Social Action Alert
The Newsletter of the Social Justice Task Force of the Presbytery of Southern New England
Number 3 — September 1999
Social Action Alert
Walk with me down a dusty road in Nagarote, Nicaragua to a little, one room, cement floor school organized by Glenda Baltodano. Step inside with me as twenty children rise to greet us. Some are barefoot, and most are neatly dressed in plain clothing. One boy is crippled and unable to move except with help from another. One girl is older than the others and obviously mentally challenged. One girl called Rosa just looks at us and smiles with joy as a warm breeze blows through the open windows.Rev. Susan Pfeil, interim pastor at Rowayton United Methodist Church,
traveled to Nicaragua this past summer. Recently she shared
this experience from that trip with her congregation.
Their soft voices say in unison, "Buenos días." They remain standing until we invite them to be seated again. Silently they watch our every move. I open a bag of hard candy and ask Martin, who recognizes me from earlier visits, to offer candy to all the children. He surprises me and does a beautiful thing. He dips his hand in the bag and gives each child a fist full of candy. After all the candy is passed out, there is enough to go around for all the children! I am amazed. The bag seemed smaller than that. He takes the last few for himself and returns the empty bag.
Martin has done what many children do in Nicaragua. He has given each child enough candy for the children back home. These students will take this precious candy home and give it to their brothers and sisters.
I want to share this little vignette with you because Martin reminded me that we have a generous God who gives us a fist full of blessings. May we receive God's gifts and share them as graciously as these little ones from Glenda's School. As the whole people of God, working together, we have an abundance of creative imagination for administration, teaching, pastoral care, worship, and mission. May we be generous with our gifts as we are called to serve our brothers and sisters here and beyond.
Grace and Peace in this Autumn Season.
|
|
|
Second, consider forwarding your check, or a portion of it, to an organization working on behalf of children. Many of the homeless shelters in Connecticut are deeply involved in caring for children. Other options include:
Third, write to
your newspaper and your legislators. An example, from the chair of the
children's advocacy group in my church to the Hartford
Courant, follows:
The good news is that almost all of us in Connecticut will get a $50 check in the mail about October 1 (a "tax rebate" from the state). The bad news is that legislation passed in 1999 by the Legislature will have little effect on the 75,000 children in Connecticut living in poverty, about 20% of all the kids in the "wealthiest" state in the nation.
As reported in the Courant on August 22 this year, a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan institute, found that "among the poorest 10 per cent of female-headed families with children, income fell an average of $810 between 1995 and 1997". It cautions against pronouncing welfare reform a unqualified success when our poorest families are not benefiting from the "strongest economy in decades".
My church has decided to make the connection; each member is invited to sign over the rebate check to a favorite children's charity. I hope that you will consider doing the same. Some of the children in your town are going to bed hungry tonight; many are hungry in the major urban areas. Let's send a message to the legislators and to the Governor!
Ken Haynam
175 Mill Pond Rd., #113
Hamden, CT 06514
203-248-9636
khtennis@concentric.net
|
|
|
by Rev. Ralph Sundquist
History: Year by year legalized gambling becomes more pervasive in these United States.
In 1973 seven states sponsored lotteries; in 1997 the number had increased to thirty-eight, including the District of Columbia. Sales of lottery tickets in 1973 reached $1,970,000,000; in 1997 they reached $34,079,000,000, and they have continued to climb. Only two of the fifty states do not have some kind of legalized gambling, the most widespread being pari-mutuel race tracks and betting parlors.
Within the states covered in full or in part by the Presbytery of Southern New England, Connecticut offers seven forms of lottery, off-track betting, greyhound racing, and jai alai, and is home to two tribal-led casinos as well as "charitable games"; Rhode Island offers three forms of lottery and pari-mutuel betting, and has easy access to Connecticut's casinos; Massachusetts offers five forms of lottery and pari-mutuel betting, and periodically considers the authorization of casinos.
Gambling has a long history in the territory that now constitutes the United States. Native Americans bet on games of chance before the European invasion, and the invaders brought their own games with them. As a report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission puts it, lotteries "enjoy an honored place in American history as a device for raising funds for public purposes. They provided funding for such projects as the Jamestown settlement, Harvard College, and the Continental Army, as well as public works projects throughout the Colonies and early States."
In 1894 the Louisiana Lottery was plagued by scandal, and lotteries disappeared for the next seventy years. In 1964, however, New Hampshire legalized the first modern lottery — the beginning, as we have seen, of phenomenal growth. Once again, lotteries raise funds for public projects. According to the final report of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, in 1997, from lotteries alone, Connecticut received revenue of $252,577,100; Massachusetts $696,003,000; and Rhode Island $42,222,460. Other forms of gambling, especially in Connecticut with its casinos, added much more revenue.
Costs: Gambling, however, exacts heavy costs. For example, a survey of residents and businesses in southeastern Connecticut (near the casinos), indicated that 15% of local businesses reported increased incidence among customers and employees of passing bad checks, accruing bad debts, slowing debt payments, being absent from work, requesting pay advances, and stealing or embezzling. Thirty-one percent of the persons surveyed reported knowing persons with addictive gambling problems. Another survey, included in the final report of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, shows that 40% of Connecticut high school students are illegally involved in state-sanctioned gambling, and that the rate of problem gambling among Connecticut high school students has reached 11.3% of the high school population.
In Massachusetts per capita lottery spending amounts to more than $525 annually, with lottery outlets located predominantly in poor communities, one for every 478 residents in New Bedford, for example, as compared to one for every 3,036 residents in Chelsea. New Bedford spends $625 per capita on lotteries.
Dull statistics, perhaps, but each one points to living persons — gamblers and their families who suffer from high rates of indebtedness, suicide, and the impoverishment of dependent children.
Response: General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and its predecessors have issued numerous statements warning against gambling and calling upon Presbyterians, ecumenical bodies, and civic and government leaders to discourage the spread of legalized gambling. The 208th (1996) General Assembly noted growing sentiment supporting legalized gambling and called for a study that would assist Presbyterians "in thinking through the theological implications of various forms of gambling and enable them better to assess the social and economic impact of gambling upon the communities in which they reside." This study on Gambling and Christian Faith is now under way, with presbyteries and congregations invited to participate.
At the next meeting of the presbytery, on November 12, the Task Force on Social Justice will present Paul Gallant to introduce the subject of gambling addiction. Mr. Gallant is a nationally certified counselor on alcoholism and chemical dependency and the New England field representative for Sierra Tucson, a psychiatric hospital and behavioral health facility that treats addictions and mental health issues. He will help us to become acquainted with one of the issues that we encounter as we begin our study of gambling and Christian faith.
Resources: A slightly edited version of the study Gambling
and the Christian Faith is available at: http://www.horeb.pcusa.org/gambling/images/gambling_and_the_christian_faith.htm
or in printed form, from Presbyterian Distribution Service as # 72-620-98-001.
The March/April 1999 issue of Church & Society (PDS 72-630-99-602)
is also devoted to this subject.
| PSNE Home |
|
At its September 18th stated meeting, this presbytery voted against sending an overture to the next General Assembly to "overturn the resolutions from the 1990, 1996 and 1998 General Assemblies regarding Gun Control." The issue was raised by the session of the Groton: St. Andrew church. The commissioners to the meeting received copies of those resolutions, which can also be obtained from Rev. Kathy Lancaster, National Ministries Division, PC (USA), 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville, KY 40202-1396. A summary, based on denominational materials is also available at <http://home.att.net/~ralph.jones/gunpolic.htm>
We have all been tragically aware of guns these past few months. It is worthwhile for our churches to discuss how to respond.
William Downie, speaking for the motion, summarized the St. Andrew session's concern. [His complete statement, along with other material from St. Andrew, was distributed to the commissioners and is available at <http://home.att.net/~ralph.jones/grtnstmt.htm> .] His conclusion:
"Brothers and sisters, if you cherish the freedoms that our founders and heavenly Father intended for this country and if you want your children and grandchildren to live in a free country, do not take away our right to defend ourselves. If we do, it will be the beginning of the end for all of our freedoms. Our heavenly Father gave us free choice. Do we as Presbyterians want to give that freedom away? Let me end with this quote: 'They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.' - Benjamin Franklin"Speaking for the Social Justice Task Force, Rev. Terry Davis began by thanking the session of the Groton: St. Andrew church for bringing their concern with the denomination's policy to our attention. Addressing one of the issues, he commented:
I do feel a need to respond to the paper from Groton at one point, and that is to argue with the characterization of Jesus as an advocate of being armed for self defense. Anyone familiar with the Gospels knows that Jesus was a non violent person who advocated overcoming evil with good and hate with love. It is true that in an apocalyptic passage he is quoted as advising followers to buy a sword, but when they take him literally and say we have two, he said that was enough. He didn't tell them to go get a dozen, and certainly he did not tell them to get a machine gun. When later that night Peter used one of the swords in question Jesus told him to stop, healed the person injured, and told Peter "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:52) [Rev. Davis's complete statement is available at <http://home.att.net/~ralph.jones/gunintro.htm>]Among the points made during the debate:
|
|
|
I. from National Ministries DivisionAdditional contributions are welcome.
 |
This poster was published after the 1998 General Assembly instructed the creation of such a resource. More than a hundred entries were received in the three categories of children, young people, and young adults and adults. The poster is being distributed in the July InfoPak to all Presbyterian congregations, presbyteries, synods, and other offices in the denomination. Copies are available through the Presbyterian Criminal Justice Program, 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville, KY 40202-1396: see the Criminal Justice Resource List. |
II. by Ralph Jones
This observer felt it was very hard for people on either side of the debate to hear and understand what was meant by their opponents. Surely, as people who have known God's love, we are motivated to come to some understanding. Not, perhaps, about what policy should be, but at least of how and why we differ. One of the first steps in successful listening is echoing back what the other person has said. That way we can make sure we've heard correctly. In the process, we also often discover we agree about more than we expect.
I, for one, was troubled some seemed to think the church should have no policy about guns, no matter whether that policy was good or bad. Jesus generally left Caesar's things to Caesar, but he certainly challenged the Jewish authorities about their treatment of the day to day lives of God's people. Jesus lived in an occupied territory. We live in the dominant nation in the world. And while Presbyterians no longer lead the nation, Christians are still a significant majority even in our pluralistic society. We have an obligation to show, however provisionally, "what God intends for all of humanity." {G-3.0200}
Guns are tools for killing. They come in many different forms, optimized for particular purposes. But guns exist to end life. Sometimes that is necessary - the subsistence hunter comes to mind. Sometimes it is unavoidable, as in police and military work. Sometimes it is criminal. We are all too aware of this. Like any tool, guns can be used properly, or misused. Any gun policy must address how to reduce misuse.
The United States has more guns per citizen than any other country. More people die of gunshot wounds in this country than anywhere else - by many, many times over. The carnage is particularly concentrated among people who know each other (crimes of passion and accidents) and in poor urban settings (ask Rev. Clinton Marsh of Georgians United Against Gun Violence). If more guns are the way to safety, why is this so?
The 1998 GA statement, "Calls upon all Presbyterians to intentionally work toward removing handguns and assault weapons from our homes and our communities...." Some argue this infringes U. S. Constitutional rights. I say we need even stronger language to protect your right, and mine, to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And that doesn't begin to reach the scriptural injunction:
If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. {Luke 6:29}
III. by James
H. Bennett
Every time there is an issue that has any kind of controversial policy impact, there is a fight. The Groton gun control resolution illustrates this. It arises out of a most convoluted 1993 report, Why and How the Church Makes a Social Policy Witness [Adopted by The 205th General Assembly (1993), PDS # OGA-93-019]. The Report is convoluted because it begins by saying that nothing in it is designed to impose upon anyone's "conscience," and then plods on to construct a system to justify almost any kind of a policy statement with escape hatches for anyone who doesn't like it. It is a simple recipe for mischief.
Many "social policy witness" topics are so controversial in the idea/political market place that they are bound to create controversy and conflict in the church, and in too many cases they have very tenuous connection to real issues of faith. In the case of the Groton overture, what really got to the session was the intrusion into the home of the 1998 GA social policy on removing weapons. But since the session sought repeal of the entirety of several GA pronouncements on gun control, it was effectively argued that it shouldn't have support on procedural grounds. That misses the point of the objection to what the Groton session called "papering us with directives."
When you look at the several GA Gun Control policy statements, you can see that most of them are designed to provide so many exceptions and escape hatches that they cannot be objected to. That technique just intensifies the controversy. At the 1999 GA there was an awesome back pedaling that really renders the whole process absurd. Not only does the present system of both policy formation (which sometimes involves constitutional amendment) create a morass of confusion and conflict instead of furthering the development and growth of faith among members of the congregations, it also generates one more reason for people to reject the church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
