film + champagne.
the boy and i attended a film screening of “the birth of freedom” last night at the fine arts center. the event was sponsored by the acton institute, the john jay institute and coldwater media. the film was greatly interesting, and the panel afterwards, particularly the comments made my father sirico, was inspiring. it’s so relieving to hear a clear voice articulating things you think, but have not heard anywhere else. i’m also interested in their other film, the call of the entrepreneur. i like the acton institute particularly, because they don’t focus on church and political involvement, but on church and economical involvement. because government is so far reaching into the economonical sphere, the institute is going to end up touching on political issues and interacting with it, but it’s not overtly political. anyhow.
i love this stuff.
and? they had champage and dessert.
also? the boy looks really good dressed up.
as michael scott would say, it’s a win-win-win.
sara, darling. 
I was there and thoroughly enjoyed the evening, too, particularly the Q&A with both Father Sirico and the President of the John Jay Institute, Alan Crippen.
You are right – as the Q&A panel said, the church must educate itself on economic issues. It does not have to be partisan or “political” to discuss economic principles such as the virtues of Private Property ownership and the Free Market vs. a centrally planned economy. As my grad school professor James Q. Wilson taught, a country cannot be free politically without a free economy. To command and control the economy is to command and control the people.
But I am concerned that the church – all but the most liberal wings of it, anyway – basically ignores economic issues. As the panelists said Wednesday night, this was not always so. In the early days of our country’s founding, the clergy were looked toward for answes on the most important topics, including economic ones. “Taxation without Representation is Tyranny” was a slogan voiced from the pulpits as well as the tavern. Nowadays, it’s as much as a church pastor can muster to mention some vague concern for the poor, coupled with the view that work is merely a mission field, not a God-ordained enterprise.
i agree. i’ve been thinking about this issue, and i think part of the problem may stem from the “self-preservation” of the old institute of the church. what i mean by that is that the church in its present (and traditional form) must funnel most of its money into the preservation of the building, the ministers, the programs etc. when that happens, coupled with the church not putting in emphasis on economic issues, coupled with the trend of selfishness in giving, coupled with the immense amount of trust lost in the leadership of churches due to mismanagement of funds — we get an overwhelming lack of attention and action to economic issues and giving to the poor.
although i believe that church needs structure, leadership, fellowship, initatives, etc – what would this look like when the money going to people goes directly to them through a network of relationships, and not programs? the theory that people help the people they know, who help the people they know, etc. seems small and grassroots, but would that not be effective?
thanks for commenting; this is an issue i am very interested in – feel free to email me as well.