Women’s History Month: A Major Women’s Anniversary Approaches
In not quite two
weeks, on April 2nd, we will commemorate the 100th
Anniversary of the swearing in of the first woman to serve in the U.S.
Congress, Jeannette Rankin. This is clearly
a major event in American history.
I shared this fact
with two different friends in entirely unrelated conversations last week, and they
had exactly the same reactions: they
immediately blurted out, “she was in Congress before she could even
vote?!” Well, no, it didn’t work that
way, and how it did work is part of Jeannette Rankin’s story.
was born in Missoula, Montana on June 11, 1880.
Her father was a rancher and her mother a schoolteacher. She was the eldest of six children: five
daughters and one son. Besides helping
with her younger siblings, Jeannette did her daily outdoor work and farm chores
while helping to maintain the machinery at the ranch. Once, she built a wooden sidewalk for one of
her father’s buildings all by herself. Years
later, she said that as a child she had observed that women worked side by side
with men as equals in the 1890s western frontier, but they did not have an
equal political voice and were denied legal voting rights.
After high school,
Jeannette attended the University of Montana.
She worked as a seamstress and a teacher and also tried social
work. Her social work experience was of
sufficient interest that she furthered her studies at the New York School of
Philanthropy, which later became the Columbia University School of Social Work. She also attended the University of
Washington in Seattle. At this last,
Jeannette became active in the women’s suffrage movement. Further, in 1910, one of her associates in
this work, Denver news reporter and women’s rights activist Minnie J. Reynolds,
persuaded Rankin that pacifism was an inherent part of feminism. “The women
produce the boys and the men take them off and kill them in war,” Reynolds
argued. Rankin’s reading of Benjamin
Kidd’s 1918 book, The Science of Power, solidified her commitment
to Reynold’s feminist-pacifist ideology. Kidd found in men a natural
inclination to battle while he found in women a preference for peaceful
settling of disputes.
Jeannette had been
active in the efforts in Washington State to grant voting rights to women, and
those efforts succeeded in 1910, as Washington became the fifth state to allow
women to vote. She then moved home to
Montana, where she started working toward similar rights there. Her efforts were instrumental in achieving that
goal in 1914, and Montana became the tenth state where women could vote. Then Jeannette decided to try running for
Congress. Her brother, a lawyer and
active in state Republican politics, helped finance and manage her campaign. Montana had two Representatives who served a
single state-wide “at-large” district.
In the election on November 7, 1916, of six candidates, Jeannette
received the second highest vote total, 76,932, and 7,567 fewer than the
front-runner. She got 9,958 more than
the third highest vote-getter, so her performance was quite respectable. The following April 2, 1917, when the 65th
Congress convened, she was greeted with enthusiastic applause as she took her
seat in the House.
This was all in the
midst of World War I. In the opening
days of April, newly elected President Woodrow Wilson asked for a Declaration
of War. This was granted on April 6; the
vote in the House was 373 to 50. Ms.
Rankin was among the 50 “no” votes. Because she was the only woman, her vote was
all got considerable attention, not all of it complimentary. Her other distinction in her one term in the
House in that era was to initiate the legislation and help lead the push for
passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which would give
women the right to vote everywhere in the country. The House passed this amendment twice during
1918, but each time the Senate narrowly voted it down. It finally passed both Houses of Congress in
1919, after Rankin had left the House, and was ratified in late August 1920.
ran for Senate in 1918, but lost in the Republican primary. She then bought a small farm in Georgia and
became a public speaker and lobbyist on behalf of peace and the prevention of
war. During that time, of course, World
War II developed, and she returned to Montana to run for the House again in 1940,
at age 60. Pearl Harbor happened on
December 7, 1941, and the vote in Congress to declare war Japan took place on
December 8. The vote in the Senate was
unanimous and in the House, it was 388 to 1.
Asked to change her vote – actually by then-Representative Everett
Dirksen – Ms. Rankin said, “As a woman, I can’t go to war, and I refuse to send
anyone else.” Reaction to her NO vote
was so disruptive that she had to take shelter in a phonebooth in the Capitol Building
until security officers could escort her out. This ended her political
She did consider
running again, however, in 1972, when she was 92, in order to argue against
Viet Nam involvement, but her health would not permit. She died in Carmel, California, on May 18,
1973. While her pacifist sentiments had
brought the most publicity in later years, she said in 1972 the she hoped she
would be remembered most for being “the only woman who ever voted to give women
the right to vote."
I composed this narrative for an event on
March 19 at my home parish, St. Ann & the Holy Trinity in Brooklyn,
NY. Called “Unsung Heroines”, this is
becoming an annual Women’s History Month commemoration, celebrating notable
women who receive relatively little recognition. Among the other women lauded in parishioner
presentations were Florence Li Tim-Oi, the first woman ordained in the Anglican
Communion and Sister Rosetta Tharpe, a gospel singer precursor to Chuck Berry
and other rock-‘n-roll stars.
Presentations this year also included a couple of other suffragettes.
Obviously, Ms. Rankin and her accomplishments have
often been “sung”. But the proximity of
the anniversary gave ample justification for including her in a celebration of
Labels: American Society, Government Policies, People
"Christmas Eve in Space and Communion on the Moon"
On Christmas Eve 1968, Apollo 8 orbited the Moon, the first
manned space vehicle to do so. The
astronauts on board, Jim Lovell, Frank
Borman and Bill Anders commemorated the occasion by reading the first 10 verses
of Genesis as millions of people around the world watched a special telecast
from the spacecraft.
In this weekend’s Wall
Street Journal, Eric Metaxas writes of this and then describes for us
an occurrence on Apollo 11, the following July, in which Buzz Aldrin partakes
of Holy Communion inside the lunar landing module on the Moon itself. Herewith some segments of the story:
[W]hat could one do to mark the first time human beings
landed on another heavenly body? He asked Dean Woodruff, the pastor of his
church in Webster, Texas, who had an idea.
What if he were to take communion? What is more basic to
humanity than bread and wine? He could do it as his own way of thanking God—for
the Earth and for everyone on it, and for our amazing ability to do things like
build spacecraft that could fly to the moon. So the pastor gave him a small
amount of consecrated bread and wine and a tiny chalice, and Mr. Aldrin took
them with him to the moon. After the Eagle had landed and he and Neil Armstrong
sat in the Lunar Module, Mr. Aldrin said this over the radio:
“This is the LM pilot. I’d like to take this opportunity to
ask every person listening in, whoever and wherever they may be, to pause for a
moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in
his or her own way.”
He then ended radio communication and there, on the silent
surface of the moon, read a Bible verse, and took communion. For reasons he
explains in his own account, none of this was made public until Mr. Aldrin
wrote about it in Guideposts magazine
the following year:
“In the radio blackout, I opened the little plastic packages
which contained the bread and the wine. I poured the wine into the chalice our
church had given me. In the one-sixth gravity of the moon the wine curled
slowly and gracefully up the side of the cup.”
Then Mr. Aldrin read Jesus’ words from the Gospel of John:
“I am the vine, you are the branches. Whosoever abides in me will bring forth
much fruit. Apart from me you can do nothing.” He explained that he had wanted
to read this over the radio back to Earth, but at the last minute NASA asked
him not to because the agency was in a legal battle with the outspoken atheist
Madalyn Murray O’Hair. As it happened, she was suing over the Apollo 8 crew
reading from Genesis on Christmas Eve. And that of course is why so few people
have heard of this amazing story.
[In a personal interview with Metaxas about 10 years ago, Mr.
Aldrin explained more]: “I ate the tiny Host and swallowed the wine. I gave
thanks for the intelligence and spirit that had brought two young pilots to the
Sea of Tranquility. It was interesting for me to think: the very first liquid
ever poured on the moon, and the very first food eaten there, were the
And of course right now, as Christians around the world are
celebrating the birth of Jesus, it’s fascinating to think that some of the
first words spoken on the moon were his words, the powerless newborn in the
dirty manger who came to Earth from heaven, and who made the Earth and the moon
and all of us, in His own image. And who, in the immortal words of Dante, is
himself the “Love that moves the Sun and other stars.”
Eric Metaxas. “Christmas
Eve in Space and Communion on the Moon,” The
Wall Street Journal, December 24-25, 2016. Page A13.
Labels: American Society, Christianity, People, Prayer, World
Trump's Election and the Health of Middle-Aged White Workers
Back in June, soon after it became evident that Donald Trump
would be the Republican nominee for President, we wrote an article discussing
one significant aspect of his candidacy: his possible appeal to working class
voters who are exasperated by stagnant wages and income inequality. We didn’t advocate for him, but we did see
how he would appeal to those workers, which put his candidacy in a realistic
light. See the piece here: http://ways-of-the-world.blogspot.com/2016/06/why-workers-might-favor-businessman-for.html
This general notion indeed played out in the actual election
results. Exit poll results showed that
Mr. Trump had relatively strong support from low-income voters, middle-aged and
older voters, and those with less education. He received a larger percentage than Mitt
Romney did in 2012 of votes cast by people 45-64 years old, of people with
incomes under $30,000, of people with high school or less and college less than
bachelor’s degrees, and in particular, white people with no college degree. In fact, Trump scored 67% of those votes compared
with just 42% for Romney. Thus, Trump’s
mantra about bringing jobs back to this country would speak to this group, who would
be looking for consistent employment opportunities in production, construction
and mining especially, sectors which have been experiencing major disruptions that
Trump hopes to mitigate.
This situation of uncertainty for middle-aged people in
particular has another, deeply serious component. In a Wall Street Journal
the election result on November 10 , Arthur Brooks, president of the
American Enterprise Institute, expresses concern for middle-aged workers,
especially men and for white, middle-aged people. He calls our attention in turn to a paper
published last December in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
in which Angus Deaton, the Nobel Laureate in economics in 2015
and professor at Princeton, and Anne Case, also at Princeton, describe the
astounding development that the mortality rate of white 45-54 year-olds in this
country actually rose from 1999 to 2013.
This is in clear contrast to the mortality rates for all other age
groups, which declined, an obvious result of advances in medicine.
What happened to those middle-aged white people is
dramatic. Mortality rates for diseases
in that age range did decline. But rates
for externally caused deaths went up: suicide, drug poisoning and alcohol
abuse. Those specific rates went up for
other age groups too, but for the 45-54 year-olds, the increases were so large
that the pushed overall mortality higher.
Subsequent release of data by the U.S. Center for Disease Control for
2014 show the overall uptrend continued that year as well. In addition, Deaton and Case discuss
“morbidity”: the proportion of the
population reporting good health and the proportion reporting poor health, including
various symptoms of pain and the frequency of difficulty performing simple
“activities of daily living” (ADLs). For
this population group between 1997-99 and 2011-13, government data show a
smaller proportion reported good health, a larger proportion poor health. More people had trouble with various ADLs and
more people consumed excessive amounts of
alcohol. There was a significant
increase in the share of these middle-aged white persons who were unable to
work, which, Deaton and Case point out, may correspond to the unusual decline
in labor force participation rates, a phenomenon we have discussed here before.
Deaton and Case suggest that economic insecurity might play
into 45-54-year-olds’ increased use of drugs, dependence on alcohol and
suicides. They mention the same economic
factors we have been talking about: tepid movement of median wages and income
inequality. They point out that these
are especially important for people with just a high-school education. In addition, they discuss the shift in many
employers’ pension arrangements from defined benefit plans to defined
contribution plans. So now it’s up to many
employees to see to the adequacy of their own retirement savings, since there’s
no guarantee of a specific payout during their elder years, as would be the
case with defined benefit plans. The
pressure on these people is thus increased.
They have another reason to be concerned: will they have a steady income
through consistent employment and will the economy grow so that their financial
assets can grow?
This economic pressure on middle-aged white Americans is obviously
not the only reason Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton did not. There is a general unease with governments
and bureaucracies. We saw it earlier
this year in the U.K., where, also, ordinary people surprised their government
leaders as they voted that that nation should withdraw from the European Union,
the development known as “Brexit”. The
work to do so is in process now. The
factor of importance in that issue is similar to what Mr. Trump advocates, the
reduction in regulation of business and other government intrusion into
everyday life. Brexit highlights
people’s frustration with the bureaucratic nature of the EU organization. In the U.S., Trump is concerned that
regulation of business, along with the relatively high U.S. business tax rates,
contributes to companies’ moving their headquarters and some operations to
other countries, even as they continue to sell their products here. He wants to change the government setting for
business so those companies will stay here and keep jobs here. It’s a good idea, if it can be implemented in
a prompt and orderly way. That’s a big
“if”. Further, it will go the wrong way
if there are trade wars and too much anti-immigration push. Tough questions.
Overall, the numbers we have discussed here describe
considerable unease among a core group of Americans, a population group that
rarely gets much attention. But this
election has made us look at them.
Perhaps there’s no genuine link between the pressure they feel and the
election of Mr. Trump, but it seems there might well be.
In church yesterday during the Intercessory Prayer, I heard
myself offer petitions for “all those who are afraid in the wake of the
Election” and for “the new President, that he might govern carefully and
wisely”. We indeed hope Mr. Trump rises
to the occasion and we hope our many friends and acquaintances who are upset
and distressed will find there is reason they can relax.
 “Election 2016: Exit Poll Results.” The New York Times. November 8, 2016 and subsequent updates. The Exit Poll is conducted by Edison
Research and is sponsored by a consortium of ABC News, The Associated Press, CBSNews,
CNN, Fox News and NBC News. The data
were collected from 24,537 voters
leaving 350 voting places throughout the United States on Election Day
including 4,398 telephone interviews with early and absentee voters. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
 Anne Case and Angus Deaton. “Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife
among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century,” Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, December 8, 2015. Pages 15078-15083. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078
. You may have seen this referenced in
The New York Times as well. A number of
professional health policy publications also contain references.
Labels: American Society, Economy, Government Policies, People
Praying about the Election
What an Election season!
It’s almost over. However it
comes out, we’ll all feel some relief, won’t we? Meantime, during this coming week, we can do
something important. Pray.
A few weeks ago, my Bishop, the Right Rev. Lawrence
Provenzano of Long Island, issued a formal statement requesting all members of
this Diocese to offer daily prayer during the “octave” between November 1 and
November 8. His solemn letter, published
on October 10, calls for “those who are able in each parish to use this time
for fasting, abstinence and deliberate prayer, and to make use of all the
resources our faith provides us to refocus on God's will and purpose.”
Then, last week, on October 26, all of the Bishops in
Indiana issued a relevant and helpful press release. These bishops include the current Bishop of
Northern Indiana, two retired Bishops of Northern Indiana, the current Bishop
of Indianapolis, and the Lutheran Bishop of Indiana and Kentucky, ELCA. Their joint press release also urges us to pray,
and they quote the Prayer for Sound Government from the Book of Common Prayer
1979 and the Prayer for Responsible Citizenship from Evangelical Lutheran Worship
2006, which follow here:
O Lord our Governor, bless the
leaders of our land, that we may be a people at peace among ourselves and a
blessing to other nations of the earth.
To the President and members of
the Cabinet, to Governors of States, Mayors of Cities, and to all in
administrative authority, grant wisdom and grace in the exercise of their
To Senators and Representatives,
and those who make our laws in States, Cities, and Towns, give courage, wisdom,
and foresight to provide for the needs of all our people, and to fulfill our
obligations in the community of nations.
To the Judges and officers of our
Courts give understanding and integrity, that human rights may be safeguarded
and justice served.
And finally, teach our people to
rely on your strength and to accept their responsibilities to their fellow
citizens, that they may elect trustworthy leaders and make wise decisions for
the well-being of our society; that we may serve you faithfully in our
generation and honor your holy Name. Amen.
Book of Common Prayer 1979, page 821
Lord, God, you call your people
to honor those in authority. Help us elect trustworthy leaders, participate in
wise decisions for our common life, and serve our neighbors in local
communities. Bless the leaders of our land, that we may be at peace among
ourselves and a blessing to other nations of the earth. Amen.
Worship 2006, page 77
Almighty God, to whom we must
account for all our powers and privileges: Guide the people of the United
States in the election of officials and representatives; that, by faithful
administration and wise laws, the rights of all may be protected and our nation
be enabled to fulfill your purposes; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen
Finally, perhaps an obvious statement. It’s always important to vote. But it seems more crucial than ever this
time. People are skeptical of the
candidates, both of them, regardless of which side they are on. Thus, we need to do our civic duty with more
attention than ever. Please do vote –
May God Bless the United States of America . . . . .
Labels: American Society, Episcopal Church, Government Policies
The Social Value of Profits and Wealth
In recent weeks, the Sunday
Gospel readings in the Episcopal Church have spoken about issues of business
profits and wealth. Our orientation as a
business economist means we take these commentaries seriously, and we might
have a different spin on them than theologians and clergy do.
On September 18, the 18th
Sunday after Pentecost, we had a passage from Luke 16 about a dishonest
manager. This person was being fired by
the rich man who employed him because he had cheated in running the business,
so the profits he generated were clearly in excess of what they should be. The conclusion to the appointed scripture is
the familiar, “No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the
one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
The next week, on September
25, we heard the well-known story, also from Luke 16, of Lazarus, the poor man,
who rested on the doorstep of Dives, a very rich person. Dives evidently refused even to share the
scraps from his dinner table with poor Lazarus.
The accompanying lesson from the Epistle is from 1 Timothy 6, which
includes the familiar, “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.”
Profits and wealth. It’s easy to use the Biblical readings we’ve
just mentioned to disparage those worldly concepts. At the same time, profits and wealth can be
beneficial, and in fact, they can contribute vigorously to the well-being of
not just the profit-earners and wealth-holders, but to the life-condition of many
other people with whom successful business leaders are associated.
This brief article will just
scratch the surface, but we feel like we have to try. The social value of profits and wealth seems
to us to depend on two important factors, how the profits and wealth were
earned, and what uses are made of them.
Profits: from Sound Business
Operations or from Price-Gouging?
The problem presented in the
first Gospel lesson above is that the manager earned profits through
cheating. The news recently has been
full of stories about profits earned by Mylan, Inc., through substantial price
increases on the Epi-Pen. According to
the Wall Street Journal, Mylan has raised the price 17 times in the nine years
they have marketed the allergy reaction first-aid shot injector, totaling more
than 500% to a retail cost more than $600.
We can’t say exactly that cheating was involved here, but it certainly
seems strange to need such large
increases for a product that
is not new. Indeed, the main medical
ingredient, epinephrine, is a generic chemical that has been around for years.
As we note, another criterion
for judging the appropriateness of profits is how they are used by the
company. If they are just used to
inflate the paychecks of top management well beyond some industry standard,
then one might argue that they are excessive.
Indeed, in this case, Mylan executives receive the second highest
compensation of comparable managers in drug companies. But Mylan is not the second largest drug
company; to the contrary, it ranked 11th in the U.S. in 2015 by
revenue and 16th by market valuation.
Our commentary here is hardly
meant to single out Mylan, but this case has emerged as a very timely and
visible example of what seems to be price gouging implemented toward less-than-noble
By contrast, we can argue in
favor of profits if they result from genuinely efficient business operations,
and if they are used toward positive ends.
We might assess a business’s
operating efficiency by measuring profits against output or revenue and
comparing that ratio to the ratio for a whole industry. We’d want to raise questions if the company’s
result is significantly higher than the whole industry as well as if it is
weaker. Another measure might be output
per worker. In both cases, we’d be looking
for competitive pricing and competitive performance results.
Profits Contribute to Growth
in Jobs and Business Investment
Profits can make important
contributions to business operations in successive periods. Very simple comparisons of Commerce
Department national income data show that for the total of nonfinancial
corporations, profits in a given year are highly correlated with employment and
with investment in new facilities and equipment the next year.
Thus, profit growth is a
suggestion that our business might be open to expansion. We can afford to hire more workers and they,
of course, would need more operating facilities. Or, without hiring additional workers, we
might still want to invest in improved models of the equipment we use. The company’s profits are the first source of
financing for expansion and investment in capital goods. Even if funds are raised from banks or
investors, those financers want to know that a company has good credit quality
and is prospering, so its profits provide an important backdrop for the
external funding sources.
In the cases where we’re
assessing profits against the performance of overall markets and demand for our
products, it would thus be strange to issue advice calling for profits to be
reduced. That recommendation would be
reserved instead for special cases when the profits are seen to come from excessive
pricing, improper reporting or other anti-market actions. Like the Epi-Pen situation.
Ministry to Business Managers
& Wealth Holders
A book on this whole topic is
called Anointed for Business, in which the writer, Ed Silvoso, argues
that, just as clergy have a calling to their ministry, business leaders have a
calling to their work. If they see it as
a genuine calling to a kind of ministry, perhaps they would be more inclined to
do their work with consideration for all the parties involved: their
shareholders, yes, and also their customers, their employees and even their
And what about the CEO or the
lead shareholder or anyone who has done well investing in a business and/or
stocks? Should they be required to
sacrifice the gains they have made through their contributions to society? Indeed, if their business is successful in
the long-term or their stock portfolio has grown consistently, is their
resulting wealth sinful? This is a huge
question, of course, and takes books and books, not just a couple of paragraphs
in a blog post. But our take on it comes
from two angles. First, In Mr. Silvoso’s
book, one of the chapters is titled, “God Loves Bill Gates, Too”. Absolutely.
And God probably loved Bill Gates before he founded the Gates
Foundation, as God gave Gates the gifts to develop the Microsoft systems and
form the company. Gates, of course, has
carried the principles of corporate structure and operation into his charity;
in operating the Foundation, he and Mrs. Gates have focused on the results of
their charitable work, not just performing it.
Thus, they try to do their charitable work efficiently so as to get the
greatest possible benefit from the resources devoted to it. This approach has changed the perspective of
many of the world’s charities, to the benefit mainly of those for whom that
work is done. This is clearly a good use
of wealth and hardly argues for diminishing it.
Second, the other point we
would make about wealth comes right out Jesus’ own work. On September 28 in the assigned Daily Office
readings, we had the story of Jesus’ calling of Levi, a tax collector, to be
one of His disciples (Luke 5: 27-32).
Levi did leave his desk to follow Jesus and then invited Jesus to his
home, where he gave a banquet that included his tax-collector friends. The Pharisees and scribes saw Jesus eating
with tax collectors and asked him what on earth he was doing with those awful
people. Jesus replied that He in fact
needed to be with those who are sinners;
they are the ones who need Him, not those who are already righteous and
trustworthy. So if indeed, we are
concerned about business leaders and how they lead and how honest they are,
then let us minister to them and work with them. Let us enlist them and show them about using
their resources for the common good.
All told, the points about
money, income and wealth are concerned with honest, careful and prudent operations
and using positive financial results to favorable ends. The money and the wealth are not evil
themselves, but it’s whether we use them constructively that matters.
We consulted several recent issues
of The Wall Street Journal for data on Mylan, Inc., as well as websites showing
various rankings of pharmaceutical companies.
Ed Silvoso. Anointed for Business. Ventura, CA: Regal Books. 2002.
Labels: Christianity, Economy
A Comment on the Riots in Charlotte
We’re working on an article about business profits and whether
they are ethical and Christian. In the
meantime, another important issue in society has come to the fore, yea, once
On Wednesday night, when the rioting in Charlotte was most
violent, I was watching on Fox News.
Their reporter Steve Harrigan was, as other networks' reporters, out in
the midst of the action. At one point, a
young woman came within range of his microphone and started to shout at
him. She was neatly dressed, with a trendy
fluffy hairstyle. This woman is,
however, a really angry person, totally frustrated with her treatment in life.
She exclaimed most articulately that she could be anywhere – on the way
to school or work or just sitting in her car – and get shot. It was a potent statement. At the same time, she expressed the skeptical
opinion that Harrigan wasn’t really showing her directly, but would instead
take her words and twist them around to his own satisfaction before quoting her
on TV. Although Harrigan tried, he was
not able convince her that she was in fact on live TV in front of millions of
viewers right in that moment. But her very
own words and her clear, strong voice helped us understand her feelings quite
distinctly. I heard her.
Where have we been since the mid-1960s? The first
African-American president and numerous others in leadership positions of all
kinds tell us that there's clearly some progress – and come take a look at my
own Episcopal church congregation on any given Sunday for a multi-racial crowd
of good friends – but we've obviously missed out someplace. . . . education,
family structure, business investment in their communities. Better law enforcement,
advocated by many, does help, but it treats only the symptoms, not the
underlying conditions. We need to work
on it all. Is there perhaps even a
personal outreach we can make?
Labels: American Society
Floods & Fires -- and HELP!
In an eMo earlier this week, Barbara Crafton mentioned Episcopal Relief & Development as a worthy recipient of contributions for aid to people needing help following disasters. That gives us a particular opening to urge specific contributions toward their Disaster Relief Fund following the flooding in Louisiana. The flooding was really awful, the worst disaster since Hurricane Sandy in 2012, and the recovery has just started.
On a Fox News program the other evening, we saw an interview with Tony Perkins, the head of an evangelical Christian organization, the Family Research Council. I don't know exactly what that group does, and the group's work was not the subject of the interview. Mr. Perkins was featured that night because he lives in Baton Rouge, and he and his family had had to row away in a canoe from their flooded home. This put a personal feeling to that whole situation. They went first to a Baptist church, which was actually too crowded to take them in. But a member of that congregation took them to his home for shelter. Then we saw a picture of the campus of Louisiana State University - LSU - immersed in water. What can you say?
Soon, we got an email from Episcopal Relief, urging gifts toward their relief effort. We replied the next morning. We like Episcopal Relief a lot, because they come in the midst of the disaster and then they also hang around to help rebuild too. With no apology, we urge you to pitch in. Here's a link: http://www.episcopalrelief.org/
Yesterday, we heard again about Episcopal Relief, that they are also working in California with the fires. They are providing gift cards to people who had to evacuate briefly during the fires themselves or for longer periods because their homes were destroyed. Our local churches there are providing space for training for people who can provide support in the protracted aftermath: helping the volunteers understand what people feel whose homes have just vanished.
All the more reason to donate.
Or, if you're not Episcopalian, you might think of Samaritan's Purse, which is also doing major work in Louisiana: https://www.samaritanspurse.org/
. They have teams of volunteers helping with recovery efforts. Their work was even the subject of a TV commercial asking for donations. This Billy Graham-founded organization isn't shy about requesting your help for these people. They sure need it!
Labels: American Society, Christianity, Episcopal Church