Reblogged from Pasarea Phoenix Remixed & co:

În urmă cu cîteva luni am predicat în biserică despre ucenicizare. Era un context potrivit pentru că tocmai se botezaseră patru “suflete”. Am întrebat cine din biserică se vor ocupa de ele. Am observat priviri semnificative, dar nu s-a mers mai departe. Mulţi au fost interesaţi de subiect, am discutat despre asta, dar se pare ca nu a prins în final. Mă gîndesc că din mai multe motive. Pornind de la conceptul de biserică observăm că suntem de cele mai multe ori interesaţi de ceea ce se …

Un subiect important, dar care trece cel mai adesea neobservat, iar cind ajunge sa fie discutat, ramine de cele mai multe ori fara efect.
Mare pacat.

Key Facts:

• Almost 1,100 Palestinians, over half children, were displaced due to home demolitions by Israeli forces in 2011, over 80% more than in 2010.
• 4,200 additional people were affected by the demolition of structures related to their livelihoods.
• Israeli forces destroyed 622 structures owned by Palestinians, a 42% increase compared to 2010. This included 222 homes, 170 animal shelters, two classrooms and two mosques (one twice).
• The number of rainwater cisterns and pools destroyed in 2011 (46), was more than double last year (21), with tens of other related structures vulnerable to future demolition.
• Most demolitions (90%) and displacement (92%) occurred in already vulnerable farming and herding communities in Area C; thousands of others remain at-risk of displacement due to outstanding demolition orders.
• In East Jerusalem, there was a significant decrease compared to previous years, with 42 structures demolished*. However, at least 93,100 residents, who live in structures built without a permit, remain at risk of displacement.
• Over 60% of the Palestinian-owned structures demolished in 2011 were located in areas allocated to settlements.
• 70% of Area C is off-limits for Palestinian construction, allocated instead for Israeli settlements or the Israeli military; an additional 29% is heavily restricted.
• Only 13% of East Jerusalem is zoned for Palestinian construction – much of which is already built up, compared with 35%, which has been expropriated and zoned for the use of Israeli settlements.
• Ten out of 13 communities visited by OCHA in Area C reported that families are being displaced because Israeli policies make it difficult for them to meet basic needs. The inability to build was one of the main triggers for this displacement.

Reblogged from Richard Rohr: Unpacking Paradoxes:

True Christian “traditionalists” must honor the whole Judeo-Christian tradition, and very few actually do. Instead of the wisdom of Judaism>2000 years of Orthodoxy and Catholicism>Protestantism’s many major contributions, they just choose one little part of that full Tradition which they are familiar with. It has been said that most traditionalism is “the dead faith of the living”, just securing yourself now by quoting the past, with little first hand knowledge or experience yourself. True …

This one continues the former comment on conservatism. Worth reading.

Reblogged from Richard Rohr: Unpacking Paradoxes:

Why do I mistrust so much Christian “conservativism”? 1) It usually wants to “conserve” a very recent version of history or Christianity (theirs!) 2) It is almost always tied to money and power, which seems very unlike Jesus. 3) It loves the status quo too much, which is really to love one’s own comfort, security, and status. 4) It seldom loves the poor or the outsider, which Jesus consistently loved. 5) It invariably makes “pevlic issues” the test case instead of what Jesus consistently emphasized: power, …

How right is Fr Rohr here!
And this truth is often illustrated on some of the conservative comments on this blog.

Something worth considering by all those Protestants that struggle with the meaning of the Church.

Reblogged from Ioan Florin. În umbra Crucii celte:

Un prieten din îndepărtatul Fort Augustus îmi scrie zilele trecute și îmi dă de știre că venerabilul Ignatius Bacon este în căutarea unui secretar permanent pentru viitorul centru ortodox de pe Insula Iona. Poate m-ar interesa, glumește el, și adaugă: Iona e în calea furtunilor, după cum știi. Plouă de două ori pe zi și vîntul bate în continuu, iar noaptea se întîmplă să te trezești în zgomotul valurile care se zdrobesc de stînci. Hrana e cam sumară, va trebui să te …

Un text superb despre cel mai frumos loc de pe pamint, mai ales in sensul spiritual al termenului.

The views of Russian author Vladimir Solovyov on socialism and capitalism form the object of a recent article on Acton Institute website.

This may be of interest to you in light of the recent protests in the world, including Romania, against a capitalism without values and compassion.

* * *

In the third book of his work The Justification of the Good, Solovyov focuses on the dignity and infinite, moral potential of every human being, realized in human society. He believed that all social action ought to be limited by morality. Thus, he favored limitations to government power, writing, “[T]he demands of the positive law [of the state] are not absolute but are limited by the natural law which is sanctified by religion….”

In the realm of economics, this leads him to biting criticism of amoral laissez-faire economics and outright condemnation of socialism. According to Solovyov, “To proclaim laissez faire, laissez passer [apart from morality] is to say to society ‘die and decompose.’” The free market, to Solovyov, has no value divorced from morality. With regards to socialism, he writes,

Socialism envies [the rich] and Christianity pities them—pities them because of the obstacles which connection with Mammon puts in the way of moral perfection: it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. But socialism takes that kingdom itself… to consist in nothing other than wealth, provided it is differently distributed. That which for Christianity is an obstacle, for socialism is an end; if this is not an antithesis, I do not know what else to call by that name.

One might wonder, with all his criticisms, what Solovyov’s political and economic views really were. One commentator has claimed that Solovyov was “an early advocate of… the democratic welfare state” due to Solovyov’s view of the state as “collectively organized compassion.” However, one must not forget that Solovyov would emphasize its moral limits. Indeed, he writes,

[E]veryone should have the means of existence (e.g. clothes and a warm and airy dwelling) and sufficient physical rest secured to him, and… he should also be able to enjoy leisure for the sake of his spiritual development. This and this alone is absolutely essential…; anything above this is from the evil one.

It is clear how far he intends the “collectively organized compassion” of the state to reach. In this he is no more a proponent of the welfare state than Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum. Indeed, after establishing that the state can be a means of morally limiting the market (e.g., by liberating Russia’s serfs), Solovyov cautions, “Reference to this fact does not prejudice the question to the extent to which such regulation may be desirable in the future….” Thus, one ought only cautiously to presume that he would have been for or against any particular, contemporary social program. No doubt, we can be certain that Solovyov’s position would be limited by humanity’s moral potential and innate and inalienable dignity.

Read HERE the entire article.

Sunt sigur ca cei mai multi evanghelici romani n u au auzit de Mark Driscoll sau de Ed Young. Si, sincer sa fiu, n-au pierdut foarte mult. Sunt sigur insa ca multi dintre ei sunt familiari cu cartile despre casatorie si mai ales cu aspectele sexuale ale vietii de familie traduse la noi dupa 1989.

Eu nu sunt dintre cei care considera sexualitatea un subiect tabu. Este evident insa, uitindu-ma la aceste carti, ca exista o obsesie psihanalizabila cu sexualitatatea in evanghelismul american (asa cum un fost prieten al meu, mare promotor – absolut interesat – al conservatorismului fatarnic, este cunoscut pentru predilectia lui pentru glumele cu tenta sexuala, un soi de masturbare verbala, in opinia mea.

Taina casatoriei (ma intreb citi dintre evanghelicii romani au citit cartea cu acest titlu a lui Mike Mason, publicata cu ani in urma de Editura Logos) pare sa fie un subiect mult prea mistic si ezoteric pentru evanghelici.

Asa fiind, lucrurile merg mai departe. Recent, Mark Driscoll, acest playboy al evanghelismului american, a produs, impreuna cu sotia lui, o carte despre (ce altceva decit) sexul in casatorie, in care descrierile grafice si afirmatiile fara perdea (adica indiscrete, cu privire la lucruri care nu au de ce sa iasa din dormitor) abunda. O alta instanta a patologiei psihanalizabile ilustrata mai sus.

Si Driscoll nu este singurul. Ed Young, un alt megastar evanghelic american in cautare de publicitate ieftina a ‘comis’ si el o scamatorie sexuala care a facut sa vuiasca prese. Se vede ca la acesti narcisisti eclesiali scopul zcuza mijloacele.

Deoarece nu am chef sa mai pierd vremea cu asemenea timpenii, va indemn sa va informati singuri, explorind textele din linkurile de mai jos.

Si, vorba lui Neculai Constantin Munteanu, ‘sa auzim mai degraba de bine’.

* * *

The Best Responses to the Driscolls and Youngs

Real Marriage: A Review part 1

Real Marriage: A Review part 2

The Trouble with Ed Young’s Rooftop Sexperiment