Orthodox Christmas in January?
3 years ago
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saint-george-taybeh]
Dear Friends of St. George Taybeh,
Greetings from the Holy Land!
Just a little note to wish you a blessed and wonderful day and also to tell you, today, I had the great honor and pleasure to be at the 103rd Graduation of the Friends School in Ramallah where the Friends Girls School and the Friends Boys School were founded by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) over a hundred years ago and still continue to strive as leading schools for excellence in education.
Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, the founder and director of Sabeel, the ecumenical grassroots liberation theological institute in Jerusalem was the guest speaker for the graduating class of ninety-two students. All three of my children attended the Friends Schools but today I saw my nephew, Canaan Nadim Khoury, receive his high school diploma and will be part of the Harvard University class of 2013. We suffer to make it from the village to the city to attend school because of the illegal settlements all around us but today was truly a rewarding day. In spite of the insanity of the brutal occupation to have military checkpoints within Palestinian occupied areas, we are still trying to be normal people.
In Christ, maria
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Bridge over troubled waters
On April 3, the Obama White House held a brief but potentially historic conference call to kick off its abortion reduction initiative. The invited listeners (only administration officials spoke) reportedly were dozens of leaders from the pro-choice and pro-life movements. Their names were not released, but those who have self-identified include people with such divergent views as Cristina Page, author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, and Wendy Wright, president of the pro-life, conservative Christian group Concerned Women for America.
Describing the administration’s plans were chief domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes; Tina Tchen, executive director of the White House Council on Women and Girls; and Joshua DuBois, executive director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. According to participants, Barnes made it clear that no one was expected to change her or his mind about abortion and no one was being asked to compromise on core principles.
Instead, the goal was to find common ground on ways to prevent unintended pregnancy, reduce the need for abortions, provide economic and health care supports for struggling families, and promote adoption. The White House asked for examples of community-based programs already succeeding in these areas and announced a series of meetings over the next few months that would include advocates from both the pro-choice and pro-life movements, as well as representatives from government agencies and Congress. The desired result? Concrete legislative proposals, projects that could be included in the 2011 budget, and examples of successful local abortion-reduction programs that might be replicated.
No one can predict the success or failure of this process. It may smother itself in bureaucracy, be forced off the common-ground path by partisan or advocacy politics, or explode in spectacular life-vs.-choice fireworks once participants are allowed to talk.
If the Obama White House manages to draw the best out of a potentially volatile mix of people and to produce viable proposals that reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. through means acceptable to many on both sides of the pro-choice/pro-life divide, it will be nothing short of groundbreaking.
THE LAUNCH OF THIS initiative gives the first legs to a series of statements and gestures President Barack Obama, and before that candidate Obama, has made that lifted up the concept of common ground. In August 2008, with his support, the Democratic Party included in its convention platform—along with unequivocal affirmation of a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion—the declaration that family planning and education “reduce the need for abortions.”
Additionally, the Democrats included a new reference that reflects a fuller understanding of “choice”: “The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.” This was significant because it implied that “reducing the need” includes not just contraception, but also economic and other supports for women who are already pregnant, which are key demands of pro-life Democrats.
In the third presidential debate in October 2008, Obama pushed the issue further when he stated, “But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred … providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.’”
As a Democratic president, Obama has also made the executive gestures that are expected of him as the member of a party that is majority pro-choice (such as rescinding the “Mexico City Policy” that barred U.S. aid to overseas facilities that perform or promote abortion). But that is in the context of a president who has, in an unprecedented way, committed White House resources and political capital to the pursuit of common ground related to abortion, a controversial endeavor at best.
THIS WILL NOT BE, however, the first time staunchly pro-life and staunchly pro-choice partisans have had civil conversations about areas of potential agreement or even common action. In the 1980s, Andrew Puzder, a pro-life lawyer, helped write an abortion-restricting Missouri law that was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services. B.J. Isaacson-Jones, then director of one of the largest abortion clinics in the country, was a plaintiff in that case.
In 1989, soon after the Supreme Court’s decision, Puzder wrote a St. Louis Post-Dispatch op-ed drawing a connection between Missouri’s high poverty rate among women and its high abortion rate. He urged pro-life and pro-choice forces to focus more on working together to help impoverished women and children and less on attacking one another. A few days later Isaacson-Jones called Puzder to say she was willing to talk.
This unlikeliest of pairs was the start of a St. Louis group of pro-choice and pro-life leaders who met regularly to talk about where they might find common ground. Topics included making adoption an easier option, preventing teen pregnancies, and supporting low-income women who chose to continue their pregnancies.
Similar “common ground” groups soon emerged in other cities. In 1993 several local groups loosely affiliated into the Common Ground Network for Life and Choice, under the umbrella of a D.C.-based conflict-resolution organization, Search for Common Ground. Until it disbanded in 2000, the network sponsored national conferences and published papers co-authored by pro-life and pro-choice members about common-ground strategies on teen pregnancy, adoptions, and even the ethical dimensions of activism outside of health clinics that provided abortion services.
In the mid-2000s, a variation of this common-ground thinking reemerged in, of all places, the U.S. Congress. In 2006, pro-life Democrat Tim Ryan and pro-choice Democrat Rosa DeLauro first introduced the “Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act.” This legislation would join together programs aimed at preventing unintended pregnancies (funds for sex education and expanding Medicaid and Title X coverage for family planning services) with programs focused on assisting women who chose to carry their child to term (increased funding for health care for low-income women with children, free nurse visits for first-time mothers, child care for parents in college). In a recent interview, Rep. DeLauro told Sojourners that sponsors hope to reintroduce the bill for 2009 before the Memorial Day recess.
EVIDENCE POINTS TO an electorate ready for some sort of common ground. In a May 2008 Gallup poll, when asked “With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?” a small majority of Americans, 50 percent, responded pro-choice, 44 percent pro-life.
But when pollsters get into the details, a more complex picture quickly emerges. As Gallup summarizes, “When asked in the most general terms whether abortion laws should be stricter, many do not want the laws to be stricter. Yet, when they are asked whether abortion should be legal in all cases, most cases, only a few cases, or no cases, more than half choose one of the latter two categories.” Views vary on the question of legality depending on why or during which trimester an abortion is being performed.
A July 2007 poll commissioned by
A November 2008 post-election survey sponsored in part by Sojourners and conducted by Public Religion Research found that 83 percent of voters agree that “elected leaders on both sides of the abortion debate should work together to find ways to reduce the number of abortions by enacting policies that help prevent unintended pregnancies, expand adoption, and increase economic support for women who wish to carry their pregnancies to term.”
Third Way’s Culture Program director, Rachel Laser, sees such poll numbers as pointing to a desire for new ways of talking about and approaching this thorniest of issues.
OF COURSE, FORGING true common-ground initiatives will require increasing participation by leaders of the significant minorities who self-identify as unequivocally pro-life or unequivocally pro-choice. A major challenge of these efforts resides in the fact that, by definition, they require the bringing together of two causes fueled with passionate, principled, and often completely antagonistic fervor.
For both sides, framing the abortion debate as a noble battle has been a tried-and-true way of motivating the base and raising funds. Consequently, internal critics in both movements are challenging the “common ground” concept of reducing the number or need for abortions, calling it a diversion from nonnegotiable core principles.
Nonetheless, cautious support for the pursuit of common ground has come from some leading pro-life and pro-choice advocates. This move is pragmatic as well as principled. If most of the country is not quite “life” and not quite “choice,” then meeting people where they are may be the only way to convince them to lean your way.
But pro-life activists open to common-ground work also see the goal of reducing the number of abortions as intrinsic to their calling. They believe that the single-minded pursuit of legal restrictions on abortion has had only a negligible effect on the abortion rate. Working to prevent unintended pregnancies and lobbying for systemic supports for women who feel pressured into abortion by poverty or lack of health care is seen as a way to address broader social justice concerns and to immediately save lives.
Writing on the blog of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Stephen Schneck, director of the Life Cycle Institute, described a split in the pro-life movement between what he calls the old light approach, which sees abortion as “single issue politics,” and the new light approach, which sees “abortion as a concern integrally joined with a much broader concern about the common good.”
The “old light approach, after 35 years of trying, has gone nowhere,” Schneck wrote. “Through many of those years, the GOP controlled all three branches of government—and to what end? And, what policy changes has confrontation achieved? None.” He concluded, “By every imaginable measure the old lights’ efforts not only have failed, they have actually been counter-productive. They have undercut real opportunities to do something about abortion and all the critical life issues facing our generation.”
Ethicist Lisa Sowle Cahill of Boston College frames support for abortion reduction efforts as an ethical response in a world where justice is not fully realized. “In the real world,” said Cahill, “we have to seek to realize our ideals as well as possible, given concrete limits and opportunities. An important question is, what will be possible and effective in working toward our goals at the present time?”
Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates say they are motivated to pursue common-ground options because of the effect of poverty and lack of health care on the abortion rate. A study of women obtaining abortions in 2000 and 2001 found that the abortion rate among women living below the poverty level is more than four times that of women who live above 300 percent of the poverty level. The Guttmacher Institute reported that between 1994 and 2001, unintended pregnancy increased by 29 percent among poor women while decreasing 20 percent among higher-income women.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the pro-choice co-sponsor of the Ryan-DeLauro abortion reduction bill, told Sojourners that the goal she shared with pro-life Rep. Tim Ryan is to “focus on the need to reduce abortion in our country while also providing economic support for new parents to be able to strengthen their families.” She emphasized that the most effective method to prevent unintended pregnancies and abortion is to improve access to safe, affordable, effective contraceptive methods.
“I’ve said over and over again that people want to see fewer abortions, not more,” DeLauro said. “Nobody celebrates abortion. Our public policy has got to embrace an ethic of human life that begins helping women to never have to come to that decision.” When a woman of limited means is confronted with an unintended pregnancy, the pre- and post-natal economic and social supports in the bill are aimed, DeLauro said, “to reduce the economic pressures that can cause a woman to decide not to carry a pregnancy to term.”
THOSE WHO ARE considering the move into the complicated terrain of common ground can take strength from the experience of those local common-ground groups in the 1990s. Those groups learned that adhering to core principles is vital to the integrity and success of the common-ground process. From a place of mutual respect and careful listening, those groups tried to discover what they could agree on, while placing off-limits all that they could not.
Sociologist James R. Kelly has noted that the key characteristics of those earlier groups included that they “publicly distinguished common ground from moral compromise and political accommodation.” Participants also “loyally continued their adversarial abortion activities even as they agreed to cooperate on projects and policies aimed at reducing the pressures on women to abort.” Common ground, he asserted, “is not where principles are buried beneath compromises. On common ground, principles retain their luminosity and opponents their integrity.”
But even if the pro-life and pro-choice advocates who participate in the Obama administration process hold to these higher principles, can such integrity be maintained within the partisan and political pressure cooker of national politics? Putting core principles off limits, neither arguing about nor compromising on them, is an exotic approach in the political arena. And both Democrats and Republicans have a deeply ingrained habit of freely tapping the explosive energy of the abortion debate for their own purposes. Elevating the abortion discussion to the level of common ground—where nuance and details are essential—requires both sides to give up the firepower of bumper-sticker sloganeering, a difficult departure for those immersed in the politics-as-usual world.
This cuts both ways in Obama’s case. Some pro-choice elements in the Democratic Party are pressuring him to confine his “abortion reduction” efforts to pregnancy prevention only, while a smaller but vital bloc of pro-life constituents seeks to hold him to his stated intent to reduce abortion through economic and social supports for women who are considering carrying their child to term.
Those pulling for the success of common-ground efforts can only hope that enough politicians will rise to what Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne described as their highest calling—“to seek practical forms of moral seriousness.” And that we Christians, whatever our stance on the legal status of abortion, will do so as well.
Julie Polter is an associate editor of Sojourners. Assistant editor Jeannie Choi contributed research.
Making It Real: Congress and Abortion Reduction
What public policies might help prevent unintended pregnancies and provide support to women who want to carry their child to term?
Pro-choice advocates see preventing unintended pregnancies through contraceptives and education as the best ways to lower the demand for abortions. Many are cautious about abortion reduction efforts aimed at women who are already pregnant, lest this open the door to coercion or manipulation, or cede ground around the legal right to abortion. The Prevention First Act, sponsored in the Senate by Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and in the House by Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), includes:
• Increasing access to family planning services through the national family planning program (Title X) and Medicaid.
• Ensuring that private health plans offer coverage for contraception comparable to that for other prescription drugs and services.
• Expanded teen pregnancy prevention programs.
• State-level comprehensive sexuality education programs.
• Public education initiatives about emergency contraception.
Most pro-life advocates also want to prevent unintended pregnancies, but differ on acceptable means. Some exclusively support abstinence-only programs. Others support some contraception education and funding but reject emergency contraception, considering it a method of abortion. Pro-life abortion reduction efforts tend to emphasize assistance to pregnant women. The Pregnant Women Support Act, sponsored in the Senate by Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and in the House by Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), includes:
• Pregnancy counseling and child care on university campuses.
• Increasing and making permanent the adoption tax credit.
• Barring health insurers from considering pregnancy a pre-existing condition.
• “Informed consent” requirements for abortion services.
• Awareness about violence against pregnant women.
• S-CHIP coverage for pregnant women and unborn children.
• Free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.
The Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act brings together elements of the pro-choice and pro-life approaches into one package, with the aim of drawing support from both constituencies. Sponsors Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) hope to reintroduce it this spring. —JP
source: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0906&article=bridge-over-troubled-waters
What actually works?
Shirley Bogard was an impressive teenager in the Kentucky Baptist church where I was pastor. The church awarded her its scholarship for the most deserving teenager so she could train as a nurse. She was a devoted Christian, and she became a super-competent nurse.
Shirley, now Shirley Martin, became the nurse in Louisville and Jefferson County’s Teenage Parent Program (TAPP)—a middle school and high school for pregnant students. She hired my wife, Dot, who is also a nurse, to work with her, teaching the teenagers prenatal nutrition, healthy child-raising, and how not to get pregnant again. They worked in the ob/gyn clinic held in the school two days a week: The girls got regular medical examinations, without having to leave school and their studies.
A University of Louisville School of Medicine study reported that, surprisingly, unlike typical teenage mothers, TAPP’s teenagers produced healthy babies averaging normal birth weight. Premature babies are highly expensive when they require intensive care and are more likely to have learning problems and medical problems later in life. TAPP prevented that. It was enormously cost-effective.
And 99 percent of these girls chose not to have an abortion. By contrast, the official Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report for 1998—the year of the Louisville study—concludes that 75 percent of pregnant teenagers younger than 15 years old, and 39.1 percent of teenagers 15 to 19 years old, terminated their pregnancies with abortions. The abortion ratio in TAPP, with girls 12 years old and up, was a remarkably low 1 percent. TAPP gave pregnant teenagers a way to continue school while taking care of their babies, and while building an economically viable future. The clear result was that they chose not to have abortions.
The school had a nursery, so the girls could attend school regularly without having to worry about who would care for their babies. They each worked one class period a day in the nursery, thus receiving expert instruction in care for babies. Two trusted social workers counseled the girls, helping them plan their futures, stay in school, and complete their diplomas. The girls had much lower dropout rates and much lower drug addiction and suicides than typical teenagers.
While the preferred goal, especially among teenagers, is prevention of unintended pregnancy, the Teenage Parent Program provides a striking example of how to reduce abortion rates:
• 80 percent of women who have abortions say they did not intend to get pregnant. TAPP had remarkable success in preventing almost all of its girls from getting pregnant a second time while still in school.
• Most who have abortions say they could not afford to raise a child. The Guttmacher Institute reports that “poor and low-income women account for more than half of U.S. abortions.” TAPP’s social workers helped its girls plan a viable future.
• Many worry about how to afford health care for themselves and their babies; TAPP provided ob/gyn care and nurses to counsel them about medical needs.
But the catch is how to pay for a school like TAPP. The public school system paid for the usual education—English, math, history, etc. Medicaid and the State Maternal Health Division, supported by federal funding, paid for most of the ob/gyn clinic. Ominously, in 2002 federal funding for the ob/gyn services was canceled, and the state could not afford it alone. The ob/gyn program is no longer available to students without insurance or Medicaid, and no nurses are teaching any more.
The support that was provided by TAPP, in many ways, is echoed when the nation adequately provides programs such as SCHIP (health insurance for children), health insurance for all ages, child care assistance, as well as food stamps and WIC (Women, Infants, and Children).
IN ADDITION TO DOT’S experience with TAPP, our family has another reason to know personally how crucial support for pregnant women and children is in preventing abortions. In the eighth week of Dot’s third pregnancy, she got rubella (German measles). Rubella in the first trimester of pregnancy is likely to be devastating for the baby’s heart, brain, sight, and hearing. But we did not have an abortion because we had hope we could cope.
Our son David was born with a heart that failed in his first month; odds were against his survival. He has had a dozen operations, two on his heart. He did not speak, mumble, or chew until he was 4 and a half years old. He has brain damage. He is legally blind. But we had enormous support from church members, medical personnel, the Kentucky School for the Blind, and caring teachers, and we had medical insurance and a job. Now David translates theological books from German to English for leading publishers and for researchers.
That is why I worried enormously when the Bush administration cut back crucial supports for mothers and babies. I suspected it would increase abortions among those who did not have the kind of resources our family had. The government’s official reports for 2002—the first full year of the Bush administration—had not yet been published, but I found 16 states that had reported. Based on these states, I published two articles predicting that although the number of annual abortions had declined significantly in the previous decade, the reductions would stall and abortions would actually increase in 2002. Some people attacked my findings harshly, claiming that when the complete data for 2002 was released, I would be proven wrong.
But the official government CDC report is now published. As I had predicted, the number of abortions did increase in 2002. And though the abortion rates for teenagers declined from the mid-1980s through 2000, they actually increased from 2001 through 2005. Though the abortion rate for all women was going down dramatically through 2000, it stalled at 15 per 1,000 from 2000 through 2005. And though the infant mortality rate had been steadily decreasing for six decades, it actually increased in 2002, for the first time ever. Furthermore, the economy is so devastated now in 2009 that more pregnant women may conclude they cannot afford a baby and thus choose to have an abortion.
The Obama administration is expanding health care insurance for children and is developing plans to provide access to health insurance for all of us, is working to get the economy revived, and is supporting programs to curb unintended pregnancy. If abortions reduced significantly during the Clinton years, stayed flat during the Bush years, and reduce significantly during the Obama years, what is a consistent pro-life person like me to conclude about which approach actually works to reduce abortion rates?
Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, and author of Living the Sermon on the Mount: A Practical Hope for Grace and Deliverance.
source: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0906&article=what-actually-works
Protect Workers and Public Health: Tell Congress to Support Paid Sick Time
Protect Workers and Public Health:
Tell Congress to Support Paid Sick Time
Did you know that half of all workers in the U.S. cannot take a day off if they are sick or to care for a sick child, spouse or parent?
You can help change this! Please write to your Senators and Representative <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=YXakj9LcAI0i%2BXwpkgQuX5ENeU%2BUWe0D> to ask for their support of the Healthy Families Act!
The Healthy Families Act will be introduced very soon in the House and Senate. The legislation will require employers to provide workers, both full and part time, with paid sick time based on the hours that they have worked. This means workers will no longer have to suffer the indignity of having to choose between working sick or losing a day's pay.
Respecting the health and dignity of all human beings is a core value for all faith traditions. This includes not just access to health care, but time away from work to recuperate from illness. Moreover, we must enable family members to tend to one another in a time of need. The Healthy Families Act is an important part of this work-family balance.
The Healthy Families Act will also support our greater public health. As we were recently reminded during the swine flu outbreak, one of the most important steps we can take to stop the spread of illness is to stay home, as is often recommended by the CDC. However, this is not realistic for the nearly 50 million workers who will lose a day's pay or even their job by staying home during a health emergency.
Please write your Senators and Representative today and ask that they support the Healthy Families Act! It's urgent that they hear from you. Please write today! <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=FolkBaBYIld7diuPL1t%2F4pENeU%2BUWe0D>
Thank you!
Support the work of Interfaith Worker Justice
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=U0rDDFafa8keWC7NhgkLFZENeU%2BUWe0D>
Tell Congress to Support Paid Sick Time
Did you know that half of all workers in the U.S. cannot take a day off if they are sick or to care for a sick child, spouse or parent?
You can help change this! Please write to your Senators and Representative <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=YXakj9LcAI0i%2BXwpkgQuX5ENeU%2BUWe0D> to ask for their support of the Healthy Families Act!
The Healthy Families Act will be introduced very soon in the House and Senate. The legislation will require employers to provide workers, both full and part time, with paid sick time based on the hours that they have worked. This means workers will no longer have to suffer the indignity of having to choose between working sick or losing a day's pay.
Respecting the health and dignity of all human beings is a core value for all faith traditions. This includes not just access to health care, but time away from work to recuperate from illness. Moreover, we must enable family members to tend to one another in a time of need. The Healthy Families Act is an important part of this work-family balance.
The Healthy Families Act will also support our greater public health. As we were recently reminded during the swine flu outbreak, one of the most important steps we can take to stop the spread of illness is to stay home, as is often recommended by the CDC. However, this is not realistic for the nearly 50 million workers who will lose a day's pay or even their job by staying home during a health emergency.
Please write your Senators and Representative today and ask that they support the Healthy Families Act! It's urgent that they hear from you. Please write today! <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=FolkBaBYIld7diuPL1t%2F4pENeU%2BUWe0D>
Thank you!
Support the work of Interfaith Worker Justice
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=U0rDDFafa8keWC7NhgkLFZENeU%2BUWe0D>
Submit to Those in Authority
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors," - 1 Peter 2:13
For great missionary saints like Saints Cyril and Methodius, Patrick, and others, one of the great advantages of ancient Societies - even pagan ones - was the presence of order and authority. Common people looked to their leaders for both political and spiritual guidance: evil or weak leadership saw a general disintegration of society, whereas the leadership of the righteous was a great blessing, even when it was short lived. Where the leaders led, the people followed, for better or for worse.
Few would argue that North American life provides such leadership for Christian living. Knit together by the common goal of prosperity, leadership is now often measured by the ability of the leader to bring the greatest material benefit. As a result, North American leaders are reduced to fellow-strugglers in the battle for the almighty dollar, and authority of any other kind - moral, spiritual, political, legal, or family - is almost forgotten.
Surprisingly, Canadians are perhaps more seriously afflicted with the disease of anti-authoritarianism than are Americans. While Americans will often fight over who will provide political or spiritual leadership in their nation, Canadians usually reject the very idea of leadership and authority, preferring to be left alone to make their personal choices in private. The very fabric of Canadian civil culture rejects common order and common values, and where relativism reigns supreme, one cannot hope to benefit from legitimate authority, or to submit to it.
The disappearance of titles from Canadian society is a case in point. In our day, everyone - even perfect strangers - enjoys rights of familiarity; everyone is a "pal", allowed to move to the most common form of address upon first meeting. Canadians hate titles, so everyone is a "buddy": our family physician is "Rick" (or Richard, if one wants to be formal about it), the local priest is no longer Father Athanasios, but Father Tom, or simply "Tom". After all, we're all friends here, right? Even young children often refer to adults by their first name - apparently as equals.
Where our Yankee cousins speak of "Mister President", Canadian political leaders are our pals: Paul, Stephen, and Stéphane - just like old friends you might have over to watch the ball game. God forbid we should submit to the political authority of these people: if we don't like them, we can always get rid of them. Vive la Revolution!
Sadly, the same flavour of radical egalitarianism infects the life of the Orthodox Church. The strange religious history of Canada which saw the faithful creating parishes, then sending overseas for priests, has bequeathed to Orthodox Canadians a parish structure which is fundamentally Protestant. Parishes are often (indeed, usually) constituted in such a way that parish councils can discipline priests, remove priests, or at least deprive them of basic benefits (we know of one case where a jaded council refused to pay any dental costs for the priest and his family).
At the root of such decisions is a spirit very foreign to the Orthodox faith, a Protestant spirit, where every man is an island, competing for power and authority in all matters, spiritual and temporal. It is a spirit that caters to ever-changing tastes, rather than submitting to eternal Truth. Born out of the dream of immigrants seeking freedoms, Orthodox life in North America, and particularly in Canada, is today afflicted with the very worst aspects of spiritual order, inherited from the "free world": a freedom guided totally by the never-satisfied passions of the human heart.
The Lord warns us to call no man father or teacher, a warning the Church Fathers understood as Christ's injunction against following gurus. Of course, even the Protestants who rebelliously refuse to use the title "Father" understand this, every time they send a Father's Day card, or attend a Parent-Teacher interview at the local school. Modern readers have to look not further than Saint Paul or Saint Ignatius to see the essential role of spiritual fathers and their spiritual children, teachers of the Gospel, and episcopoi (overseers, or bishops) to the unity and integrity of the Church, authority without which we get... Canada.
The spirit of rebellion against authority has taken its toll on our neighbours to the south, where entire religions or "ministries" are are built around one person or one family, the exact thing against which the Lord warned. The harmonious witness of the voice of the Church Fathers is drowned in a flood of emotionalism and celebrity worship, without any ties of real authority to compel submission in personal moral or spiritual life. As C. S. Lewis put it so well, most people don't really want a Father in Heaven - we want a Grandfather in Heaven, one who is most concerned that the young people are having a good time.
Ironically, Canadians who have lost the moorings of the authority of the Church Fathers are not having a good time. Isolated in private worlds of spiritual loneliness, without authority or guidance, we are so often unable to submit to any authority at all, in our work, in our marriages and family life, and - most particularly - in our spiritual life.
With the threads of political authority worn through, the Church is the last bastion of authentic authority. It is the authority of the united voice of the holy and saintly Christian Fathers of the last twenty centuries, without whom we float alone on the troubled seas of modern life, fending for ourselves as we scrape to understand the scriptures, and try helplessly to recover some shred of discipline in the unstable corners of our lives.
Canadians, more than even our American cousins, are fundamentally alone, suffering the effects of decades of rebellion against the only True Authority, Christ and His Church. We cannot hope to restore unity of mind or heart in our nation, until every heart bends its will to that Authority, over and over again.
And it is only in our own, individual heart that such a revolution of humility can begin.
Father Geoffrey Korz
source: http://www.orthodoxcanada.com/journal/2007-03-05.html
For great missionary saints like Saints Cyril and Methodius, Patrick, and others, one of the great advantages of ancient Societies - even pagan ones - was the presence of order and authority. Common people looked to their leaders for both political and spiritual guidance: evil or weak leadership saw a general disintegration of society, whereas the leadership of the righteous was a great blessing, even when it was short lived. Where the leaders led, the people followed, for better or for worse.
Few would argue that North American life provides such leadership for Christian living. Knit together by the common goal of prosperity, leadership is now often measured by the ability of the leader to bring the greatest material benefit. As a result, North American leaders are reduced to fellow-strugglers in the battle for the almighty dollar, and authority of any other kind - moral, spiritual, political, legal, or family - is almost forgotten.
Surprisingly, Canadians are perhaps more seriously afflicted with the disease of anti-authoritarianism than are Americans. While Americans will often fight over who will provide political or spiritual leadership in their nation, Canadians usually reject the very idea of leadership and authority, preferring to be left alone to make their personal choices in private. The very fabric of Canadian civil culture rejects common order and common values, and where relativism reigns supreme, one cannot hope to benefit from legitimate authority, or to submit to it.
The disappearance of titles from Canadian society is a case in point. In our day, everyone - even perfect strangers - enjoys rights of familiarity; everyone is a "pal", allowed to move to the most common form of address upon first meeting. Canadians hate titles, so everyone is a "buddy": our family physician is "Rick" (or Richard, if one wants to be formal about it), the local priest is no longer Father Athanasios, but Father Tom, or simply "Tom". After all, we're all friends here, right? Even young children often refer to adults by their first name - apparently as equals.
Where our Yankee cousins speak of "Mister President", Canadian political leaders are our pals: Paul, Stephen, and Stéphane - just like old friends you might have over to watch the ball game. God forbid we should submit to the political authority of these people: if we don't like them, we can always get rid of them. Vive la Revolution!
Sadly, the same flavour of radical egalitarianism infects the life of the Orthodox Church. The strange religious history of Canada which saw the faithful creating parishes, then sending overseas for priests, has bequeathed to Orthodox Canadians a parish structure which is fundamentally Protestant. Parishes are often (indeed, usually) constituted in such a way that parish councils can discipline priests, remove priests, or at least deprive them of basic benefits (we know of one case where a jaded council refused to pay any dental costs for the priest and his family).
At the root of such decisions is a spirit very foreign to the Orthodox faith, a Protestant spirit, where every man is an island, competing for power and authority in all matters, spiritual and temporal. It is a spirit that caters to ever-changing tastes, rather than submitting to eternal Truth. Born out of the dream of immigrants seeking freedoms, Orthodox life in North America, and particularly in Canada, is today afflicted with the very worst aspects of spiritual order, inherited from the "free world": a freedom guided totally by the never-satisfied passions of the human heart.
The Lord warns us to call no man father or teacher, a warning the Church Fathers understood as Christ's injunction against following gurus. Of course, even the Protestants who rebelliously refuse to use the title "Father" understand this, every time they send a Father's Day card, or attend a Parent-Teacher interview at the local school. Modern readers have to look not further than Saint Paul or Saint Ignatius to see the essential role of spiritual fathers and their spiritual children, teachers of the Gospel, and episcopoi (overseers, or bishops) to the unity and integrity of the Church, authority without which we get... Canada.
The spirit of rebellion against authority has taken its toll on our neighbours to the south, where entire religions or "ministries" are are built around one person or one family, the exact thing against which the Lord warned. The harmonious witness of the voice of the Church Fathers is drowned in a flood of emotionalism and celebrity worship, without any ties of real authority to compel submission in personal moral or spiritual life. As C. S. Lewis put it so well, most people don't really want a Father in Heaven - we want a Grandfather in Heaven, one who is most concerned that the young people are having a good time.
Ironically, Canadians who have lost the moorings of the authority of the Church Fathers are not having a good time. Isolated in private worlds of spiritual loneliness, without authority or guidance, we are so often unable to submit to any authority at all, in our work, in our marriages and family life, and - most particularly - in our spiritual life.
With the threads of political authority worn through, the Church is the last bastion of authentic authority. It is the authority of the united voice of the holy and saintly Christian Fathers of the last twenty centuries, without whom we float alone on the troubled seas of modern life, fending for ourselves as we scrape to understand the scriptures, and try helplessly to recover some shred of discipline in the unstable corners of our lives.
Canadians, more than even our American cousins, are fundamentally alone, suffering the effects of decades of rebellion against the only True Authority, Christ and His Church. We cannot hope to restore unity of mind or heart in our nation, until every heart bends its will to that Authority, over and over again.
And it is only in our own, individual heart that such a revolution of humility can begin.
Father Geoffrey Korz
source: http://www.orthodoxcanada.com/journal/2007-03-05.html
CHARITY AND SOCIAL ACTION - EASTER 2009
CHARITY AND SOCIAL ACTION - EASTER 2009
By PROF. DR. ZAC VARGHESE, LONDON
By PROF. DR. ZAC VARGHESE, LONDON
²If I feed the poor they call me a saint; when I ask why they
are poor they call me a communist.² - Archbishop Helder Camara
We often find that it is far easier to encourage people to donate for
charitable causes than to work directly with people who are in need. Comic
Relief's TV extravaganza has raised a record 58 million Pounds for charity
on Friday 13th March 2009 - despite the worst economic meltdown in the
United Kingdom and the world-wide recession. But the people who become
really dependent upon charity are not helped at all in most situations.
Manning a soup kitchen or shaking hands with AID victim is more difficult
than giving few pounds to such a cause. It takes a courageous and insightful
group of people to discern the difference between real need and the people
who use charity as a crutch to get through an unfortunate life. In much the
same vane charitable giving also has a publicity and propaganda angle;
certain marketing strategies may call for Œopen-plate¹ or list-based giving
as practised in some churches. How much of a resource is to be given to
those who need immediate help and how much is to be devoted to long-range
causes of poverty and injustice? Should our compassion extend to deeper
causes of the poverty?
Asking these questions and finding answers are always keeping in line with
the continual call of Christ to each of us. Jesus, as liberator and rebel,
confronts establishments that bring oppression to people. Some times charity
is used to keep people in a dependent and subservient state. People who are
being helped have no escape route; they become enslaved to the system.
Managers and handlers including government agencies who supervise poor
people¹s establishments and orphanages become their masters and do not hear
their cry and need for liberation. When do we take up injustice issues with
longer-term effects? We are torn by the impulse either to give food directly
or to cultivate a farm or build a house or provide treatment for a sick
person or to change unjust systems that cause the hunger and other problems.
Couldn't we be involved by helping the needy by both sets of actions,
whether by handing out money directly or by challenging the system? And
isn't it safer to do the former? Isn't it wise to take the safer option? If
we satisfy the hungry, don't we receive praise, encourage others to join our
ranks, and become better Christians? And if we penetrate into the causes of
hunger don't they call us communists? It certainly not a question of either
or. Let us continue the first-aid of direct giving as much as possible,
while we raise people's consciousness to penetrate into the second level of
humble service in challenging the system, which creates these deprivations.
Initially, we see the people in need and we respond to them immediately
since our humanity demands it. A crying infant needs his milk immediately,
not a week from now. The old adage about giving a fish and teaching someone
to fish is not applicable somehow in some situations any more. What if the
fish are dying from pollution or stocks are diminished by factory ships
owned by global corporations? So when must we do more? However, this should
not be taken as an excuse for not giving for the immediate first stage of
direct help to the needy person in front of us or on the television screen.
The first stage is temporarily satisfying but we should also see issues
emerging that could be handled through democratic processes and thorough
political actions. We can influence others to ask deeper questions as well
after providing the first-aid; we should not be afraid of the consequences
and should see this as God¹s work as well for the planet and the
environment. We should see that a check list of Œcheque book charity giving¹
is not sufficient in these situations.
We read how Jesus drives out the money changers from the Temple, confronts
the power of the establishment for their attitudes, and prepares his
disciples to work for justice for all under threats. It is very significant
to note that St. John has placed this event at the beginning of Jesus¹
ministry, while synoptic gospels place this revolutionary incidence in the
last week of Jesus¹ ministry. St. John is possibly giving emphasis on how
Jesus challenged the commercialisation of religion from the beginning of his
ministry. We see the call to justice as a deeper calling and deeper
commitment for establishing kingdom values. Therefore, in the first stage we
must feed those who are starving and offer the homeless shelter because ³It
is in the shelter of each other that people live.² But just as Jesus both
fed the hungry and challenged the system, so should we.
Charity without establishing justice is unrealistic. However, commitment to
social justice issues alone without some empirical direct works of mercy is
not complete and often lacking in sensitivity. Our lack of understanding the
complexity of issues involved, the failure of others to understand us, and
our aloneness may erode our initial enthusiasm. Our resolution should be to
see both stages as necessary for the transformation of the world. But it is
much more: social and political involvements are more demanding. We do not
just feed people from the level of our own affluence and abundance; we
should assist people on a level where their own participation is utterly
important. We do not just work for the poor; we work with the poor in
solidarity with them. During the Lent period we should reflect on two
events: first, we should look inside ourselves and see the transfigured and
risen-Christ; secondly, we should look out and see the Earth with all its
problems and potential possibilities through the grace of risen-Christ. This
vision allows us to remain enthusiastic about the kingdom experience within
ourselves. Lenten discipline teaches us to see this bigger picture and
controls any tendency to focus too narrowly on our ego-centred needs at the
exclusion of everything else.
Christ, the perfect person incarnate, comes among his own and his own people
do not receive him. This actual rejection does not change his mission in any
way. Jesus is not bothered about his acceptance by the hierarchy or the
establishment; he goes on feeding the people when hungry and healing the
sick when asked for and directly challenging the system when necessary. Let
us go with Jesus to Jerusalem to understand his broader mission; this may
help us to deepen our own compassion, which reaches beyond assisting people
who are hungry or homeless; we may begin to make a first attempt to look
into the causes of hunger and homelessness. Our sense of mercy opens the
door for political and social action within a participatory democracy: we
see and interact with people in need in our own neighbourhoods and then
throughout the world; we enter more deeply and publicly into their suffering
through a growing solidarity; we begin to experience the pain and
humiliation they suffer.
We need a very special sensitivity to see the needs of all creation and
taking the basic steps to alleviate those needs. An engaging spirituality in
the face of these challenges will be of help in confronting and not fleeing
from the terrible tragedies. Resurrection spirit gives us the encouragement
to risk getting angry at the aggressors, the polluters, people who cause the
damage and desolation. A shallow compassion overlooks the oppressor and
focuses only on the one suffering, as though bandaging the effect will treat
the cause. Paying for few dialysis treatments or supplying few kidney
machines may not have any impact on underlying chronic end stage kidney
disease, but simple measures of controlling blood pressure, reducing salt
intake or treating diabetes in the community would have a much greater
benefit. Looking after mostly bourgeoisie illness of obesity, diabetes and
heart disease may divert the money needed for research and development for
diseases pandemic in 80% of the world population due to HIV and AID,
starvation, and sanitation. A God-centred deepening compassion combines both
mercies for the victims and righteous anger at the culprits who are
preventing available resources reaching the suffering humanity. Compassion
becomes a balm that soothes and heals; it is also a laxative that starts
deeper things moving; may be it is ultimately the glue that holds us
together as human beings.
Let us look more deeply into the question of who this Jesus is at this
Easter: namely someone who can be both merciful and angry at the same time,
and is willing to express either emotion when necessary. Jesus may cry over
Jerusalem, but Jesus also becomes angry with those who cause its impending
destruction. Now as we walk with Jesus in the palm-laid streets and approach
the Passion Week, we experience the compassion of a suffering Jesus. This
experience should give us a radically compassionate commitment for social
justice; a radically compassionate and transfigured person should become an
agent for social action. This discernment is not to become mere bystanders
of global issues concerning all created things; the discernment is to
involve, engage, and focus our attention to at least one of the issues as a
ŒSimon of Cyrene¹ on our Calvary visit on this Good Friday.
source:
http://www.lightoflife.com/LOL_Article_CharityAndSocialActionEaster2009.htm
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
A paper God
Commentators have frequently compared the credit crisis of today with the economic crisis of 1929, just before the Great Depression. Yet almost no one speaks about the deeper causes of the economic crisis: the eagerness of banks to give, year after year, huge amounts of credit to speculators and all kinds of speculative funds, with an enormous worldwide growth of financial markets and new financial products as an unavoidable consequence.
In recent years there has been a staggering increase in the amount of money being invested by investors worldwide—and most of it has been put in highly speculative markets in the financial, rather than the “real,” economy. What does this distinction mean? To oversimplify, the “real economy” is the part of the economy that involves making, selling, and buying goods and services, from groceries to shoes to doctors’ visits to garbage collection. The financial sector, in contrast, involves the buying and selling of money as a product in its own right.
On its simplest level, this involves the trade in loans or bonds (someone borrows money and pays back more money in the future), the buying and selling of foreign currencies, and the buying and selling of shares in the stock market.
But these money-for-money transactions didn’t stay simple. Year after year, speculators’ bank accounts grew enormously. And this new, financial-sector money—call it “debt money” or “credit money”—was mainly used for more speculation. One popular kind was options or “futures,” bets about the expected future price of a currency or commodity.
Other kinds of new, complicated financial “products” were also invented. You could, for instance, invest in large pools of mortgage loans (these “securities” sold so well that banks started handing out mortgages in an extremely reckless manner). Another example: credit default swaps, an insurance-like arrangement whose buyer gets money if a bond issuer can no longer pay his debt. These were not called “insurance” to avoid the sensible regulations placed on insurance.
Statistics about the growth of “debt money” are not public information (this is itself a telltale sign of how financialization has been hidden from public view), but recent estimates suggest that, for a full decade, the volume of debt money has increased four times faster than the growth of the so-called real economy. Economist Herman Daly recently calculated that the amount of paper exchanged for paper is now 20 times higher than the amount of paper exchanged for real commodities.
But now the enormous balloon of collective speculation has burst, people have lost confidence, and the real economy is deeply threatened.
Greed and magic
Underneath it all lies the driving power of greed, which motivated not only private speculators and investment funds but also the once-reliable banks. In the new order, banks fully engaged in speculation themselves, making huge profits.
But is greed the only factor? Consider that money and magic have something to do with each other. Making printed money—or now, electronic, “virtual” money—confers power, as if by Faustian magic. It opens doors, giving the money-maker more control over investments and the power to acquire ever-greater material wealth and luxury.
But money does something even more powerful: It can set people and markets in motion. Expectations climb higher and higher. Year after year, the financial markets have grown more rapidly than the “real economy.” Money turns into a kind of compass for all—a guide that seduces a society to follow wherever it leads.
Idolatry
In all this, one senses idolatry at work. The essence of idolatry is that high expectations, combined with fear, narrow your consciousness, restricting your focus down to pursuing the right interaction with your “god.” You delegate power to your idol, allowing it to take the lead, and it inscribes within you patterns of obedience to itself.
Compare this with how, in recent years, financial markets were given control over the real economy—and, indeed, public policy. At last, declared the president of the German Federal Bank some years ago, politicians had been brought under the “discipline” of the financial markets.
One way by which markets exert control over governments is by investors’ constant threat to leave: Global capital unceasingly ricochets around the world, driven by its quest for maximum short-term financial gain in a climate of changing expectations. In what is sometimes called “the new Big Brother syndrome,” governments lower their taxes on capital and burden their economies with huge social spending cuts, just to remain acceptable in the eyes of this new, ever-watchful overseer. But Big Brother is a fickle master: At the least rumor, such as a possible devaluation of a country’s currency, capital can abandon a particular country wholesale and do it literally overnight, like a herd of animals that has just heard a shot. Many countries, especially in the global South, live in constant fear of what a sudden speculative capital exodus might do to their economies.
And in the economies of the North, we can observe the harsh dominion of the financial markets in another way: in the rigorous demands of hedge funds and other entities looking for large, quick returns. Having used (usually borrowed) money to gain control of companies in the real economy, these speculators force those companies to merge, sell out, split, and restructure, with the sole purpose of increasing short-term financial rewards.
Clearly, an idol has arisen, bringing with it fear, even terror. We put our trust in the financial markets to save and guide our real economies. But now the idol has started to stagger and crumble, as idols usually do—and because of that the world is now pulled toward a deep recession. How profoundly Mammon, this financial god, has betrayed us!
Speculation and global warming
And that betrayal also extends to the planet’s ecosystem: What happens in the financial world helps drive, via its effects on the real economy, climate change and environmental degradation in our world. Rich countries’ drive to become ever-richer materially has caused us to intensively use fossil fuels and produce greenhouse gas emissions, to devastate landscapes, and to kill off biodiversity. And
All of this is profoundly aggravated by the pressures financial markets exert, as they focus primarily on short-term profitability and shareholder gains, instead of on long-term investments. As a result, companies—and governments—have paid less and less attention to climate change and other environmental concerns, especially where environmental protection would reduce profits. If we live and move in a financial climate of money and greed, then the actual climate almost always suffers.
The financial world is also linked to environmental damage on a spiritual level: A superficial view of human well-being deeply hampers potential solutions to today’s problems. The assumption is that greater material prosperity, underlined by money, will give us all that we need. This modern understanding suffers from a profound lack of shalom, the Hebrew word meaning wholeness, well-being, and peace.
No wonder: The reduction of happiness to material goods, a reduction promoted by massive advertising campaigns, is a symptom of following a false shepherd in pursuit of seeming life. But Jesus is the Good Shepherd, and “the sheep follow him because they know his voice” (John 10:4). In this text, Jesus also uses the word “abundance”: “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). On an environmental level, life must first be preserved for us to be able to enjoy it in abundance!
What then might following the Good Shepherd look like in the midst of today’s economic, environmental, and spiritual crisis?
A way forward
Citizens, banks, institutions, and other economic actors must assume, rather than renege on, their responsibilities—not only for fairness and transparency, but also for equity and sustainability. Governments must demand nothing less; in the short term, they must demand it of mortgage-holders, banks, automakers, and other economic actors as a condition of so-called bailouts.
Perhaps the most effective approach would be to begin where the problems began, namely banks and mortgage-holders. The main problem was that banks lent and gave credit in an extremely careless, speculative manner, without holding nearly enough money in reserve. Government support to banks should never be given without an agreement, in writing, that lending practices return to the principles of healthy banking. Bonuses for senior executives should be abolished or at least severely restricted. Banks and other mortgage-holders, including those who pushed relatively poor people into seemingly cheap mortgages, should get government support only if they eliminate adjustable-rate mortgages, in which interest payments escalate after an initial “teaser” period. If existing mortgages are also converted to fixed rates, at least a segment of homeowners would be able to keep their homes, and it could help to restore confidence in the economy.
In the middle and longer term, the national and international monetary system must change on a structural level. There has been an obvious failure of financial oversight by the U.S. Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—an almost complete lack of regulation of speculation, not to mention speculative movements of global capital. The IMF’s founding document still gives it the ability to regulate destabilizing international capital flows—although in recent decades its policies have actually encouraged, rather than discouraged, capital stampedes.
The primary task of a newly structured IMF should be to create and maintain stability and fairness in the world’s monetary order. The growth in the financial economy must serve the growth of the real economy, not the other way around, and heavy restrictions must be placed on speculation. Where today’s IMF is controlled by the world’s rich countries (in practice, it is run by the U.S. Treasury Department), in a restructured IMF the countries of the South need to have a real say in decision-making, and the United States must be subject to the same rules as other countries.
A new vision of shalom
Like all economic crises, the current one involves a slowdown in economic demand. But is there any reason to concentrate only on increasing consumption in wealthy countries? Of course not! Ever-higher levels of material consumption ruin the environment. Moreover, many poor countries still suffer under enormous debt burdens which profoundly hamper their economic development. Why should we bail out Western banks but not assist poor countries in their efforts to rid themselves of these debt burdens and to increase public and private spending to meet basic needs? The IMF has the mechanisms to do this (by, for example, granting a special allocation of so-called Special Drawing Rights).
If the wealthy countries of the West support this effort by reorienting their own economies toward global solidarity and sustainability, then the current crisis could come to an end to the benefit of all—at least in terms of shalom.
Jesus calls us to preserve life in order to enjoy it in abundance. But in an already rich society, when maximizing material abundance itself becomes our goal, all of us lose life. Now we are increasingly aware of what is wrong—so now is the time to turn to a better way. What good is it to conquer the world but lose your soul? Is that not the message of the gospel for today?
Bob Goudzwaard, co-author of Hope in Troubled Times: A New Vision for Confronting Global Crises (Baker, 2007), is a former member of the Dutch Parliament and professor emeritus at the Free University of Amsterdam. Recently he chaired a two-year consultation between the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Council of Churches.
source: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0906&article=a-paper-god
Indigenous theologians discuss Christianity from a Native perspective
In this video Rev Richard Twiss, Terry Leblanc and Raymond Aldred, Ph.D. talk about the revival of indigenous theology in North America.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
FOCUS North America - Introduction Video
FOCUS North America, is the Fellowship of Orthodox Christians United to Server Charity
The vision of FOCUS North America is a network of Orthodox Christian social action ministries and volunteers throughout North America working to alleviate the suffering of impoverished or marginalized persons of any age, race, or creed.
The Mission of FOCUS North America
To express Christ's love in North America for those who are hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick or in prison (Matt. 25:35-6) by providing aid including food, occupations, clothing, understanding, and shelter.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Praying For Soldiers During War
Christ our True God, who loves mankind, look down with mercy and compassion upon every soldier who is facing a daily struggle with war, aggression and terrorism. Each one desires to live before You, and be ever protected by Your Right Hand. Preserve them, we humbly pray, and watch over them every given hour. Guide their steps, give wisdom and discernment to all who are in leadership, that Your will may prevail, and that they may return safely to their homes and loved ones.
We beg You to hear the cry coming from our hearts, dear Lord Jesus Christ. We know that we are surrounded by many dangers. We are frightened as destruction; pain and death seem so near. We hurt with those who are hurting, and grieve with those who grieve, whether on the battlefield or in their homes.
Draw us closer to You, we pray. Grant to us and to each soldier the desire to say as the Psalmist did, "I will say of the Lord, 'He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust.' He shall cover you with His feathers, and under His wings you shall take refuge." (Psalm 91)
In Your righteousness forgive us as we continue in the defense of our beloved country. Watch over those whom we love, our wives, our children, relatives, and friends, as well as all civil authorities. May Your guiding Spirit be with those who govern us. Bless our country America, our allies, and all those who love freedom, peace, and good will among all men.
May Your mercy be ever granted to us, for without fear but with love, humility, and obedience we to turn to You, that we may be strengthened, stand firm, and live.
Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.
Humbly In Christ Our Lord,
source: http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/PrayingForSoldiersDuringWar.htm
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Grand Mufti Invites President Obama to Address Muslims From Top Mosque
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97694 <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97694>
FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Obama could address Muslims from top mosque
Egypt's grand mufti invites president to speak at prominent sharia center
By Aaron Klein
TEL AVIV, Israel – The grand mufti of Egypt has invited President Obama to address Muslims around the globe from one of the most important mosques in the Islamic world.
The invitation to speak from Egypt's Al Azhar mosque follows an announcement over this past weekend that Obama will travel to Egypt next month to deliver his promised address to the Muslim world.
According to Al-Masri Al-Yawm, a state-run Egyptian newspaper, Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa and other scholars from Egypt's Al Azhar University invited Obama to use the mosque as venue for the president's upcoming visit, explaining it would promote a culture of dialogue between Islam and the West.
Al Azhar University is the most respected Sunni Islamic learning center in the world and the second oldest degree-granting school. Clerics at the university's attendant mosque decide Islamic sharia law matters for Sunni Muslims internationally.
The university opened studies in AD 975. It was founded by the Fatimid dynasty of Egypt, which is descended from the daughter of the Islamic figure Muhammad.
It is highly unusual for a non-Muslim to speak at the mosque. An Egyptian official, contacted by WND, could not think of any non-Muslim world leader who had received an invitation.
Obama had pledged he would deliver an address to the Muslim world within his first few months in office. His first interview as president was with Al Arabiya, a pan-Arab television network.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Saturday the city where Obama will deliver the address has not been selected.
Gibbs said Obama decided on Egypt because the country "in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world." He said the issues of democracy and human rights "are things that are on the president's mind, and we'll have a chance to discuss those in more depth on the trip."
"This isn't a speech to leaders," Gibbs said. "This is a speech to many, many people and a continuing effort by this president and this White House to demonstrate how we can work together to ensure the safety and security and the future well-being, through hope and opportunity, of the children of this country and of the Muslim world."
FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Obama could address Muslims from top mosque
Egypt's grand mufti invites president to speak at prominent sharia center
By Aaron Klein
TEL AVIV, Israel – The grand mufti of Egypt has invited President Obama to address Muslims around the globe from one of the most important mosques in the Islamic world.
The invitation to speak from Egypt's Al Azhar mosque follows an announcement over this past weekend that Obama will travel to Egypt next month to deliver his promised address to the Muslim world.
According to Al-Masri Al-Yawm, a state-run Egyptian newspaper, Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa and other scholars from Egypt's Al Azhar University invited Obama to use the mosque as venue for the president's upcoming visit, explaining it would promote a culture of dialogue between Islam and the West.
Al Azhar University is the most respected Sunni Islamic learning center in the world and the second oldest degree-granting school. Clerics at the university's attendant mosque decide Islamic sharia law matters for Sunni Muslims internationally.
The university opened studies in AD 975. It was founded by the Fatimid dynasty of Egypt, which is descended from the daughter of the Islamic figure Muhammad.
It is highly unusual for a non-Muslim to speak at the mosque. An Egyptian official, contacted by WND, could not think of any non-Muslim world leader who had received an invitation.
Obama had pledged he would deliver an address to the Muslim world within his first few months in office. His first interview as president was with Al Arabiya, a pan-Arab television network.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Saturday the city where Obama will deliver the address has not been selected.
Gibbs said Obama decided on Egypt because the country "in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world." He said the issues of democracy and human rights "are things that are on the president's mind, and we'll have a chance to discuss those in more depth on the trip."
"This isn't a speech to leaders," Gibbs said. "This is a speech to many, many people and a continuing effort by this president and this White House to demonstrate how we can work together to ensure the safety and security and the future well-being, through hope and opportunity, of the children of this country and of the Muslim world."
Father Zakaria;s Truth Talk
About Fathter Zakaria Boutrous:
CWNews.com -- Father Zakaria Boutros looks like a mild-mannered, unassuming priest. But his message is rocking much of the Muslim world.
His television program called 'Truth Talk' is broadcast daily into the Middle East over the Al-Hiyat satellite channel. On it, he challenges Muslims to examine what he says are inconsistencies in Islamic doctrine -- inconsistencies that he says Muslim leaders don't want exposed and ordinary Muslims are told never to question.
"Islam cannot stand in front of intellectual questions and no one can understand because of contradictions in Koran, contradictions in Hadith, contradictions and false doctrines. So they don't want anybody to ask and to learn. 'This is Islam, you have to accept it as it is' lest you should be killed," Zakaria said.
Father Zakaria doesn't stop at challenging the teachings of Islam. He also questions the Prophet Mohammed himself, who Zakaria says had his mind set on wordly pursuits.
"He said that his concerns are three things: women, perfume, and food," he said. "Where is the kingdom of God? Where is the glory of God? Where is the salvation? Where is love? Where is the mission of a true Prophet of God?"
Father Zakaria's broadcasts have generated intense anger in the Muslim world and there's a $60 million bounty on his head. But he makes no excuses for his confrontational style.
He says the provocative statements are designed to challenge Muslims to examine their faith.
"This is my way: short, sharp, shock for the unconscious," Zakaria said
That was the case with James, an Egyptian who began watching Truth Talk late at night while the rest of his family slept.
"When I first saw the show, I was angry at him. I wanted revenge," he said.
He began studying the Koran and the Bible to refute father Zakaria's claims, and in the process learned more about Christianity and Islam.
"I started to think about things I had never thought of before. My understanding changed and things became clear," James said.
James came to faith in Jesus Christ watching Father Zakaria. His wife soon followed.
"I realized Islam was a fake religion, Mary said. "When I learned the truth, I removed my veil. I felt freedom. I had been released. "Life is not about religion it's about a relationship between us and Christ. Christ is life."
Father Zakaria says the Muslim world is full of people like James and Mary.
Thousands of people visit his Internet chat room on 'Pal Talk' every month.
They come to challenge Father Zakaria's teaching and end up learning more about Jesus Christ.
PART 1.
From the Program: "Questions about Faith"
Topic: Who is Christ in Christianity?
PART 2.
From the Program: "Questions about Faith"
Topic: Who is Christ in Christianity?
PART 3.
From the Program: "Questions about Faith"
Topic: Who is Christ in Christianity?
CWNews.com -- Father Zakaria Boutros looks like a mild-mannered, unassuming priest. But his message is rocking much of the Muslim world.
His television program called 'Truth Talk' is broadcast daily into the Middle East over the Al-Hiyat satellite channel. On it, he challenges Muslims to examine what he says are inconsistencies in Islamic doctrine -- inconsistencies that he says Muslim leaders don't want exposed and ordinary Muslims are told never to question.
"Islam cannot stand in front of intellectual questions and no one can understand because of contradictions in Koran, contradictions in Hadith, contradictions and false doctrines. So they don't want anybody to ask and to learn. 'This is Islam, you have to accept it as it is' lest you should be killed," Zakaria said.
Father Zakaria doesn't stop at challenging the teachings of Islam. He also questions the Prophet Mohammed himself, who Zakaria says had his mind set on wordly pursuits.
"He said that his concerns are three things: women, perfume, and food," he said. "Where is the kingdom of God? Where is the glory of God? Where is the salvation? Where is love? Where is the mission of a true Prophet of God?"
Father Zakaria's broadcasts have generated intense anger in the Muslim world and there's a $60 million bounty on his head. But he makes no excuses for his confrontational style.
He says the provocative statements are designed to challenge Muslims to examine their faith.
"This is my way: short, sharp, shock for the unconscious," Zakaria said
That was the case with James, an Egyptian who began watching Truth Talk late at night while the rest of his family slept.
"When I first saw the show, I was angry at him. I wanted revenge," he said.
He began studying the Koran and the Bible to refute father Zakaria's claims, and in the process learned more about Christianity and Islam.
"I started to think about things I had never thought of before. My understanding changed and things became clear," James said.
James came to faith in Jesus Christ watching Father Zakaria. His wife soon followed.
"I realized Islam was a fake religion, Mary said. "When I learned the truth, I removed my veil. I felt freedom. I had been released. "Life is not about religion it's about a relationship between us and Christ. Christ is life."
Father Zakaria says the Muslim world is full of people like James and Mary.
Thousands of people visit his Internet chat room on 'Pal Talk' every month.
They come to challenge Father Zakaria's teaching and end up learning more about Jesus Christ.
PART 1.
From the Program: "Questions about Faith"
Topic: Who is Christ in Christianity?
PART 2.
From the Program: "Questions about Faith"
Topic: Who is Christ in Christianity?
PART 3.
From the Program: "Questions about Faith"
Topic: Who is Christ in Christianity?
America’s New Crisis Understanding the Muslim’s World
The September 11 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have led some to signal a new clash in the 21st century between Islam and Western civilization, portraying it as a clash between Islam and capitalism,while others chose to name it a clash between extreme Islam and “our way of life.” Is what we see now a clash between Islam and the West or between the civilized world and global terrorism?
Our inability to understand is compounded by continued ignorance of the faith and the history of Islam demonstrated by many policymakers, commentators, the media and the general public. Far too many continue to see Islam through explosive headline events and shocking breaking news, judging the many by the radicalized few. There is a tendency to equate Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism with all Islamic movements, political and social, non-violent and violent.
The Taliban’s narrow tribal militant interpretations of Islam―from their restrictions on women to the destruction of ancient Buddhist monuments―have little to do with Islamic doctrine and law. They have been criticized by governments and religious leaders across the Muslim world. Similarly, Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaida are no more representative of Islam than Christians who blow up abortion clinics or the Jewish fundamentalists who assassinated Yitzak Rabin or, like Dr. Baruch Goldstein, slaughtered Muslims at Friday prayer in the Hebron mosque. Yet, a deadly radical minority does exist; they have wrought havoc primarily on their own societies from Egypt to the southern Philippines. Osama Bin Laden and others do appeal to a radicalized minority. They appeal to real as well as imagined injustices and prey on the oppressed, alienated, and marginalized sectors of society.
The Muslim World and the Resurgence of Islam
Making sense of Islam requires not only an awareness of the faith and its diverse interpretations but also the multiple roles that Islam plays in Muslim politics today. The 1.2 billion Muslims of the world live in some 56 Muslim countries, from Africa to Asia, as well as in Europe and America where Islam is the second and third largest religion, respectively. Governments range from monarchies to republics, the religious to the more secular, from America’s allies to our enemies.
Since the Islamic revolution of 1978-79, new self-proclaimed Islamic governments have been created in Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan alongside the older Islamic governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. However, simply referring to these governments as fundamentalist states ignores profound differences in the nature of their governments and their relations with the West. These “Islamic” regimes range from a Saudi monarchy to states run by leaders of military coups (Sudan and Pakistan), or clergy (Iran) or former seminary students (Afghanistan’s Taliban). Some (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) have generally been seen as allies of America and others (Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan) are foes.
From North Africa to Southeast Asia, during the past two decades Islam has been used in responding to myriad political and social issues. Rulers have appealed to Islam to enhance their legitimacy and mobilize popular support. At the same time, Islamically-motivated social organizations have been created to provide much-needed educational, medical, legal and social services and Islamic political movements from conservative and reformist to radical extremist have grown in many states.
Governments have responded in diverse ways to the reassertion of religion in politics. In North Africa, the king of Morocco has combined his Islamic pedigree, as a descendant of the prophet Muhammad, with a modest reform agenda that has included parliamentary elections. Tunisia and Algeria have pursued more secular paths. Tunisia’s Ben Ali after repressing Ennahda (Renaissance Party), the Islamist party that emerged from national elections as the only viable opposition, maintains a tight hold on the reins of government. Algeria struggles with the results of a decade-long civil war that erupted after the Algerian military intervened to deny victory to the democratically elected Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) which had swept both municipal and then parliamentary elections. Algeria’s spiral of violence has pitted extremists in the military against radical Islamists like the Armed Islamic Group, costing more than 100,000 lives.
Old-line Arab socialist states like Iraq and Egypt have taken different paths. The secular Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has oppressed its own population, threatened the stability of governments in the Middle East, and used Islam to call for a jihad against the West. Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, an ally of the US, has battled and largely suppressed violent extremist groups like the Gamaa Islamiyya (Islamic group). At the same time, the Mubarak government has also increasingly attempted to control its critics including organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, which in the past several decades has pursued a path of von-violent opposition, as well as professional associations and the media.
Islam Meets the West
In Islam’s encounter with Western culture, Islam is often viewed to be in conflict with liberal democratic ideals. For example, it is ironic to hear some speak of a conflict between Islam and capitalism. Capitalism or its acceptance exists both in its homegrown forms in the Muslim world as well as western-inspired versions. The issue is less about capitalism than about the dangers of western economic hegemony and its side effects, not only on the Muslim world but on the “South” in general. In fact, Islam does not have any problem with many of the essentials of western capitalism. It is important to recall that Muhammad’s earlier followers included prosperous merchants. He himself engaged in financial and commercial transactions to make a living.
The Quran, hadith or traditions about what the Prophet said and did, and Muslim historical experience affirms the right to private property and trade and commerce. In fact, the economic regulations of Islamic jurisprudence form a very sophisticated code. Mosques throughout the world, such as the Umayyad mosque in Damascus and the elegant mosques of old Cairo and Tehran, are often adjoined by magnificent bazaars. Traders and businessmen were among the most successful sector in society and were responsible for the spread of their faith. Perhaps the best response to those who ask whether Islam and capitalism are compatible is to look at the lives of the millions of Muslims who live and work in our midst in America and Europe. Many have come here to enjoy freedom and the opportunities offered by our economic and political systems. Like religious and ethnic minorities before them, they too struggle with issues of identity and assimilation but not with their desire to enjoy the best that we represent. The fact that members of their faith have distorted its teachings and committed an act of terrorism should not diminish their rights to equality under the law, to experience the religious tolerance that our political systems were based on.
“Why do they hate us?”
The temptation is to seek easy justifications to explain away anti-Americanism as simply irrationality, ingratitude, jealousy of our success or hatred for “our way of life.” As we puzzle about “Why do they hate us?” it is time to also realize that they see more than we see. Anti-Americanism is driven not by the blind hatred or religious zealotry of extremists, but also by a frustration and anger with U.S. policy among the mainstream in the Muslim world. Unlike the past, today an international Arab and Muslim media, no longer solely dependent on Western reporters and channels, provides daily coverage of the violence, the disproportionate firepower and number of Palestinian deaths and casualties, as well as the use of American weapons including F16s and Apache helicopters provided to Israel for use against civilians in the occupied territories.
The American administration’s soft-glove treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s heavy-handed policies in the West Bank and Gaza and America’s record of relatively uncritical U.S. support of Israel—witnessed in its levels of aid to Israel, the U.S. voting record in the United Nations, and official statements by the administration and State Department—have proved to be a lightning rod. Further, the West’s espousal of self-determination, democratization, and human rights is often seen as a hypocritical double standard when compared to its policies, such as the impact of sanctions on more than a half million Iraqi children, and sanctions against Pakistan, but a failure to press Israel and India on their nuclear developments. The moral will so evident in Kosovo is seen as totally absent in our policy of permissive neglect in the Chechnyan and Kashmiri conflicts. As a native born American convert to Islam and former government consultant has observed: “America’s bizarre complicity in the genocidal destruction of Chechnya, its tacit support of India’s incredibly brutal occupation of Kashmir, its passivity in the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia, and even America’s insistence on zero casualties in stopping the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo all contribute to the terrorist mentality that is growing all over the world.”
Reacting to Terrorism
As governments respond to the threat of global terrorism, it will be difficult but necessary for our leaders and politicians to lead—and not be led by―a thirst for revenge. The war against global terrorism should not justify a gradual erosion of important principles and values at home or become a green light to authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world to further limit the rule of law and civil society, or repress non-violent opposition. Nor should it affect the need to adopt a more balanced policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. American and European responses must be proportionate, from military strikes, security measures, and anti-terrorism legislation, to foreign policy. The need to bring the terrorists who attacked our country on Sept. 11 to swift justice and to pursue a war to destroy their cells and bases of operation must be guided by remembrance of past mistakes. It must be balanced by evidence that establishes a direct connection of guilt and by strikes that are focused rather than wide-ranging and indiscriminate. A disproportionate response runs the risk of a backlash in the Middle East and the broader Muslim world—as well as among fellow American and European Muslim citizens—that will erode the good will and support of many and reinforce an image of a superpower again placing itself above international law.
If the above foreign policy issues are not addressed effectively, they will continue to provide a breeding ground for hatred and radicalism, the rise of extremist movements, and recruits for the Bin Ladens of the world. Therefore, it is critical to adopt a long as well as short-term strategy based on a reexamination of U.S. foreign policy and an openness to press our allies, and to challenge ourselves to reconsider policies, strategies and tactics that diffuse the conflicts and clashes confronting future generations.
* John L. Esposito is University Professor and Professor of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown University. Founding Director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding: History and International Affairs at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, his publications include The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? (Oxford University Press).
source: http://www.islamonline.net/english/Crisis/2001/10/article2.shtml
War against the West
The purpose of this blog is to have people think. Our hope is to present more than one side of any issues. To that end, we have invited others to post here. To date only one person has accepted our invitation. Because of that, often the views presented here are some what one sided. If you have an opinion about the issues facing the world today and would like to write and post here, let us know. You do not need to be Orthodox, or Christian, or of any faith, and do not need to agree with our views. We will not debate with you. We only ask that your postings be in good taste, and not be in support of some agenda whether that agenda be to the right or the left.
The authors of the following video discusses the issue of extreme Islam in the world today. Some of their comments could also be said of Christians. According to the authors:
Do you have an opinion you would like to express? If so email us at monastery@synesius.com and tell us something about yourself and what you would like to say.
The authors of the following video discusses the issue of extreme Islam in the world today. Some of their comments could also be said of Christians. According to the authors:
Using images from Arab TV, rarely seen in the West, Obsession reveals an ‘insider's view' of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. With the help of experts, including first-hand accounts from a former PLO terrorist, a Nazi youth commander, and the daughter of a martyred guerilla leader, the film shows, clearly, that the threat is real. A peaceful religion is being hijacked by a dangerous foe, who seeks to destroy the shared values we stand for. The world should be very concerned.
Do you have an opinion you would like to express? If so email us at monastery@synesius.com and tell us something about yourself and what you would like to say.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The Great Dictator
Are we machines or are we men with the power with Christ to change the world? Did our mothers raise us to just go along with those who seek to oppress, or did they raise sons and daughter to unite in freedom...to make a difference in the lives of our friends and neighbors.
Listen carefully to this video which is the climax to the 1940 Charlie Chaplin film "The Great Dictator".
Advice to Dictators
I always enjoy Father Jeffrey's short reflection. Here in this video standing before the arch of Roman Dictator Septimus Severus, Catholic priest reflects on how to obtain true greatness without relying on armies.
We invite you to join us during the week at noon at the Mor Gregorios Community Center and St. Mary the Protectress Orthodox Church as we pray for peace and healing in the world. We are located at 1000 South Michigan Street, Plymouth, Indiana.
Not killing for sport or religion
In this video from the Colosseum in Rome, a Roman Catholic priest gives us a reflection on violence in sport and religion. Catholic priest prays for an end to both. St Peter and St. Paul both killed for their beliefs a few years before the Colosseum was built.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Mor Gregorios Community Center Teams With Ancilla College
Ancilla College and the Mor Gregorios Community Center will co-sponsor a resume workshop on Friday, May 15, 2009, at Ancilla College, in Donaldson, Indiana from 1:00 pm until 5:00 pm. The workshop is free and open to the public.
The workshop will be conducted in the Ancilla College’s computer lab. Participants should bring a computer disk to save their work to.
The workshop will help individuals start crafting their resumes and cover such things as what to include in the resume, how to use online job search engines to find job openings and to file resumes online, and other employment related information.
Ancilla’s Director of the Center for Student Achievement, Jim Cawthron, stresses the importance of having an effective resume particularly in today’s job market. An effective resume will help an individual obtain an interview. No matter what type of employment an individual is seeking, a resume will help.
Cawthron will be one of the presenters at the workshop. Other presenters include Father Theodosius Walker the director of the Mor Gregorios Community Center.
For those individuals who wish additional assistance preparing and finishing their resumes individual help will be available daily at the Mor Gregorios Community Center. The community center is one of the Indiana community based organizations with volunteers trained by Workforce Development to assist individuals file their unemployment claims and weekly reports.
For more information about the resume workshop, please call Father Theodosius Walker at the Mor Gregorios Community Center at 574-540-2048.
The workshop will be conducted in the Ancilla College’s computer lab. Participants should bring a computer disk to save their work to.
The workshop will help individuals start crafting their resumes and cover such things as what to include in the resume, how to use online job search engines to find job openings and to file resumes online, and other employment related information.
Ancilla’s Director of the Center for Student Achievement, Jim Cawthron, stresses the importance of having an effective resume particularly in today’s job market. An effective resume will help an individual obtain an interview. No matter what type of employment an individual is seeking, a resume will help.
Cawthron will be one of the presenters at the workshop. Other presenters include Father Theodosius Walker the director of the Mor Gregorios Community Center.
For those individuals who wish additional assistance preparing and finishing their resumes individual help will be available daily at the Mor Gregorios Community Center. The community center is one of the Indiana community based organizations with volunteers trained by Workforce Development to assist individuals file their unemployment claims and weekly reports.
For more information about the resume workshop, please call Father Theodosius Walker at the Mor Gregorios Community Center at 574-540-2048.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
