earthbound realm. We are aware that some users of this material may think of Martin Luther's "two kingdoms" teaching, but that is a somewhat different line of thought than the way the kingdom term is being used in this lesson.)
1. Christians sometimes describe themselves as citizens of two "countries," one being this world and one being the world to come in which the ultimate rule of God is universally acknowledged and has full sway. What are the responsibilities -- as well as privileges -- that go along with citizenship, both in an earthly country/state/city and in God's kingdom?
2. If Christians have dual citizenship in God's kingdom and an earthly realm, what should we do when values of God's kingdom conflict with values of society on earth? How does it feel to be torn between two allegiances? How do you balance, in your daily life, your obligations that may extend in different directions?
3. On earth, it may be easy or hard to become a new citizen of a country or other locale. How easy/hard is it to become a citizen of heaven? Describe the "citizenship procedure." Is there a single key to gaining admission to God's kingdom? If so, what is it?
4. Whereas it's possible to change citizenship on earth, is it possible to opt out of kingdom-of-God citizenship after one has already been made a citizen (i.e., been baptized)?
5. In what ways do you understand yourself to be part of the kingdom of God right now? What priority do you actually give God's realm as compared to your national, state, or regional allegiances? Did these priorities shift when there was a national crisis, such as 9/11, or the Gulf War?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Zechariah 8:4-5
Thus says the LORD of hosts: Old men and old women shall again sit in the streets of Jerusalem, each with staff in hand because of their great age. And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in its streets. (For context, read 8:3-13.)
The prophet Zechariah preached to people who were very discouraged. They had returned from exile to find Jerusalem in ruins and the land impoverished. They had been allowed to come to Judah, but they were not free; they remained subjects of the Persians. They did not think things would improve, but Zechariah put before them a vision of people living happily and at peace. The vision he cast for them was part of what got the people moving toward rebuilding the temple of the Lord and getting their lives back on track.
The vision Zechariah described wasn't his own, however, but God's. The vision (read it all in 8:3-13) describes a scene such as a public park where old men and old women sit, basking in the sun, enjoying the environment and each other's company. And around them are happy children playing, completely safe. They are secure, for in this kingdom, where God himself is on the throne, there are no pedophiles or drug dealers lurking around to harm children, no purse-snatchers or con artists around to bother the old people. In fact, the elderly and the very young enjoy each other, and no one harms another. Everyone's well-being is assured. The crops grow well because there is neither drought nor infertility. And the whole kingdom is a place of blessing.
It was a kingdom-of-God vision that enabled the returnees to tackle the issues of their daily lives and make necessary changes and progress.
Questions: When has a vision or goal gotten you to change direction for the better or undertake a new endeavor? How do you think you would have responded to Zechariah's message? Rephrase Zechariah 8:4-5 so it reflects your ideal vision for society.
Matthew 6:10
Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. (For context, read 6:5-15.)
When Jesus gave his disciples the model prayer we now call "The Lord's Prayer," one of the phrases he included was "Your kingdom come." While we often take that "kingdom" to mean the realm that comes in the afterlife, some Christians believe that "Your kingdom come" refers to God's full reign as king of this world. They believe that this petition is asking that the time come soon when, right here on earth, people will always treat one another as God wants them to, and that holy living by everyone will be a foregone conclusion.
Other Christians believe that the phrase "Your kingdom come" is a plea that the knowledge of God's grace and mercy shown to people through Jesus Christ's death and resurrection may expand throughout the world, both now and in eternity.
In either case, the phrase "Your kingdom come" may seem like a pipe dream. Current events make it easy to be pessimistic about human beings as an entire species all willingly doing God's will. Human nature seems too unreliable. Human greed seems too strong. Self-centeredness seems endemic. Acts of "inhumanity" are unfortunately too much a part of the "human" fabric. The same kinds of sins people committed 4,000 years ago are still committed today, so where's the evidence that we are any closer to the goal of God's will being done on earth just as it is in heaven? And many people still resist God's grace and mercy.
Against all of that, however, is the biblical testimony about God's kingdom. It's a major part of the message of Psalms and of the prophets, and it is woven deeply into the Good News Jesus Christ taught.
Questions: What are you thinking of when you pray, "Your kingdom come"? What does God's kingdom look like? What elements of God's kingdom, as you define it, are visible in our society today? What elements are not yet visible? Is it possible for God's kingdom to be fully realized in history? Beyond history?
Luke 17:20-21
The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, "Look, here it is!" or "There it is!" For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you. (For context, read 17:20-37.)
At the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus said that the kingdom had "come near" (Mark 1:15). The wording of the original Greek gives the sense not that the kingdom was an accomplished fact, but that it had "begun to arrive." That tone of begun-but-not-fully-here continued to mark many of Jesus' later statements about the kingdom as well.
However, elsewhere, Jesus talked about the kingdom coming in the future, with his return, as, for example, in Matthew 24:30: "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory." On another occasion, Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered with the words quoted above, saying that "the kingdom of God is among you" (italics added). Thus both statements about the kingdom -- that it is yet to come and that it is already here -- are true.
With Jesus' arrival in the first century, the kingdom had begun and it became present at least in the hearts of Jesus' followers. In fact, the word translated "among" in Luke 17:21 can equally be rendered as "within."
In his book Wishful Thinking, preacher Frederick Buechner explains the "already here/not yet" truth this way: "Insofar as here and there, and now and then, God's kingly will is being done in various odd ways among us even at this moment, the kingdom has already come. Insofar as all the odd ways we do his will at this moment are at best half-baked and halfhearted, the kingdom is still a long way off ...."
Questions: In what ways do you experience the kingdom of God in one form or the other? In what ways do you experience it in both forms? To what degree is how you live each day determined by your citizenship in God's kingdom? Is it possible to live by the rules of God's kingdom if others are intent on not doing so? What sacrifice is required of us to live in God's kingdom?
Jeremiah 29:7
But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (For context, read 29:1-14.)
This is from a letter the prophet Jeremiah wrote to the people of Judah shortly after they were exiled in Babylon. Some apparently argued that the stay there would be short, but Jeremiah had heard different news from God. Although Jeremiah said the people would be allowed to return to their homeland eventually, that was to be many years in the future.
In the interim, said Jeremiah, the people should not only resign themselves to a long stay, but should actively seek the welfare of the land where they had been taken. They were actually to work for the good of Babylon. They were to not forget who they were or where they came from, but neither were they to think of themselves merely as short-term visitors.
Questions: In what ways do you work to actively seek the welfare of the people in your community? In what ways is that related to the prayer that God's will may be done on earth as it is in heaven? The Judeans were held captive in an alien culture, yet Jeremiah asked them to pray on its behalf. In our society some chafe when one party is in power, and others chafe when the other party is in power. Do you regularly pray in a positive way for leaders who are members of the other party? Do you seek the welfare of your nation/state/region regardless of who is in power? How should this affect the things you say about people in power?
Philippians 3:20
But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. (For context, read 3:17-21.)
In Philippians 3:17-21, Paul is here drawing a sharp contrast between heavenly citizenship and an earthly mindset of some "enemies of the cross of Christ" (v. 18). He's likely also implying that heavenly citizenship stands in contrast to Roman citizenship so valued in Philippi, which was a colony of Roman citizens planted farther out in the empire. Commentator William Barclay says that Paul was probably alluding to something like this: "Just as the Roman colonists never forget that they belong to Rome, you must never forget that you are citizens of heaven; and your conduct must match your citizenship."
Questions: Do you actually think of having citizenship in heaven? How does that shape what you do?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to the quote from Frederick Buechner, found in the discussion of Luke 17:20-21.
2. Depardieu said, "I have a Russian passport but I remain French, and of course will keep dual Belgian nationality." What do you think this says about his national allegiance? If France and Russia entered into a military conflict against each other, what do you suppose Depardieu would do? How is this related to your "dual citizenship" as a Christian?
3. What would it take for you to give up your U.S citizenship? Is a hike in taxes a good enough reason?
4. Comment on this statement: "The kingdom of God is not evident to all, but only to those willing to discover it and enter it."
5. Think of some descriptive words for the kingdom of God and discuss their meaning. Here are a few to get you started: joy, wisdom, watchfulness.
6. Respond to this, from theologian Gunther Bornkamm: "We must not separate the [kingdom of God] statements about future and present, as is ... apparent from the fact that in Jesus' preaching they are related in closest fashion. The present dawn of the kingdom of God is always spoken of so as to show that the present reveals the future as salvation and judgment, and therefore does not anticipate it. Again, the future is always spoken of as unlocking and lighting up the present, and therefore revealing today as the day of decision." (From his book, Jesus of Nazareth.)
Responding to the News
This is a good time to consider to what degree how you live each day is determined by your citizenship in God's kingdom. Perhaps answer on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "not at all" and 10 being "a great deal." If you decide your answer is at the low end, it could be a call to be more intentional about following Jesus.

Closing Prayer
O God, while we are not ruled by kings in our political life, we seek to be ruled by you in our spiritual 

Newtown Massacre Re-ignites U.S. Gun Policy Talk

The mass killing of 20 elementary school students and seven adults in Newtown, Connecticut, by a lone gunman last month has re-ignited the national debate about gun policy in the United States and has caused other actions and reactions. Note the following:
* In his speech at the prayer vigil for the Newtown shooting victims, President Obama alluded to the need for the nation to address its gun policy. He has since vowed to make increased restrictions on ownership of firearms a priority in 2013.
* Senator Dianne Feinstein pledged she would introduce additional laws on guns at the beginning of the new congressional session.
* Gun sales have surged across the nation as enthusiasts and others rushed to buy firearms they fear will be outlawed by a new push for gun control.
* The National Rifle Association (NRA) has proposed putting an armed security officer in every school in the nation.
* There have been calls to allow school teachers and other school personnel to arm themselves, as well as to allow licensed concealed weapons permit holders to be armed on the premises. (This is already allowed in two states.)
* Gun buy-back programs in Los Angeles and Connecticut have brought in record numbers of weapons.
* Several media outlets have pointed out that 119 children under the age of 12 were killed by guns across the United States in 2011, the equivalent of nearly six Newtown massacres.
A few days after the Newtown tragedy, a gunman ambushed and killed two upstate New York firefighters as they fought a house fire set by the gunman. That case showed one problem with trying to limit who has access to guns through legal means. As a convicted felon, the shooter couldn't buy weapons legally but allegedly got his neighbor's daughter to purchase them for him. She is now under arrest.
A few days before the Newtown tragedy, a man intent on mass murder began to shoot random victims at a shopping mall in Oregon. The shopping mall was a "gun-free zone," but one shopper with a concealed weapons permit hadn't seen the sign. He drew his concealed weapon and pointed it at the murderer. The murderer stopped shooting and committed suicide. This case revealed a problem with "gun-free zones."
We acknowledge that gun policy discussions are hard, even among Christians who otherwise agree on many matters. People tend to get passionately entrenched about their views on the types of guns permitted in the hands of private individuals. Indeed, even among the members of The Wired Word editorial team, it's been a hard topic, with some members disagreeing strongly with one another. Still, in our judgment, it's a conversation Christians need to have, maturely and without ranting.
To facilitate discussion, we are including here statements from four individual TWW team members who have volunteered their comments. There are gun owners among our team members. There are some members who wouldn't have a gun in their house. We are probably not that different from the mix among church memberships across the nation.
Micah Holland is a United Methodist pastor in Canton, Ohio, who works especially in young adult ministry. He said, "America has a love of guns and our right to own them. I have no problem with people owning guns. I do struggle with our love of violence. From our beloved video games, which all but mimic real life, to blockbuster movies with endless violence, to our love for revenge, we, as a culture, hold violence too close to our hearts. A reasonable gun policy which limits gun ownership and the capacity in which they are used would seem like a balanced approach for our country to follow. I always try to remember that Jesus tells us to love our enemies. How we respond to this statement is, in my opinion, the crux of the matter."
***
James Berger is a Presbyterian pastor in Fort Myers, Florida. He said, "To say that we need a good guy with a gun in every school, or that every female teacher needs a guy with a gun to protect her, or that every homeowner needs a firearm, makes an A PRIORI assumption. That assumption is that we live in a state of anarchy in which terrorists are breaking into our homes, our schools, our churches, and killing innocents at will. Therefore, every homeowner or renter needs a firearm for self-defense. But that is patently false. We do not live in Syria or Libya or Afghanistan. Ours is a nation of laws, and the vast majority of us are safe in our homes and in public. So in order to sell more firearms, one must first convince the potential gun-buying public that the lie is the truth. Hence, ads that reinforce the fear of home invasion. Or a personal attack. Or a terrorist or a drug dealer or a Jihadist kicking in your front door and coming in behind a hail of bullets from an Uzi or an AK-47 or, more likely, a Bushmaster version of the M-16.
"The reality? If you have one of those weapons, it is more likely that you or someone in your family will be shot with it than that you will use it to defend your home. Adam Lanza's mother is the tragic confirmation of that statistic. That statistic is not anti-gun propaganda. It is the cruel reality of gun ownership. The answer is not more guns in private ownership, legal or illegal. The solution is more complex and long-term. It will include restrictions on anti-personnel weapons and magazines, coupled with better mental health services and treatment, and a public awareness campaign about the true costs of unregulated firearm ownership. After all, the Second Amendment states that the reason for firearm ownership is to maintain a 'well-regulated militia': 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' So far, no one is addressing the first clause of the amendment -- only the second clause. But any student of grammar can see that the first clause modifies, or controls, the second."
***
James and Kelly Gruetzner are Lutheran laypeople in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In a joint statement, they said, "Even as the bad guy (BG) was breaking through the front door of the school, people in the school office were calling 911. Three staff members tried to rush the BG to stop him. Two of them were killed; the third was wounded. All this took place in the first minute. The efforts of the three failed in this instance, but it was worth doing: Rushing and physically overpowering a BG often works. Unfortunately, the laws of their state ensured that they -- the first responders protecting the children -- were unarmed. Had one of the three used a firearm, the chance of successfully stopping the BG would have gone up significantly. Had all three done so, the news report would have been of an intruder shot (and probably killed). Perhaps one or more of them would have been wounded or killed, but 20 children and several adults would still be alive.
"The Scriptures give a number of examples of people being called to protect the weak from those who victimize them. Of course, real life is a bit messy. Situations vary -- which also means that making universal rules or judgments is a bad way to go. 'One size fits all' -- doesn't. Ironically, gun control laws lead to more violence overall. The anti-firearm Brady Campaign grades states on their gun control laws, from 'A' (many laws) to 'F' (few laws). Not surprisingly, people are almost four times more likely to own a firearm in 'F' states than in 'A' states. With only one-quarter the firearms ownership rate, 'A' states have almost twice the violent crime rate. Minorities are hardest hit; the black homicide rate in 'A' states is over twice that of 'F' states. Since England and Australia enacted their firearms bans, violent crimes in those countries increased (even while, with a great increase in firearms ownership, violent crimes in the U.S. continued to drop).
"Different people will come to different conclusions about their own responsibilities and actions. One person might knowingly delegate defending the weak to other people. As long as he doesn't try to prevent other people from helping, that could be a moral course of inaction, and we should not judge someone who does that. To reduce school murders, someone might suggest putting an armed guard in every school. This has effectively been endorsed by President Obama, all of whose daughters' schools have had armed security guards. Other people who see their own children or grandchildren -- or those of their friends -- as precious might desire and make the same choice.
"A different person might choose to take personal responsibility to defend the weak and helpless. Some might choose to be, effectively, armed first responders. Many teachers in states that, unlike Connecticut, allow it are choosing to arm themselves. Having a few armed is enough: If it is known that just several staff members are armed, it could deter a would-be murderer from choosing that location.
"According to USA Today, it took 'about 20 minutes' after the 911 call for responders with firearms -- the police -- to arrive on the Newtown scene. That ended it: When the BG saw that people who could shoot back had arrived, he killed himself. Those who attempt mass murders are often cowards. When someone armed comes and opposes them, they leave, either physically or suicidally. In fact, fewer than 10 percent of cases required armed responders -- police or civilian -- to fire their weapons in order to stop the crime. If an armed citizen takes action, there usually is no mass murder.
"Whatever action a Christian decides to take in this particular area of defending the weak, we should be careful not to judge someone else's choice nor to hinder that choice. We are not called upon to make other people choose as we have chosen: we are called upon to answer God as we understand our duty."
***
Frank Ramirez is a Church of the Brethren pastor in Everett, Pennsylvania. He said, "I live and pastor in a region where hunting is an essential part of the culture. Kids go through a rite of passage of passing the gun-safety program. Trophies are prized, to be sure, but hunting is for food, and freezers are filled because of the hunt. For the past 11 winters, I have written an annual litany for the Blessing of the Hunters. We stress our place in God's creation, practicing gun safety, conservation of resources such as the herd, and our own place in the great circle of life. But many of the hunters I speak to are troubled by this NRA obsession with all weapons and can't understand what place they have. No one would hunt with a semi-automatic. Or kill varmints with one either.
"One fellow suggested that the reason a person might want a semi-automatic weapon is the same reason some people want to drive a high-performance car. It seems to me that such weapons should be kept at shooting clubs for those purposes. Most law-enforcement agencies are against such weapons also. They're the ones who bear the brunt as well.
"Which brings me to the Second Amendment. There is an approach to literature which recognizes that all the accrued layers over time are part of the discussion and interpretation. There is the original context, and there is the way people have come to view it. Without question, the original context of the Second Amendment is based in colonial experience. Guns were necessary for ordinary uses in life. Without a standing army, the right to own a gun was also essential for the well-being of the new nation. But we now have a well-regulated militia; it's called the armed forces. The original need for a well-armed citizenry, which is why that essential first clause was written, no longer exists. A responsible citizenry should be able to distinguish between the legitimate uses of firearms and the need for a well-funded gun industry with a powerful lobby to sell guns to people who already own guns again and again.
"There are already many such guns out there, but advocating regulation or at least registration is not the same as black helicopters descending into your town square to confiscate your guns. That, of course, is impossible, even if it were legislated. There is no body, either military or civil, that would either cooperate with or could accomplish confiscating guns. The only reason for these militias that I can see is to eradicate democratically elected administrations.
"So in the end, these terrible weapons are in private hands and are eventually used on other human beings. Then we are told that the guns are not at fault. The fact is, you can only kill so many people at a time with a regular hunting rifle.
"The question is, 'What gun would Jesus own?' We already know Jesus would not aim it at another human being, not even a Roman soldier or a temple guard. I doubt if Jesus would advocate that we own semi-automatic and automatic weapons. There is no biblical right to such a weapon. I think that Jesus would recognize the need for an agricultural society to bear arms for hunting purposes and for protection against various dangerous creatures -- like a good old-fashioned rifle, the kind that can be found in every home in Middle Pennsylvania, locked in a glass case, well cared for, owned and operated responsibly. And I think Jesus would insist we share the venison with the poor and hungry, a la Matthew 25, just as people do where I live."
More on this story and related issues can be found at these links:
Child Gun Deaths Nationwide Number Nearly 6 Newtown Massacres. Chicago Defender
Donors Spawn Connecticut Gun Buyback After Mass Shooting. CNN
NRA Press Conference, December 21, 2012
Gunman's Neighbor Arrested in Connection With Firefighter Ambush. CNN
Dianne Feinstein Gun Control Proposals Help Lead to Massive Buys. Newsday
Why Not Renew the "Assault Weapons" Ban? Well, I'll Tell You. Kontradictions
Why Would Someone Own a Military-Style Rifle? CNN
How Much Do You Know About the Second Amendment? A Quiz. Christian Science Monitor
The Big Questions
1. What attitudes and understandings do we who follow Jesus need to employ to have a useful and respectful conversation on gun policy? What do we need to learn more about? What goals need to be uppermost?
2. If Jesus were physically present with us in the United States today, would he carry a gun? Why or why not? Would he encourage you to carry one? To keep one in your house? To carry one as a law enforcement officer? Explain your reasoning.
3. If Alice is not legally allowed to own or use firearms, but Bob, who is legally allowed to have a firearm, makes a gun available to Alice so she may bypass the law, what level of blame should be legally placed on Bob when Alice uses that gun to kill Carol?
4. Is putting armed security in every school a good idea? Explain your answer. What about in movie theaters? In places of worship? Every public gathering? What about reducing or eliminating "gun-free zones" so that citizens who have gone through the training and licensing process for carrying a concealed weapon can be present with their weapon? Explain arguments both FOR and AGAINST your answer.
5. What can your church do to lessen the amount of violence in our culture today? In what ways is your church involved in mental health, hunger, domestic violence or other programs that might address some of the issues that lead to gun violence? How do you support community and governmental organizations that address these issues?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Judges 14:19
"He killed thirty men of the town, took their spoil, and gave the festal garments to those who had explained the riddle. In hot anger he went back to his father's house." (For context, read 14:5-20.)
This verse is talking about Samson, who, in the biblical account, comes off as a flawed man who didn't live up to his God-given potential. In contrast to the other biblical judges, who seem to have been following a calling from God and the community, Samson seems to be something of a lone ranger, and it is not clear that his choices, most of which are bad, are in accord with God's plan.
Indeed, Samson, who seems to have had trouble with cognitive reasoning and was unable to connect the dots between his choices and the consequences, apparently had the kind of flawed thinking processes that, if unaddressed, can lead to violence. When the other judges took action, there was some measure of peace that followed, while some of Samson's actions lead to escalating violence.
From the Israelites' point of view, Samson is the good guy in the story, but the verse above makes us wonder. Because some opponents were able to solve (through trickery) a puzzle Samson had put to them, he now owed them 30 sets of garments. He paid, but he did so while acting in "hot anger," killing 30 men of the town and paying his debt with their clothing.
Today, Samson would be called a mass murderer, similar to how the Newtown shooter is labeled.
Questions: Would someone have been right to stop Samson's massacre by killing him? What bearing do you think the fact that the slain 30 were all Philistines (traditional enemies of the Israelites) had on how the Israelites viewed Samson? To what degree does the fact that many of the slain children across America are from poorer neighborhoods than the Newtown victims explain why there's been less outcry about their deaths than those of the Newtown children? What other explanations might there be?
1 Samuel 18:10-11
"The next day an evil spirit from God rushed upon Saul, and he raved within his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he did day by day. Saul had his spear in his hand; and Saul threw the spear, for he thought, 'I will pin David to the wall.' But David eluded him twice." (For context, read 18:5-16.)
Reading "between the lines" of King Saul's story, we gather that he was, at minimum, furiously jealous of David, but, more likely, mentally unstable -- just the sort of person who today we wouldn't want to have access to a firearm. Fortunately, he missed when he threw the spear at David, but with better aim, he could have radically -- and negatively -- altered the course of Israel's history.
Questions: How should the fact that there is no way to guarantee that unstable people like Saul not obtain weapons influence U.S. gun policy? How about the fact that intentional evildoers may be able to obtain weapons illegally, no matter what the policy is? Would we tolerate Saul's instability and actions in our own leaders? What checks and balances are there to help separate unstable people from guns? What does it say about Congress that it does not permit its own members to carry firearms into their chambers?
Matthew 10:16
"See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." (For context, read 10:5-31.)
Jesus said this to his disciples when sending them out on a mission to "proclaim the good news" (v. 7) in the towns of Israel. He didn't mention weapons, but he did tell them to NOT take money, extra clothing or even a staff (which could be used for protection), so it's likely he didn't want them to carry any swords on this mission either. In fact, he told them to rely on the Spirit (v. 20).
The idea of "sheep into the midst of wolves" -- and the related "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39) -- have long been models for the spirit in which Christians work for God's kingdom -- not allowing possible personal threat to be the only factor in deciding how to proceed.
Questions: How does fear affect our ability to fulfill God's calling? What might the antidote for such fear be? Can you think of instances in your own life, in the lives of missionaries encountering hostile cultures or in the history of martyrs that suggest that returning love instead of retaliation toward hate leads to salvation for others, including former enemies?
Luke 22:35-36, 38
"[Jesus] said to them, 'When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?' They said, 'No, not a thing.' He said to them, 'But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.' ... They said, 'Lord, look, here are two swords.' He replied, 'It is enough.'" (For context, read 22:33-38.)
Matthew 26:51-52
"Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'" (For context, read 26:47-56.)
Although the two passages above are from different gospels, they are from the same series of events during the evening before Jesus' crucifixion. In the Luke passage, Jesus reminds his disciples how, when he sent them on the gospel mission to the towns of Israel, he told them to count on local hospitality. What he's telling them now is that things have changed, for the tide has turned against him, and against them if they stay with him. If they stay, they're going to have to depend on their own resources, and the night ahead will be the kind where they'd sell their very clothes for a sword. Jesus may or may not have been speaking symbolically, but the disciples hear him literally and show him that they already have two swords.
The Matthew verses are from later in the evening, when the high priest's crowd comes to arrest Jesus. One of the disciples springs to his defense, using his sword, but Jesus stops him, making the now well-known statement that "all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Jesus was clearly stating that the swords weren't to be used to defend HIM, and he also seems to be making a statement about his way being one of nonviolence. His comment also reinforces the interpretation that he was speaking symbolically when he told the disciples they should sell their clothes to buy swords.
Questions: Knowing yourself, if you were among the disciples, how would you likely have reacted to the crowd? What do you think Jesus would say to you about your reaction? Supposing there had been a daring rescue of Jesus -- with great loss of life on both sides -- and the cross was averted -- what would the salvation history of our world be like? What does Jesus' insistence on being obedient (see Philippians 2:5-11) even to the cross say to us?
For Further Discussion
1. One difficulty in legislating against private ownership of "assault" weapons is that it's a hard-to-define category. Except perhaps for single-shot rifles (that have to be manually reloaded after each shot), almost any modern gun in experienced hands can be used to inflict mass casualties. Even limiting magazine sizes does not change that fact. In the Virginia Tech massacre, for example, the shooter, using one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, killed more people than anyone ever had in a single U.S. shooting incident. The reason: He had multiple magazines -- 19 of them in a backpack. When one magazine ran out, it took him less than five seconds to replace it with another one. So, should the national debate embrace a much larger category of firearms?
2. Which points from each of the four TWW team members' statements make the most sense to you? Why?
3. What was the original purpose of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? (The wording is contained in James Berger's statement above.)
4. Comment on this: Responding to the biblical idea that dying for one's cause was more efficacious than killing others for it, TWW team member Liz Antonson said, "This has kinship with the 'turn the other cheek' message of Jesus. It is so hard for me to wait for the reward of the One who will say to me, 'Well done.' It is so hard for me to entrust my safety to the will of God, so I adopt the ideologies and methods of the world instead of those of the Kingdom of Christ. But, 'I press on to reach the end of the race and receive the heavenly prize for which God, through Christ Jesus, is calling us.' I want to understand the difficult message of Jesus. I want to live out that understanding. Perhaps this year I will understand more, imitate Christ more."
Responding to the News
This is an appropriate time to consider what specific things your whole church group can get behind to lessen the incidents of violence in this country, and then to put in place an action plan to implement those things.
Closing Prayer
Help us, O Lord, as a nation of people to make the policy decisions that will do the most to protect the defenseless and allow ordinary life to go on securely and peacefully. In Jesus' name. Amen.