The Role of a True Family

by Carl Redmond-Warilla, Australia

Let me precisely define the role of a true family. When I say "a" true family, I am distinctly aware of the fact that there are not many true families in the world, if any! (Apart from the one and true and central family.)

There is a distinct gap and a world of difference between "thinking" and "doing." The world of thought and the world of action are two separate and distinct realities. "Thinking" about something or someone is in the realm of dreams. "Doing" something for someone is the realm of "guts" and putting your "money" where your "mouth" is. Where precisely do you stand in all of this? Are you merely giving lip service to Father's teaching of "Life for the sake of others" or do you really carry it out in your everyday life?

Next let us define what level you are currently on. Primary school level (or even kindergarten) is saying to someone, "Oh, how are you?" in response to their call. (A letter has no voice, so you can choose not to answer it.) "I have been meaning to write/phone/whatever (all of the above, or none of the above as the case may be), but I've just been too busy." Primary school response to this would be "Oh, really. What have you been busy with?" Answer would be, "Oh, this and that." Primary level response: "Oh, that's wonderful," and so on.

Secondary school level would be to say to the person who has been so busy, "Are you telling me you haven't got five minutes in a day to just call?" (as the spirit gives unction for you to do so, that's the time you should do so). "To write a letter takes not very long, no one could be that busy. If you really wish to do something, you make the time." However, it is no use talking to someone in kindergarten as if they are in grade school or university! So where are you, my dear brother and sister, kindergarten or preschool or what?

My understanding of the true family way is to truly "live for the sake of others." That means people we meet but it surely also means each other. If we cannot practice it with each other, then we cannot hope to, as the saying goes, "win friends and influence people."

There is a vast gap, or shall we say a "yawning gulf" between the true family's way of doing things and the way we are doing them. What I am saying to you is let us close the gap. The fact that there is a "big divide" is one thing, be that as it may. But we cannot leave this as it is. We have to do something, anything, no matter how small, to "bridge the gap." It's not just "thinking" about something, it's doing it. Let's get the guts back into our movement and get our show "on the road." Let's be baby tigers rather than domestic cats! And let us not stay in kindergarten forever!

The Mechanics Of A Principled Relationship

The goal of Unification piety is ... times up... yes, Iowa State? Unification... Yes that's right for 400 points ... or 400 years, which ever comes first.

Sooo, what makes it possible for this to be the goal of a religion? (For a context, compare it to other religious goals... Buddhism? Nirvana. Christianity? Salvation. Joe down the street? Making it until Friday.) OK now back to the question, what must exist for Unification to be a goal? Yes, that it... the lack of Unification. And what must exist for there to be a lack of Unification? The answer? At least two things. For there to be a lack of Unification there must be at least two things; say a mind and a body, a husband and a wife, a leader and a follower, Abott and Costello, oil and water, heads of two different departments in the Unification Church. Yes wherever you have two things you have the possibility for Unification, AND the possibility for the absence of Unification.

If then Unification is the goal of Unification piety, what is the first step toward achieving it? Answer? A relationship. Anyone will do. A hateful relationship is OK. As long as there is a relationship, this is the first necessary requisite for the possibility of Unification. Once you have a relationship, the next thing is to organize it in such a way that Unification becomes a possibility. When you hit this stage, a hateful relationship looses its charm. Despite its capacity to engender mutual obsession, it somehow lacks the stuff of Unification.

Let's move away from hateful relationships, abusive ones, exploitive ones, ones in which people disrespect each other, and for the space of this article, relax in the respite of reflection on relationships which are actually conducive to achieving the great Unificationist goal... Unification.

There are two types of divisions in the un-unified world; fallen divisions and original divisions. Original divisions were created on purpose by God so that love could happen. Fair enough. Everyone in favor of love say Aye. Fallen divisions have the same players as original ones only Satan has cleverly planted a little plus where a minus should be, and presto the two things become lousy at uniting. Thus, instead of having a plus and a minus, which naturally unite (like the charges in the little battery in your Walkman), you get Cain and Abel. So you can thank Satan for Cain Abel relationships, and if you failed to dislike him enough before, maybe that should help a little. The mechanics of a principled relationship come in two sorts, original mechanics and fallen mechanics.

This time let's look at the fallen mechanics. We're clear about the problem now. We've got two things which should have the natural propensity to unite by dint of their God-given positivity and negativity, but instead they meet each other as two pluses. Aha, you just KNOW one of them's got to be an impostor. Will the real plus pleas stand up. [They both stand up.] That didn't work. How do we get to the bottom of this? Here's how. The real plus is connected to the true origin of all "plusness," the fake plus is just connected to his or her own pitiful self. (Remember, all we have to do is affix the true plus and minus accurately onto the proper players, and presto, they unite like magic. If we can do that the plus and the minus will unite of their own, natural, God-given propensities.)

That extra Satanic plus confuses things and makes Unification hard to do. Under these adverse circumstances this is what to do. Here's how we get unity. First, the real plus maintains an absolute personal standard so that he or she is sure never to loose connection to the source of all "plusness." How to do that? Keep oneself as a perfect object to your God -given subject, and in this way to God Himself. If you loose the connection you're dead... sooner or later. THEN once the link to the eternal source of being plus or subject is safely fixed, the trick is to act like a minus. In this way, it draws in the fake plus to exhaust him or herself plussing away, and using up what pathetic little store of plus chips he or she's got lying around. Finally the fake plus gives up exhausted, and the true essence and status of the respective players reveal themselves. Once plus and minus are accurately attached to the proper figures in the relationship Unification can and does occur.

One might wonder why one sees seemingly uncooperative and nasty people beloved by their followers. This is because, within a closed organization or department the positions of subject and object are often clearly and accurately defined. If the followers understand the Principle (or even common sense), they have enough sense to surrender and unite with their leader. Thus it is often possible for a leader to be united with people under him or her, but scandalously disunited with others in cases where his or her position is not as clearly defined. As understandable as disunity is in such relationships, it does not remove the pathetic and loser-destined quality of the fake plus in just such a relationship. Whenever there is a situation in which there is no clear definition of the subject and object positions, the Principle teaches that the Subject position can be attained by self-sacrifice, and Satan's side, or the Cain position can be acquired by aggression.

How does God compensate for the fact that Abel (not to be confused with Adam!) is an arrogant, unaccomplished, smug type of person, with whom Cain rightfully would have little or no interest in knowing or having much to do with? How? By giving Abel the Blessing. Clever maneuver (He isn't God for nothing you know). NOW Abel has something which Cain desperately needs and wants. Cain is no longer free to leave Abel in his own petty little self-satisfied world, and just walk away, because Cain has to find some way to get the Blessing. This would be easy enough to do if Cain didn't have the bad luck of having had Satan plant a little plus where his minus should be. If it weren't for that he could simply unite naturally with Abel, and inherit the Blessing according to the law of unification and ownership. But with that Satanic plus firing away on all cylinders Cain (duh) tries to force the Blessing from Abel. Fat chance. Abel doesn't even like Cain anyway (he likes himself). Abel only becomes willing to give Cain the Blessing when it finally dawns on him that this is the only way to quit getting constantly beat up on. The dumb Abel tries to constantly exerts his plus, and Cain constantly wails on him. The smart Abel gets small, and tarbaby's it out, getting Cain to exhaust his limited supply of pluses (they're all fake anyway) and finally give up and say, "alright you win, what do I have to do to get the Blessing?

This part just has to do with Fallen division. Unity with regard to original division is something completely different, and may also be of interest to look at someday.

The Artist and His Character

by Harry Phillipe

When I look at beautiful works of art form different ages in human history, I often find myself wondering about the character of the artist that created them. The personal lives of many well-known artists have been researched extensively and it is disappointing in many cases to find that the men and women who created some of the most inspiring and significant works of art in human history had very troubled and uninspired personal lives. Many gallery-goers these days are similarly disappointed to find that their favorite contemporary artists, while creating beautiful objects, have unhappy personal lives and very little to say about creating a more beautiful society.

Although I wasn't able to meet him in person, a contemporary artist whose work is on view at the Smithsonian in Washington has inspired me a lot. His name is Kazuo Hiroshima, he is 79 years old and unless you know something about Japanese basketmaking, you have probably never heard of him. The exhibition, "A Basketmaker in Rural Japan," celebrates his life's work and among the 80 baskets on exhibit are backpack and hip baskets used for farming, harvesting and transporting; round, shallow baskets an sieves used for many kitchen and farmyard tasks, and fishing traps, creels and storage baskets. His baskets have served as the everyday tools for the farmers, their wives, and freshwater fishermen of the Hinokage region of the southern Japanese island of Kyushu.

The real eye-opening part of the exhibition is the short video of Mr. Hiroshima explaining his life and work. It shows him walking out into the bamboo grove cutting the stalks, carrying them back to his workshop, pulling the strips and weaving them. He was apprenticed at 15 to a basketmaker, in part because of a lame leg that made him unfit for heavy farm work. Because they owned no property, basketmakers were looked down on by the land-owning farmers. For many years Mr. Hiroshima would travel to the farms in his area, live with the farmers and make exactly the baskets they needed for their various farm tasks. For the baskets that the farmers would wear as backpacks, he would custom fit them for the users.

Mr. Hiroshima's view of his craft is a profound one. "Making a good basket is like a form of prayer, I keep telling myself `Do it well.' I want to make something that will please the person who uses it and suits that person's needs." "If a craftsman chases after money, his work will be no good." "I think about the person when I am making it. It's that person who must be pleased more than myself." His views were no doubt shaped by a very hard life working 12 to 14 hours in summer and 10 hours in winter. In the video, Mrs. Hiroshima recalls having such a difficult apprenticeship, he would fall asleep late at night trying to complete the days's work. He also comments that because everyone knows that his raw material is free to him, nobody wants to pay much for his finished works.

The baskets themselves are visions of perfection, their geometry a wonder. By contrasting the green and brown sides of the bamboo strips, the artist has produced abstracts of harmony. The finely turned curves and exact lines, although grounded in the design of utility, are works of art in the truest sense.

In an age where many artists have become so totally self-absorbed in their own personal visions that defy interpretation, or have set themselves up as imperious social critics, the perfection of the basketmaker's craft displayed here is a refreshing reminder that art can come in simple everyday forms.

Mr. Hiroshima has no apprentice, and plastic baskets are taking the place of the natural bamboo ones that this artist so lovingly crafts. But his tradition will live on in those artists that strive in his spirit. "The handmade thing forms a link between the hearts of the person who makes it and the user. It seems to me that this is the meaning of the craftsman's work." The baskets of Kazuo Hiroshima will be on display until July 9 at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery on the mall in Washington D.C.

Socialism by Amateurs

by Ralph R. Reiland

In his State of the Union Message in 1963, President John F. Kennedy said:

To achieve these greater gains, one step above all, is essential-the enactment this year of a substantial reduction and revision in Federal income taxes ... Our obsolete tax system exerts too heavy a drag on private purchasing power, profits, and employment. Designed to check inflation in earlier years, it now checks growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It distorts the use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions, depresses our Federal revenues, and causes chronic budget deficits ... This program, by increasing the amount of our national income, will in time result in still higher Federal revenues ... It will, in addition, encourage the initiative and risk-taking on which our free system depends-induce more investment, production, and capacity use-help provide the 2 million new jobs we need every year-and reinforce the American principle of additional reward for additional effort.

Kennedy and Reagan both favored tax cuts on the top income earners and their policies produced the two longest economic expansions in our history. In contrast, Clinton proposes to hit the investing sector with new mandates and the largest tax increase in history. While Kennedy sought to "reinforce the American principle of additional reward for additional effort," Clinton prefers the bankrupt old socialist principle of punishing the successful.

With the attempt by this administration to erase the real history of the 1980s, I feel like I just woke up in Leningrad and I'm forbidden to talk to anyone about the good times we had in St. Petersburg.

Robert Reich claims that "The investments of wealthier Americans no longer trickle down to the rest of the American people."

In fact, in the 1980s, the Reagan tax cuts were followed by a 76 percent jump in new business investment in real dollars, and that trickled down to create 19 million new jobs and the lowest unemployment rate in 16 years. The economic growth that flowed from lower taxes trickled down to produce $1.1 trillion in additional federal tax revenues in the 1980s. Contrary to the story presented by the media loudspeakers, that additional tax revenue resulting from lower tax rates contributed to the successful reduction of the federal deficit from 6.3 percent of GDP in 1983 to 2.9 percent in 1989.

While the class warfare rhetoric of the Clinton administration says those at the top "made out like bandits" in the last 12 years at the expense of everyone else, the facts show the benefits of the economic boom of the 1980s weren't bottled up by "the elite few." Real per capita disposable income rose by 19 percent in the 1980s, nearly double the rate of the 1970s, and the real income of households in every quintile group increased every year from 1983 through 1990.

In the poorest quintile, the real income of families increased by 12 percent in the 1980s, reversing that bottom quintile's 17 percent slide in real income between 1979 and 1983 that trickled down from the Carter stagflation of rising joblessness and higher prices.

With blacks and women, the Clintonites try to paint the 1980s as a bonanza for only overprivileged white male Republicans, with Willie Horton and Anita Hill as the star victims. In fact, the 1980s was a decade of unprecedented upward mobility for blacks and women. The percentage of black families earning over $50,000 in real dollars doubled from seven percent to 14 percent, the jobless rate for black teenagers fell by 21 percent and black employment in managerial and professional jobs expanded by a third.

The median weekly earning of female workers grew eight percent faster than male earnings, the number of female lawyers and doctors increased by 164 percent and 109 percent respectively, and women entrepreneurs ended the decade by employing more people than all of the Fortune 500 companies combined.

Overall, the 1980s was a decade when the poor got richer at a faster rate than anyone else. An Urban Institute study by Isabel Sawhill and Mark Condon shows real earnings increased only five percent by 1986 for those who started in the top quintile in 1977, while for those who were in the poorest fifth of the population in 1977, real earnings increased an average of 77 percent by 1986.

The Clintonites bury that success story of upward mobility of all the classes in the 1980s by focusing on the share of national income in the bottom quintile from one decade to the next, ignoring that it's a constantly changing group of people on that bottom rung of the income ladder. Treasury Department economists report that 86 percent of the tax filers in the bottom quintile in 1980 had moved to higher quintiles by 1988, and 16 percent had moved all the way to the top quintile. The leftists never talk about that. They hate the fact that Horatio Alger isn't a myth.

This administration wants us to believe that the private sector is severely flawed and unfair, and that only more government control and higher taxes can save us. We're supposed to believe that the record- breaking investment-led boom of the 1980s just didn't happen. Labor Secretary Robert Reich says, "The success of American capitalism no longer depends on the private investments of highly motivated American capitalists." Instead, our success is now to be dependent on the central planning of the social engineers in the Oval Office.

Winston Churchill said, "Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon." This administration doesn't even see the horse. They can't see why we need private entrepreneurs to innovate and risk and invest when the college policy wonks in the White House can do everything better.

Before too much more damage is done, it's time for a reality check. Even the Germans couldn't make socialism work, so let's not try it here with some amateurs from Harvard and Woodstock.

Ralph Reiland, assistant professor of economics at Robert Morris College in Pittsburgh, writes for The Freeman, the monthly journal of the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York.

Sisters in a Global Family

by Mrs. Motoko Sugiyama-Tokyo, Japan

Respected Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

We Japanese women are very honored and happy to attend this special event to start a new era of peace and cooperation between Japan and the U.S. And it is a great pleasure for all of us to visit Washington D.C. As you know, this tour is designed not only to view the sites of your beautiful capital, but also to help cement a "sisterhood" relationship with women of America. This, we hope, will strengthen the ties between our two nations.

In the past half century, Japan has risen from the ruins of World War II to achieve its position as an economic giant by accepting the miracle of restoration and development.

Obviously, this achievement was possible because of the generous and friendly support from the U.S. It was based on democratic ideals of the post war period. Throughout this period the U.S. has played an important role in every aspect of international leadership.

Today most serious problems facing the world stem from the confusion of morality and ethics. Individuals and families who are damaged by this confusion inevitably lead their nations astray.

We understand teenage pregnancy, single motherhood and out-of-wedlock children have reached epidemic proportions in the United States. We see the same trend beginning in Japan and other nations as well.

In such a serious situation, you are creating a totally new trend in America called, "purity is stylish." Purity can and should be stylish. It is certainly good news for the world that the American people are rediscovering the value of family, the sanctity of marriage and the value of remaining pure before marriage.

I strongly believe that America has a great mission, which is to help lead an ethical renaissance in today's world. Why? Behind the prosperity America achieved in just over two hundred years lies the Christian and democratic spirit of the founding fathers, who were driven to the New World by their desire to worship God.

We hope that by meeting with you American women leaders, who are creating the current of the times, we will also be enlightened and empowered to face difficulties back in Japan.

Facing the 21st century, many people call this, the time of the Global Family. The world grows smaller geographically. But for humanity to live like a family, transcending race, language and culture, it needs a system of universal ethical values.

The Women's Federation for World Peace believes ethics should be centered on what we call "Godism," a common ideal for humanity. As historian Arnold Toynbee mentioned, "In order to realize the final peace of the world, there is no way but to know that mankind forms a substantial family with one invisible parent."

We believe individuals should make their own consciences straight so they can become husbands and wives capable of creating a good family, society, nation and world.

From such a perspective, it is clear that women play a huge role in building a family, which, in turn, is the foundation for world peace. It is us women who should lead the world to peace by having a true ethic and a clear vision of the future.

As the scripture says, "Exchange sword with plow and never learn about fighting." Let us cooperate hand in hand to build an everlasting peace. The women of the U.S. and Japan are uniquely poised to provide leadership in today's world.

Through this sisterhood relationship, let us work together to reach out to the Global Family with a broad vision.

I pray for God's blessing on each of you and your family. Thank you very much for your kind attention.

Mrs. Sugiyama is the President of WFWP-Japan.

Service? Why Me?

by Rev. Kathy Winings-NYC

The average person puts in a forty hour work week, has a family to support, bills to pay, may develop a great case of stress, and generally works even harder to make sense of their lives and the world in which we live. In between all of these responsibilities, we read of conflicts between nations, ethnic divisions disrupting normal life, corporate downsizing, layoffs, increasing violence, and natural catastrophes affecting millions of people. On top of all of this, we are asked to give, serve, and reach out to others. While deep within our hearts, we have the desire to go this extra mile, still we find ourselves asking whether it is worth our time. Do I really have the time to undertake a service activity? Can service really become a part of my life and the life of my family? I can barely feed by own family- how can I possibly afford to help others?

Living for the sake of others has always been a central tenet within Unificationism. But the principle behind this tenet is more than a denominational or religious principle. It is a whole-life principle, a spiritual principle which goes beyond our finite life. On a personal level, when we work hard, we not only earn good money, but we generally feel good about what we have done. All of which is in proportion to how much we give out on the job. The same holds true for whatever we do. Whatever we put out always comes back to us in kind. And it holds equally true for our acts of service. The principle of give and take action is true. In other words, as a give and take relationship is formed, we can feel a sense of satisfaction and joy.

The concept of service and having compassion for those in need is not a recent phenomena. Its roots are biblical. Within the Old Testament, the prophets spoke of God as not only mighty and vengeful, but as merciful, just, and compassionate. The teachings of Jesus in the New Testament are also indicative of a compassionate and caring God. Those of us who grew up in Christian homes may remember the numerous images of a loving Jesus reaching out to help the sick, the lame, and the poor. Furthermore, Jesus encouraged his followers to do likewise. The Judeo-Christian perspective, though, is not the only religious root of service. Religious texts for Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism and other faiths have also indicated that as human beings with a conscience and sense of morality, we have a responsibility to care for those in need and those less fortunate. A common thread, however, present in each faith perspective is the profound relationship between service and the family. The contribution of the various religious attitudes toward service is precisely this strong sense of family as the basis for serving and the healthy attitudes which this encourages.

A Mixed History

Historically, the philosophy and practice of service within the United States has been mixed. Initially, during the 17th and 18th Centuries, the family was seen as the beginning point of service-it was the family as a whole who took responsibility for each other. When one was in need, the other members of the family reached out to take care of that individual. The family became, then, the central and most essential source of serving. The next ring of support was the church. This was only natural as the church was felt to be the family writ large. The third and final ring of support was the community as a whole. Again, as the communities were fairly small and intimate, the community was another extended aspect of the family. With these three levels of support, the needs of all individuals were then met-with love and compassion. As one of the early leaders, William Bradford, described it, serving those in need was done "" willingly and cheerfully, without any grudging in the least, showing true love unto their friends and brethren."

However, as our communities grew and expanded, this system broke down. As we began to shift from a rural to an urban society, the needs for service and social support began to outstrip the existing support structure. Consequently, to fill in the gaps, special organizations, community agencies, and church associations began to develop specific service programs. These included the many Societies such as the Female Charitable Society, the New York Orphan Asylum Society, the Ladies Benevolent Society, the Charitable Association of Young Men, the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, the Hebrew Relief Society and hundreds of other like-minded agencies. With time, these agencies became more sophisticated and complex. Following the example of Jane Addams' Hull House, succeeding decades saw numerous Missions, Homes, and Shelters added to the list of charitable outlets available to those in need.

Each program that was developed accomplished a great deal of good. Some of these outlets were able to help hundreds of families get back on their feet again. However, these programs also generated a great deal of debate. Two points in particular are important for us today. One issue revolved around "who" was responsible for providing social service and compassion. The second issue focused on the "why" of service.

Who is responsible?

First, who was responsible for social compassion and service? Should service programs be the purview of governmental agencies, religious organizations, private associations, or the family? Each voice that was heard in this debate had a vested interest in the outcome. For example, within the Protestant realm, a raging debate took place during the later half of the 19th Century between the more conservative aspect of Christianity and those who were labeled the liberal wing of American Christianity. Those who espoused the Social Gospel of Walter Rauschenbush and Washington Gladden felt that the church had a central role in alleviating the problem. In fact, the gospel compelled the church to do what it could to end suffering. This meant committing financial resources, personnel and the moral authority of the church to the cause of social justice.

For others within the church, social service represented a liberalizing of the church's essential mission and theology. While this group acknowledged that there were serious problems facing many unfortunate people, this was a spiritual problem. The way to resolve the problem, therefore, was not to direct money to the social programs but to evangelize more strongly. After all, the root of the problem was, basically, sin-original and personal sin. That required a renewed push to witness about God's salvific plan through Jesus Christ. This is not to say that they did not care about the poverty, devastation, hunger, and homelessness that was prevalent. It was just that they saw the answer differently than the social gospel proponents.

Those who worked within the governmental arena also debated this issue. Should the government assume responsibility for social service or is this a private enterprise? If the governmental agencies are the answer, should it be the responsibility of the federal, state, or local structure? Can the government afford such programs? On the other hand, can the government afford not to design such programs? If the government became involved, how would they network with other private, non-governmental agencies and individuals?

The second issue, however, was more important in my opinion. This was the question of why do service in the first place? Previously the motivating philosophy embraced a family-oriented concept of responsibility. One took care of the other because they were family. One served out of love. The quality of heart, then, was clearly a factor.

As programs for social service were developed outside of the realm of the family, however, the motivation became more mixed. What I have described as the family perspective remained as part of the mix. However, other non-family-oriented philosophies became motivations for why one served. One strong philosophy saw the "why" of service to be that of guilt. You were supposed to serve others because you had something that those in need didn't have. Secondly, some served because their ethical/moral sensibilities, conscience or religious experience somehow told them that, that is what one was supposed to do; in short, service was the mark of a "good" person. I don't wish to give the impression that these are necessarily inappropriate motivations. We all serve others for a variety of very complex reasons. What I wish to suggest is that the problem with these competing philosophies and motivations has been their effort on the long-term view of service. This is what I call the problem of the paternalistic versus the parental philosophy of service.

The family-based motivation for service encouraged each person to have compassion on others out of love for the other. This was, originally, a love that was free of condescension and judgment. It was a quality of heart that encouraged a basic sense of respect for the individual being cared for and tried to foster a sense of unconditional love. The family-based concept of service was more capable of engendering a parental view. It also encouraged other attributes. Attributes within the one being served: personal responsibility, a sense of empowerment, a willingness to re-build one's life among others. All of which are qualities that parents strive to instill in their children.

As social service expanded and the family-based view was de- emphasized, this quality of heart was also de-emphasized. As these other rationales for service entered the mix, it became easier for the less desirable feelings of condescension and judgment to become part and parcel of the hidden philosophy for why one lived for the sake of others. For instance, if one began with a feeling of guilt, it was only a short step to feeling separated from those in need. Guilt became a question of "I" have and "you" don't. This was the basis for the next problem-arrogance. Arrogance bred condescension. This only increased the sense of separation. Condescension was just a step away from judging those who were being served. At that point, one's outreach to the other was no longer based on heart. This, I believe, is why social service became filled with a paternalistic attitude.

At the receiving end

For those on the receiving end, it became increasingly difficult to receive aid and support. There was no personal relationship established. There was no give and take of love, respect and dignity. Also, there was no motivation to move forward with one's life. It was difficult to feel motivated to take personal responsibility and be willing to rebuild one's life in this judgmental and condescending environment. Personal confidence and self-esteem were diminished. For others, it was difficult to receive this "conditional" handout. It was demeaning to be in such a position. For others still, without a feeling of personal responsibility and growth, it became easier and easier to just let take, take, take. Eventually, several reasons to continue receiving aid were formulated such as: (1) society owes me; (2) it makes the "rich" people feel good; or (3) things will not improve-there are forces beyond my control at work.

However, we live in a time in which we can reclaim the parental view of giving and living for the sake of others. In this sense, service is simply a natural part of our life and can be accomplished in a variety of ways. With a heart of true love, we can serve the other out of a deep and endless well-spring of love. We do not need to have a great deal of money or possessions to be qualified to give. If we are living out of this well-spring of love, we are free to feel whatever gift we have to offer, to the other. There will be times when the gift that is needed is spiritual uplifting and knowledge. There will be other times when the gift that is needed may be something physical such as food, clothing, books, a home, medicine or simply a helping hand. And, there will be times when the gift that is needed is something that the "other" can give to you. After all, service is not a one-way street. Service and living for the sake of others is a relational activity. Service must also allow the "other" the opportunity to grow, develop, and give as well. Only then can the love of God be felt and practiced throughout the entire "family."

In essence, what the parental paradigm requires of us is to give of ourselves-of our heart-and not just some external item or thing. Only a parental paradigm allows us to reclaim the biblical sense of God's compassion in every sense of the word, thus allowing a true relationship of give and take to develop. In short, I believe that service is not a question of how much you have or what you have. Rather, it is a question of who and what you are.

I believe that if we can see living for the sake of others in this light, then we will be able to joyfully make room for a life of service in our hearts as well as within our families. As the philosopher, Rabindranath Tagore wisely said:

"I slept and dreamed that life was happiness. I awoke and saw that life was service. I served and found that in service, happiness is found."

Rev. Winings is the Executive Director of IRFF as well as the Director of Ecumenical Affairs and National Co-coordinator of UCMA.

RYS Upcoming Events

The Religious Youth Service (RYS), an international service learning program designed to promote interfaith adventure while creating models for peaceful cooperation and human development is seeking applicants of all backgrounds, 18-30 years of age for its upcoming projects.

Zagreb, Croatia: April 7-17th.

Orientation programs include backgrounds on the history, culture, religious and political situations of the region and the role of Non- governmental organizations. Participants will travel to Varazdin and work on service activities for the benefit of war refugees. (not in a war zone).

Program Fee for Room and Housing: $ 200

Atlanta: June 17-24.

The RYS will concentrate on creating friendships across national, religious , racial and economic differences while providing a service for the community.

Program Fee:$ 200

Ithaca, New York: June 28-July 8. (tentitive dates)

Work with the Cooperative Extension program in Ithaca which is helping underprivlegded children. Later travel to a Mohawk reservation for more work and time for reflection and learning.

Note that on this project participants can be as young as 16 years of age and second generation are very welcome.

Fee: $ 200

Caracas, Venezuela: July 22-August 7.

Spanish and English will be used on this international project. Have your first South American adventure.

Fee: $ 300

RYS has involved young people from seventy nations in forty three projects since it began in 1985. Limited partial scholarships are available. RYS is an experience of a life time. Come, find out for yourself.

For applications and more information write, phone or fax.: RYS 4 West 43rd St. New York, NY 10036. Fax 212-869-6424 Phone 212695-0446 ext 429.

Religious Faith Deters Crime

by Haven Bradford Gow

An article in the January/February 1995 issue of Common Boundary reveals that violence and crime fast are becoming everyday facts of life for all to many young people in the United States today. For example, between 1984 and 1990, the rate of death from firearms among black males aged 15 to 19 jumped 300 percent, while the increase among white teens was 50 percent. In a survey of 1,000 elementary and high school students in Chicago, we find that 25 percent had seen a murder, 40 percent had witnessed a shooting and more than 33 percent had seen a stabbing.

Moreover, the juvenile violent-crime arrest rate has increased 50 percent between 1985 and 1991. A survey conducted by Lou Harris of 2,500 students found that 15 percent of middle and high school students said they had carried guns themselves, 11 percent said they had been shot at and 59 percent said they knew where to obtain a gun.

That violence has become a shocking and terrifying fact of life for man American youths is made manifest by statistics. For example, concerning the homicide rates for 15-24 year old men, the rate in the U.S. is 37.2 per 100,000. Italy trails the U.S. in second place with a rate of 4.3, followed by New Zealand with 4.2 and Israel with 3.7. For Most of the nations in the industrialized West, the rate is below 2.

According to Dr. Ronald Slaby, A Harvard University social scientist, violent and aggressive young persons often perceive that others- teachers, peers, police and even parents-are hostile toward them... They stay ready to defend or attack. Violent students feel justified because they're only defending themselves... Aggressive teenagers are usually clueless that they themselves create violence.

To be sure, the violence and criminal activity among young people today reflects the violence that already permeates our culture and society as a whole. For example, better than 50 percent of the women murdered in this nation are killed by a partner or ex-partner. Between 1960 and 1992, violent crime has quadrupled from 161 reported crimes per 100,000 to 758 per 100,000. Then, too, children today see on TV 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence before they leave elementary school.

Retired FBI agent William Kelly insists that the increase in crime and violence in our society emanates from the rejection and transgression of traditional Judeo-Christian moral and religious standards and values and from the widespread denial of personal and moral responsibility; he is correct. Indeed, several studies buttress the contention that religious faith and church attendance help people develop good character and avoid anti-social, criminal behavior.

According to a new study by the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, Church attendance ... has been shown consistently to deter juvenile delinquency ... Two published studies show that frequent church attendees have lower crime rates than infrequent attendees; and that a belief in an afterlife with the threat of divine punishment is also associated with lower crime rates ... A 1989 study found that `youths who are bored with church are more likely to be offenders, while those who find most comfort in church are less likely to be offenders.' ... A 1983 study found that the level of religious orthodoxy had a significant effect upon delinquency, i.e., the more orthodox, the lower the delinquency rate.''

Moreover, In a review of 20 published studies, 19 (95 percent) showed that religion plays a positive role in preventing alcoholism and 16 out of 17 of the same studies showed a positive role for religion in reducing suicide. A 1987 study found that moral (religious) beliefs reduced the likelihood of marijuana use among both males and females.''

The Family Research Council study rightly concludes: Religion gives people faith and hope that there are ultimate meaning and purpose in life. It gives man answers to the great questions of life. It establishes a system of moral duties which have worked ... People develop a sense of moral justification from religion, which helps them face temptation, economic deprivation and peer pressure. Indeed, A moral compass based on religion guides people to responsible acts of kindness, caring, benevolence and mercy.

In his book The Brothers Karamazov, Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote: Without God, anything is permitted. But those who believe in and serve the Judeo-Christian God know that human beings have been created in the image and likeness of God and, therefore, possess intrinsic moral worth and dignity; they also know that this Judeo-Christian God has given us the Ten Commandments by which to guide our thinking and behavior, and that there indeed is a heaven and a hell. With belief in this God, we have the basis for the development of order in our souls and in the commonwealth.