A 'Ragged Edge'? Last U.S. Marines and British Troops Hand Bases to Afghan Army, End Combat Role

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Last week, 13 years after the U.S.-led war against the Taliban in Afghanistan began, both the United States and the United Kingdom ended their combat roles in that country. On Sunday, British troops and U.S. Marines handed over their large adjacent bases in Helmand province to the Afghan military, and left the country.
Some of the bloodiest fighting of the war has taken place in Helmand province, and two of its sparsely populated districts are still effectively under Taliban control. That province produces most of the opium that helps to finance the Taliban's insurgency, and the Taliban efforts in that province "fuel the insurgency across the rest of the country," said U.S. Army Lt. General Joseph Anderson, the day-to-day chief of allied operations in Afghanistan.
From this point forward, however, it will be up to the Afghan army to deal with the Taliban, mostly unaided by foreign forces. In addition to the two bases, they have inherited training, supplies and military equipment from the departing allies, but they will be carrying on mostly on their own.
The pullout means that no British troops will remain in Afghanistan. The United States will still have about 12,500 soldiers there, but they will be serving in training and advisory roles, not in combat.
The fighting in Afghanistan began in 2001, when a U.S.-led coalition toppled the Taliban government for harboring al Qaeda, the group that executed the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
In the 13 years of the war, 2,210 American soldiers and 453 British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, with many more wounded. At least 21,000 Afghan civilians have died because of the war, as well as an unknown but significant number of Afghan soldiers and police officers.
One of the departing U.S. commanders, Brig. General Daniel Yoo, said he is "cautiously optimistic" that the Afghan forces "will be able to sustain themselves." Marine Corps Lt. Curtis Smith put it more bluntly: "I really hope that the blood, sweat and tears that we invested in this place get used properly. And I wish them luck."
Smith's comment seemingly voices the concern that while turning over the bases to the Afghan forces marks a sharp break in involvement for the United States and the United Kingdom, in terms of the mission itself, the departure is more of a ragged edge. The Taliban has not been defeated, and it's uncertain that the Afghan forces will be able to successfully hold the hard-won gains that allied and Afghan troops have achieved in the 13 years, let alone end the insurgency.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Last of U.S. Marines Leave Afghanistan's Helmand Province. Wall Street Journal
Britain Ends Combat Role in Afghanistan, Last U.S. Marines Hand Over Base. Reuters
Last British Soldiers Leave Afghanistan: 'It's a Relief to Be Getting Out of There.' The Independent 
Over and Out: Marines Withdraw From Southern Afghanistan. NBC News (photos)
The Big Questions
For this lesson, we use the following definition of a "ragged edge": Any interaction we have with another person or persons in which there is some kind of disagreement and where the action we take as a result may be the best we can do under the circumstances, but it leaves us dissatisfied.
1. In your experience dealing with the problems of life, especially those involving interactions with others, is the outcome more often a tidy finish or a ragged edge? Has this been truer for you as an adult than when you were a teen? Do you experience more ragged edges within the context of your life of faith or outside the faith? Explain your answer.
2. A U.S. commander has voiced "cautious optimism" that the Afghan troops will be able to deal with the Taliban. In terms of matters you've had to turn over to others to finish, is cautious optimism enough to make you comfortable letting go of the reins? Name a time when you were reluctant to hand over the reins, but you did, and things turned out better than you had expected.
3. When you have to leave things unsettled or unfinished in upsetting dealings with others, or when your efforts to mend a broken relationship are turned away, how does that affect your sense of contentment? Your feelings about your own worth? Your confidence in God?
4. In what ways might a ragged edge be a call from God? What sort of call? How can you test whether a perceived call is really a call from God?
5. What actions of God are still ragged edges, and will not be completed until the kingdom of God comes in all its fullness? What is your response to God's ragged edges? How should this impact our ministries to the world? Are there ways we can smooth some of these edges by our concern and love?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Romans 12:18
If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (For context, read 12:9-21.)
In verses 9-21, Paul is talking about how Christians should live their lives. He talks about letting love be genuine, contributing to those in need, extending hospitality to strangers, living humbly and in harmony with others, not taking revenge and similar good things. But then he says, "If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all."
In those words, Paul is acknowledging life's ragged edges. In our relationships with other people, the flow of our interactions is almost never totally up to us. As far as it depends on us, we can approach our connections with others with love, humility, kindness, generosity and so on, but as Paul rightly notes, it isn't all up to us. As the old cliché puts it, "It takes two to tango."
More often than not, we find ourselves moving on with feelings of disappointment or dissatisfaction over the way certain things have worked out, with the ragged edges still dangling. That makes us uncomfortable, and we may find ourselves obsessing about how we can tidy up certain ragged edges. If we can, of course we should, but if it's not possible, and often it is not, we have no choice but to move on.
Questions: If we cannot bring a happy outcome from a human interaction -- if the other person won't allow the matter to be settled -- what, if anything, is our ongoing responsibility? Are there times when taking the lead in "living peaceably" with others actually prevents real reconciliation? When is it more important just to let things be as they are, without a real resolution? How do we tell whether that is the best course?
1 Kings 2:1-3
When David's time to die drew near, he charged his son Solomon, saying: "I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, be courageous, and keep the charge of the LORD your God, walking in his ways ..." (For context, read 2:1-9.)
Not all ragged edges ought to be stitched up. The verses above are the opening lines of the Bible passage that records David's final instructions, just before dying, to his son Solomon, who would succeed him on Israel's throne. This is one place where it is important to read the context, verses 1-9. Because of space limitations, we didn't quote it all, but if you read the full passage, you'll see that some of the unfinished business David handed off to Solomon would have been better left alone.
There was one good request, that Solomon "deal loyally" (v. 7) with the sons of Barzillai because of help Barzillai had given to David, but his other instructions -- to kill Joab and Shimei -- were questionable. He tells Solomon to have a man named Shimei put to death because of an offense he committed under David's rule (2 Samuel 16:5-8). But Shimei had asked David's forgiveness for his offense, and David had not only granted it but had promised not to take revenge on Shimei for it (2 Samuel 19:18-23). In telling Solomon to have Shimei killed, David is technically keeping his word, since he himself is not ordering Shimei's death -- Solomon will do so -- but David is getting his revenge nonetheless.
Questions: What ragged edges in your life are better left dangling than finished? Are there times you feel it is up to you or the next generation to fulfill what was unfulfilled by previous generations? How do you feel about such a burden? What unresolved issues between generations have you experienced? To what extent is your church generation attempting to resolve issues that really belong to earlier church generations? What expectations do you think have been laid on you?
Genesis 50:20
Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today. (For context, read 50:15-21.)
When Joseph's brothers had betrayed him and sold him into slavery, they never imagined that their act would result in Joseph becoming highly placed in the government of Egypt. That was an unexpected consequence. But after they've been reunited, Joseph interprets their deed as a means for God's will to be accomplished.
TWW team member Frank Ramirez comments, "Sometimes we have to make the best we can of the whole mess. I think some of the most grace-filled words in the Bible come from Joseph when he tells his brothers that perhaps their actions, throwing him into a pit to leave him for dead, his ending up in slavery and therefore being in Egypt in the right place and time, might be God's will to save the family. Not everything is resolved. Or needs to be."
There is also a piece of the gospel that tells us that not everything needs to be finished. The gospel message itself reminds us that past wrongs that can't be undone can be forgiven, and we can move on in the newness of life with Christ.
Perhaps the most important thing we can do is take the ragged edges in our life to God and ask him for guidance to help us know the right choice: abandon them, keep trying to fix them, hand them off, bide our time or live with them.
Questions: How does hindsight figure into our understanding of God's will, especially concerning unfinished business? Is Joseph rationalizing, do you think, or is he having a real lightbulb moment? When have you had the chance to reevaluate key events in your life and have managed to see God in the worst moments as well as the best? When has this been difficult or impossible?
Philippians 3:13-14
... this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. (For context, read 3:10-16.)
2 Timothy 4:7
I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. (For context, read 4:1-8.)
Note Paul's comment to the Philippians about "forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead." Paul uses the image of a runner of a race, who loses if he turns to see what is happening behind him. Rather, he must keep his eye on his goal, that of living his life in the way God calls him to. That can apply to ragged edges, for when we have loose ends that we cannot tie up no matter what we do, continually focusing on them tends to blind us to the larger goals of life. When Paul suggests we forget what is behind, he probably doesn't mean we should act as if the ragged edges don't exist, but that we not allow them to prevent us from moving on.
In 2 Timothy, Paul talks about running the good race and finishing the course. It is noteworthy that he said this even though it seems there were other things he had intended to do -- like going to Spain (Romans 15:28) -- but which his arrest had curtailed.
Questions: In what sense do we as followers of Christ finish our course even when there are ragged edges in our lives? With the emphasis in our society on winning and losing, does Paul's suggestion that just running the race is enough make sense to you? To people outside the church?
Revelation 21:3-5
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away." And the one seated on the throne said, "See, I am making all things new." (For context, read 21:1-7.)
This is from the vision John of Patmos had about "a new heaven and a new earth" (v. 1) that come at the end of this world. Note that part of what he sees could be described as no more unfinished business: "Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away."
Question: Why do you think the kingdom of God is described in these no-more-unfinished-business terms?
For Further Discussion
1. Comment on this suggestion from Rev. Evan Jones for discipling Christians. He said to gather 12 together and give them two tasks: (a) Start a ministry you will not be privileged to see through to the end. (b) Pick up a ministry someone else started.
2. Tell some personal "ragged-edge" stories. Here are a couple to get you started:
Imagine that you and your spouse strongly disagree over how to respond to a request from one of your grown children for some financial assistance. It's a situation where there's no real compromise option. You want to give the money, thinking how much difficulty you can spare your child by doing so. Your spouse, however, is convinced that giving the money only enables some irresponsibility in your child, and doesn't want to give it. You can "agree to disagree," but in the end, you've got to do one or the other -- either give the money or not -- and no matter which one you do, one of you is going to be dissatisfied. That's a ragged edge.
In an unthinking moment, you have publicly embarrassed a friend, telling something she told you in confidence. When you realize what you've done, you apologize, which is the best you can do under the circumstances, and your friend forgives you. But you know that you've damaged the friendship because first, you cannot cause the people to whom you blabbed your friend's secret to forget what you said, and second, you know that your friend is going to be more guarded about what she tells you in the future. The blunder can be forgiven, but it cannot be undone. That, too, is a ragged edge.
3. Comment on this from a commencement speech by Andrew Young: ''Salvation does not come through simplicities, either of sentiment or system. The gray, grainy complex of existence and the ragged edges of our lives as we actually lead them defy hunger for a neat, bordered existence and for spirits unsullied by doubt or despair.'' ("Commencement Ceremonies: Words of Farewell and Calls to Conscience ...," New York Times)
Responding to the News
Spend some time contemplating the prayer originating with theologian Reinhold Niebuhr and used in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, but fitting for the larger circumstances of life:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.
Consider adding this line to the prayer: "And grant me the maturity to not obsess about them but to do what's right now."
Closing Prayer

O God and Heavenly Father, grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed, courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Bart Campolo, Former Christian and Son of Famous Evangelical Pastor, Is Now Humanist Chaplain at USC

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Tony Campolo is a nationally known pastor, author and speaker who became one of several spiritual advisers to President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. His son Bart had followed him into the ministry, but recently, the younger Campolo told his parents that he no longer believed in Christ. He had, in fact, become an agnostic humanist.
An agnostic believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Humanism is a system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities and worth.
While the conversation was a private family matter, Bart Campolo's "deconversion" made news earlier this month when he became the humanist chaplain at the University of Southern California, one of only a few such positions on U.S. campuses. (USC has chaplains representing 90 religious and spiritual traditions, but Bart Campolo is that school's first humanist chaplain.)
Tony Campolo is a sociologist and Baptist pastor who, though considered "progressive" on social and political issues, describes himself as "evangelical" in theology. He says that the conversation in which his son "came out" to him as a humanist was "upsetting" and "traumatic," but according to Bart, his father said, "You know me. I am not afraid you're going to hell because the God I believe in doesn't send people to hell for eternity for having the wrong theology. I'm sad because Christianity is my tribe, and I liked having you in my tribe."
The elder Campolo has since said, "I leave judgments in the hands of God. I don't know what's going on in Bart's heart or mind or soul. I have faith in God, and I have faith in prayer, and I have confidence that this thing is not over until it's over."
Despite their theological differences, the father and son remain close.
Bart, who accepted Christ during his high school years, says that even then, he was not drawn by Christian theology, but by the sense of community and the shared commitment to love people, promote justice and change the world.
Bart became a pastor and was involved in inner-city ministry, but he says his movement away from the Christian faith occurred in stages. "It wasn't until I exhausted every option for staying a Christian that I gave it up," he said. "My Christianity had died the death of a thousand nicks and cuts."
Commentator Rob Asghar, writing in Forbes about the younger Campolo's move from Christianity to humanism, said, "In one sense, he is the same person he has always been, fighting for the welfare of the sick and the poor. But he is now agnostic, in stark contrast to his legendary father."
Asghar added, "In his new role, [Bart Campolo] will offer encouragement to many like-minded people seeking meaning and purpose; and he will outrage or scare the pants off millions of people with whom he no longer shares a religious identity."
While Bart now acknowledges his agnosticism, he says he has little in common with angry, militant atheists who belittle religion and mock those who are religious. He said he wants to create a hopeful humanist community that even Christians will be able to see as valuable. He calls it "a church for people who don't believe in God."
"One thing I learned from Jesus was that if you want to gain your life, you have to lose it for the sake of the gospel," Bart said. "I may have a different gospel now, but I want to give my life to it. I still have good news to share."
Tony and Bart are now coauthoring a book, tentatively titled, A Painful Dialogue Between an Evangelical Father and His Agnostic Son.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Tony Campolo's Surprise Reaction When His Son Came Out as a Humanist. Religion News Service 
Bart Campolo's Heretical -- and Liberating -- Leadership Journey. Forbes 
On Bart Campolo's Deconversion ... and Why We Can't Blame His Father. Christianity Today (may need subscription to view this article)
The Big Questions
1. When a grown child of Christian parents leaves the faith, who's responsible? Are the parents in any sense to blame? Why or why not?
2. What sort of relationship ought Christian parents and their grown child have after the child has renounced the faith? Why? When a family member or someone else we love leaves the faith, what sort of conversation should we try to have with them? Why?
3. Campolo Sr. describes himself and his son as being of "different tribes" rather than facing different eternal destinies. Campolo Jr. talks about a "church" of people who still are pretty much like he always was, but without believing in God. What do you think is the difference between renouncing the faith and joining another "tribe" or group with the same basic value system but without belief in God?
4. What part of your own testimony or experience might it be good to share with a grown child who is no longer persuaded by the Christian faith?
5. If you've ever departed from the faith, how did your parents react? How did you approach your parents to say you were not going to be a part of their church, if that is what you did? How did members of your family approach you? What is the right way, in your opinion, to share this information? What is the wrong way?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Judges 13:8
Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said, "O LORD, I pray, let the man of God whom you sent come to us again and teach us what we are to do concerning the boy who will be born." (For context, read 13:2-25.)
Manoah was the father of Samson. Before Samson was conceived, an angel announced to Manoah that his wife, though barren, would bear a son. The verse above records Manoah's response, where he prayerfully asks God for help, that he and his wife might know how to best parent "the boy who will be born."
According to God's instruction, Manoah raised Samson as a "nazirite to God" (v. 5). That means the child was especially consecrated to God's service with a vow involving certain requirements for a wholesome lifestyle. Apparently, Manoah and his wife did everything in their power to see that their son was brought up right, but when Samson was old enough to leave home, he brought grief upon grief to his parents. First, he chose a wife outside of his parents' faith, a Philistine woman, causing his parents to lament, "Is there not a woman among your kin, or among all our people, that you must go to take a wife from the ... Philistines?" (14:3). And after that marriage broke up, Samson ran around for a time with a prostitute in Gaza. Later still, he took up with another woman outside the faith of his parents, Delilah, and we all know that story and how she contributed to his downfall. Imagine how heartsick Manoah and his wife felt about all of this.
Questions: Who was to blame for Samson's choices? What influences did Samson experience over which his parents had no control? What do you think led to the decisions he made about how he would live his life? Is it appropriate for parents to blame themselves for decisions their children make regarding what to believe or how to live?
Proverbs 22:6
Train children in the right way, and when old, they will not stray. (For context, read 22:5-6.)
Ephesians 6:4
And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (For context, read 6:1-4.)
The proverb above may induce guilt in good parents whose children either leave the faith of their parents or never embrace it to begin with, but we should note that a proverb is only an attempt to state what is usually true. It can't cover every situation, but can suggest a path built on past experience and hope for the future.
There are many cases where, as Paul advised the Ephesian Christians, parents have brought their children "up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" -- where they have set good Christian examples, have taken their kids to church, have spoken freely in their home about their faith and have prayed with and for their children -- and yet, they've still had one or more of their offspring not continue in the Christian faith.
Note that Paul, unlike the proverb, doesn't promise any specific outcome from instructing the kids in the Lord.
Questions: Do you think "the right way" mentioned in the proverb is a set of beliefs, a manner of behaving, both or something else? Why? If this proverb is not a guarantee, what use should we make of it?
Hebrews 3:14
For we have become partners of Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end. (For context, read 3:12-19.)
In 3:12-19, the writer of Hebrews discusses the matter of apostasy, though that word is not used in this passage. As applied to religion, apostasy means "abandonment of one's religious faith." There's no implied judgment in that dictionary definition, but in the Bible, references to apostasy, whether that actual term is used or not, are never judgment-neutral. (Nor is the old church term "backslider" or the more recent church term "inactive.")
In this passage for example, in verse 12, the Hebrews author says, "Take care, brothers and sisters, that none of you may have an evil, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God" (italics added). Yet when we apply the subject of apostasy to one of our own offspring who no longer believes in Christ but who remains a loving child, it's hard to label them "evil." However, the writer of Hebrews is using "evil" not in the sense of a value judgment about the person, but to characterize the outcome of disbelief, which the writer sees as eventual separation from God, a ruinous outcome.
Tony Campolo does not appear to be calling Bart evil, and Bart continues to work for justice and fairness for others and serve in selfless ways. But orthodox Christianity would say Bart's disbelief has an ultimate outcome that cannot be called good.
The fact is, some of our offspring may have failed to "hold [their] first confidence [in God and Christ] firm" to the present day, as the author of Hebrews calls for in verse 14 above. And while calling their change "evil" to their face may do neither them nor our relationship with them any good, it is worthwhile to realize that Christianity considers unbelief or "deconversion" a serious topic with eternal implications.
Questions: In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, the New Testament does use the Greek word apostasia, from which "apostasy" comes. The New American Standard Bible does translate apostasia in that verse as "apostasy," while the NRSV and the NIV render it "rebellion," and the KJV translates it as "falling away." What word might you use to characterize an "unbelieving heart" in someone who is a good person nonetheless? Is unbelief itself evil? Is being "a good person" adequate in God's judgment?
2 Timothy 1:5
I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that lived first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, lives in you. (For context, read 1:2-7.)
The apostle Paul was correct when he assumed that Timothy held the faith that both his grandmother and his mother held, but this verse reminded TWW team member Stan Purdum of an incident from his youth.
Stan explains, "I went one day with my father, who was a minister, to pick up some supplies for a church event. After we made the purchases, an employee at the store helped us load our station wagon. At one point, he said to me, 'Since your father is a minister, you must find it easier to be a Christian than the rest of us do.' I think I looked at him with a dumb expression on my face, and finally said something like, 'No, who my father is doesn't make it any easier for me.' The man appeared unconvinced, however, and said, 'I bet it does.'"
Stan continues, "Having lived a long time since then, I'm convinced my answer was correct. But it interests me that this man thought that somehow, clergy parentage gave me some kind of 'in' with God. My parents did have a lot to do with why I'm a Christian today, but I don't think they made my journey to belief a sure thing."
Questions: In what ways does your faith resemble your parents' faith? In what ways is it different? How well do you feel you were equipped for growing into the faith you have now? Who were your most influential mentors?
Do you and your children, or other members of your immediate family, share the same faith? The same denomination? The same political party and outlook? Do you root for the same sports teams? How do you and your family respond when there is a marked difference in outlook and even practice?
How well do conversations go among family members with very different outlooks on matters of faith? Is it, in your experience, possible for people to talk openly and honestly with regard to these issues?
For Further Discussion
1. Discuss this, from TWW team member Frank Purvis: "As a father of three, my greatest prayer has been that our children would always be faithful to Christ and active in church. As a pastor, I have had to encourage parents of adult children when their family walked away from the faith. When our son Carlisle died in an automobile accident in 2008, it was a great comfort to us that he was a believer and was active in church and that at his funeral, we could sing his favorite hymn. He was not perfect as neither are his parents, but I know he left this life believing in Christ Jesus."
2. Reflect on Tony Campolo's statement "and I have confidence that this thing is not over until it's over." When is it over?
3. Comment on this, from TWW team member Liz Antonson: "There are several of my friends whose adult children have departed from the Christian faith. Some are merely 'unchurched.' Some are bitterly and verbally rejecting [of the faith]. Some have adopted other belief systems (often with features that seem to be designed to upset the parents). These friends are retired pastors, and all of them are not only grieved by the departure from the faith of their children but suffer regrets from the self-knowledge that they were far too unbalanced in the ways they expressed their love and devotion, due to the amount of time they devoted to their work -- over-investment in the global ministry of the gospel and an under-investment in the ministry of family. In some cases, their children have expressed their sense of loss and resentment from living with their ministry-dedicated parents.
     "As a counselor, I have met many young adults in psychotherapy sessions who have not only failed to embrace the faith of their parents but [who] carry a huge amount of hurt and anger from experiencing benign neglect by a pastor-father/mother or missionary parents. Working on the need to forgive the parents in order to be free of depression and/or dysfunction was a lot easier for them than considering reconciling with Christian belief."
4. In your experience, does it matter if parents have an active faith and encourage their children's participation in church when it comes to their children remaining in the faith? Talk about instances where individuals (including yourself) have become active in church even though their parents did not set any example of this sort.
5. What do you make of Bart's statement "I may have a different gospel now, but I want to give my life to it. I still have good news to share"?
6. Print out the article "Tony Campolo's Surprise Reaction When His Son Came Out as a Humanist"  (also included in the links above) and read aloud to the class the nine short paragraphs beginning with "His first step away from orthodoxy occurred ..." (End with "I don't believe in eternal life in that way anymore.")
     Then invite your class to decide what they'd like to say to Bart (or to one of their own loved ones who might now believe as Bart does) in response.
     Then discuss that response.
Responding to the News
It's almost always a good time to remind your family members, even those who don't share your faith, that you love them and pray for good things for them.
Closing Prayer

We pray, O Lord, that the faith in which we have raised our children might continue to have meaning for them and inform their goals in life, whether or not they walk with us in that faith. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Terminally Ill New Bride, 29, Sets Date for Her Death

© 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Newlywed Brittany Maynard started the New Year off with a bang: The agonizing headaches she was having were caused by a malignant brain tumor. Initially, doctors estimated she could live up to 10 years, but in April, her condition had worsened. The new prognosis? Six months to live. None of the treatment options available could save her life, and the side effects would destroy her quality of life as she knew it.
So Maynard began to research "death with dignity," and learned that most states do not allow terminally ill patients to end their lives. But Oregon had enacted a law in 1997 permitting physicians to prescribe lethal doses of barbituates capable of ending the suffering of a patient who has no hope of recovery. Since then, 1,173 people in that state have requested such prescriptions, of whom 752, as of 2013, have actually used the drugs to die. Some who found comfort in knowing they had a choice in the manner of their death discovered that they were able to manage their pain through palliative care, so in the end did not ingest the medication.
Maynard and her husband, Dan Diaz, decided to move from San Francisco to Portland to establish her eligibility for the medication. Making such a drastic move at a time when she is getting sicker involved great sacrifice and difficulty for her and her family. She told People magazine, "There's tons of Americans who don't have time or the ability or finances, and I don't think that's right or fair."
She selected November 1 as the day she plans to die surrounded by family and her best friend. She and her husband say they feel relief, peace and comfort knowing that she has this option available to her. Diaz said in a video, "Death with dignity allows for people who are in the predicament of facing a lot of suffering [to] decide when enough is enough."
Americans are divided on the issue, with most wanting some control over how they die, as long as it involves ending life "by some painless means" rather than by "committing suicide." A New England Journal of Medicine poll conducted last year revealed that about 67 percent of the 1,712 medical experts surveyed in the U.S. were against physician-assisted suicide.
As for Maynard, she stated: "I am not suicidal. If I were, I would have consumed that medication long ago. I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms .... Who has the right to tell me that I don't deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?"
Maynard hopes more states will adopt legislation to allow terminally ill residents who are judged by two physicians not to be depressed or incompetent to request and receive prescription drugs that would hasten their deaths. Physicians would not administer the drugs; the decision whether or not to take them and when would remain in the hands of the patients. She has volunteered her time with Compassion & Choices, which according to its website is "a nonprofit organization committed to helping everyone have the best death possible," to advocate for death-with-dignity laws in other states.
Awaiting the inevitable day of her demise, Maynard reflected, "I hope to enjoy however many days I have left … I hope to pass in peace … The reason to consider life and what's of value is to make sure you're not missing out … seize the day … what's important to you, what do you care about, what matters. Pursue that. Forget the rest." She added, "When my suffering becomes too great, I can say to all those I love, 'I love you; come be by my side, and come say goodbye as I pass into whatever's next.'"
Although most media reporting on Maynard's planned suicide has been supportive and even encouraging of others, there is a dark side to euthanasia that is often downplayed or ignored. Where euthanasia is legal, it's possible for it to become an "easy out" for people facing temporary problems, and helps them avoid dealing not only with the fear of death, but with other emotional concerns. It is now well established in the Netherlands (the first Western country to legalize euthanasia) that suicide is a legitimate medical "treatment" for someone depressed about a tragedy in one's life.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Cancer Patient Brittany Maynard, 29, has scheduled her death for Nov. 1. The Washington Post 
Compassion & Choices
My Right to Death with Dignity at 29. CNN Opinion
Bioethicist: Why Brittany Maynard Changes the Right-to-Die Debate. NBC
Dying Young: Why Brittany Maynard's Story Resonates. CNN
Lessons From the Dutch Experience. New Zealand Life
The Big Questions
1. In your view, is physician-assisted suicide acceptable? Why or why not? If so, under what conditions should it be permitted? How does your Christian faith inform your response? Is there a difference between "physician-assisted suicide" and "death with dignity"? If so, how would you distinguish between the two?
2. If you were the spouse, parent or friend of someone in Brittany Maynard's situation, would you try to advise her in a certain direction or not? How would you respond to her decision? Do family members have the right to have any say in a matter like this? Do family members have the right to have any say in any other matters in an individual's life?
3. Modern society urges us to avoid death at all costs. But as Christians, is death the worst thing that can happen to us? If you could know what date you would die, would you want that information? Why or why not? What would you do with that information if you had it?
4. If physician-assisted suicide is acceptable when someone is faced with an excruciatingly painful death, is it also acceptable for a person with Alzheimer's or chronic depression who may not be experiencing physical pain, but instead feels extreme psychic pain or the loss of mental capacity and social awareness? Do "death with dignity" laws lead us down a "slippery slope" that will open the door to various abuses? What about people who may want the pills for the wrong reasons? What safeguards should be in place to prevent misapplication of a death with dignity law?
5. Should it make a difference that we are able to extend life so much more due to advances in medical knowledge and pharmaceuticals? When are we "dead"? Does the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" apply when our quality of life is almost non-existent and we become a burden to others? On the other hand, how do we ensure that people are not choosing assisted suicide prematurely? In whose hands should life-and-death decisions rest?
6. As a pastor, caregiver, health professional or caring friend, you may have given advice to someone which you knew would necessarily shorten the life of a loved one without actively terminating that life (such as choosing to dispense with medications, treatments or the insertion of feeding tubes). For the sufferer, is this different from suicide? Is extending life a virtue or goodness that trumps all other considerations? Is it easier or more difficult to share advice with others compared to choosing such a course of action for your own loved ones?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Ecclesiastes 8:5-8
... the wise mind will know the time and way. For every matter has its time and way, although the troubles of mortals lie heavy upon them. Indeed, they do not know what is to be, for who can tell them how it will be? No one has power over the wind to restrain the wind, or power over the day of death; there is no discharge from the battle, nor does wickedness deliver those who practice it. (For context, read 8:2-8.)
The author of this section also penned the familiar words in chapter 3:1-3: "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; ... a time to kill, and a time to heal ...." In Genesis 27:1-2, blind Isaac, aware that death could come at any time, tells his son Esau, "See, I am old; I do not know the day of my death."
Questions: Is it possible to be wise enough to know when is the right time and way to die? When "the troubles of mortals lie heavy upon them," is it easier or harder to gain such wisdom? In what sense is it true that "no one has ... power over the day of death"? In what sense might that not always be true? How can we know when it might be the season for death, the time to die, or even to kill (oneself)?
Define what in your mind is a biblical definition of a "good death." What constitutes a "bad death"? Are there circumstances where choosing to extend life at whatever expense to well-being, quality of life or finances begins to seem wasteful or absurd? Does your denomination or church have end-of-life statements or counsel?
Job 3:20-23, 25
Why is light given to one in misery, and life to the bitter in soul, who long for death, but it does not come, and dig for it more than for hidden treasures; who rejoice exceedingly, and are glad when they find the grave? Why is light given to one who cannot see the way, whom God has fenced in? ... Truly the thing that I fear comes upon me, and what I dread befalls me. (For context, read 3:1-3, 20-26; see also Job 7:14-16 and Revelation 9:6.)
In anguish because of multiple catastrophic losses, including the death of all 10 of his children, the theft or destruction of all his property and sudden onslaught of chronic and acute physical pain, Job curses the day he was born, wishing he were dead.
Questions: Can you imagine a situation so bad, when you are so miserable and your soul is so bitter that you might long for death and yet not find it? Have you ever felt "fenced in" by God, as though you had no good choices available to you? In such a situation, what is the thing that you would fear most? What might help you overcome your fear?
Job's situation is different from some situations that involve medically assisted suicide. The Oregon law requires examination by two physicians and a waiting period so that one does not take one's life just because one is depressed. Indeed, most people who qualify for the prescription fill it but never use it. They just prefer to have control over their passing, and often palliative care makes the suicide unnecessary.
1 Samuel 31:3-4
The battle pressed hard upon Saul; the archers found him, and he was badly wounded by them. Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, so that these uncircumcised may not come and thrust me through, and make sport of me." But his armor-bearer was unwilling; for he was terrified. So Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. (For context, see 31:1-5; see also 2 Samuel 1:1-16.)
During his final battle with the Philistines, King Saul was so badly wounded that he felt he had no chance of escape or recovery. The prospect of falling into the hands of the enemy seemed worse to him than death by the hand of his armor-bearer or by his own hand. When his armor-bearer would not acquiesce to his request that he assist him in his death, Saul took his own life.
Later, an Amalekite falsely reported to David that he had seen Saul in agony and obeyed Saul's command to kill him. David inquired, "Were you not afraid to lift your hand to destroy the LORD's anointed?" Then David had the Amalekite killed because he confessed to killing the king, something David himself had refused to do even though Saul tried to kill him more than once. It's not clear whether David would have been particularly concerned if the Amalekite had killed any dying soldier on the battlefield, but he was disturbed that he lifted his hand against the man set apart by the Lord to be king.
Questions: Kenneth Goodman, founder and director of the University of Miami Bioethics Program, said about the Brittany Maynard situation that "these decisions are among the most exquisitely difficult decisions in the history of civilization. ... we agree ... that life is precious ... so is liberty .... It's good to have misgivings." What kind of misgivings should we have when facing these kinds of ethical dilemmas?
John 11:3-4
So the sisters sent a message to Jesus, "Lord, he whom you love is ill." But when Jesus heard it, he said, "This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God's glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it." (For context, see 11:1-44.)
When Jesus' friend Lazarus became sick and died, Jesus knew that God and he himself would be glorified through it when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Such extraordinary miracles astound us because they are not part of our normative experience.
Questions: Is it easier for you to accept negative things that happen in your life as means by which you can glorify God, or do you tend to cling to the hope that God will glorify himself by replacing those negatives with positives? Could God have been glorified if Lazarus had not died? If he had not been raised from the grave? Explain.
Philippians 1:20-24
It is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be put to shame in any way, but that by my speaking with all boldness, Christ will be exalted now as always in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which I prefer. I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you. (For context, read 1:12-14 and 20-26; cf. Romans 14:7-9 and 1 Corinthians 3:21-23.)
Paul, writing from prison, expresses his inner conflict over whether he would rather remain on earth (and help the believers) or "depart and be with Christ," which for the believer is "gain." In Romans 14, Paul says "whether we live or die, we are the Lord's" and that "Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living."
Questions: What are the ramifications of Paul's statements in Romans 14 regarding the physician-assisted suicide or death with dignity debate? Are there circumstances in which the death of a Christ-follower might actually be more beneficial for other believers than for them to remain on earth? Can you think of a Christian whose death profoundly blessed you and built up your faith in a way that their life here on earth did not?
For Further Discussion
1. Read the comments following the article entitled "'It's Selfish to Die Just Because You're Scared to Live': Blaze Readers React ..." (TheBlaze.com). Using the comments as a starting point, have group participants debate the issue of physician-assisted suicide.
2. A member of the TWW team recalled the controversy over Terri Schiavo, the 27-year-old woman who had a heart attack that rendered her so brain-damaged that she was in a coma for years. Her husband wanted to remove the feeding tube that kept her body alive, but her parents did not. Faith groups weighed in on both sides of the question, some arguing that using artificial means of life support was an attempt to "play God" in determining whether a person lives or dies, and others holding that removing life support was the equivalent of "playing God" and no better than murder. The court decided in favor of the husband, and an autopsy revealed that there was no hope of recovery. What are the theological strengths and weaknesses of each position in such a case?
3. Discuss this story shared by TWW team member Frank Ramirez from his book Job: The Bootleg Commentary: After struggling to make life and death decisions regarding which children should receive powdered milk during the Spanish Civil War, relief worker Dan West birthed the ministry of Heifer International to provide live, pregnant animals to families in devastated cities in Europe following World War II. Decades later, when West learned he had ALS and would eventually choke to death, he spent the holidays with his family before stepping out into a raging snowstorm three times the night of January 4, 1971, wearing only his pajamas, boots and an overcoat. The staff at the nursing home where he resided had instructions not to try to stop him. When he contracted pneumonia, he declined to use an oxygen tent, writing on a piece of toilet paper, "My life is not worth this cost." He died three days later.
4. Consider how Jesus faced death: "not my will, Father, but your will" in Gethsemane. What motivated Jesus to willingly accept death? How might his motivation be similar or different from a person who desires physician-assisted suicide?
5. What would you say to Job that would be different from what you might say to the young woman who is the subject of this lesson? Is there a difference between her situation and Job's? Job came to see life from a different perspective and to repent. How important is time in determining if one is truly in a situation that may justify medically assisted suicide?
Responding to the News
If you have not already drafted Advance Directives to inform your loved ones of your desires should you become incapacitated and unable to make your own decisions regarding your health and medical treatment, you may want to set up appointments to discuss your options with your physician and pastor, and to share your wishes with your family and close friends.
Closing Prayer

Loving Shepherd, who is with your sheep even when we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, fill us with such an awareness of your presence and love that we will fear no evil at such a time, but trust you completely to lead us to your house where we will eat at your table and dwell with you forever. May Christ be exalted in our bodies, whether we live or die. And may we labor to produce the fruit of the Spirit every day you give us here on earth, until you raise us up with Christ at the last day. Amen.

Secret Service Director Resigns After Security Lapses

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

In 2011, seven gunshots were fired at the White House. Then, in September 2014, an Iraq War veteran with a knife climbed the White House fence, ran across the lawn and entered the presidential mansion. He was stopped only by an off-duty agent. The same month, an armed private security contractor with a criminal record was permitted to ride in an elevator with President Obama in Atlanta.
These security lapses raised concern that the president was not being protected properly, so Secret Service Director Julia Pierson was called before a congressional committee on September 30. Representatives including Republican Jason Chaffetz, who chairs a national security oversight committee, questioned Pierson on the number of times she had briefed the president on security lapses this year. She replied that there was only one such briefing, after the September fence-jumper entered the White House. She did not mention the Atlanta elevator incident.
This omission, which came on the heels of numerous problems within the Presidential Protective Division of the Secret Service, led Chaffetz to call for her removal, an initiative that was supported by prominent Democrats, including Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Elijah Cummings. Pierson took "full responsibility" for holes in presidential security and, the next day, offered her resignation in a meeting with the Homeland Security secretary.
"Director Pierson's resignation is a matter of national security and I am pleased she is stepping down," said Chaffetz in a statement. "The position should be filled immediately by new leadership from outside the Secret Service for a fresh start." President Obama agreed that new leadership was needed.
Pierson was the first female director of the Secret Service and had been in her position for just 18 months. But her tenure marked the end of a 30-year career in the agency, which had begun in 1983 in the Miami and Orlando field offices. Before that, she had served as a police officer in Orlando. Pierson was named director of the Secret Service in March 2013, selected by Obama to change the culture of an agency that had been marred by a prostitution scandal in Colombia. Secret Service agents had been caught taking prostitutes back to their hotel rooms in Cartagena.
Clearly, the Secret Service has problems that cannot be blamed entirely on Pierson, and an investigation into the fence-jumping incident will be conducted by a panel of independent experts convened by the Homeland Security Department. This group will make recommendations about how to tighten security in the White House compound, and how to improve the overall operation of the Secret Service. They will also submit recommendations on who might be the next permanent Secret Service director.
Until then, Joseph Clancy will serve as acting director of the agency. Clancy is the former head of Obama's protective detail, and is a trusted and familiar face in the White House. "He is a person the president has utmost confidence in," Representative Cummings told NBC News. "He will take a bullet for him." In addition to overseeing protection of the president, Clancy will also be tasked with repairing the agency's damaged reputation and credibility.
One of the challenges faced by the Secret Service is striking the proper balance between security concerns and the public's desire to get close to the White House. After the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building, authorities closed the stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the presidential mansion -- but only reluctantly.
The way to stop fence-jumpers, said one White House insider, is "we close Pennsylvania Avenue to pedestrians completely and we put barbed wire on top of the fence. But that's not reasonable. We want Americans to be able to come up to the fence line and take pictures and have fun and enjoy it."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Secret Service Director Resigns Under Fire. Yahoo News/Reuters 
Why the Secret Service Didn't Shoot the White House Fence-Jumper. Yahoo News
Interim Secret Service Head Has Been a Familiar Figure Beside U.S. Presidents. Yahoo News/Reuters
Secret Service Director Julia Pierson Resigns. CNN
The Big Questions
1. What do you feel is the proper balance between security concerns and the public's desire to get close to the president and the White House?
2. Charles Spurgeon said, "The best of men are men at best." What does this say to you about human fallibility? What kind of compassion and tolerance should we show one another?
3. If a person asks for forgiveness for multiple errors, should forgiveness be given? What types of repentance make you more likely to forgive? What is the distinction between offering someone forgiveness and allowing a person who has failed to continue operating as though that failure had never happened? When it comes to forgiveness, is there a difference between an error due to a moral failing and an error due to lack of competence or due to carelessness?
4. Do you feel that the congressional committee's response to Pierson's errors was appropriate? Or was it too harsh? What can we learn from this story about the appropriate way to respond to human failings?
5. Many Christians have long believed in "total depravity," meaning that every human action -- even a good one -- is tainted somewhat by sin. This view reflects the words of Jesus, “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). How should we respond to people, aware of the sin and weakness that is present in everyone?
6. As Christians we are used to the idea of receiving grace from God, and granting grace to each other. When have you been called upon to give grace to another in difficult circumstances? When have you received grace? In your profession, or in your personal life, are there circumstances where it is not possible to think about grace?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Genesis 40:9-10
So the chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, "In my dream there was a vine before me, and on the vine there were three branches. ..." (For context, read 40:1-23.)
In the book of Genesis we read that Pharaoh's cupbearer was imprisoned with Joseph. He might not have functioned in exactly the same way as our modern Secret Service agents, but it was his job to provide security in the area of food for the royal family, even at the risk of being poisoned himself. In a similar way, the Secret Service is willing to "take a bullet" for the president.
Questions: What qualities make for a good cupbearer or Secret Service agent? What kind of devotion to the Pharaoh or the Office of the President is required? What is it like to work in a job with so little room for error? Are there situations for you, as with cupbearers or Secret Service agents, where the question of whether you personally admire those you serve is irrelevant to your job performance? Do you think it is easy for God to love all of us all of the time?
2 Samuel 23:9-10
Next to him among the three warriors was Eleazar son of Dodo son of Ahohi. He was with David when they defied the Philistines who were gathered there for battle. The Israelites withdrew, but he stood his ground. ... (For context, read 23:8-39.)
David's "mighty men" might have been his Secret Service equivalent -- warriors willing to stand bravely beside him in battle. Interestingly enough, the last of the mighty men listed is "Uriah the Hittite" (v. 39), whom David betrayed when he committed adultery with Uriah's wife Bathsheba.
Questions: What qualities of the mighty men of Israel can we emulate today? How can we take courageous stands as they did? While we may not be called to put our physical safety on the line, are there situations in your professional, personal or church life where you have to take a faith stance that makes you unpopular with the larger culture? What are the situations, such as putting God and faith before country, that have caused you to make an unpopular stance, even a last stand of sorts?
Matthew 6:14-15
For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (For context, read 6:9-15.)
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives instructions about prayer, and teaches his followers the Lord's Prayer. A strong connection is made between the forgiveness we receive and the forgiveness we offer. The Amish take this text from the Lord's Prayer literally -- God will not forgive them unless they first forgive others. That is why, after the Nickel Mines murder in 2006 in which several Amish girls were killed, Amish visited the murderer's family (he had shot himself, so they visited his survivors) to express their forgiveness.
Questions: Do you view God's forgiveness as conditional -- that it is dependent on an action of yours? Is the forgiveness you grant conditional? What errors should be punished and what errors should be forgiven? Is forgiveness an appropriate response to failings in business and government? Or does it apply only to personal matters? How do differing types of errors cause your response to vary? Explain.
Romans 14:10-12
Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God." So then, each of us will be accountable to God. (For context, read 14:1-12.)
Paul encourages the Romans to welcome those who are weak in faith, and to resist passing judgment on one another. He acknowledges that there will always be diversity of belief and opinion in the Christian community, and so he is satisfied with the judgment of God.
Questions: In what areas is it legitimate to judge others? What are the qualities of appropriate judgments? In what ways are we accountable to each other, and in what ways are we solely accountable to God?
James 3:2
For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. (For context, read 3:1-12.)
James warns teachers that they will be "judged with greater strictness" (v. 1), and encourages his followers to watch their speech. "No one can tame the tongue," he says, "a restless evil, full of deadly poison" (v. 8). In particular, he warns about speech that curses people, who are "made in the likeness of God" (v. 9).
Questions: What trouble do we cause with our tongues? How can we show greater care in our speech and avoid cursing and condemning people? Why do we forget that we all make mistakes and deserve a measure of compassion?
Revelation 2:2
I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance. I know you cannot tolerate evildoers; you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them to be false. (For context, read 2:1-7.)
John praises the Christians of Ephesus for their work and patient endurance, and commends them for testing false apostles and for showing no tolerance for evildoers. He also criticizes the Ephesians for abandoning "the love you had at first" (v. 4) -- their love for Jesus and for each other. John calls for them to change their ways and gives them the hope of eating "from the tree of life that is in the paradise of God" (v. 7).
Questions: How can this passage guide us as we seek to correct those who err? Where is there both judgment and tolerance in the passage? What hope does John give the Christians of Ephesus?
For Further Discussion
1. In many areas, we don't face major consequences for our actions. No one cares what color socks you wear, for example. But there is no room for error in other aspects of life. Think of the mountain climber for whom one misplaced foot can result in a fatal fall. When faced with temptation, one wrong move can take us down a deadly a path. Our decision about what to do with Jesus is also an area in which we cannot afford a mistake, since nothing less than our eternal destiny is at stake. What decisions do you face in which you feel you have no room for error?
2. The Secret Service did not shoot the White House fence-jumper because of the presence of tourists, and also because he did not seem to be launching a "military-style assault." Was this the right decision? What else could they have done?
3. Director Julia Pierson took "full responsibility" for recent problems in the Secret Service. Why did she feel she was accountable for these errors? Do you agree, and why?
4. Congressman Chaffetz called for Pierson's removal because she failed to brief the president fully on security lapses -- one of several systemic problems within the agency. Should such failures and problems be noted and corrected without a change in leadership? Why or why not?
5. The President of the United States definitely needs armed Secret Service agents. But does the church? Where do we find our safety and security?
6. In this season of baseball playoffs, we would do well to remember the saying, "There are two kinds of ballplayers: those who are humble, and those who are about to be humbled." What role does humility play in our judgment of others?
Responding to the News
The resignation of Julia Pierson reminds us of the responsibilities of leadership, and also of the need to see everyone as a fallible human being. Look for ways to offer correction, compassion and forgiveness to the people around you, remembering that only God is perfect.
Closing Prayer

We thank you for your love for us, O God, as weak and fallible as we are. Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us. In Jesus' name. Amen.

New AP History Curriculum Sparks Uproar in Colorado School District

 © 2014 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

It's helpful to know two terms before reading this news section: "APUSH" and "revisionist history."
APUSH is an acronym for Advanced Placement U.S. History curriculum, referring to a U.S. history course taught in high school to college-bound students. It's designed to provide the same level of content and instruction that students would face in a freshman-level college survey class. The curriculum is set by College Board, the same group that runs the SAT test. It is an educational-resources company with a membership association of more than 6,000 schools, colleges, universities and other educational organizations. Students who successfully complete APUSH receive credit for the course both at their high school and at the college or university they subsequently attend.
Major changes to the APUSH curriculum were announced recently, significantly changing how U.S. history is taught and how it might be viewed by students. At least one large state's board of education (Texas) has rejected the revised APUSH curriculum, with several others still looking into the matter.
Revisionist history, as explained in Wikipedia, is "the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history." The Urban Dictionary defines revisionist history more snidely, saying, "When people, with the benefit of years (or generations) of hindsight and typically with ulterior motive, try to rewrite history as it originally occurred."
The changes to the APUSH curriculum beginning this fall have been described by critics as pushing a revisionist history that reflects an emphasis on theories concerning race, gender and class, and eliminating or downplaying the foundation of the United States on individual rights and constitutional government.
These two terms came into play this past week as more than a thousand students in several Jefferson County, Colorado, high schools walked out of their classes to protest a proposal introduced to the Jeffco School Board by board member Julie Williams in response to the APUSH changes.
Her proposal calls for a board committee to review the APUSH curriculum to the end that "Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage. Content pertaining to political and social movements in history should present balanced and factual treatment of the positions."
In a statement, Williams said that the new curriculum for APUSH is revisionist and portrays America's history negatively. She does not oppose treating negative aspects of U.S. history so much as she favors including positive aspects, such as the fight against fascism in World War II, the foundational principles of the consent of the governed and the development of democratic institutions. Some of the APUSH changes are surprising: the Black Panthers are mentioned, but Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr., are ignored -- as are Benjamin Franklin and James Madison.
Critics of the proposal, however, see Williams as calling for revisionist history as well, by downplaying negative aspects of U.S. history, such as Jim Crow laws, the treatment of American Indians or the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Many opponents characterize the proposal as calling for censorship.
In contrast, Williams sees the new APUSH curriculum as censoring history.
The student walkout followed protests by dozens of teachers at two Jefferson County high schools who called in sick, forcing both schools to close for a day. The teachers were protesting both the proposal for the school board to set up a committee to review what materials teachers use in the classroom and an ongoing disagreement over pay and the intentions of three new conservative school board members. Williams is one of the three, and on a board of five members, they constitute a majority.
Williams maintains that she's not trying to remove the facts of U.S. history from the curriculum, but she is concerned when APUSH casts a negative light on some parts of the country's past, such as the bombing of Hiroshima and slavery. She said that such teaching has an anti-American bias. Some people who agree with her say the new APUSH curriculum has too much emphasis on women, slavery and Native Americans.
Some of the protesting students, practicing the very kind of civil disobedience Williams wants the curriculum to discourage, say school should teach them how to think for themselves and analyze critically the material presented to them.
Stephanie Martin, a Christian conservative with two kids in Jeffco schools, admits to being torn over this issue. "I realize it's probably impossible to be neutral when teaching history," she said via email with The Wired Word, "but it's important to show both sides -- and to help kids learn how to think critically and think for themselves. Based on all the great teachers I've met in this district the past eight years, I doubt anyone's trying to indoctrinate kids and make them unpatriotic."
Martin said she'd have to see this proposed curriculum in action, but she doubts it or the alternatives are as "evil" as either side makes them out to be. "For example," Martin said, "I don't think the conservatives are trying to 'Botox' history, as [one] CNN columnist claims. Yet we can't gloss over stuff we'd rather forget, as a nation," Martin said.
Martin also pointed to a comment Williams made in a recent press release (on Facebook). Williams said, "Last, when it comes to history I believe all children graduating from an American school should know 3 things: American Exceptionalism, an understanding of U.S. History, and know the Constitution."
"I cringed at the term 'American exceptionalism,'" Martin said, "especially when I looked it up on Wikipedia. What makes us think we're superior to other nations? Then I heard a local conservative radio host say the term is misunderstood; instead of saying we're the best, it means we stand out as 'a uniquely free nation based on democratic ideals and personal liberty.' Yes, that's important for kids to appreciate."
Martin concluded, "What I'm hearing from many parents and teachers is that this board majority is inserting political and religious ideology into public education. The fact that they're facing such backlash shows that both teachers and students don't want limits on what they teach and are taught. And the last thing you can ever do is force people to respect authority."
TWW editorial team member Liz Antonson observed that Williams' proposals seem to be mixing history with civics. "History is facts, unless manipulated away from the actual events," Antonson said.
Critics of the new APUSH curriculum say it specifically downplays facts and encourages interpretations of events instead.
Antonson, noting that the proposal calls for using the teaching of history to "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights," said, "These goals should not be the primary burden of a history course because civics is the study of the great theoretical and practical aspects of citizenship, its rights and duties, the duties of citizens to each other as members of a political body and to the government." She maintained that history and civics should not be confused.
In most high schools, the traditional civics curriculum has been subsumed into the history and English curricula.
For her part, Williams said her proposal is being misinterpreted by its opponents. She wants the school district to be molding good citizens -- patriots, not "rebels."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Colorado Students Protest Proposed Curriculum Changes. PBS NewsHour
Behind Colorado Walkout Over 'Patriotic' History Classes, a Power Play. Christian Science Monitor 
Q&A: What Are Students in Colorado Protesting? ABC News
What in the AP U.S. History Curriculum -- APUSH -- Sparked Controversy in the Jeffco Public Schools? 7News Denver
Jefferson County Public Schools Faces Crisis Over School Board Changes. Denver Post 
Board Committee for Curriculum Review (Julie Williams' proposal)
Jeffco School Board Watch 
Description of the College Board's AP History Redesign
The Big Questions
1. To what degree do you remember personal or family history differently from how others who were present remember it? When has the way you remember it affected how you think about yourself today?
2. To what degree have you been shaped by what you've learned of biblical history? As an adult, do you look on biblical "heroes" the same way you did as a child? Which perspective is/was more helpful? To what degree is your Christian faith shaped by what you've read or been told about Christians in earlier generations?
3. When has the meaning of a personal painful incident changed with the passage of time? Which meaning -- the one you saw at the time or the one you perceive now -- do you think is the one God wants you to trust? Why? Is it possible you might see a still different meaning in that incident with the passage of more time?
4. When have you declared some aspect of your past unimportant because it doesn't fit with how you wish to be today? How does your faith in Christ help you deal with negative parts of your past? Is it healthier to integrate all of life's experiences into your story, or to eliminate or reinterpret?
5. In the biblical narrative, why were some stories included that don't portray the protagonist in the best light? Or that show the disciples' failings? Or even portray God in a less than stellar light?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Exodus 16:2-3
The whole congregation of the Israelites complained against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. The Israelites said to them, "If only we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger." (For context, read 16:1-15.)
This is from the time the Israelites were in the wilderness, having recently fled brutal slavery in Egypt. But now, hungry, they complain against Moses and Aaron for leading them to freedom, and they choose to gloss over how bad things were for them in Egypt, claiming instead that there, they'd been able to have their "fill of bread."
They are revising their history to fit the needs of their complaint in the present.
Questions: When have you glossed over, downplayed or inflated certain parts of your past, and why? How do you respond when you hear someone else reinterpret the past to suit themselves? Do you correct them? Listen to them? Seethe? Understand?
John 8:33
They answered him, "We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, 'You will be made free'?" (For context, read 8:31-38.)
Wow! Talk about revisionist history! The "they" in this verse are Jews. For any Jews to look at their history and say "[we] have never been slaves to anyone" is quite remarkable, given that their ancestors were enslaved in Egypt. Centuries after that, Jews were captives (if not slaves per se) to Assyria, then Babylon and then Persia. And the generation to whom Jesus was speaking was a subject people in the Roman Empire.
What's more, the Jewish rabbis never retold a biblical tale using the word "them." The experiences of the patriarchs, the enslaved Hebrews, the wandering Israelites, the citizens of the newly established Israel or the exiled audiences of the prophets are always referred to as "us."
So surely these people knew about the slavery in their history and even considered that it applied to them. But in the context of the conversation with Jesus about truth making them free from sin, it helped their argument to be able to claim essential freedom already, and they conveniently sidestepped the facts of their history.
But Jesus replies that "everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin" (v. 34).
Questions: What parts of your family history are you glad about? What parts set an example for you? What parts might you wish had gone differently?
With whom do you sympathize or identify more: that segment of God's people who might have self-identified as the descendants of slaves freed by God, or those who consider themselves free and descendents of free people? What does this say about one's relationship with God?
Genesis 45:5-8
And now do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years; and there are five more years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. So it was not you who sent me here, but God; he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt. (For context, read 45:1-15.)
When he was young, Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. The words above are his interpretation of the event, but from a much later perspective.
Questions: How do you suppose Joseph, when being herded away by the slave traders (Genesis 37:28), characterized what his brothers had done to him? How do you suppose he characterized his brothers' treachery when he was in that Egyptian prison, falsely accused by Potiphar's wife (Genesis 39:20)? Compare those characterizations with the one in the verses above. Which interpretation tells the truth of the facts about the brothers' action against Joseph?
If you were Joseph, would you have sincerely felt this way about the reason for your history of suffering, imprisonment and restoration, or would you have said this for the benefit of your family members? If you were on the receiving end of these words, how would you have interpreted them? Would you have been grateful for these words? Considering how the brothers later feared Joseph's possible wrath after the death of their father (Genesis 50:15-17), how do you think they really felt?
Isaiah 61:1-2
The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn ... (For context, read 61:1-4.)
Luke 4:18-19
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. (For context, read 4:16-22.)
Luke 4:16-30 tells of Jesus' visit to the synagogue in his hometown, where he read the Scripture of the day aloud to the congregation. The passage he read was from Isaiah 61, quoted above, and the Luke verses above are the Isaiah text as Jesus read it. Some of the differences in the wordings are because of the translations from Hebrew in Isaiah and from Greek in Luke. But note that Jesus stopped reading just before the line from Isaiah that said "and the day of vengeance of our God." In fact, Luke 4:20 says that Jesus then "rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down."
After returning to his seat, Jesus then said to those gathered, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (v. 21), indicating that the words he'd just read to them from Isaiah described him. Isaiah's words were, in effect, Jesus' mission statement.
So consider how different Jesus' message and mission might have been had he included the line about "the day of vengeance of our God."
Questions: Since Jesus selectively truncated part of a Scripture reading, is that sometimes an appropriate way to read it? And what about the use of history by selectively omitting parts? When you read Scripture for purposes of hearing God's word for you, do you pick and choose which verses from a larger section should apply? Do you ask for God's help in knowing which verses should apply?
Jesus selected these verses from Isaiah 61 to define his ministry. How do these define your church's ministries? What passages does your church most identify with, that tell your history and mission?
1 Chronicles 29:26, 28
Thus David son of Jesse reigned over all Israel. ... He died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor; and his son Solomon succeeded him. (For context, read 29:26-30.)
In terms of the history of Israel and Judah, we almost don't need the books of 1 & 2 Chronicles, for the period and events those two biblical books cover are already recounted in 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. But the chronicler, whose name we don't know, doesn't simply repeat the history from the books of Samuel and Kings. Rather, he picks carefully what he retells, choosing to summarize some parts, omit much and flesh out other parts.
The chronicler did this for a reason. Most Bible scholars believe that the chronicler composed his books during the post-exilic period -- that is, the time after the Jews had been allowed to return from exile in Babylon to their homeland of Judah, which was now a province of the Persian Empire. As a subject people, the Jews pondered their relationship to their past, wanting to know such things as "Are we still the people of God?" and "What do God's promises to David and Solomon mean for us today?" The chronicler, in his retelling of the past, shapes his account to help the people answer those questions.
But what the chronicler does is certainly revisionist history. For example, he summarizes David's reign in the verses above by saying, "He died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor." That's vocabulary the 1 Kings account doesn't use in its reporting of David's death (see 1 Kings 2:10-12). What's more, the chronicler never even mentions David's affair with Bathsheba and the tumultuous events that followed until Solomon succeeded him.
Steven Schweitzer, author of Reading Utopia in Chronicles, maintains that Chronicles was written with a view that this is the way history should have been -- errors of the past are erased, royal leaders become just and inclusive, and Judah's history provides devotional innovation and intensity. This alternative history provides an alternative way to behave in the present. (Cited in The Chronicler, by Robert W. Neff and Frank Ramirez, Brethren Press, 2010.)
Timothy B. Cargal, in his commentary 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles (Immersion Bible Studies, Abingdon Press, 2012), says that the chronicler "has a particular concern, namely, how proper attention by the people to their relationship with and worship of God may help them recognize God's presence with them in their radically changed circumstances, and just as importantly, spare them from repeating mistakes of the past."
Questions: Given the chronicler's goals, was he justified in reshaping the history of Israel and Judah? Was it really "reshaping," or emphasizing for a purpose? What do you conclude in terms of your faith when the Bible contains more than one account of an event, and the accounts don't agree? How do such reports affect how you hear the Bible?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond as a group to these reactions to this news story from various members of the TWW editorial team:
From David Hall: "Regarding the history curriculum story: I had the pleasure to be paired for a round of golf with a young man from China. Out of the blue he asked me, 'Why do the people in this country tear the USA down like they do?' I did not have a good answer, and he went on to say, 'I have lived and worked in several countries and there is no better place than this country.' I guess those opposed to teaching patriotism should converse with one with a different perspective than just those who advocate the blame-the-U.S.-first stance."
From Heidi Mann: "I don't gather that the concern of the Jefferson County students and others is to avoid patriotism, but to not ignore parts of our national history that include civil disobedience and ways in which the U.S. has not necessarily handled things justly -- such as treatment of Native Americans in the past. Patriotism doesn't mean looking at only the good of our nation; it means looking honestly at all facets of our history and learning from the mistakes. What does it teach high-schoolers who will be impacted in Colorado if they are only told the positives and don't have a chance to learn from the negatives so as not to repeat them? That's my understanding of the protests."
From Frank Ramirez: "I was discussing something like this with a study group who were using a book about the passages from Scripture we liked least. We were discussing having something in our history we couldn't quite square or didn't want to own -- in this case the mass slaughter of the Canaanites in Jericho. I gave as an example my feeling that the war with Mexico in 1848 was totally unjustified. It led to the acquisition of a huge amount of territory by the United States, all the way up to Oregon. On the other hand, I pointed out, I didn't doubt but that my family had a lot more opportunity by moving to the U.S. in 1910 and living in that territory now owned by the U.S. I simply live with the tension."
From Frank Purvis: "It has been my experience that when it comes to the story or the history of the Bible, that Christians can pick and choose. Those from a more literalistic bent emphasize the literal creation story, glossing over the questions that, for example, deal with the dinosaurs and other scientific data. ... Those of a more liberal view suppress the miraculous and question events like the virgin birth and a bodily resurrection. Like with American history, it sometimes depends on your presupposition on how you view the facts. Those who want a more patriotic view will gloss over the flaws and failures of the founding fathers. Those with a more 'politically correct' [view] would overlook how the forefathers made great strides for the betterment of the nation and other nations that have benefited from America. Again, it depends on one's own experience and presuppositions on how America is viewed. Those same rose-colored glasses also cloud our personal view of the Bible and Christianity."
2. In your experience, does trauma affect the way two members of a family remember the past differently? How is this similar to the way various ethnic groups may interpret American history and biblical history differently? Who should control the interpretation?
3. Comment on this: In their book Holy War or Just Peace? Robert Neff and Frank Ramirez point to the story of Jericho and tell how, for Brethren, it is horrifying that God's people slaughter everyone, including women and children, while African Americans, oppressed by slavery, might have a great appreciation for the walls to come tumbling down -- hence the spiritual "Joshua Fit the Battle of Jericho."
4. Congregations of today sometimes talk about the heyday of the 1950s/1960s when their sanctuaries were always full. Are those recollections accurate? Could it be there is a memory of Christmas or Easter that has stuck in people's minds as if it factually represented every Sunday during that time period?
Responding to the News
Pilate asks Jesus, "What is truth?" (John 18:38) in his conversation with Jesus. Consider what is the essential truth about Jesus, and about you and yours as his disciples.
The classic creeds skip over the life of Jesus, jumping from the virgin birth to his suffering under Pontius Pilate. Think about a rewrite of your church's creed, adding incidents from the life or words of Jesus that tell a familiar and/or unexpected truth about yourselves.
When has your congregation declared "truth" to your community? To itself? Work on a statement of truth about the history (good, bad, indifferent) of your congregation/denomination.
Invite people to chat with their families or someone else who shared in a certain event about what they remember of it. What sticks in each one's mind about a family vacation, a wedding, a baptism day, a high school sports victory pulled from the jaws of defeat, etc.?
Closing Prayer

Help us, O Lord, to learn the lessons you want us to learn from history, and to apply those lessons in the appropriate places in our lives. In Jesus' name. Amen.