Surely the whole world does not grasp the tiniest syllable of the statement that God is love. No human religion can hold its own in the face of the judgment, but it is solely in the blood of Christ that we have confidence on the Day of Judgment.
– Martin Luther
photo credit: Creative Commons | Raul Lieberwirth
All sorrows, all heartaches, all disappointments, all bereavements, and all heart troubles lose their bitterness in the sweetness of the Savior’s tender promise: ‘I will come again.’
– from Meditations on the Gospels
from “A Statement of Faith of the United Church of Canada”
As an adoptive parent of three wonderful children from Ukraine and Ethiopia, I jumped at the chance to review an advance copy of Mother India: Life Through the Eyes of the Orphan by Word Films. After watching now several times, I can stun up the entire movie in one word: other-wordly. (OK, it’s hyphenated, but it’s still technically one word)
India is home to over 31 million orphans…read that again…31,000,000 orphans. That number is far greater than the combined total populations of the ten largest cities in the United States. Think of the entire populations of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, and San Jose COMBINED , and then add New York in AGAIN. That is nearly 31 million. It’s unfathomable, isn’t it?
In this film, David Trotter and Shawn Scheinoha get taken in by a family of 25 orphans living in and around a train station in rural India. What they experience and share is guaranteed to break your heart. The experiences of these children, their struggles to cope with hardship, and the true family that they have developed is truly unbelievable for most Americans. As one who has traveled around the world and seen living conditions that have literally made me sick to my stomach, Mother India succeeds in giving insights into the plight of these orphans. It does much more than that, however, and this is where it truly shines…David and Shawn have told us the names and stories of just a few of India’s countless orphans.
Through this movie we come to know, not just about them, but to a little bit about them as people and their stories. This movie is an absolute must-see. But…you won’t want to watch it all. It will break your heart. It will leave you unable to continue in your own status quo knowing about the stories of these children (and the 147 million orphans world-wide who share similar lives) but content to not think about them anymore. And that, friends, is a tremendous, God-blessed burden for us to act upon!
Mother India releases today, April 23rd! Pick up a copy here at Amazon (not an affiliate link)…you won’t be disappointed.
There is no shortcut to holiness; it must be the business of our whole lives.
- William Wilberforce
I haven’t given up blogging for Lent, but my blogging will be slowing down for the next six months as I begin my current master’s thesis. I will be researching and writing a Just War tradition (JWT) evaluation on the United States’ use of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA or “drones”). The paper will look at both the use of RPA in theory and in practice and see whether the jus in bello (justice in war) facets of JWT challenge us to make changes in either our doctrine or praxis.
My initial hunch is that, while placing a greater burden to be used ethically than traditional weapons systems, there is nothing inherently immoral about RPA. I also expect to find that our current use of RPA around the world violates the jus in bello JWT principle of discrimination more than other weapons systems. These are only my initial gut feelings, however, and I am open to whatever my research suggests.
Either way, things will be slower around here for the next few months. I still plan to post from time to time, though, so don’t abandon me completely!
We live in a society where questions of legality abound and questions of morality are all but ignored. When deciding a course of action, we have little hesitation about asking “Is it legal?” but typically fail to ask “Is it right?” A recent example comes from the leaked DOJ memo containing legal rationale for the killing of American citizens who have joined Al-Qaida or an ill-defined “associated force.” The memo outlines why, in the opinion of the DOJ and current administration, such activities are considered legal. Following its release and subsequent public outcry, Sen Lindsey Graham (at the opposite end of the political spectrum) supported the President’s position and issued a statement saying, “The process of being targeted I think is legal.”
One of the many issues in this scenario is the question of legality vs. morality. Lawmakers (like Obama [as Senator] and Graham) make laws. Lawyers (like Obama and Graham) practice law. In theory, I’m certain that most lawyers, judges, and lawmakers genuinely desire moral laws…but there is absolutely zero guarantee that what is legal according to the law is also moral (exhibit A: slavery).
Where are those asking whether such things as targeting killings (of American citizens or others) are morally right? Reading the outcomes of our judicial system, it seems that just about anything can be argued to be legal, but where are the discussions of morality? They are, in large part, nonexistent.
This is true not only in politics. As a military chaplain, one of my mandated charges is to serve as a moral and ethical adviser to the chain of command. While I have been consulted on personal ethical matters time and time again by commanders and individual airmen, I have never once been consulted on matters of morality regarding command decisions. The JAG, of course, is consulted routinely to ensure whatever course of action is legally defensible. It seems commanders can be easily removed for taking actions that are illegal, but as long as they are legal there seems to be little concern for whether or not they are ethical.
Simply because something is legal does not mean it is right. We must to be concerned with both.
It occurred to me that I needed some color around here…all the recent photos I’ve used have been black and white.
Last week, I posted a survey on languages and bible preference, which is still open by the way. (If you haven’t spent the 30 seconds necessary to complete its four questions, I would greatly appreciate it.) Soon after, I came across these thoughts on bible translation in the preface to a commentary on Romans by Fr. Lawrence Farley, a priest in the Orthodox Church in America serving at St. Herman’s Church in Surrey, British Columbia. After briefly describing the two principle approaches to translation–formal and dynamic equivalence–he writes:
The English translator is faced, it would seem, with a choice: either he can make the translation something of a rough paraphrase of the original and render it into flowing sonorous English or he can attempt to make a fairly literal, word-for-word translation from the original with the resultant English being stilted, wooden, and clumsy.
These two basic and different approaches to translation correspond to two basic and different activities in the Church. The Church needs a translation of the Scriptures for use in worship. This should be in good, grammatical, and flowing English, as elegant as possible and suited to its function in the majestic function of the Liturgy. The Church also needs a translation of the Scriptures for private study and for group Bible study. Here the elegance of its English is of lesser concern. What is of greater concern here is the bring out of all the nuances found in the original. Thus this approach will tend to sacrifice elegance for literality and, wherever possible, seek a work-for-work correspondence with the Greek. Also, because the student will want to see how the biblical authors use a particular word (especially St. Paul, who has many works included in the canon), a consistence of translation will be sought and the same Greek word will be translated, whenever possible, by the same English word or its cognate.
So, what do you think about Fr. Farley’s observations concerning the place of different translations in the life of the Church? Do you agree that we would do well to utilize a more flowing, dynamic translation for public reading and liturgy as part of worship while resorting to a more literal translation for study? It seems the desire of many (most?) of us is to find that one bible translation that is perfect (or at least suitable) for both worship and study. In the ever-changing landscape of English bible translation, this quest is as elusive as it is ultimately frustrating.
What do you think of Fr. Farley’s advice?
I’m taking a short, four-question, 30-second survey on spoken languages and bible translation preferences. I would be grateful if you’d take it and give me your inputs!
Thanks!