Fr. Peter-Michael Preble

John Couretas: Protect the Poor, Not Poverty Programs

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Source: Acton Institute | By John Couretas

One of the disturbing aspects of the liberal/progressive faith campaign known as the Circle of Protection is that its organizers have such little regard – indeed are blind to — the innate freedom of the human person.

Their campaign, which has published “A Statement on Why We Need to Protect Programs for the Poor,” equates the welfare of the “least of these” in American society to the amount of assistance they receive from the government — a bizarre view from a community that trades in spiritual verities. Circle of Protection supporters see people locked into their circumstances, stratified into masses permanently in a one-down position, thrown into a class struggle where the life saving protection of “powerful lobbies” is nowhere to be found. And while they argue that budgets are moral documents, their metrics for this fiscal morality are all in dollars and cents.

Not only does the Circle of Protection group appear to be oblivious to the power of private charity and church-based outreach to the needy, but they seem to have no hope for the poor outside of bureaucratic remedies. This is a view of the human person not as a composite of flesh and spirit, but as a case number, a statistic and a passive victim of the daily challenges and troubles that life brings.

In response to the Circle of Protection campaign, another faith group has formed with a very different outlook on the budget and debt debates that will consume the political energy of the country in the months ahead. Christians for a Sustainable Economy (CASE) argue for policies that are focused less on protecting poverty programs and more on protecting the poor (I am a supporter). In a letter to President Obama, CASE wrote:

We need to protect the poor themselves. Indeed, sometimes we need to protect them from the very programs that ostensibly serve the poor, but actually demean the poor, undermine their family structures and trap them in poverty, dependency and despair for generations. Such programs are unwise, uncompassionate, and unjust.

This is what Fr. Peter-Michael Preble was getting at when he observed that “… the present government programs do nothing but enslave the poor of this country to the programs and do nothing to break the cycle of poverty in this country.” This is not, he added, an argument to eliminate all government assistance but rather for “a safety net and not a lifestyle.”

In discussing the relative merits of the Circle of Protection and the Christians for a Sustainable Economy campaign, Michael Gerson wrote that “the Circle’s approach is more urgent.” Arguing against “disproportionate sacrifices of the most vulnerable,” he asserted that “public spending on poverty and global health programs is a sliver of discretionary spending and essentially irrelevant to America’s long-term debt.”

It’s a big and growing “sliver.” According to a Heritage Foundation study of welfare spending, of the 70-odd means-tested programs run by the federal government, “almost all of them have received generous increases in their funding since President Obama took office.” The president’s 2011 budget will increase spending on welfare programs by 42 percent over President Bush’s last year in office. Analyst Katherine Bradley observed that “total spending on the welfare state (including state spending) will rise to $953 billion in 2011.”

Instead of more billions for failed poverty programs, CASE argues that “all Americans – especially the poor – are best served by sustainable economic policies for a free and flourishing society. When creativity and entrepreneurship are rewarded, the yield is an increase of productivity and generosity.” Underlying this is a belief that the human person is able to freely and creatively anticipate what life may bring, rather than wait around for a caseworker or a Washington lobbyist to intervene.

That freedom explains why some people, even in difficult economic times, can move up the income scale despite assertions that they are among the “most vulnerable.” A U.S. Treasury study showed that “nearly 58 percent of the households that were in the lowest income quintile (the lowest 20 percent) in 1996 moved to a higher income quintile by 2005. Similarly, nearly 50 percent of the households in the second-lowest quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income quintile by 2005.” In an analysis of income inequality and social mobility, economist Thomas Sowell wrote that there is a confusion “between what is happening to statistical categories over time and what is happening to flesh-and-blood individuals over time, as they move from one statistical category to another.”

Income mobility is debated endlessly by economists, but it is the existential reality for countless Americans who have ever strived for something better — or suffered a setback in their hopes. Yet the one sure thing that will stifle this mobility is an economy in decline, with job creation slowed, and encumbered by ever higher federal budget deficits and debt. And that’s what we’ll get more of if the Circle of Protection’s prescriptions for a “moral budget” hold sway.

When economic systems break down, as they are now unraveling in some European welfare states, those who will be hurt first and hardest will be the poor, the working family living from paycheck to paycheck, the pensioner – those operating at the margins. If we fail to come to grips with the reality of our potentially ruinous fiscal trajectory, we will all learn, as other countries are now learning, what “truly vulnerable” means.

Fr. Peter-Michael Preble: A Christian Response to the Ongoing Enslavement of America’s Poor

17 Comments

Source: Huffington Post | Fr. Peter-Michael Preble

Yesterday, President Obama signed a law that will raise the debt ceiling and continue to enslave the American people for another three or four years. It has reduced the national debit some but it seems to me at least that it has not gone far enough. Just so you know, your share of the national debit is about $42,500. It seems to me that the era of Big Government needs to end.

I am what one would call a “classical liberal.” Now, before you go crazy because I use the word liberal, please read on. I think you will be surprised.

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th Century in Western Europe and the Americas and is a political philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and free markets. The sovereignty of individual private property rights is essential to individual freedom. The philosophy believes in an unfettered market with a very minimal role of government. In other words, small federal government, small state government, with decisions being made at the local level where the people have a direct voice in determining what is best for their community.

The 18th Century Scottish Philosopher Adam Smith believed that government (and by this I think he meant federal or national government) has only three functions:

Protection of the population from foreign invaders
Protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens
Building and maintaining public institutions and public works that the private sector could not profitably provide (roads, bridges, harbors, canals, railways, postal and other communication services)

Classical liberalism places emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual again with private property rights being essential to individual freedom. Classical liberals believe that individual rights are natural, inherent, inalienable and exist independently of the government. This is what Thomas Jefferson called the inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are “hostile to the welfare state.” They do not have an interest in material equality but only in “equality before the law” (Alan Ryan, “Liberalism,” in “A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy”). Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.

I have written before that I believe the church is the social institution that should deal with the social ills of society. In the time of St. Basil the Great the Church was responsible for education and health care. The church has a long history of providing for those in need. When Jesus fed the 5,000, he did not turn to Caesar and say, “Hey, give me a grant so I can feed these people.” No, He just made it happen. In the Books of Acts, when the widows were being neglected, the church ordained deacons to care for them and they took up collections to support the work, not from the Roman government but from believers.

During the debate on the debt ceiling a group of very well meaning Christian leaders from across the religious spectrum, led by Jim Wallis of Sojourners, lobbied the President and leaders in Congress to pass a law that would protect the welfare state. They posit that there is biblical evidence that the government needs to care for the poor no matter what the consequences. As a classical liberal (and yes, as a Christian), I disagree whole heartedly with the aims of this group and I would submit that they do not speak for the majority of Christians in this country.

Recently, thanks to my friend Fr. Hans Jacobse, I have come to learn of another group of Christians that have come together to counter that argument of these so called “progressive Christians.” The group is called, “Christians for a Sustainable Economy,” and in their letter to President Obama they have this to say:

We believe the poor of this generation and generations to come are best served by policies that promote economic freedom and growth, that encourage productivity and creativity in every able person, and that wisely steward our common resources for generations to come. All Americans — especially the poor — are best served by sustainable economic policies for a free and flourishing society. When creativity and entrepreneurship are rewarded, the yield is an increase of productivity and generosity.

I submit that the present government programs do nothing but enslave the poor of this country to the programs and do nothing to break the cycle of poverty in this country. There is a growing gap between the haves and the have nots, and economic freedom is out of the reach of many, many people. I am not saying that we need to end all social programs. That would be cruel and unfair to those who really do need the social safety net. But we need to plan for the end game. It seems to me that the government is very good at starting things — welfare, unemployment, wars — but is not very good at ending them. Yes, we need a social safety net, but it needs to be just that — a safety net and not a lifestyle.

There is ample biblical evidence for the church aiding the poor. In fact, it is one of the mandates that Jesus left us to love our neighbor. And there is ample biblical evidence of the church “teaching a man to fish.” It is time that the church and her people get off the sidelines and get into the game.

Please consider reading the articles on the website of Christians for a Sustainable Economy and if so moved add your signature to the letter to the President. I was honored to add my name to the list of American Christians that care about the poor and care about our country. Won’t you too be one of them?

Fr. Peter-Michael Preble. Judgment Day: An Orthodox Christian Perspective

2 Comments

Source: Huffington Post |Fr. Peter-Michael Preble

Several years ago I was driving behind a vehicle on the highway and I noticed the bumper sticker on the back. It was kind of funny and I will admit I laughed out loud. The bumper sticker read, “In case of Rapture this vehicle will be left unattended.” OK, I thought it was kind of cute. But how accurate is this bumper sticker?

I will state right up front that the Orthodox Church does not support the so called doctrine of the Rapture. In this post, I will attempt to explain why. I will also state right up front that I do not consider myself a Scripture Scholar or a professional theologian.

So what is the so called doctrine of the Rapture?

Rapture is a popular term used by some Protestant Evangelicals for the rising of the faithful from the dead. We Orthodox do believe that all of the faithful will be raised from the dead.

There is a tendency of belief in the Rapture or what is called “pre-tribulation.” This belief states that the rising of the faithful from the dead will be prior to of after a period of immense trouble or tribulation. After the seven years of tribulation, the belief is then that there will be 1,000 years of peace followed by the day of final judgment.

Where did this belief come from?

Until the 1830s all Christian Churches taught a believed basically the same things about the second coming of Jesus Christ. A member of the Scottish sect the Irvingites, Margaret MacDonald, made the first claim that there would be Rapture and the faithful would be gathered to Christ before the period of persecution. From what I can glean from the research, she was discounted by some people as being “of the Devil” and her prophesies have been discounted.

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) next picked up the theory of the Rapture and made it popular. The so-called doctrine of the Rapture made its way into the footnotes of a translation of the Bible by Cyrus Ingerson Scofiled and the Scofield Reference Bible. This version of the Bible was widely used in England and America and therefore it was an accepted doctrine of belief.

This is a very elementary treatment of the history of the theory or doctrine of the Rapture, but the intent is not to present the doctrine in totality.

What is the Orthodox view?

Orthodox Christians believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ, the ensuing judgment of our sins and the resulting eternal life in either Heaven or Hell. Everything that Scripture says about a time of tribulation and suffering is accepted, but the faithful will be present for all of it. We will not be spared the sufferings or tribulation. Christ himself tells us that all will suffer and that no one knows when He will return for Judgment Day. “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake” (Matthew 24:9).

Why do Orthodox not believe in the Rapture?

The Church needs to be suspicious of a doctrine or theory that no church taught for the first 1,800 years of the existence of the Christian Church. This is not enough of a reason to reject this simply out of hand, but it does mean that we need to approach this very carefully. From the Orthodox Church in America:

Much of the reasoning for this theory comes from the Book of Revelation the only book the Orthodox do not use during the Divine Liturgy. The Orthodox Church does not persuade people not to read Revelation. It does caution people to read it with solid background knowledge of the rest of Scripture, especially the New Testament, and with a basic understanding of the times which produced Revelation. At the same time, the Orthodox Church does not accept the notion that everyone can properly interpret the Bible as he or she wants. Some Protestant bodies believe in this, but Orthodoxy does not. We say that the Church has the ability to properly interpret Scripture, and this means that we should study and adopt the interpretations that have been handed down over the 2000 years of the Church’s living history. Given the fact that that which is contained in Scripture is the inspired word of God, revealed to mankind and not to a single individual, no individual has the right or ability to offer “the” definitive interpretation of Scripture. This is especially the case with Revelation, which as noted above cannot be interpreted as one wishes, lest one come to ridiculous conclusions that Gorbachov’s birthmark is the “mark of the beast.”

The theory is also based on shaky Scriptural basis. Of all of the teaching of the Christian Church that have evolved over the 2,000 years history of the Church, this theory was not spoken of until a 15-year-old Scottish girl brought it up. Modern arguments for the Tribulation can be called into question through an evenhanded examination of the passages commonly used when arguing in favor of it. Even among Protestant denominations who believe in a totally literal reading of Scripture rapture is not universally accepted.

Many of the arguments for the rapture have been taken from the Book of Revelation. This book warns us in Chapter 22 verses 18 and 19 that anyone who adds to or takes away from the words in Revelation will meet with punishment from God. St. Peter also warns us in 2 Peter 1:20 that no prophecy is to be of private interpretation.

The unavoidable fact in all of this is that all of us will face judgment. Christ will examine each of us and as a result some will gain eternal life with Him in Heaven and some will gain eternal life without Him in Hell (John 5:29). Everything other than preparing for Christ’s second coming and judgment is nothing more than a distraction, and the question that needs to be asked is: Who would benefit most from the faithful being distracted?

V. Rev. Fr. Peter-Michael Preble is the Pastor of St. Michael’s Orthodox Christian Church in Southbridge, Massachusetts. Read more of Fr. Peter’s writings on his blog at www.frpeterpreble.com

Osama is Dead. Now What Should I Feel?

19 Comments

Source: OrthodoxyToday.org

Last night, like most of the world, I was captivated by the announcement that the President of the United States would be making a statement at 10:30 p.m. As I Tweeted this information, I added the line that this could not be good. Presidents do not often come on at 10:30 on a Sunday night to announce good news. So, like the rest of the world, I waited and watched the social media to try and find out what was going on. I will add a side note here that I almost went to bed!

News started to be leaked and then confirmed that the USA had killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and that they were working on identification. This was a military operation and no U.S. military personnel were harmed in this operation. I will admit, I, like many others in the U.S. and around the world, rejoiced at this news. Rejoiced at the news that bin Laden was dead and the news that no Americans were hurt or killed in the operation.

I watched as Twitter and Facebook lit up with news and reactions. (The interesting thing is everything went quiet as POTUS began speaking.) People were thanking God and military that justice had been served. But what are we Christians to make of all of this? How are we supposed to react and feel about all of this? Some of the folks I follow on Twitter started sending out Tweets that made it sound like them came from Fortune Cookies. (I have never liked using one passage of Scripture to try and prove a point.) But it did get me thinking, and thinking. I went to bed and listened to the news coverage on the BBC World Service and eventually drifted off to sleep.

So in the light of day I had to ask myself this question: How do we, as Christians, balance our relief that the mastermind behind so much killing is dead and the fact that a human life, created in the image and likeness of God, has perished? My Orthodox Christianity teaches that God does not rejoice when one of His children is lost. One of the folks on Twitter said that we Christians should feel sorrow that we did not do enough to convert him to Christianity. Well, I will not go that far but I do understand the sentiment. I also had to remind myself that it is not our job to judge — that is and should be left to God. Again, my Orthodox faith teaches that we are all sinners and we will all be judged for our actions.

I have said this before: Each and every human has been created in the image and likeness of God. Because of our creation in that image and likeness, we are not born evil. Evil is something we learn and is a byproduct of the fallen nature of humanity. Our actions are sinful and evil but humanity is not evil. As an Orthodox Christian I also believe in the power of confession and reconciliation. One of the hardest concepts for some people to come to terms with is the fact that if we are truly sorry and repentant; God will forgive all of our sins no matter how horrible. What an amazing and loving God we have!

The difficulty is in rejoicing over the situation at hand. Are we rejoicing because a man is dead or are we rejoicing because justice has been accomplished? I will say that if we are rejoicing because a man is dead then our rejoicing is misplaced. As Christians we should never rejoice at someone’s death, especially a death of one who is lost. Justice being served, however, is a different story.

We can rejoice that justice has been served for the thousands of people who were murdered because of the actions of this one man. I remember the anger I felt watching the events of Sept. 11 and how I wanted revenge, how I wanted those responsible to pay. It was a very dark day spiritually for many, many people, including myself. I will also confess that I am not sure how I felt last night when I heard the news, but it felt wrong that I was happy. A man was dead and I was happy. This was not right! If we give in to this kind of retribution then we are no better than those who committed the act. If we rejoice because this man is dead, then spiritually a small part of us has died as well.

During the Divine Liturgy we pray for those who love us and those who hate us. Praying for people who love us is easy, praying for those who hate us is difficult, if not downright impossible, but we have to do it. We are called to pray for every person not just the ones we like.

This past week we remembered the events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. One of the most remarkable events took place whilst Jesus was on the Cross. He asked His Father to forgive those who had done this to Him! Think about it: Hanging on the Cross, Jesus asked God to forgive those who killed him. What an example He leaves for us. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

I am reminded of a Scripture passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew, “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil … love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:38-39, 44). Hard words to hear but it is good for us to be reminded of them from time to time.

So what is a Christian to do? How are we to respond to this? Well, first, as with anything, we need to pray. We need to pray for all those who have lost their lives the last few days and we need to pray for those who put their lives on the line. The killing of this man will not be welcome news to many people and our troops are in harm’s way. We need to keep all of this in the proper perspective, be happy that justice has been done but we cannot and should not rejoice in the death of anyone. If we truly respect human life, then all life is sacred, not just the ones we like. We also need to pray that we can make some sense of all of this.

So is it possible to be happy and sad at the same time? I believe it is. The very human emotion I was feeling last night was joy that he was dead. The very Christian emotion I am feeling today in the light of day is one of sadness that a life is lost and a feeling of relief that the one who brought terror to so many has been brought to justice. The rest of what I am feeling will just have to work itself out.

Fr. Peter-Michael Prebble is an Orthodox priest in the Romanian Orthodox Diocese of America.

Read the entire article on the Huffington Post website (new window will open). Reprinted with permission.

V. Rev. Fr. Peter-Michael Preble is the Pastor of St. Michael’s Orthodox Christian Church in Southbridge, Massachusetts and the host of the Shepherd of Souls syndicated radio program. Visit Fr. Peter’s blog.

Orthodox Churches Should Help the Poor

3 Comments

Fr. Peter-Michael Preble

By Fr. Peter Michael Preble

Last week, on the website Ethics Daily an article was posted in response to a reader’s question. The article dealt with charity and poverty and what should be and can be done. The author of the article helped me to clarify my own position on charity and what I think about the Churches role in aiding the poor and needy in our society.

In the article the author warns against charity because charity does not solve the problem long term. Oh it makes us feel good and does help but it does not get to the root of the problem. For example, we serve a meal here at the Church twice a month to about 75 people in various states of life. Some are the working poor and some just like to have a meal with the Community.

This is not a soup kitchen but a community meal because the aim is to build and support the community. But it does not end there. We are trying to break the cycle of poverty and that is a long term plan. We need to fill the immediate need, but then we need to look long term. In order to do this we need to listen to our guests to determine their needs and then try to find a way to solve them.

Using the author’s definition of the charity, he says that “charity only serves to keep the poor in poverty. Charity helps the poor get by, live for the day, or the week. A few cans of food, a bag of groceries, some secondhand clothes – and there you go.”

Cooking a meal is easy, taking up a food collection is easy, providing secondhand clothes is easy, and important, but tackling the long term problem of poverty is difficult but that is the issue at hand. The government should be there as a safety net, to help people when a crisis hits, but long term we need to teach people to help themselves.

A few years ago at a conference Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA asked where are our hospitals, where are our schools, where are our soup kitchens? They are there and they do exist, but we need many more then we have now. We need to spend far more time on the Gospel and less time on the festivals that give glory to no one but ourselves.

The next year and maybe the year after will be difficult ones here in America. The Church should be able to make it a little easier for people. We all need to reach out and help and work for justice in charity and not just charity. Each Church needs to have some kind of outreach ministry to the working poor around them.

A survey done in 2010 of the Orthodox in America states that there are some 2,300 Orthodox congregations in America. Imagine if each and every one of those congregations worked together to aid the poor and the needy around them. Open the doors of the Church and work for justice in your local neighborhood. Work with others to help the poor and the needy break the cycle. Learn the Gospel message of helping those ALL those in need and not just the ones that happen to be of the same ethnic identity of your Church.

Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php:58 Stack trace: #0 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include() #1 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #2 /home/aoiusa/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php on line 58