Gay Activists Muzzle Liberty, Conscience

Those advocating the radical social innovation, which they label “same-sex or gay marriage,” typically claim that they are fighting for freedom, championing a basic liberty. “Freedom to Marry” is indeed the name of a national organization devoted to the advocacy of same-sex marriage. Established in 2003 by civil-rights advocate Evan Wolfson and headquartered in New York City, this group takes “We All Deserve the Freedom to Marry” as its slogan. So effective has it promulgated this perspective that even former First Lady Laura Bush endorsed homosexuals’ right to marry as a matter of basic freedom when she appeared on the Larry King Show in May 2010.

But those who advocate homosexual marriage as a way of enlarging the American sphere of liberty are profoundly—and deceptively—misrepresenting their aims. Their real aim came to light in the public controversy over remarks attributed to Queen Sophia of Spain in criticizing her country’s invention in 2005 of a homosexual right to “marry.” “If those people [homosexuals] want to live together,” commented the Spanish monarch, “dress up as bride and groom and get married they can do so, but that should not be called marriage because it is not.” Widely reported by the media, the furor over these remarks forced representatives of the Queen to issue a statement claiming that the published remarks “do not exactly match the opinions expressed by Her Majesty the Queen” and apologizing for the “ill-feeling and upset” her comments had caused. The pressures compelling this semi-retraction and apology prompted one media commentator to ponder the “interesting question” of whether on the issue of homosexual marriage, the Queen still had “the right... to express her opinion like any other citizen.”

This commentator had glimpsed the fundamental aim of those advocating homosexual marriage: it is not at all about giving homosexuals a new freedom to participate in ceremonies that they regard as weddings. It is entirely about denying freedom of public speech to anyone who would criticize such ceremonies or the sexual behaviors such ceremonies legitimize. The muzzle that homosexual activists tried (largely successfully) to put on an outspoken monarch represents only the beginning. Homosexual activists in this country deeply desire to place first thousands, and then millions, of even tighter muzzles on all who disagree with them about the nature of homosexual behavior. They well understand that enactment of laws authorizing homosexual marriage will give them sweeping powers to bind those muzzles very tightly on their fellow citizens.

 
Read it all here.

A Roadmap for Moral Renewal in Europe

Alejo José G. Sison  (Reprinted from here.)


At this time of the year, walking from my apartment to the University, shop-windows would usually be all decked in Christmas finery. But instead, what I find are closing-down sales, “for rent” signs and locales completely boarded up. It has been like this for the past couple of years that it feels like the new normal. Living in Spain, where growth has been flat and unemployment sky-rocketing, nothing different could be expected. But what do we do now?

That’s when I remembered Benedict XVI’s address to the Bundestag last September. I have been discussing it with some friends, yet it never occurred to me until then that it could contain both a diagnosis and a remedy for the malaise that afflicts Europe. How could the Pope’s speech present Europe with a roadmap to recovery?


A “listening heart” for politicians

In the recent general elections in Spain, nothing weighed heavier in voters’ choices than the perceived ability of candidates to get the economy up and running. That’s what we want our politicians to deliver: wealth and prosperity, period. As for the rest, we could very well take care ourselves. Only a few cast their vote on the basis of the candidate’s “listening heart”, the ability to “discern between good and evil” (cf. 1 Kg 3:9), so this issue never really arises in campaigns. Yet, as Benedict suggests, this is “what should ultimately matter for a politician. His fundamental criterion and motivation […] must not be success, and certainly not material gain. Politics must be a striving for justice…”

Not to be misunderstood, the Pope explains that material success is necessary, because otherwise, there would be “no opportunity for effective political action at all. Yet success is subordinated to the criterion of justice, to the will to do what is right, and to the understanding of what is right.” Certainly, there is nothing quite as dangerous as political success without justice, power without law. In that case, as St. Augustine remarked, nothing would distinguish the State from a band of robbers, or worse, from an instrument of destruction that could threaten the whole world, as the German experience with Nazism has shown. “To serve right and to fight against the dominion of wrong is and remains the fundamental task of the politician,” Benedict unequivocally asserts.



Democracy alone is insufficient

Having been brought into power in Germany through a democratic process, the Nazi regime itself is proof that “for the fundamental issues of law, in which the dignity of man and of humanity is at stake, the majority principle is not enough”. Although in most matters subject to law -- as in a state’s decision to form part of the European Union or to adopt the euro, for instance -- majority rule is enough to provide legitimacy, this does not always apply. Instead, when unjust laws put basic human rights under threat, such as the right of parents to educate their children, citizens have a duty to struggle and resist.

In modern liberal democracies, it may be fairly simple to acknowledge that the State and, by extension, its laws are not always right -- hence the possibility of challenging the State and bringing it to court, whenever it becomes too much of a nuisance. But, what is to keep such conflicts between citizens and the State from becoming mere contests of money, power or influence? Is there anything else in our disputes beyond conflicts of self-interest? Granted that “what is right and may be given the force of law is in no way simply self-evident today”, could we still claim that something in itself is right and just? On what grounds?


Not religion, but nature and reason

Surprisingly, Benedict does not posit religion, not even Christianity, as a source of law for society and the State. Instead, he puts forward the interrelation of reason and nature as the basis of a universal “natural law”, in keeping with the teachings not only of the Stoïcs, Romans and medieval Schoolmen, but also of some legal scholars of the Enlightenment, all of whom influenced the “Founding Fathers” of the Declaration of Human Rights and the drafters of the German Basic Law. Behind this is the conviction that reason itself is capable of discovering in nature the principles of its proper functioning, even without the help of religion and revelation. Not that religion and revelation are useless; they aid reason in discerning the laws of nature, although in principle, reason alone can also do this by itself. Thus, reason acts as the moral conscience, “Solomon’s listening heart […] that is open to the language of being.”


How “natural law” got de-natured

It is quite unfortunate that the very idea of “natural law” has been all but lost, confined almost exclusively within Catholic circles. This is due to the widespread rejection of the so-called “naturalistic fallacy”, according to which “an ‘ought’ [a duty or obligation] can never follow from an ‘is’ [a statement of fact], because the two are situated on completely different planes.” The problem, however, is that this inference itself is based on a reductive and therefore false concept of nature: a purely positivist understanding which sees nature as merely “an aggregate of objective data linked together in terms of cause and effect” -- as we find, for example, in the legal philosopher Hans Kelsen.

Positivism also views reason as limited to the realm of empirical science, to what is verifiable or falsifiable, while everything else, such as ethics and religion, is exiled to the realm of feelings and sentiments. “This is a dramatic situation which affects everyone, and on which a public debate is necessary,” Benedict observes. Furthermore, he establishes as the “essential goal” of his address the “urgent invitation” to launch such a public and political debate on these matters.


Europe and the ecological awakening

The positivist view of nature and reason is incorrect not in what it affirms, thanks to which we have scaled such heights of achievement in the sciences, but in what it denies. “Where positivist reason considers itself the only sufficient culture and banishes all other cultural realities to the status of subcultures, it diminishes man, indeed it threatens his humanity.” Nowhere is this more evident than in present-day Europe, where positivism has been installed as the de facto common culture and grounds for legislation. At the same time, gravely disappointed with the results of integration, not least in the economic sphere, Europeans increasingly turn their backs on this culture of “culturelessness” and embrace extremist and radical ideologies. Thus, we have shut ourselves from the light and the air of God’s wide world and set ourselves on course to a slow death by suffocation, to follow Benedict’s metaphor.

Since a few decades back, however, there have been signs of an awakening, especially among the young, in the face of all this irrationality. The Pope has sensed it in the extraordinary appeal of the ecological movement in Germany. It rests on the realization that nature “is not just raw material for us to shape at will, but that the earth has a dignity of its own and that we must follow its directives.”

Benedict agrees, but challenges the green movement by pointing out that there is also an “ecology of man”: “Man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. Man is not merely self-creating freedom. […] [H]e is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he respects his nature, listens to it and accepts himself for who he is […] In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled.”

Human beings, therefore, no less than the world that surrounds them, are subject to laws and norms that do not come from their own will. Where, then, do these principles originate? In response to Kelsen, Benedict asks, “Is it really pointless to wonder whether the objective reason that manifests itself in nature does not presuppose a creative reason, a Creator Spiritus?”

Only after this question is seriously considered can Europe embark on a moral renewal, in many ways much more urgent than mere economic recovery. We ought to remember that Europe was born at the crossroads “between Jerusalem, Athens and Rome —from the encounter between Israel’s monotheism, the philosophical reason of the Greeks and Roman law.” From this cross-fertilization have issued “[t]he conviction that there is a Creator God [that] gave rise to the idea of human rights, the idea of the equality of all people before the law, the recognition of the inviolability of human dignity in every single person and the awareness of people’s responsibility for their actions.” Together, they form the cornerstone of law that today, more than ever, ought to be defended.

To sum up: after a careful reading of Benedict XVI’s speech at the German parliament, here are some guidelines for the renewal of Europe:

* We should not choose our political leaders solely on their promises to bring us material well-being, but above all, for their moral rectitude or “listening heart”.

* Democracy has to abide by certain principles exempt from the majority rule in order to function properly.

* These universal principles pertain to “natural law”: they are conclusions that human reason draws from an attentive study of nature.

Europe will recover only to the extent that it reconciles itself with its “natural law” tradition and abandons the tyranny of positivism. In this regard, the ecological movement has already shown the way.

Alejo José G. Sison is a philosophy professor who specializes in Business Ethics at the University of Navarre. He is also president of the European Business Ethics Network (EBEN).

World Youth Day 2011

Last year at this time the Catholic Church was licking its wounds after its biggest public relations shellacking in many years. Newspaper columnists sneered that the scandal caused by a few priest paedophiles was the beginning of the end. Its followers were so disgusted that they were said to be turning in their membership cards.

But if that pessimistic reading of the tea leaves was true, how do you explain the presence of two million young people in Madrid over the weekend to listen to an 83-year-old German Pope? They were all aware of the vile actions of a handful of rogue priests but these had not shaken their confidence in the Church or its leader.

So, if you are a Catholic sympathiser, World Youth Day 2011 gave abundant reasons for hope. Here are 7 of them.

The younger generation gets the Church

The 2 million young people who attended made an impressive effort to back up their convictions. While most of the pilgrims came from Spain and nearby France and Italy, there were hundreds from countries like Australia and New Zealand. About 150 came from Russia! The sacrifice of paying for a long and trip and uncomfortable accommodation shows that they were firmly committed to being part of the Catholic Church.

Contrast that with the World Youth Summit organised by the United Nations in New York. Admittedly UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has the charisma of a wilted lettuce, but this worthy gathering drew only a few hundred people. Whose ideas are going to be passed on to the next generation?



Benedict XVI is setting the moral agenda

Last week Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron reacted to the riots in London and other big English cities by decrying moral relativism. “What last week has shown is that this moral neutrality, this relativism – it’s not going to cut it any more.” Exactly. A free set of steak knives if you can name the first major world figure to hammer away at the “tyranny of relativism”!

Benedict XVI. The Pope has made it respectable to reject the political correctness which undermines moral striving. Obviously world leaders are listening.

Remember Cameron’s farewell words to the Pope after his state visit to the UK last year? “You have really challenged the whole country to sit up and think,” he said. It looks like Cameron sat up and thought. His response to the riots came straight from Benedict’s playbook.



A one-man think tank works for free

A fascinating essay in last week’s New York Times by film critic Neal Gabler lamented the death of in-depth thinking: “we are living in an increasingly post-idea world — a world in which big, thought-provoking ideas that can’t instantly be monetized are of so little intrinsic value that fewer people are generating them and fewer outlets are disseminating them, the Internet notwithstanding. Bold ideas are almost passé.”

Maybe in New York, but not in Rome. Gabler obviously hasn’t read much of Benedict XVI on morality, philosophy, aesthetics, economics and social responsibility. But many of the Pope’s young fans have. In a world where ideas no longer sparkle, his explode with possibilities. And they’re free. Any bets on what the next generation will be thinking?



A way out of the global financial crisis

Benedict got there first. With the world economy on the verge of meltdown, people are looking for answers. Surely at the root of the crisis is something more than mismanagement of economic levers. Surely economics is about more than statistics and money.

Well, that is exactly what Benedict (and his predecessors) have been saying. As he told journalists in a press conference in the flight from Rome to Madrid: “[We see] confirmed in the present economic crisis what has already been seen in the great preceding crisis: that an ethical dimension is not something exterior to economic problems, but an interior and fundamental dimension. The economy does not function with mercantile self-regulation alone, but it has need of an ethical reason to function for man.”



A thumbs-down to dehumanising sex and consumerism

The greatest question of the last 200 years is: what is true freedom? To do whatever I want? Or to live according to the truth? What our society offers young people is the freedom to consume until their credit cards max out, to have sex whenever they want with whomever they want, to live undisturbed in a solipsistic bubble. But this vision of man degrades him, Benedict says. Happiness comes only from discovering the truth. Many young people are disillusioned with the South Park culture they live in and what the Pope says makes a lot of sense to anyone who wants to build a better world.

“The discovery of the living God inspires young people and opens their eyes to the challenges of the world in which they live, with its possibilities and limitations. They see the prevailing superficiality, consumerism and hedonism, the widespread banalization of sexuality, the lack of solidarity, the corruption. They know that, without God, it would be hard to confront these challenges and to be truly happy, and thus pouring out their enthusiasm in the attainment of an authentic life. But, with God beside them, they will possess light to walk by and reasons to hope, unrestrained before their highest ideals, which will motivate their generous commitment to build a society where human dignity and true brotherhood are respected.”



Truth is more powerful than number-cruching

Benedict’s most memorable speech in Spain was to university lecturers at that jewel of Spanish architecture, El Escorial. As a professor himself, he spoke with passionate conviction about the need to offer students more than training in the nuts and bolts of professional work. “As Plato said: ‘Seek truth while you are young, for if you do not, it will later escape your grasp’. This lofty aspiration is the most precious gift which you can give to your students, personally and by example. It is more important than mere technical know-how, or cold and purely functional data.”

Universities, he said, should be a sanctuary from ideology or “a purely utilitarian and economic conception which would view man solely as a consumer”. What could be more attractive to young people than seeking the ultimate meaning in the universe and striving to understand what it means to be authentically human? If there is one bold passé idea, it’s utilitarianism. And Benedict offers an alternative.



World Youth Day is still the world’s best-kept secret

A journalist friend of mine wrote an op-ed piece for a newspaper in Sydney. But the editor wasn’t interested. “We had one of those in Sydney three years ago. That just about filled our quota,” he was told. The New York Times – the touchstone of elite opinion in the US – barely reported World Youth Day.

Really, this is peculiar -- a gathering of 2 million young people is not news, especially after a few hundred in the same age bracket trashed London? Isn’t anyone out there connecting the dots?

But why kvetch? The media and the intelligentsia are good at froth and bubble, but abysmal at deep undercurrents. Did they predict the rise of militant Islam, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the fizzing of the Population Bomb or the Global Financial Crisis?

The biggest stories are the hidden stories. Benedict XVI knows this. As he told journalists, “God's sowing is always silent; it does not appear in the statistics, and the seed that the Lord sows with World Youth Day is like the seed of which the Gospel speaks: part falls on the road and is lost; part falls on stone and is lost; part falls on thorns and is lost; but a part falls on good earth and gives much fruit.”

Unnoticed by the media, 2 million young people have embarked upon a journey which will lead many of them to infuse their home countries with their deeply held Christian beliefs. Slowly the world is going to change. Thirty years from now, the media is going to have one hell of a surprise.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet, which is where this article first appeared.

Wisdom from Melanie Phillips

The following is an interesting interview with British journalist Melanie Phillips in which she discusses the West’s civilizational crisis. She is interviewed by Daniel Allott.

Melanie Phillips is an award-winning columnist for London’s Daily Mail. Educated at Oxford, she won the Orwell Prize for journalism in 1996. She is the author of Londonistan and All Must Have Prizes, among other books. Phillips spoke with CWR about her new book, The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle Over God, Truth, and Power (Encounter Books).


Allott:  How did you select the title of your book?

Melanie Phillips: It arose in my mind because that’s how I think about the situation in the West. So often I’m writing about all manner of things happening, where everything’s been turned backwards and inside out. Right has turned into wrong, justice into injustice, victim into victimizer and so on. And I know from the response I get from my readers that on very many issues they think that too. But they are perplexed by the fact that what they think of as clearly demonstrable reality is represented in a way that makes white black and black white. They feel absolutely perplexed and bewildered, and that’s why I called the book The World Turned Upside Down.

Allott: Could you explain the “Princess Obama” syndrome?

Phillips: Yes, it comes from the fact that I look at two phenomena, the cult that surrounded Princess Diana in Britain and the cult that surrounded Barack Obama when he was running for president. Of course the shine has come off Barack Obama, but I was looking at this extraordinary hype that surrounded him when he was running for president.

In both cases it seemed to me that the reason for the hysteria and the hype was that the public was projecting onto both of these personalities its hopes and fears…and they thought that both of these characters would transcend these difficulties.

For example, Princess Diana was perceived as one of life’s victims. She was the product of a broken home, she had an eating disorder—she had a lot of problems. She was unhappily married to a man who was perceived to be cold and unfeeling. And yet she transcended all of this because she was beautiful, she was a fairy-tale princess. She was the “Queen of Hearts” and all that sort of nonsense. And so it was a kind of psychological projection and transcendence, and that’s why she was so important to people, and that’s why there was so much hysteria when she died.

Similarly, Barack Obama seemed to me to have achieved near-divine status because he was seen, I think, as someone who—by virtue of what he was and where he came from—would transcend some of the more traumatic problems that America felt it had, in particular its terrible history of slavery, its history of discrimination against black people, and the current situation in which America was fighting against the Islamic world. Obama, who himself fused black and white, Muslim and Christian, seemed to represent a kind of promise of global harmony.

[Obama] became a kind of mythic figure just as Princess Diana had been a mythic figure. So in order to illustrate this phenomenon of psychological projection, I called it the Princess Obama syndrome.

Allott: You talk about how science and religion were not always regarded as being at odds with one other, but that “scientism” (the belief that scientific materialism alone can answer all the questions in the world) has taken over. How did it happen that religion became the enemy of science?

Phillips: I think the explanation is that science became identified with materialism. When Western science led the way there was no problem—religion and science were held to be completely compatible with each other. They were simply exploring different things. Science was the attempt to explore and explain the world that could be seen. Religion was the attempt to explain reasons behind the world, and these were considered separate spheres which could co-exist very happily.

Some of the most distinguished scientists from that time onwards have been religious believers. Now for various reasons this doctrine of materialism grew up that made no room for religion. One can trace this way of thinking to the Enlightenment, to Francis Bacon and other thinkers who tried to make science basically take over from God. And for various reasons this strain of thought took root particularly in the 20th century and thus caused science, in my view, to overreach itself.

So science became scientism, which is this argument that says explicitly that there can be no explanation for anything in the universe or in the whole of experience that is not a materialist explanation. -- Read it all here.

Lakota Path to Healing

Seven Directions Toward Healing

1. I realize that because of my abuse of alcohol and other drugs, I have been disrespectful toward myself and my relations.

2. I understand now that I need to seek out help to regain respect for myself and my relations.

3. I now seek through prayer, purification, and meditation to communicate with Tunkasila (Grandfather).

4. I pray daily to Tunkasila to give me the wisdom to know and understand my weaknesses and to understand my place within the Sacred Circle of Life.

5. I have the courage to forgive myself and to live in balance with my relations with the guidance of Tunkasila.

6. I pray to Tunkasila to give me wisdom, knowledge, and strength to live my life according to our Lakota values.

7. By following these directions, I walk the Canku Luta (Red road), sharing these values to help my relations and myself to overcome alcohol and other drugs.

(From the Lakota Country Times)

Muslim Expresses Concern for Pakistan Christians

In this letter a Fijian Muslim expresses concern over killing of Christians in Pakistan. It is hoped that this matter will be brought to the United Nations before the world witnesses even greater atrocities against Christians (Xians) in Pakistan.

Dr. NAZIR S. BHATTI

I am so sad about what is happening to Christian community in Pakistan. I have been praying to Allah to give peace and protection to the helpless Christians and punish the heartless Muslims and their mad mullahs all of the Tabligi Jamat members but God doesn’t have a mobile phone.

The problem is that the international community and global media doesn't know about it.

My dear sir please inform the world governments and media now and petition them to pressurize Pakistani government to eliminate this situation, and punish the trouble makers.

Please, inform the United Nation, USA , British, Australia , Pacific Islands and all European Governments now while its happening so they can question the Pakistani government. Ask then to do something about it. It is only the world Christian aid groups that is helping the IDP Muslim.

How could Muslims be so ungrateful and hurt the helpless poor Christians?

I as a Muslim have been talking to Pakistani Muslims here in Australia, they are even sad about the situation I said why don't they raise their voice against this atrocities, they say nothing will happen. It is the politicians who are creating this situation.

I even spoke to Tabligi Jamat members here. Some said they have been praying to Allah to bring a stop to all this. I said it is their members (tabligi jamat) in Pakistan who are committing this atrocities against Xians and Hindus. I am not a Pakistani. I'm a Fijian Muslim.

I phoned some Muslim friends in Pakistan this afternoon. They told me they are sad, that women and children and innocent people are burnt and killed. I said why don't you raise voice against it. They said how? What a sad thing. Afsos kiya ajib haal hai? Khuda kanha hai. Yeh kaisi bewaqufi qurabani hai? I'm sad that I do not have Allah's telephone number or else I would have appealed to him to bring peace.

These fanatical Muslims are doing in the name of Islam what Prophet Muhammad himself never did. When did Mohammad burnt a whole community for the sake of one man's mistake.

The community who is persecuted - they become the rulers and inherit the country. History has shown us this.

Kind Regards
Mohammad Azeez Khan
Australia
August 2, 2009

Karachi Catholic Schools Close In Protest

KARACHI: Some fifty schools run by the Catholic Board of Education remained closed on Monday in protest against the Gojra riots.

The institutions would remain closed for two more days.

Talking to Dawn, the chairman of the Catholic Board of Education, Father Mario Rodrigues, said that the schools had been closed to condemn the Gojra killings. Around 10,000 students are enrolled in these 50 schools.

‘We denounce the Gojra killings in the strongest terms and urge the government to apprehend the culprits and provide protection to the minorities,’ he said while demanding the abolition of the controversial blasphemy law.

No meeting of the Christian community’s representatives had been held with the government, he further claimed.

When asked about any specific threats to the institutions, he replied in the negative.

From here.

South Carolina Anglicans Disavow GenCon '09

Here is a statement from the deputation of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina:

Madam President:

South Carolina stands before you with broken hearts. By passing Resolution D025 and C056 this General Convention has overturned the clear and consistent teaching of Holy Scripture and the Christian Church. We will have repudiated the teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion. The Communion's patience and generosity toward the Episcopal Church makes our persistent refusal to heed their requests to us to honor the called for moratoria all the more devastating.

Many of us us here this morning, and in Dioceses, parishes, and pews throughout the Episcopal Church, disavow this General Convention's actions. Will will now prayerfully seek ways to be faithful to the Anglican Communion and to the mutual responsibility and interdependence to which we are called, no matter what the cost.

Read more here.

Lord Carey Encourages 'Be Faithful' Gathering

Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury (1991-2002), has sent this letter to Anglicans who have gathered in London to Be Faithful.

Dear brothers and sisters,

Be assured of my prayers as you gather at Westminster Central Hall today. My visits to different parts of the world reveal the grievous hurts to our Body caused by the lamentable actions of TEC in 2003. In such a situation your witness, your courage and your commitment to the gospel are grounds for hope.

You are already facing suspicion and hostility from various quarters because of the launch of FCA in England. Nevertheless, attempt to build the strongest bonds of communion with the rest of the Anglican family.

Remain steadfast in truth, and compassionate in unity. And be prepared to go the extra mile for others.

With warmest greetings in Christ
George Carey

You may read other letters from Bishops and Clergy here.

Does Obama Owe Bush an Apology?

Critics in his own party and Republican opponents are attacking Barack Obama’s emerging stance on national security with equal ferocity. Many Democrats are furious that the president has broken his promise to abandon the Bush administration’s war-powers approach to fighting terrorism. Dick Cheney, the former vice-president, and other conservatives attack him for doing the opposite – for keeping his promise and emasculating the US anti-terror effort.

The left’s complaints make far more sense than Mr Cheney’s. Mr Obama is adjusting the Bush administration’s policies here and there and seeks to put them on a sounder legal footing. This recalibration is significant and wise, but it is by no means the entirely new approach that he led everybody to expect.

Mr Obama is in the right, in my view, but he owes his supporters an apology for misleading them. He also owes George W. Bush an apology for saying that the last administration’s thinking was an affront to US values, whereas his own policies would be entirely consonant with them. In office he has found that the issue is more complicated. If he was surprised, he should not have been.

The signature intellectual defect of the non-compromisers on each side of this debate is an inability to recognise conflicting ends.

Read it all here.

Oklahoma Gives Bush 4th of July Welcome

WOODWARD, Okla. - Former President George W. Bush was greeted by thunderous applause on the Fourth of July as he told thousands of spectators in a rural Oklahoma rodeo arena that the U.S. was "the greatest nation on the face of the earth."

Bush was given six standing ovations as he spoke on a warm, humid evening in GOP-friendly Woodward, a town of about 12,000 residents in northwest Oklahoma and the latest in a handful of out-of-the-way places Bush has visited since leaving office.

During a 30-minute speech mostly devoid of political references - he mentioned his successor, Barack Obama, just once in passing - Bush thanked members of the military, spoke about the bravery of injured soldiers he'd met and told stories of people in difficult situations helping others.

"Patriotism comes in all different kinds of forms," he said. "Freedom is beautiful, freedom is precious, freedom must always be defended."

Read it all here.

Dave Bottoms, Anglican Priest

Read the story of this American hero here.

Episcopal Order Leaves for Rome

Contemplative sisters who spend a good deal of time in prayer don't feel at home any longer in the Episcopal Church which is controlled by women like Marta Weeks, Katherine Ragsdale and Katherine Jeffert-Schori.

Here's the story:

“We tried to be faithful in The Episcopal Church as we understand scriptures, but we seem to be drifting farther and farther apart,” she said. “For the past two years in particular we felt as if we were no longer making a difference in this church. We felt as if we no longer belong.”

Mother Christina said that the order discussed its situation with a number of other Anglican groups, including the Anglican Mission in the Americas, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, and the Anglican Church in America led by the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan. The sisters also met with the Antiochian Orthodox Church in America.

“The Roman Catholic Church was the last one we thought about asking,” Mother Christina said, but added that the order felt a strong kinship almost immediately.

There are currently 12 sisters at the 80-acre convent in Catonsville, Md., Mother Christina said. She added it is possible that one sister will choose to remain with The Episcopal Church.

Communities in The Episcopal Church hold title to their own property, so there is little likelihood of a property fight. The Rt. Rev. Donald J. Parsons, Bishop of Quincy from 1973 to 1987, is the bishop visitor of the order. Although physically located within the geographic confines of the Diocese of Maryland, the Bishop of Maryland does not have any authority over the sisters or their property, she said.

Read it all here.

Eastern Orthodoxy is Counter Cultural

What follows is an excerpt from Get Serious: The Church's Stand on Contemporary Culture, by Peter and Helen Evans. They are the authors of a new book Get Serious: Who Ever Said Christianity Was Nice?

Helen: Does the Church consider birth control to be abortion?

Fr. Tom: No.

Helen: Does it allow birth control?

Fr. Tom: I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Church 'allows' birth control. I think it's one of those lesser evils. In any case, I do not believe you can 'control' conception by killing the fetus. Any abortifacient or any birth control that kills the fetus is absolutely unacceptable. However, for whatever reason the people want to express their love sexually without actually creating a conception in the first place, it may be blessed as a lesser evil, under certain circumstances. For example, you have a man and a woman in prison and they are both going to be killed or they are both going to suffer; and they are married and they want to express their love for each other, they might do something that prevents conception. You can't say that's a heinous sin. I knew a young couple who came to the theological seminary where I was a professor. They came with three little kids, the youngest about four years old. They sold their house in order to come. They spent all their money in order to come. They were dis-owned by their parents for deciding to come. Do you think we would tell them, morally, that they can't make love with each other in the seminary except that they want to make another child? That doesn't seem to be sensible at all from even the deepest Christian perspective. However, should the wife find out she's pregnant, then she cannot abort the childHelen: Can that sort of argument be used for unmarried couples?

Fr. Tom: No, unmarried couples cannot engage in sexual activity, period.Helen: Is it the Orthodox Christian teaching that sex is only for procreation?Fr. Tom: No, the teaching is that the sexual expression of love is between a man and a woman who have committed themselves to each other totally, forever, no matter what. They offer their relationship to be blessed by God and they want their relationship to be a witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Helen: When you say forever, isn't there a "til death do you part" in there?

Fr. Tom: No. The expression "til death do you part" doesn't even exist in the Orthodox service. In fact, the opposite is true. The prayer is that you will receive your crowns into the Kingdom. Then they will enter into the Kingdom faithful to each other through death itself. Saint John Chrysostom wrote a letter to a young widow and he said to her, "If you were faithful to your husband when he was alive on earth and did not share your bed with any other man, why would you share your bed with another man now that your husband is at the right hand of the Father in the Risen Lord?" So we believe we're supposed to be faithful to our spouses right through death and we will be reunited with them in the age to come.

Peter: So there is no diminishment in the bonds of fidelity. Perhaps it's even augmented.

Fr. Tom: Yes, according to the Christian view, that's accurate. The Christian marriage is supposed to mirror the fidelity of God to His creation, Yahweh to Israel and Christ to His Church. That commitment is complete and total and unbending and exists right through death.

Helen: Are there any ideas about abortion that you've encountered in your many travels that you'd like to address?

Fr. Tom: Having been a professor at Seminary - I didn't teach ethics, I taught dogmatics and spiritual life and prayer - and having been a priest for 44 years and being a church teacher and traveling around, I would say that my position would simply be that of the Church and the Scriptures and of the saints. Abortion is a sin. It's condemned in the Mosaic law and by the early Christian saints.

Peter: In the Sixth Mosaic law that says, "Thou shall not murder"?

Fr. Tom: Killing in the womb is also forbidden in Leviticus. And we have canons that say that any attempt, by any means, to kill the child in its mother's womb is equal to the crime of murder.

______________________________

Our culture is infected by false, diluted values from Socialism to New Age Spiritualism and seems to have turned its moral code upside-down. Peter and Helen Evans are culture warriors inspiring their audiences that they can make a difference. They believe that our politics are a reflection of our cultural values, and those cultural values grow from our belief or disbelief in God. In our democratic system, we get the leaders and government we allow. As culture warriors they inspire audiences political, secular and Christian. They are the authors of the book, "Get Serious: The Church's Stand on Contemporary Culture."

The Evans are available to talk on many subjects: How the New Age Spirituality has invaded our politics and culture and of course their book.

Contact for topics. www.peterandhelenevans.com or we2rone@cox.net

Mary Ann Glendon Declines Award

You know the famous saying, “Houston. We have a problem.” Well, how about a new slogan: “Notre Dame. We have a problem.” The speech by pro-choice President Obama at the Catholic Notre Dame has caused all sorts of trouble.

It now turns out that Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, will NOT speak at the Notre dame Graduation because of the controversy. The pro-life, Harvard professor was set to receive the Laetare Medal which is the annual award given in recognition of outstanding service to the Roman Catholic church and society. She was to speak to the students on the same day as President Obama. But President Obama’s appearance was just too much.

She just posted the following letter to the university here.

The entire letter is reprinted below:

April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame

Dear Father Jenkins,
When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon

Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things, she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.

From here.

Solzhenitsyn on Moral Courage

My friend, Rick Lobs, has a terrific blog where he discusses social and political developments in the US. Today he speaks of how he was deeply moved by a portion of Solzhenitsyn's Harvard speech. He considers it "an oracle for our day".

Rick writes, "We as a nation have lost our courage... The political correctness, niceness, and identification with the social engineering of the secular culture are just old, tired and completely lacking in courage."

I agree. Here is the portion of Solzhenitsyn's speech to which he refers.

If I were today addressing an audience in my country (Russia), examining the overall pattern of the world's rifts I would have concentrated on the East's calamities. But since my forced exile in the West has now lasted four years and since my audience is a Western one, I think it may be of greater interest to concentrate on certain aspects of the West in our days, such as I see them.A Decline in Courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days.

The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society.

Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life.

Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?"

Dostoevsky's Orthodox Convictional Theology

Pastor Dima (Dimitru Sevastian) is the Dean of Theology at the Theological College of Moldova (TCM), and also a Pastor at Bethany Evangelical Baptist in Chisinau, Moldova. He has his MDiv from TCM, and is currently pursuing his doctorate of divinity. This paper is one he delivered recently at a bible conference in Prague. It is part and parcel of his extensive research and work toward his doctorate.

Dostoevsky’s implicit mission to Russian society as a lived out Russian Orthodox Convictional Theology

Introduction
The purpose of this research is to point out some common practical elements in the mission of Baptist and Orthodox Christians in an Orthodox context. My intention is to explore Dostoevsky’s implicit mission in order to suggest some ways in which Baptist and Orthodox Christian can work together in responding to the Missio Dei. The focus is being the theology[1] in terms of lived out convictions[2].

To understand Dostoevsky’s mission, one must ‘hear’ his story, which is linked with the story of the people and with the greater story of God.[3]

Dostoevsky was a journalist as well as a novelist. That’s why in the first section of this paper I am going to examine his perception of the situation of his time as a form of ‘mission as witness.’[4] In the following three sections I intend to explore three elements in Orthodox Church mission: love, life and unity[5] as they are evident in the life of Dostoevsky.

1. Perception of his time situation as ‘mission as witness’
‘The perception of the situation often begins by defining the threat’ and by ‘the questions of the desirability and speed of the presumably needed social change in the community’.[6]

The situation itself
The 19 century finds Russia in a rather complicated condition. The emperor is reigning autocratically, answerable only to the Lord God.[7] Not being a man of outstanding morals, Nikolai I abuses his given power, going into violence and immorality.

Just like a squire managed lives and desires of peasants, so was tsar with his servants. He would pay attention… not only to young beauties at his palace – ladies and maids, but to girls he accidentally met while walking. If he liked someone during his walks or in theatre, he would tell it to an adjutant on duty. And, this girl would be under his control. If she hasn’t been involved in any improper activities, then her husband (if she was married) or parents (if she wasn’t married) would be told about enormous honor, which they received… No one ever resisted Tsar’s desires … In this strange country, to sleep with an emperor was considered as a great honor…for parents and even for husbands…[8]

The social situation was very complicated as well. Serfdom-based forms of exploitation were pushed to an extreme, turning a serf into a slave. The Rule of landlords always meant excessive abuse of serfs, endless outrages upon the personhood of serfs, and implied the most impudent, shameless, unprecedented exploitation of serf labor.[9] The gap between the landlord and the slave was so great that the landlord seemed to consider himself made from another material than common folk.[10]

A secret police force was formed to keep everything under tight control. Police controlled all the literature, which made the existence and development of publishing in Russia practically impossible.[11] The Tsar and the head of the secret police became the ultimate censors.[12]

French author Marquis Astolf de Custin compared the vast Russian Empire with a prison where the emperor has the key.[13]

Violence in the name of love - a proposed solution to change the society
As a reaction to this existing police-feudal régime we see the appearance of the first secret society starting as early as the first quarter of the 19th century.[14] The members of this society wanted to overthrow the absolute power of the emperor and destroy the existing feudal customs.[15] On the verge of the years 1830-1840 we see the appearance of such ideological currents as “Slavophile” and “Westernism”.[16] Whereas the slavophiles wanted to transform the country by implementing reforms,[17] the westernizers dreamed of a revolution similar to the one in France.[18] The mid 1840's see the appearance of other, more radical socialist circles, members of which were convinced that autocracy and social injustice are the main obstacles in the way of the people’s wellbeing. Thus their main purpose became getting rid of these obstacles, even resorting to violence.

Literary critic V. Belinsky was one of the leaders of the westernist movement. He was a convinced atheist. In his understanding, Russia's transformation would be impossible without eliminating Christianity.[19]

In that time Dostoevsky, also deeply concerned for the lives of his countrymen, became close to Belinsky and often visited some of the illegal, antigovernment meetings. Belinsky preached his socialist-atheist way with such passion that Dostoevsky couldn’t resist. Accepting the socialist teachings of Belinsky, Dostoevsky saw his Christian convictions being shattered. He describes this time as the time of “losing Christ”.[20] “We were infected with the ideas of theoretical socialism of those days!” – Dostoevsky would recall.[21] For his involvement in the antigovernment movement, Dostoevsky was sentenced to capital punishment, which was later replaced with 4 years of penal labor (katorga).

Returning to faith in God as the only way to transform society
In penal servitude, Dostoevsky went through something that he calls “the regeneration of his convictions”.[22] What could have taken place to change his convictions so completely? Dostoevsky himself answers this question by saying, “I accepted Christ in my life, whom I got to know as a child in my parent’s house and whom I have almost lost, when I in turn became a European liberal.”[23]

Dostoevsky began to understand clearly that Russian society's greatest problem was its departure from God. Thus the problem lay not in the social but in the spiritual realm. The social realm is a result of the people's spiritual condition.

Another problem, which could make matters worse, was the intrusion of the socialist atheist teaching mentioned above. From his own experience, Dostoevsky knew the danger and destructiveness of this socialist way, offered by many as the way to reform society. In his letter to M. Pogodin, Dostoevsky writes that ‘socialism and Christianity are antonyms’.[24] The danger of this way, in Dostoevsky’s opinion, was its negation of God and establishment of a new atheistic society.

By means of his novels, articles, and personal correspondence, Dostoevsky warned about the consequences of entering this dangerous path. The tragedy of Rasskolnikov, the main character of the novel Crime and Punishment, shows how easily one can be infatuated with this teaching of “violence for the sake of love”.

Dostoevsky not only warned about the dangers, but also proposed a way to transform society, and openly called the people to come back to God. At the same time he realized how hard it is for a person to pass through this process of doubt and disbelief. In his works Dostoevsky shows this inner struggle which takes place in a person who is on the path of returning to God.

The Diary of a Writer contains an interesting article describing this path. Dostoevsky answers a certain Gradovsky, who is considered by others to be a Christian, on Gradovsky's statement that faith is not related to social ideals and that faith in God cannot transform society. Dostoevsky's first utterance: “It is funny how you understand Christianity!”[25] He goes on to explain that growth in Christian faith changes Christians themselves and these changes have an effect upon people in society. He was convinced that even without the abolition of serfdom, slavery would disappear because the landlord and the serf would become brothers.[26] (Rasskolnikov's sufferings would awaken a new life in him.)

Thus the call of Dostoevsky is towards return of people to faith in God.

2. Love of God as the foundation of missions
According to David Bosch, God’s love expressed in the sacrifice of Christ is the foundation for mission, in an orthodox understanding. The followers of Christ are to display this same love beyond the limits of the flock.[27]

Dostoevsky doesn’t simply call others to the imitation of Christ, but he himself lives as a compassionate person who loves the people. He learned to be compassionate to the poor and needy from his childhood, when he lived in the house of his father in Moscow, in the hospital for the poor.[28]

Being near helpless people, he would go out of his way to help. When still in his teens he once gladly brought water to a peasant lady who accidentally spilled it and had no one to carry it to her child in their village 15 kilometers away.[29]

A. Saveliev, who served as an officer in the engineering school when Dostoevsky was a student, expressed his observations of Dostoevsky’s compassion to the poor:

The feelings of compassion remained in Fyodor Michailovich during his times of studies. They witnessed life of poor peasants in a Staraya Kikenka village. The picture of terrifying poverty, absence of providence, poor clay ground and unemployment was unveiled. The main reason for this situation was a neighboring wealthy property of earl Orlov. Striking poverty, pitiful houses and masses of kids without good nutrition used to increase the level of compassion in young people’s hearts towards peasants of Staraya Kikenka. Dostoevsky and Berezhesky along with their friends used to make fund raising for needs of poorest peasants.[30]

Later Doctor Rizenkampf, who lived in the same apartment with Dostoevsky, spoke on the writer's sacrificial spirit:

Fyodor Michailovich had such type of personality that everyone enjoyed, yet these kinds of personalities were in need themselves. He had been robbed unmercifully, though due to his kindness and trust, he wouldn’t want to get into details or rebuke servants that used his carelessness.[31]

O. Miller states that when in Dostoevsky and Rizenkampf rented an apartment together, ‘this co-habitation with the doctor practically turned out to be a new source of constant expenses. Each poor person coming to doctor for advice he was ready to accept as a dear guest. Often he would come to a point of extreme need of money.’[32] “The new day with the lack of money, new loans, often times with exorbitant interest rates, just to borrow enough money to be able to buy sugar, tea, etc.”[33]

Doctor S. Yanovski knew that Dostoevsky was well paid, but also knew that he was constantly in need of money. Yanovski posed the question, “Where did his money go?” And supplied the answer himself:

I can answer this question correctly, since Fyodor Michailovich was open to me more than to others when it used to come to finances: he distributed almost all of his funds to those who were any poorer than him; sometimes distributed funds to those, who were not poorer than him, but they would receive his money due to his endless kindness. He never gambled, did not have a clue about the rules and even hated card game. He was a decisive enemy of wine and carouse.[34]

The testimony of Dostoevsky's brother Andrei serves as a good illustration for Yanovski’s words. “When there was the first case of cholera and a patient had an attack on the street, brother Fyodor immediately” ran to the patient to give him medication and after that was massaging him when he had convulsions.[35]

Another story came from A. Dostoevskaya, wife of the writer. She tells about Fyodor Michailovich's compassion to poor and sick people:

Having heard about poverty of one widow, who remained with three children of 11, 7 and 5 years after husband’s death, Dostoevsky out of pity has hired her as a servant with all of her children … Fedosya with tears in her eyes shared with me, while I was still a bride, about Fyodor Michailovich’ kindness. According to her, at nights whenever hearing a child coughing or crying, he would come to him/her cover with a blanket, calm him/her down, or at least wake mother up.[36]

Dostoevsky would never turn away those asking for alms. “There were cases” – his wife would say – “when my husband would not have petit cash and he was asked for alms close to our stairs, then he would bring the beggars in and in our apartment they would be given the money.”[37]

He would not pay back evil for evil, but would forgive his offenders. In 1879 some drunk peasant on the street had hit Dostoevsky over the back of his head with such power that he fell on the pavement, resulting in a bloody gash. In the police station Fyodor Michailovich asked the officer to release the offender, as he had forgiven him. However the protocol was already completed and the process could not be reversed. Dostoevsky said to the judge that he forgave the offender and asked for his release. The judge acceded to Dostoevsky’s request, however still fining the peasant 16 rubles for “creating noise and disorder on the street.” Dostoevsky waited for his offender at the exit and gave him 16 rubles to pay the fine.[38]

According to A. Dostoevskaya, Fyodor Michailovich was a man of limitless kindness. He would display it not only to those close to him, but to anyone whose misfortune or crisis he would hear came to his notice. He would not have to be asked, he would offer his help himself.

Having influential friends, my husband used their influence in order to help others. He placed many old people in elderly homes, children to orphanages and helped losers to find their place in society. He had to read and correct many other writings, listen to honest confessions and offer advices on very personal issues. He did not feel sorry about his time or his strength, trying to help to his neighbor. He has helped financially, in case he lacked funds, he would sign bills and had to later pay them off. Sometimes, Fyodor Mikhailovich’ kindness contradicted family interests, and often I would get upset about his unlimited kindness, yet I could not help but delight seeing him rejoice whenever having opportunity to help others.[39]

Dostoevsky was especially concerned for children and paid attention to cases of child abuse that he heard about. He followed closely the trials of parents accused of child abuse.[40]

Towards the end of his life Dostoevsky became a spiritual leader for a great many people. Every day he would receive letters from all across Russia and would agree to see visitors asking for spiritual advice, seeking mentoring, or looking for direction for their lives. This activity of Dostoevsky was similar to the social ministries of staretzes in the monastery, similar to the elder Ambrosi whom he saw in the Optina monastery, or staretz Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov.[41]

Dostoevsky lived so sacrificially because his convictions were deeply founded in Christ's suffering and resurrection. In addition, he was convinced that this was the only way for the Russian society he loved so much to be transformed. Staretz Zosima in the novel The Brothers Karamazov admonishes Aliosha Karamazov to go into the world and to love the people even in their sins. The sacrificial love of Dostoevsky comes from the conviction that “there is nothing more beautiful, deeper, attractive, wiser, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ, and not only nothing, but I say with a jealous love, that there can never be”.[42]

3. Life as the goal for mission
According to Bosch, “For the Orthodox Church - love is the foundation of mission and life is the goal of it. Christ came not first of all to free the man from their sins, but to restore them in their godly image and to give them life”.[43] People are called not to simply get to know Christ; they are called to “share the glory of Christ”. “It is a continuing state of worship, prayer, thanksgiving, adoration, intercession as well as meditation and consideration of the triune God and God’s infinite love.”[44]

We have now many examples of the prayer life of Dostoevsky, of his meditations and ponderings about God and biblical characters.

One of Dostoevsky's early memories is a daily prayer with his nanny before going to bed, when he was 3 years of age. “I put all my hopes in Thee, Mother of God, keep me in Thy care”. This prayer Dostoevsky loved so much that it became part of the prayers which he read to his children at bed time.[45] Also from his early years Dostoevsky listened to bible stories. Remembering those years, Fyodor Michailovich wrote in 1873, “in our family we knew the Gospel almost from earliest childhood.”[46]

In his student years, Dostoevsky displayed a conscious eagerness to talk about God, despite the laughter of his comrades. Soloviov testifies,
Fyodor Michailovich behaved modestly; executive responsibilities and tasks performed meticulously, but were very religious, diligently performing the duties of an orthodox Christian. In his possession you could see both the Gospels and “Die Stunden der Andacht” (Hour of prayer). After lectures of Scriptures by Poluektov Fyodor Michailovich would talk at length to his Scriptures teacher. This was so sharply contrasting with everyone else’s way of life that his friends called him Fotius Monk.[47]

This is an important testimony that from his earliest childhood Gospel reading was not just a form. It made its way deep into his heart, and he loved it. In Dostoevsky’s letters to his brother Mikhail he said “To learn nature, soul, God, love… this is learned with the heart and not with the mind.”[48]

From the time of Dostoevsky’s marriage with Anna Grigorievna we have a number of references to his prayers. We have a letter in which Dostoevsky writes to his wife, “I prayed with tears about you this night”.[49] When the firstborn was due Dostoevsky prayed all night. As the birth of another son, Fyodor, approached, he prayed all day and all night.[50] When his two-year-old daughter Liubovi broke her hand and the bones did not knit well, she had to undergo surgery. “Anya, we shall pray and ask for the help of God, the Lord will help us!” remembers A. Dostoevsky – “we got on our knees and probably never have we prayed with such zeal as in those moments.[51]

Meditating about Christ and desiring to imitate Him in His self-sacrificial spirit, Dostoevsky said to writer D.V. Averkiev, “To understand your existence, to be able to say, I am! – that’s a great gift, but to say I am not, to humble yourself for the sake of others, to have this power is probably much greater”. To which Averkiev objected, “this certainly is a great gift, but no one has it or had ever had except for one, who was God”. To which Dostoevsky answered, “Yes, but also man.” For Dostoevsky Christ was not only God but also man, open to pain and called to go through it.[52]

The book of Job made an especially strong impression on Dostoevsky, with its story of an innocent sufferer, uncomplainingly enduring the difficult tests God sent to him: the death of his close ones, bankruptcy, leprosy, poverty. For that he was healed, restored to his wealth, became again the father of a large family and “died in late years filled with days”. Later he will say to his wife in 1875, “I am reading the book of Job and it creates in me a morbid excitement, I stop reading and walk about the room for about an hour, on the verge of crying…this book, Anya, is strangely one of the first that made a deep impression on me, and I was almost a baby back then!”[53]

The image of Christ who suffered and was resurrected and the image of Job suffering and his ‘resurrection’ to new life served as a model and inspiration for Dostoevsky's walk by faith.

4. Unity and mission
Dostoevsky was part of Russian Orthodox society. A constant love towards Russia and the Russian people, and steadfast Christian ideals, were among Dostoevsky's chief characteristics. Together they gave him a dream of the ‘reconciliation of nations’ in Christ with the help of Orthodox Russia.[54] Dostoevsky's thoughts and dreams on universal reconciliation, fascinating him throughout his life, came to their fullest expression six months prior to his death in his speech in honor of Pushkin, delivered on 8 June 1880. In the end he says with assurance,
Future Russian people will understand all and every single person that this is what it means to be a true Russian: to try to finally reconcile European disagreements once and for all, to show the way out for European boredom in our Russian soul, universal and all unifying, to encompass in it with brotherly love all of our brothers, and finally may be to reach a concluding agreement of all the nations on Christ’s gospel law.[55]

According to Dostoevsky, a divine harmony that would resolve all contradictions would be possible if people would live the life of Christ. He himself understood that this dream bordered on fantasy, yet nonetheless he strived to fulfill it, providing an example for others.

Conclusion
In the center of Dostoevsky’s mission is the image of Christ suffering and resurrected. He warned people of the danger of turning away from Christ, and called upon them to follow Him through the difficulties and hardships to “resurrection for new life”. With all that he would display a personal example of life in Christ in his relationships with Him and the people around.

I am aware that this study does not cover all the elements of Dostoevsky’s implicit mission. I hope that this research of Dostoevsky’s implicit mission to Russian society as a lived-out Russian Orthodox Convictional Theology will help us, as Baptist believers, in our mission to secularized people in European contexts where an Orthodox religious presence predominates.

However what was most evident in Dostoevsky’s life, day by day, was the love of God evident in him and through him because his convictions were grounded in Jesus.

NOTES
[1] According to James Wm. McClendon’s definition, the theology is “discovery, understanding, and transformation of the convictions of a convictional community, including the discovery and critical revision of their relation to one another and to whatever else there is”. McClendon, James Wm. Jr. Ethics. Systematic TheologyVolume1 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986), p. 23.
[2] Convictions are firm beliefs that guide the person. They don’t change so easily, but if we change them, then the person changes as well. (See McClendon, James Wm. Jr. & James M. Smith, Understanding Convictions: Defusing Religious. Revised edition. (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), p. 5).
[3] McClendon, James Wm. Jr. Ethics. Systematic TheologyVolume1 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986), p. 356.
[4] Parush R. Parushev and Rolling Grams, Academic Reasoning, Research and Writing in Religious Studies. A Concise Handbook (Librix.eu Tribun EU, 2008), p.19.
[5] David J Bosch, Transforming Mission. Paradigms Shifts in Theology of Mission (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 1991), pp. 207-209.
[6] Lina Andronovienė and Parush R. Parushev, ‘Church, State, and Culture: On the Complexities of Post-soviet Evangelical Social Involvement’, Theological Reflections, EAAA Journal of Theology 3 (2004), pp. 194-21.
[7] A. Radzinskij, Alexandr II Zhizn’ I Smert’ [Akexander II Life and Death] (М., Izdatel’stvo АСТ, 2006), p. 81.
[8] Ibid, 75.
[9] A. F. Vvoznyi, Policejskij sjsk I kruzhok Petrashevcev [Criminal investigation and the Petroshavski’s group] (Kiev, KVSH MVD SSSR, 1976), p. 25.
[10] Marquis Astolf de Custin, Nikolaevskaya Rossiya [Nikolai’s Russia] (М., Izdatel’stvo politiceskoj literatury, 1990), p. 301.
[11] Kniga dlya chteniya po istorii novogo vremeni Т. IV [New Time History Handbook. Vol. IV] (М., Tipogragiya t-va I. D. Sytkina, 1914), p. 100.
[12] Radzinskij, Alexandr II Zhizn’ I Smert’, p. 59.
[13] Custin, Nikolaevskaya Rossiya, p. 157.
[14] Istoriya Rossii v XIX veke [History of Russia in XIX century] (SPb., Pusskaya Skoropechatnya, V. 1-2, no year.), p. 69.
[15] A. V. Semionova, Velikaya Francuzskaya revolyuciya I Rossiya [Russia and the Great French Revolution] (М., «Znanie», 1991), p. 8.
[16] Rossiya. Ehnciklopedicheskij spravochnik [Russia. Encyclopedia] (М., Izdatel’skij dom “Drofa”, 1998), p. 132.
[17] Russkoe obshhestvo 40-50 godov XIX veka [Russian society of years 40-50 of XIX century] (М., Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1989), p. 10.
[18] Ibid, 13.
[19] F. M. Dostoevsky, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij v 30 tomakh, tom 21, Dnevnik pisatelya za 1873 god., [The Complete Works in 30 volumes, V. 21, The Diary of a Writer for 1873.,] (L., Nauka, 1980), p. 8.
[20] Ibid, 9.
[21] Ibid, 130.
[22] Ibid, 134.
[23] Dostoevsky, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij v 30 tomakh, tom 26, Dnevnik pisatelya za 1880 god., [The Complete Works in 30 volumes, V. 26, The Diary of a Writer for 1880.,] (L., Nauka, 1980), p. 152.
[24] Dostoevsky, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij v 30 tomakh, tom 28, Pis’ma 1873 god.,M. P. Pogodinu 26 fevralya [The Complete Works in 30 volumes, V. 28, Letters of 1873.,to M. Pogodin from 26 February] (L. Nauka, 1985), p. 471.
[25] Dostoevsky, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij v 30 tomakh, tom 21, Dnevnik pisatelya za 1873 god., [The Complete Works in 30 volumes, V. 21, The Diary of a Writer for 1873.,] (L., Nauka, 1980), chapter 3.
[26] Ibid
[27] Bosch, Transforming Mission. Paradigms Shifts in Theology of Mission, pp. 208-209.
[28] Ibid
[29] A. М. Rumyanczeva, Fiodor Michailovich Dostoevsky (L., Prosveshhenie, 1971), p. 14.
[30] F. M. Dostoevsky v vospominaniyah sovremennikov v dvuh tomah [F.M. Dostoevsky in reminiscence of his contemporaries in two volumes] (М., Hudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1990), pp. 166-167.
[31] Ibid, 189.
[32] Ibid, 189-190.
[33] Ibid, 191.
[34] Ibid, 235-236.
[35] Ibid, 141.
[36] A. G. Dostoevskaya, Vospominaniya [Memoirs] (М., Pravda, 1987), p. 78.
[37] Ibid, 220.
[38] Ibid, 354.
[39] Ibid, 421.
[40] Dostoevsky, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij v 30 tomakh, tom 25, Dnevnik pisatelya za 1877 god., [The Complete Works in 30 volumes, V. 25, The Diary of a Writer for 1877.,] (L., Nauka, 1983), pp. 182-187.
[41] N. О Lossky, Bog I mirovoe zlo [God and world evil] (М., Respublika, 1994), p. 19.
[42] Dostoevsky, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij v 30 tomakh, tom 28, Pis’ma 1854 god., N. D. Fonvizina 20 fevralya [The Complete Works in 30 volumes, V. 28, Letters of 1854.,to N. D. Fonvizina from 20 February] (L. Nauka, 1985), p. 175.
[43] Bosch, Transforming Mission. Paradigms Shifts in Theology of Mission, pp. 208-209.
[44] Ibid
[45] Lossky, Bog i mirovoe zlo, p. 36.
[46] Dostoevsky, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij v 30 tomakh, tom 21, Dnevnik pisatelya za 1873 god., [The Complete Works in 30 volumes, V. 21, The Diary of a Writer for 1873.,] (L., Nauka, 1973), p. 134.
[47] F. M. Dostoevsky v vospominaniyah sovremennikov v dvuh tomah, p. 163.
[48] Dostoevsky, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij v 30 tomakh, tom 28, Pis’ma 1838 god., M. M. Dostoevsky 31oktobrya [The Complete Works in 30 volumes, V. 28, Letters of 1854.,to M. M. Dostoevsky from 31 October] (L. Nauka, 1985), p. 53.
[49] Dostoevsky, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij v 30 tomakh, tom 28, Pis’ma 1867 god., A. G. Dostoevskaya 8 maya [The Complete Works in 30 volumes, V. 28, Letters of 1867., to A. G. Dostoevskaya from 8 May] (L. Nauka, 1985), p. 188.
[50] Dostoevskaya, Vospominaniya, p.78.
[51] Ibid, 144.
[52] F. M. Dostoevsky v vospominaniyah sovremennikov v dvuh tomah, p. 20.
[53] L.Grossman, Dostoevsky (М., Molodaya Gvardiya, 1962), p. 15.
[54] Lossky, Bog i mirovoe zlo, p. 19.
[55] Dostoevsky, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij v 30 tomakh, tom 26, Dnevnik pisatelya za 1880 god., [The Complete Works in 30 volumes, V. 26, The Diary of a Writer for 1880.,] (L., Nauka, 1984), p. 148.

McCain Calls Obama on Earmarks

Long delayed but not shrunken with time, a nearly $410 billion omnibus spending bill is fast becoming a great bone in the throat for Democrats and the White House, just when each hoped to put the past behind them and move onto President Barack Obama’s new 2010 budget.

Minutes after hitting the Senate floor Monday, the bill touched off a fierce, emotional attack from the president’s old rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who lectured Obama for failing to do more to stand up against the thousands of spending earmarks in the 1,132 pages. At the same time, Democrats admitted privately that the White House itself has hurt their cause by frightening off Republicans, who negotiated the bill in December but are now in “sticker shock” after seeing the full cost of the new president’s agenda. The giant measure covers more than a dozen Cabinet departments and represents unfinished business from last fall, when Democrats and the Bush administration were at loggerheads over domestic spending. But in today’s environment — of soaring deficits and unemployment — it’s an explosive mix of parochial projects and new spending.

And as Obama himself famously quoted Faulkner in the campaign last year, “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.” Certainly not for McCain. Monday’s floor speech was the most personal attack yet by the Arizona Republican in what has already become a surprisingly strained, often hostile approach to the new president. “If it seems like I’m angry, it’s because I am,” McCain said, taking the White House to task for treating the bill as leftover business — and not subject to the full measure of earmark reform promised by candidate Obama. “Last year’s business?” McCain asked, incredulous. “The president will sign this appropriations bill into law. It is the president’s business. It is the president of the United States’ business. It is the president of the United States’ business to do what he said — stated — when we were in debate seeking the support of the American people — where he said he would work to eliminate earmarks.”

“We need earmark reform and when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure we’re not spending money unwisely,” McCain said, reading back Obama’s words at a debate last fall. “That’s the quote, the promise of the president of the United States made to the American people in a debate with me in Oxford, Miss. So what is brought to the floor today — 9,000 earmarks.…So much for change.”

Read it all here.

US Role at Durban II

Yesterday the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), released a statement welcoming what he described as President Obama’s decision to “launch a high-level diplomatic effort” to change the direction of the Durban II conference, by sending a delegation to the preparatory meeting this week in Geneva. Berman put the decision in the context of moral leadership:

It is critical that the United States regain its moral voice at the U.N. by jumping into the fray and stipulating clear redlines for re-focusing Durban II, including the removal of language in the Outcome Document attacking Israel or singling it out for criticism.

Berman said that, by going to the Geneva preparatory meeting and telling the participants “we refuse to accept outright anti-Semitism or an attempt to single out Israel,” we are “reasserting our moral leadership in world affairs.”

What we are witnessing, however, is anything but a “high-level diplomatic effort.” The State Department announced on Saturday, February 14, that it was sending a delegation to the meeting, scheduled to begin on Monday, February 16, to “engage in negotiations on the text” of the conference document and “try to change the direction” of Durban II. The announcement did not state who was leading the delegation nor name its members.

At the State Department press briefing on February 17, two days into the meeting, the spokesperson could not identify the leader or members of the delegation:

QUESTION: Can you talk about who is in the delegation, who’s leading the delegation?

MR. DUGUID: I can only - I’ll have to take the question, because I know that the delegation left on Saturday. I didn’t get a full readout of who was in the delegation.

At yesterday’s State Department press briefing, the question was raised again:

QUESTION: Do you have any update of the talks about the Durban conference in Geneva?

MR. DUGUID: The - I haven’t had a readout yet. Our group is there on the ground. It is made up of officials from our U.S.-UN - the U.S. Mission to the UN in Geneva as well as private partners in that. I don’t have a readout now. . . .

Marty Peretz wrote yesterday that the delegation consists of three people “made up of small fry so if they come home with nothing not much will have really been lost.”

Obama is in the process of making either a low-level, half-hearted diplomatic effort before withdrawing from Durban II, or a low-level, half-hearted diplomatic effort before participating in it: we will learn which in due course. But what is currently going on is not a “high level diplomatic effort” involving “moral leadership.” Moral leadership will occur if Obama decides to withdraw from Durban II - if, in other words, he decides to do what George W. Bush did in connection with Durban I.

Read it here.

Congo: Journalist Dies After House Fire

(CPJ/IFEX) - The following is a 6 February 2009 CPJ press release:

After mysterious fire, online journalist dead in Republic of Congo

New York, February 6, 2009 - An online columnist known for criticizing the government and alleging high-level corruption was buried in the Republic of Congo today following his death in a military hospital on Monday, accordingto local journalists. Bruno Ossébi was badly burned in a late-night fire at his residence on January 21, although he was said to be recovering and his death was unexpected. Authorities have not provided any information on the cause and circumstances of the fire, which coincided with a similar fire at the French home of an exiled political dissident.

Hundreds of people gathered today in the main cemetery in the capital, Brazzaville, for the funeral of Ossébi, 43, a political columnist for the Europe-based, pro-opposition online newspaper Mwinda, according to local journalists.

Ossébi, who had dual Congolese and French citizenship, suffered second-degree burns in an unsolved fire that killed his girlfriend and her 8 and 10-year-old children, according to local reports. French Embassy press attaché Bertrand de Marignan told CPJ that Ossébi died a day before a scheduled medical evacuation to France.

In an interview with CPJ, national police spokesman Col. Jean Aive Alakoua said the circumstances and cause of the fire have not been established. "We don't know at the moment whether the fire was criminal or accidental," he said. There were indications the fire could have had an electrical origin, Alakoua said, but he would not elaborate.

Speaking to CPJ today, Public Prosecutor Alphonse Dinard Mokondzi said the first eyewitness accounts reported a television exploding in Ossébi's home.The Congolese Observatory of Human Rights said it would conduct independent investigations into the fire and the cause of Ossébi's death, Executive Director Roger Bouka told CPJ.

"We mourn the death of Bruno Ossébi and extend our condolences to his family and friends," CPJ's Africa program coordinator, Tom Rhodes, said."We call on authorities to ensure a thorough and transparent investigation is conducted."

In an interview with CPJ today, Communications Minister Alain Akouala, who visited Ossébi in the hospital, deplored Ossébi's death and said an official investigation was under way. "It's sad because it was someone who took part in his own way to the debate of ideas," he said.

The January 21 fire at the Ossébi home coincided with a blaze at the house of exiled political dissident Benjamin Toungamani. The fires came three days after Mwinda published an exclusive interview with Toungamani in which he accused President Denis Sassou-Nguessou of corruption, according to CPJ research. Toungamani was not injured. Both Ossébi and Toungamani were planning to become co-plaintiffs in an international legal complaint against Sassou-Nguessou and the presidents of neighboring Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, according to Maud Perdriel-Vaissiere, a lawyer with France-based transnational justice organization Sherpa.

In December, Sherpa and anticorruption groupTransparency International called for a probe into how the leaders of the three oil-rich African nations had amassed private assets in France.

At least two counter-complaints have been filed by the leaders. In addition, Gabonese authorities arrested a plaintiff in the case and two journalists in late December after suspending a newspaper months earlier for republishing French daily Le Monde's report on the Paris assets of Gabonese President Omar Bongo.

Ossébi had also alleged in a January column that the state-run national petroleum authority had requested US$100 billion in financing from a French bank due to government mismanagement of oil profits, according to CPJ research. There was no official reaction to those allegations, according to local journalists.

Source: http://cpj.org/2009/02/after-mysterious-fire-online-journalist-dead-in-re.php