Supreme Court Defangs Historic Voting Rights Act

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

Closing Prayer

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

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

The Secrets of a 74-Year-Marriage

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

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

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

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

The Big Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Further Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Is Secrets-Leaker Snowden Jeremiah or Judas?

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

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

25-Year-Old Makes All He Can, Gives All He Can

Jason Trigg is a young man who works in the world of finance because he wants to make as much money as he possibly can. Every morning, this MIT computer science graduate goes to work for a trading firm and writes software that turns money into more money -- The Washington Post describes it as "a hedge fund on steroids."

But this 25-year-old is not interested in using his high salary for fast cars, fancy houses or expensive jewelry. Trigg makes money so that he can give it away, much like English religious leader John Wesley recommended when he said, "Make all you can, save all you can, give all you can." Trigg believes that the more money he makes, the more good he can do.

"A lot of people, they want to make a difference and end up in the Peace Corps and in the developing world without running water," Trigg says, "and I can donate some of my time in the office and make more of a difference." He gives away half of his high-finance salary in order to save lives through the Against Malaria Foundation, a highly effective charity. Through their work, a $2,500 donation can save a life.

Trigg lives a life that seems simple to some. He lives with three roommates and walks to work every day. But he doesn't feel deprived, and he says that he wouldn't know how to spend a lot of money. Rather than becoming a missionary and going to Africa to dig wells, he donates a high percentage of his salary so that more wells can be dug by other people.

While some people shun Wall Street as an immoral place, Trigg sees making money in finance as a way to support good and moral work. He traces his approach to the philosophy of Peter Singer, a controversial thinker often criticized for his permissive views of abortion, euthanasia, infanticide and bestiality. But Singer is famous for a simple parable that even his critics find compelling:

A man walking by a shallow pond notices a toddler struggling in the water. No one else is around. Rescuing the child would ruin his shoes and muddy his suit. Tending to the girl and finding her parents would take time, making him late for work. So he walks away. The girl drowns.

Singer first told this story in 1972 and said that the lesson is this: "If it is within our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it." To help others, giving money away is not only admirable but morally obligatory.

But most Americans don't give much to those in other countries suffering extreme poverty. In 2011, the average annual household charitable contribution in the United States was $2,213, with 32% going to religious organizations, 13% going to education, 12% going to human services and 9% going to grant-making foundations.

It takes just $2,500 to save one life from malaria, which would be a gift amounting to 5% of the 2011 median American household income of $50,000. But most people don't give such a gift. "Many people talk about saving a life as one of the greatest things you can do," says Robbie Schade, a Google employee who is committed to giving 25% of his earnings to charity, "but seem unaware that it is within their power to save multiple lives every year, with little personal sacrifice."

People argue, of course, about the best use of charitable gifts. "You can pay to provide and train a guide dog for a blind American, which costs about $40,000," says Matt Wage, a finance worker who says he gives half his income away. "But with that money you could also cure between 400 and 2,000 people in developing countries of blindness from glaucoma, which costs about $20 per person." Maximizing the effectiveness of charitable giving is an ongoing challenge.

In the end, most Americans could give more to others and keep less for themselves. Jeff Kaufman, another Google employee, and his wife Julia Wise managed to live on $10,000 in 2012. Together, they give away at least 45% of their income each year, using the rest for savings and taxes.

How do they do it? In 2010, they spent just $164.44 on groceries each month and gave themselves a weekly allowance of $38 apiece to spend on nonessentials. In 2012, they moved in with Jeff's family to save even more money.

Not every American family will choose to follow the Kaufmans in living on $10,000 per year and giving 45% of their income to charity. But most could give more, so that the average charitable gift increases and more lives around the world are saved.

More on this story can be found at these links:

Join Wall Street. Save the World, The Washington Post
Charitable Giving Statistics, National Philanthropic Trust

The Big Questions

1. What is the significance of giving a set percentage of income to charity? Discuss the meaning of the biblical tithe.

2. Where do you see value in earning all you can, saving all you can and giving all you can?

3. In what sense is it a moral obligation to give money away? Are you more likely to give to charities closer to home, or to help the suffering overseas? Are you more or less likely to give to a charitable cause targeting a particular affliction (MS, Parkinson's, or diabetes, for instance) if you or someone you know has that affliction? Why?

4. What would inspire you to increase the amount you give to help people in need?

5. Are there causes beyond saving human lives that you find worthy of support, and if so, what are they? Many people choose to give to charities that support animals, such as shelters, or care of the environment, or promotion of the arts, rather than charities that serve humans. Which are you more likely to serve? Why?

6. What is the value of "living simply so that others may simply live"?

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

Genesis 14:18-20
And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" And Abram gave him one tenth of everything. (For context, read 14:13-23.)

After Abram's nephew Lot is taken captive by a group of kings, Abram gathers a large group of trained men and pursues the enemy. He routs them and rescues Lot and all of the captured goods and people. Then King Melchizedek of Salem, who is also a priest, meets him with gifts of bread and wine and blesses him. Abram gives the king a tenth of everything he has.

Questions: Why do you think Abram gives King Melchizedek a tithe? How does this gift show gratitude to God? What does it tell you about Abram's relationship with "God Most High"? How is it a model for our giving?
Deuteronomy 26:12-13
When you have finished paying all the tithe of your produce in the third year (which is the year of the tithe), giving it to the Levites, the aliens, the orphans, and the widows, so that they may eat their fill within your towns, then you shall say before the LORD your God: "I have removed the sacred portion from the house, and I have given it to the Levites, the resident aliens, the orphans, and the widows, in accordance with your entire commandment that you commanded me; I have neither transgressed nor forgotten any of your commandments." (For context, read 26:4-15.)

When the Israelites enter the Promised Land, they are instructed to remember their captivity in Egypt and thank God for their liberation. At the same time, they are to pay a tithe of their produce, giving it to the Levites, the resident aliens, the orphans and the widows among them. This care for the priests and the vulnerable members of their community is an important part of obeying the commandments of God.

Questions: Where do you see a connection between caring for the vulnerable and obeying the commandments of God? How do you give a tithe of your produce? Should it all go to the church, or are there other charitable gifts that should be included in your tithe?
Matthew 25:21
His master said to him, "Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master." (For context, read 25:14-30).
Jesus tells the parable of a man who goes on a journey. He entrusts his property to three slaves, giving five talents (a large sum of money) to one slave, two talents to another and one talent to another. The slave with five talents trades with them and makes five more, earning the praise of his master. The slave with one talent hides his money and receives the condemnation of his master.
Questions: What does the parable of the talents teach us about being good stewards -- good managers of God's property? Are businesspeople who make a lot of money and give away a lot of money behaving like the slave with five talents? What can we learn from them?

Luke 21:1-4
[Jesus] looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury; he also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. He said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on." (For context, read 20:45--21:4.)

Jesus denounces the scribes who "devour widows' houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers" (20:47). Then he observes rich people putting their gifts into the temple treasury, followed by a poor widow who puts in just two small copper coins. He commends the widow for contributing all she had to live on.

Questions: What is the significance of the widow's gift? Why is it more significant than the larger gifts made by rich people? How can we exhibit the same quality of giving as the widow?

2 Corinthians 9:7
Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (For context, read 9:1-12.)

The apostle Paul organizes a collection for the poor Christians of Jerusalem and asks the Corinthians for a "voluntary gift" (v. 5). Using an agricultural metaphor, he reminds them that "the one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly" (v. 6). He reminds them of the importance of being a cheerful giver, and promises them that God will give them everything they need in abundance.

Questions: Why is it important to be a cheerful giver? What is lost when a gift is given reluctantly or under compulsion? Where do you see evidence that people are enriched for their great generosity?

Galatians 2:10
They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do. (For context, read 2:1-10.)

Paul tells the story of his trip to Jerusalem, in which he told the leaders of the church about the good news he had been proclaiming to the Gentiles. He reports that the leaders "recognized the grace that had been given to [him]" and encouraged him to continue to preach to the Gentiles (v. 9). The only request they made was that he continue to remember the poor.

Questions: Why is giving to the poor an important aspect of gospel ministry? What is lost when we focus only on "the freedom we have in Christ Jesus" (v. 4), failing to meet the needs of our brothers and sisters?


For Further Discussion

1. A TWW editorial team member is friends with an upper-middle-class couple who are pregnant with their first child and starting to think about the practicalities of how to raise him/her. The mommy-to-be has been pondering how to tell a child who wants something to be bought for him/her that "we can't afford that," when they actually can, because this young mom wants her kids to grow up with the same sense of work ethic and non-consumerism that she and her siblings were raised with. The TWW team member suggested this wording: "We don't have money for that right now," explaining that the "for that" qualifies what we have determined we will spend our money on, regardless of how much we have. Is it a Christian-faith decision, even if one could afford something, to decide not to buy it because the money could bring better benefit to other lives by spending it differently? Explain.

2. In The Washington Post, Matt Wage raises the question of whether it makes more sense to give $40,000 to provide and train a guide dog for a blind American or cure between 400 and 2,000 people in developing countries of blindness from glaucoma. But is "bang for the buck" the only criterion in charitable giving? How do you see God calling different people to meet different needs? Discuss different criteria and viewpoints. How might a person have a greater responsibility to help a needy person in his own family than making a charitable donation to support work overseas?

3. Some people move from "charitable contributions are a moral obligation" to advocating that people should be forced to donate to "help others," with both the amount and the recipients determined by those doing the forcing. When, if ever, is this a good idea, and when, if ever, is it not? What does it imply about those making the determination and forcing others to follow their decision?

4. The Washington Post reports on young people giving away 25% to 50% of their income to help people in need. What is the significance of these gifts, economically and spiritually? How do you feel challenged as a Christian by these levels of giving?

5. Estimate the median income of people in your congregation and community. If everyone in your congregation gave 10% of this median income to the church, what would your church budget be? What kind of new missions could you support?

6. What kind of giving produces the greatest joy for you? Where do you find yourself most able to be a cheerful giver?


Responding to the News

Think about an area in your life where you can live more simply and free up resources to help people in need. You might choose to give up a meal at a restaurant and donate the money to an overseas mission project. Or you might skip a television show and devote that hour to tutoring an immigrant in English. Increase the percentage of your personal resources that you give away, and see if it makes you feel closer to God and his people.