ct, nov. 2010, p.23 a feast fit for a king by leslie leyland fields..'it's potluck sunday. i stand near the end of a long line wondering what will be left by the time i get to the front, grateful that i'm not particularly hungry. i have some idea of what the offerings will be: hot dogs wrapped in white buns..buckets of drive-thru fried chicken anchoring the table. neon orange cheese doodles will inevitably sho up, somewhere near the salads. the greenest item will be several bowls of lime jell-o with fruit suspended in it, which, i've decided, is to signal it's inobvious function as food.
we pray..over this smorgasbord of chemical wizardry and marketing genios, ask that it would strengthen our bodies (something i believe will take divine intervention), and invite jesus to be among us as we eat..what would Jesus put on His plate?..would He care that the chicken in the bucket came from cages where the birds were likely fed their own recycled excrement? ..would He stand, as i do, filled with guilt, dread and judgment before this culinary minefield?
..a recent crop of food books concerning what many are calling 'the global food crisis', one that has given rise to a new food movement in the u.s. and abroad..it has taken on the momentum of a religious revival..
..most authors trace our crisis in food..to ther events following world war Ii, when the federal government led a shift from family-operated agrarian economies to corporatized agribusinesses. in agrib..efficiency and mass production have, more often than not, overruled fair treatment of farmers, humane treatment of animals and proper care of the land..
reports on 'how the world is used' for food production make up an apocalyptic catalog that leaves no ground untainted. the ills of factory farming begin with the dousing of soil and crops with pesticides, chemical fertilizers and herbicides, producing foods with measurable levels of contaminants. the runoff from these..is the primary source of water pollution in the u.s. more than all other industrial sources combined. (note: WHENEVER ANY ONE OF US EATS EVEN AN OUNCE OF PROCESSED FOODS WE ARE SUPPORTING THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.) factory hog farms alone, with their massive 'manure lagoons', emit 70k tons of hydrogen sulfide gas anually. herbicides such as roundup are used in such quantities that 'superweeds' resistant to pesticides have sprung up, creating the need for yet more toxic formulas.
meanwhile, monsanto, dupont and other multinational agricultural corporations are creating a growing number of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), altering the genetic code of one species by inserting genes from another, even animal to plant. (the grocery manufacturers of america extimates that 75% of food on u.s. grocery shelves contains at least one GMO.) there are signigicant concerns over the long-term safety of such foods, the deep decrease in agricultural biodiversity their use has created and the monopolizing of patents and seed by corporations. the net resut; the nation's food supply is under the dominion of a few conglomerates.
..jane goodall's 'harvest fro hope: a guide to mindful eating', include what you can do type lists. while there are notable distinctions between writers, there is general agreement that 'mindful eating' (a term borrowed from buddhist practice) entails..
-educating ourselves on where food comes from (a chemist's lab? a hemisphere away? a local farm?
-eating locally as much as possible to support local farmers and to reduce the natural resources it takes to put food on our plate
-growing and preparing our own food
-eating lower on the food chain, meaning eating less meat and more plants
-supporting fair-trade practices that protect rather than exploit workers
-supporting organic farms and free-range ranches
-advocating for a return to agricultural biodiversity (note: why not do more than advocate but start finding good plants of diverse nature and plant them wherever you can, around where you live and anywhere else they will be accepted, appreciated and nourished.)
..my critique begins, paradoxically, with the movement's greatest strengths; its call to an integrated, holistic perspective and the personal moral accountability that integration brings. at the movement's core is the belief that the world is a single, intricate, and interdependent ecosystem. thus our personal acts have global consequences, for good and for ill, ones we don't often see but that are nonetheless real...
our disconnection from our food and its sources is..fed by our culture's emphasis on personal happiness (note: read TASTE AND CONVENIENCE).
nowhere are religion and morality more on display..than in current discussions on the killing fields of factory farms..many seek to at least reduce if not outright end animal suffering and/or usage because of its ..immorality...also believe that continuing to raise animals for meat is morally unjustifiable because of its monopoly on resources that could feed the world's hungry..one writes, 'so what kind of crime is animal agriculture, which uses 756 million tons of grain and corn per year, much more than enough to adequately feed the 1.4 billion humans who are living in dire poverty?' (in francis schaeffer's pollution and the death of man he points out that SELF-RESTRAINT is the key principle involved in environmental care. since i have begun to wonder if this is not a key in all morality)
the current food movement largely comes across as a religious type of campaign..its central tenet is that by changing the way we eat, we can save ourselves - and the world...a popular hindi website, food for life global..explains that only 'pure vegetarianism' is allowed because what we eat directly affects 'our spiritual consciousness' and our 'subsequent behaviors'...some are showing signs of orthorexia, an eating disorder defined as 'an unhealthy obsession with healthy eating'.
part of the devolution from lofty global goals to a crippling personal obsession may simply be our sinful bent toward the self. but i think there is more going on. in a recent essay in policy review, 'is food the new sex?' may eberstadt ponders a cultural reversal in values: we have become mindful and puritanical about food and mindless and licentious about sex. perhaps in a world where moral values are subjective and in constant flux, we feel an even greater need for boundaries and stability, at least in some areas of our lives.
..food may, while seemingly deepening in value may be being reduced to the function it performs..the old tewtament dietary laws were given later to God's people not as a means of earning righteousness, but to remind them that they were set apart from all other nations and that every activity, even the daily labor of feeding themselves, was to be done...realizing the providence/provision of God involved..every bite of food, given by God Himself, is to make God known to man, to make man's life communion with God..
our attempts to restore the earth and return to edenic communion with it ultimately cannot succed. just as we cannot perfect our bodies and spirits thru eating pure foods, so we cannot perfect the earth, no matter how heroic our efforts..creation has been groaning, waiting eagerly for the revealing of the glory of the children of God romans tells us, since adam and eve made their choice...and will continue groaning to the end of time...
the current food movement is just another of the continual fountain, coming from a human heart bent on being independent from God, of idols that can never meet the ultimate need - a transformed heart.. each eating and drinking we engage in can be done to the glory of God. some day every pot in heaven will be holy to the Lord and marked as such (zechariah 14.20-1)
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
11.7.10 ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL?
worldmag, 11,6,2010, p79..there is a little thing called the 'OVERTON WINDOW'. it is the term for an insight by a joseph p. overton that at any given point in the stream of a population's public life there is a 'window' that contains or frames a range of opinion that is currently acceptable. outside that window lie the ideas considered wacko. the intriguing thing is that what is 'acceptable' and what is 'wacko' can, and does shift. the window itself moves - and clever and diabolical forces have an interest in moving it.
yesterday's 'radical' is today's 'acceptable'. yesterday's 'unthinkable' is today's merely 'radical - and, with a little deft manipulation, will be tomorrow's 'acceptable'. given more time and massaging, 'unthinkable' can go all the way to 'popular' and then 'policy'.
note: one example of the above would be ABORTION, the publicly known murder of over 50 million babies in america and over 1.5 billion worldwide since 1960 - the great majority of them 'legal'. to be consistent we all should have the right to murder whoever else we want when we want...but of course that is not currently acceptable. it's only acceptable to do it to those who have no voice or ability to defend themselves..the overton window.
jews for Jesus newsletter, 10.2010..SHARING THE GOSPEL the apostle paul said in romans 1.16, ' i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..'
...a pastor once told me that he appreciated the ministry of jews for Jesus but could not invite us to speak in his pulpit. he had what he felt was a good relationship with the rabbi across the street, with an annual pulpit exchange. 'i have an opportunity to be a witness..by inviting you, i would be forfeiting that opportunity..
i carefully pointed out that his opportunity was only an opportunity if he could say something that would truly challenge his jewish friends to consider Christ. further, if anything he said or did ever resulted in a synagogue member coming to faith in Jesus, those ..exchanges would probably come to a screeching halt. sadly, i don't think that pastor was willing to give up the notion that friendship with the rabbi was somehow a prerequisite to evangelism and the fulfillment of his christian duty.
many christians today seem to think that gaining the acceptance of unbelieving jewish people is the way to gain a platform for the gospel. unfortunately, things usually do not work out that way.
some people speak about 'earning the right' to witness. while it seems like a humble thing to say, many people fail to see how that statement contradicts scripture. the bible teaches that proclaiming the gospel is an obligation to be fulfilled, not a right to be earned. the idea that people must accept us before the can accept Y'shua (Jesus) can actually become a subtle kind of pride that we fail to recognize in ourselves and our fellow believers.
we hear much about relational or 'friendship' evangelism, but the bible says '..do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity..with God? whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God'. james 4.4 (note: Jesus said, blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. blessed are you when men cast insults at you and persecute you and say all kind of evil against you falsely on account of Me. rejoice and be glad for your reward in heaven is great for so the persecuted the prophets who were before you'.) i'm not saying we should treat unbelievers like enemies, nor should we be unrelational, unfriendly or rude! nevertheless, when we make friendship with unbelievers our first priority, Jesus gets short shrift.
few christians intend to shunt Jesus off to the side. most who never quite get around to giving a clear-cut gospel message don't even realize they are sacrificing their gospel witness on the altar of human acceptance.
once, when i was speaking at a church, a woman approached me after the service. she was pleased to inform me that her roommate and best friend in college was jewish and that she had maintained their friendship over many years. when i asked if she ever talked to her friend about Jesus, she responded, oh no, i'd be too afraid of offending her. i affirmed her desire to remain friends by suggested, 'perhaps what you fear even more than offending her is the possibility that she might reject you. i'm afraid that woman took offense at my suggestion but i had to do what she was not willing to do: risk being rejected for the sake of an important truth - a truth more important than my being liked or accepted.
it is easy to allow ourselves to believe that our silence is out of respect for those who might disagree with us. it is easy to see our motivation as noble, especially when we see our ultimate intention as positioning ourselves to be a better witness. but unfortunately, too often those intentions come to nothing and we need to face the truth that sometimes our tact and our long-term intentions are merely masks that cover our natural fear of rejection and our reluctance to position ourselves where God really wants us: in a place of vulnerability.
we need to be honest about our own hesitation to witness and we need to be realistic about this matter of offending others. God wants us to be loving and humble when we tell others about him. yet even the most inoffensive manner cannot guarantee that people will not take offense at what we have to say. ultimately, people decide the basis on which they will or will not be offended and sometimes taking offense is their best defense against the gospel.
there is much talk about the virtues of our pluralistic society. from a worldly perspective, tolerance is the greatest good. but today's society has twisted the meaning of tolerance, making it practically synonymous with relativism. TRUE TOLERANCE IS TREATING PEOPLE DECENTLY REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY MAY DIFFER FROM YOU. the false tolerance demanded by today's society requires that you accept all beliefs as equally true or if you can't do that, you keep quiet about it. the suggestion that someone else's religious belief might not be true is wrongly labeled as intolerance. if someone believed she could take a street that only runs east and west to go north, would it be intolerant for someone else in the care to suggest a turn? no. yet, when it comes to spiritual matters,the world insists on a degree of relativism that would spell disaster were we to apply it to the physical realm.
the christian belief that Jesus is the only way of salvation is perceived as intolerance, even bigotry by the world's standards. so the pressure is on us to compromise our strong stance and conviction in order to gain some acceptance, in order to avoid being marginalized by the unbelieving world. yes, we live in a pluralistic society, but PLURALISM MEANS THAT EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO EXPRESS HIS..OWN OPINION. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERYONE'S OR NO ONE'S OPINION IS TRUE.
whenever we proclaim that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the inference is that all other ways are false and therefore those who trust anyone or anything other than Jesus for salvation are mistaken. you don't have to tell people they are wrong; the message itself pronounces them wrong. this will always be viewed as intolerance by those who don't believe. and those who are considered intolerant can expect to be rejected. that is why the idea that we must be accepted by those whom we wish to evangelize doesn't work.
many jews have risked alienation from family and friends to follow Jesus. we have been ostracized by the wider jewish community because we have embraced the One who was despised and rejected of men. but we have discovered that He is worth it! 'remember the word that i said to you, "a servant is not greater than his master'. if they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. if they kept My word, they will keep yours also'. john 15.20
...the author of hebrews was writing to a group of first century jewish believers in Jesus who stood at a crossroads. they had suffered refection and persecution to the point where they were tempted to turn their backs on the Lord. they need to be encouraged and challenged to endure and be faithful. they needed to hear, '../Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. therefore let us go forth to him, outside the camp, bearing his reproach'. heb 13.12-3..that call is as real today as it was in the first century - and it speaks to all christians...
note: i have been doing this exact thing..trying to be accepted, trying to escape reproach, putting human relationships above my relationship with God.
recently a person very close to my heart had a response that along with this article will hopefully act as twin catalysts to bring about a change. i had said virtually nothing to this person over a number of times with them 'on their own turf' with the (strange, i now think) thought that they were a 'captive audience'. i was hoping to win their friendship over time so that i could begin to speak from my heart as things opened up between us. recently there was an 'opening' between us and so i shared with them from psalm 22, a prophetic psalm about Jesus' sufferings on the cross. i did this in order that they might possibly see Jesus as a person, just like them, who was suffering...and as a person who, uniquely God, still allowed Himself to be mistreated by just men. i also asked if this person had ever read the bible. my question was not answered and the response was that this was all a bit much. the person went on to ask for 'respect', hopefully i'm mistaken in assuming that this meant that i am not welcome to talk about Jesus or the bible. even if the respect request ends up not to be about Jesus/bible kind of things...along with the above article it is enough to move me to prayer that God would help me not to continue being so callous as to never at least share about Jesus' love ...especially with those i am close with! what will i ever say if i should have to stand in judgment before God with them an try to come up with some reason why i never did...it's all to horrible to think much about. may God have mercy on me. may i start opening my mouth. may i start loving other people enough to witness to what i know to be true: Jesus died to save all of us sinners.
i am hoping to send this to the above person and pray that they would read and consider. all i can say is that i'm glad this person has not died all this time while i have been waiting for an 'opening' in our relationship to be able to openly discuss spiritual matters.
the request for respect (ie. silence on the subject of Jesus) is, to me, an inversion of sorts. (i always thought that good, respectful relationships were where there was a freedom to speak about anything combined with no inclination to force acceptance of opinions either way...that there was a mutual acceptance of each other, a thoughtful, reflective interchange of ideas back and forth.) i felt disrespected and not accepted and am now thinking i am not able to be myself always watching lest i should somehow inadvertently offend by something i say.
as an aside, i was struck by one statement of the missionary william carey. it was something to the effect that he had no focus on friendships. by reading his life i learned that he had a number of close relationships (this statement was another window from which i received insight), his focus was on the great work of translation of the bible into different languages - something God had gifted and called him to do. i'm not at this point of letting friendship go as a focus, but i believe it is a 'place' God would have me go. as an afterthought, i don't see any special desire in Jesus' for having and cultivating friendships. He seemed all about one thing: doing what God the Father had told Him to do.
yesterday's 'radical' is today's 'acceptable'. yesterday's 'unthinkable' is today's merely 'radical - and, with a little deft manipulation, will be tomorrow's 'acceptable'. given more time and massaging, 'unthinkable' can go all the way to 'popular' and then 'policy'.
note: one example of the above would be ABORTION, the publicly known murder of over 50 million babies in america and over 1.5 billion worldwide since 1960 - the great majority of them 'legal'. to be consistent we all should have the right to murder whoever else we want when we want...but of course that is not currently acceptable. it's only acceptable to do it to those who have no voice or ability to defend themselves..the overton window.
jews for Jesus newsletter, 10.2010..SHARING THE GOSPEL the apostle paul said in romans 1.16, ' i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..'
...a pastor once told me that he appreciated the ministry of jews for Jesus but could not invite us to speak in his pulpit. he had what he felt was a good relationship with the rabbi across the street, with an annual pulpit exchange. 'i have an opportunity to be a witness..by inviting you, i would be forfeiting that opportunity..
i carefully pointed out that his opportunity was only an opportunity if he could say something that would truly challenge his jewish friends to consider Christ. further, if anything he said or did ever resulted in a synagogue member coming to faith in Jesus, those ..exchanges would probably come to a screeching halt. sadly, i don't think that pastor was willing to give up the notion that friendship with the rabbi was somehow a prerequisite to evangelism and the fulfillment of his christian duty.
many christians today seem to think that gaining the acceptance of unbelieving jewish people is the way to gain a platform for the gospel. unfortunately, things usually do not work out that way.
some people speak about 'earning the right' to witness. while it seems like a humble thing to say, many people fail to see how that statement contradicts scripture. the bible teaches that proclaiming the gospel is an obligation to be fulfilled, not a right to be earned. the idea that people must accept us before the can accept Y'shua (Jesus) can actually become a subtle kind of pride that we fail to recognize in ourselves and our fellow believers.
we hear much about relational or 'friendship' evangelism, but the bible says '..do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity..with God? whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God'. james 4.4 (note: Jesus said, blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. blessed are you when men cast insults at you and persecute you and say all kind of evil against you falsely on account of Me. rejoice and be glad for your reward in heaven is great for so the persecuted the prophets who were before you'.) i'm not saying we should treat unbelievers like enemies, nor should we be unrelational, unfriendly or rude! nevertheless, when we make friendship with unbelievers our first priority, Jesus gets short shrift.
few christians intend to shunt Jesus off to the side. most who never quite get around to giving a clear-cut gospel message don't even realize they are sacrificing their gospel witness on the altar of human acceptance.
once, when i was speaking at a church, a woman approached me after the service. she was pleased to inform me that her roommate and best friend in college was jewish and that she had maintained their friendship over many years. when i asked if she ever talked to her friend about Jesus, she responded, oh no, i'd be too afraid of offending her. i affirmed her desire to remain friends by suggested, 'perhaps what you fear even more than offending her is the possibility that she might reject you. i'm afraid that woman took offense at my suggestion but i had to do what she was not willing to do: risk being rejected for the sake of an important truth - a truth more important than my being liked or accepted.
it is easy to allow ourselves to believe that our silence is out of respect for those who might disagree with us. it is easy to see our motivation as noble, especially when we see our ultimate intention as positioning ourselves to be a better witness. but unfortunately, too often those intentions come to nothing and we need to face the truth that sometimes our tact and our long-term intentions are merely masks that cover our natural fear of rejection and our reluctance to position ourselves where God really wants us: in a place of vulnerability.
we need to be honest about our own hesitation to witness and we need to be realistic about this matter of offending others. God wants us to be loving and humble when we tell others about him. yet even the most inoffensive manner cannot guarantee that people will not take offense at what we have to say. ultimately, people decide the basis on which they will or will not be offended and sometimes taking offense is their best defense against the gospel.
there is much talk about the virtues of our pluralistic society. from a worldly perspective, tolerance is the greatest good. but today's society has twisted the meaning of tolerance, making it practically synonymous with relativism. TRUE TOLERANCE IS TREATING PEOPLE DECENTLY REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY MAY DIFFER FROM YOU. the false tolerance demanded by today's society requires that you accept all beliefs as equally true or if you can't do that, you keep quiet about it. the suggestion that someone else's religious belief might not be true is wrongly labeled as intolerance. if someone believed she could take a street that only runs east and west to go north, would it be intolerant for someone else in the care to suggest a turn? no. yet, when it comes to spiritual matters,the world insists on a degree of relativism that would spell disaster were we to apply it to the physical realm.
the christian belief that Jesus is the only way of salvation is perceived as intolerance, even bigotry by the world's standards. so the pressure is on us to compromise our strong stance and conviction in order to gain some acceptance, in order to avoid being marginalized by the unbelieving world. yes, we live in a pluralistic society, but PLURALISM MEANS THAT EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO EXPRESS HIS..OWN OPINION. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERYONE'S OR NO ONE'S OPINION IS TRUE.
whenever we proclaim that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the inference is that all other ways are false and therefore those who trust anyone or anything other than Jesus for salvation are mistaken. you don't have to tell people they are wrong; the message itself pronounces them wrong. this will always be viewed as intolerance by those who don't believe. and those who are considered intolerant can expect to be rejected. that is why the idea that we must be accepted by those whom we wish to evangelize doesn't work.
many jews have risked alienation from family and friends to follow Jesus. we have been ostracized by the wider jewish community because we have embraced the One who was despised and rejected of men. but we have discovered that He is worth it! 'remember the word that i said to you, "a servant is not greater than his master'. if they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. if they kept My word, they will keep yours also'. john 15.20
...the author of hebrews was writing to a group of first century jewish believers in Jesus who stood at a crossroads. they had suffered refection and persecution to the point where they were tempted to turn their backs on the Lord. they need to be encouraged and challenged to endure and be faithful. they needed to hear, '../Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. therefore let us go forth to him, outside the camp, bearing his reproach'. heb 13.12-3..that call is as real today as it was in the first century - and it speaks to all christians...
note: i have been doing this exact thing..trying to be accepted, trying to escape reproach, putting human relationships above my relationship with God.
recently a person very close to my heart had a response that along with this article will hopefully act as twin catalysts to bring about a change. i had said virtually nothing to this person over a number of times with them 'on their own turf' with the (strange, i now think) thought that they were a 'captive audience'. i was hoping to win their friendship over time so that i could begin to speak from my heart as things opened up between us. recently there was an 'opening' between us and so i shared with them from psalm 22, a prophetic psalm about Jesus' sufferings on the cross. i did this in order that they might possibly see Jesus as a person, just like them, who was suffering...and as a person who, uniquely God, still allowed Himself to be mistreated by just men. i also asked if this person had ever read the bible. my question was not answered and the response was that this was all a bit much. the person went on to ask for 'respect', hopefully i'm mistaken in assuming that this meant that i am not welcome to talk about Jesus or the bible. even if the respect request ends up not to be about Jesus/bible kind of things...along with the above article it is enough to move me to prayer that God would help me not to continue being so callous as to never at least share about Jesus' love ...especially with those i am close with! what will i ever say if i should have to stand in judgment before God with them an try to come up with some reason why i never did...it's all to horrible to think much about. may God have mercy on me. may i start opening my mouth. may i start loving other people enough to witness to what i know to be true: Jesus died to save all of us sinners.
i am hoping to send this to the above person and pray that they would read and consider. all i can say is that i'm glad this person has not died all this time while i have been waiting for an 'opening' in our relationship to be able to openly discuss spiritual matters.
the request for respect (ie. silence on the subject of Jesus) is, to me, an inversion of sorts. (i always thought that good, respectful relationships were where there was a freedom to speak about anything combined with no inclination to force acceptance of opinions either way...that there was a mutual acceptance of each other, a thoughtful, reflective interchange of ideas back and forth.) i felt disrespected and not accepted and am now thinking i am not able to be myself always watching lest i should somehow inadvertently offend by something i say.
as an aside, i was struck by one statement of the missionary william carey. it was something to the effect that he had no focus on friendships. by reading his life i learned that he had a number of close relationships (this statement was another window from which i received insight), his focus was on the great work of translation of the bible into different languages - something God had gifted and called him to do. i'm not at this point of letting friendship go as a focus, but i believe it is a 'place' God would have me go. as an afterthought, i don't see any special desire in Jesus' for having and cultivating friendships. He seemed all about one thing: doing what God the Father had told Him to do.
11.6.2010 HEALTH CARE - ASSOC. OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS
in samaritan ministries newsletter, 11.2010..DR. JANE ORIENT aapsonline.org/ 1.800.635.1196/ 1601 n. tucson blvd. #9; tuscon, az 85716/email: janeorient@mindspring.com;janeorient.com; drjaneorient.com
dr. jane orient only needed a few years of working as a staff practitioner in a veterans administration hospital in the late 1970s to see that government health care doesn't work.
when working in the walk-in clinic, orient thot her job was to help patients with what was ailing them.
but in reality, our job was to determine whether their problem was related to a service-connected disability, says orient, now an internal medicine specialist in tucson, arizona. if it wasn't we were supposed to send them out of there unless failure to care for them would result in hospital admission very soon.
instead, orient broke the rules. she helped them however she could.
but that experience, combined with indications that the medical community itself was tending toward a more marxist attitude toward health care, led orient to become involved with the association of american physicians and surgeons (AAPS). she has been AAPS executive since 1989.
the organization, which has challenged the constitutionality of the new health care law in court, has FOUGHT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PRIVATE MEDICINE SINCE 1943.
i think it probably has delayed the onset of socialized medicine by 6 decades, says orient, who is now a member of samaritan ministries. it has kept the flame of traditional medical ethics alive.
the AAPS, which has 3000 active members, is particularly protective of the patient-physician relationship and fights the intrusion of 3rd parties like health insurance companies or government entitlement programs such as medicare/medicaid. requiring u.s. citizens to purchase health insurance, like the new law requires, is also a violation of that relationship, the AAPS claims.
orient has never accepted 3rd-party payment in her practice, which mainly provides consultation and 2nd opinions. she learned early on that it 'was really compromising when you put yourself in a position where a 3rd party was paying you, because "whose bread i eat, his song i must sing".'
3rd party and patients' interests are mutually contradictory, because the 3rd party benefits from denying care - always, orient says. that's the way it's structured.
3rd parties also will figure largely under the new heath care law, which will put the needs of the 'collective ahead of doctors' consciences and the physician-patient relationship, orient says.
it's going to change the way physicians work. instead of being paid by their patients, they're going to be accountable to managed care organizations, which are going to get a pile of $ and then divvy it up based on how well you comply with what the 3rd party thinks you should do. you'll be punished for providing too much for some patients or for not doing the things they think you should do and one of the things they think that maybe you should do is dehydrate and starve patients to death or withhold medical care from them.
there will be more federal funding for abortions, more discrimination against people for being elderly or feeble or perhaps having a genetic disease. the whole purpose of the program is to take away from the care of the sick and injured and shovel it into government programs to do 'good' by their definition. there's a whole lot of marxist ideas that are in the bill and that will be seizing private $ to put into programs that promote the undermining of american traditions and culture.
in its efforts to battle such developments in health care, the AAPS publishes a monthly newsletter, issues action alerts about legislative or regulatory matters affecting medical practice, litigates health care issues and supports physicians 'who have been unjustly prosecuted or attacked by hospital peerage committees'.
the AAPS, for instance, sued over the secrecy of the proceedings of the health care task force created by the clinton administration in the 1990s. the task force, headed by hillary clinton, pushed for congress to approve a universal health care plan. the AAPS lawsuit helped to stoke public interest into what was going on theree and slowed the effort down enough so that it could be defeated, orient says.
the doctor has tried to influence public understanding of the problems with governmental interference in health care thru AAPS, her book 'YOUR DOCTOR IS NOT IN'' and many articles. but she also has used fiction as a tool, writing 3 medical-suspense novels with freelance writer linda j. wright: SUTTON'S LAW, NEOMORTS and MOONSHINE.
the idea was maybe we could teach people in fiction some things they wouldn't learn any other way, orient says. ann rand (the fountainhead, atlas shrugged) did that. a lot of novelists have done that.
the 3 novels were each self-published because the authors weren't willing to do what it takes to break into the fiction market thru publishing houses there days - write obscene material. if you don't write like that, publishers aren't going to want to buy your books, orient says, and she was not willing to go there.
but she also engaged in a bit of prophetic writing in the mid- 1990s with YOUR doctor is not in: healthy skepticism about national health care. voicing her concerns about the 1993-4 clintonian national health care proposals, orient could have been writing about the patient protection and affordable care act of 2010. she warned about
RATIONING OF CARE
LOSS OF FREEDOM FOR DOCTORS AND PATIENTS
LOSS OF PRIVATE PROFIT
A BURDEN ON THE NATIONAL DEFICIT
A SQUELCHING OF MEDICAL INNOVATION
all major concerns about the health care law signed this year.
and what will you get as a result?, she writes there, let me tell you
A FREEWAY TO CLINICS THAT DISPENSE ASPIRIN, OAT BRAN AND WELL BABY CHECKS with access impeded mainly by traffic jams; roadblocks on the way to the hospital that offers lifesaving technology to the sick and the injured; and higher, more expensive hurdles for new technology that might enable the deaf to hear or the paralyzed to walk.
the list of her writings is extensive, including homeschool materials such as PROFESSOR KLUGIMKOPF'S OLD-FASHIONED ENGLISH GRAMMAR and PROFESSOR KLUGIMKOPF'S SPELLING METHOD (both a part of the robinson self-teaching curriculum); SAPIRA'S ART AND SCIENCE OF BEDSIDE DIAGNOSIS, a medical textbook; and dozens of articles in medical and other kinds of journals. she also has testified before congress several times as well as a few state legislatures. in addition, she is editor of the AAPS newsletter. because of all these other responsibilities, dr. orient says she hasn't developed her practice as much as she could have, devoting more time to her AAPS duties. she expects business to pick up if most of the PPACA is allowed to be implemented. people will be looking for physicians willing to work outside 3rd party payment arrangements...
one of the main attractions of samaritan for orient was that she wouldn't be required by the ministry's guidelines to enroll in medicare. THERE IS A LOT OF CARE OUT THERE WHICH IS BETTER AND IS REASONABLE IN PRICE, BUT IT'S NOT COVERED BY MEDICARE. IT'S DISAPPROVED OF...people who need a physician should find one they can trust, who will take an interest in them and who will accept payment in cash...being dependent on the insurance company is not really a safe position to be in.
dr. jane orient only needed a few years of working as a staff practitioner in a veterans administration hospital in the late 1970s to see that government health care doesn't work.
when working in the walk-in clinic, orient thot her job was to help patients with what was ailing them.
but in reality, our job was to determine whether their problem was related to a service-connected disability, says orient, now an internal medicine specialist in tucson, arizona. if it wasn't we were supposed to send them out of there unless failure to care for them would result in hospital admission very soon.
instead, orient broke the rules. she helped them however she could.
but that experience, combined with indications that the medical community itself was tending toward a more marxist attitude toward health care, led orient to become involved with the association of american physicians and surgeons (AAPS). she has been AAPS executive since 1989.
the organization, which has challenged the constitutionality of the new health care law in court, has FOUGHT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PRIVATE MEDICINE SINCE 1943.
i think it probably has delayed the onset of socialized medicine by 6 decades, says orient, who is now a member of samaritan ministries. it has kept the flame of traditional medical ethics alive.
the AAPS, which has 3000 active members, is particularly protective of the patient-physician relationship and fights the intrusion of 3rd parties like health insurance companies or government entitlement programs such as medicare/medicaid. requiring u.s. citizens to purchase health insurance, like the new law requires, is also a violation of that relationship, the AAPS claims.
orient has never accepted 3rd-party payment in her practice, which mainly provides consultation and 2nd opinions. she learned early on that it 'was really compromising when you put yourself in a position where a 3rd party was paying you, because "whose bread i eat, his song i must sing".'
3rd party and patients' interests are mutually contradictory, because the 3rd party benefits from denying care - always, orient says. that's the way it's structured.
3rd parties also will figure largely under the new heath care law, which will put the needs of the 'collective ahead of doctors' consciences and the physician-patient relationship, orient says.
it's going to change the way physicians work. instead of being paid by their patients, they're going to be accountable to managed care organizations, which are going to get a pile of $ and then divvy it up based on how well you comply with what the 3rd party thinks you should do. you'll be punished for providing too much for some patients or for not doing the things they think you should do and one of the things they think that maybe you should do is dehydrate and starve patients to death or withhold medical care from them.
there will be more federal funding for abortions, more discrimination against people for being elderly or feeble or perhaps having a genetic disease. the whole purpose of the program is to take away from the care of the sick and injured and shovel it into government programs to do 'good' by their definition. there's a whole lot of marxist ideas that are in the bill and that will be seizing private $ to put into programs that promote the undermining of american traditions and culture.
in its efforts to battle such developments in health care, the AAPS publishes a monthly newsletter, issues action alerts about legislative or regulatory matters affecting medical practice, litigates health care issues and supports physicians 'who have been unjustly prosecuted or attacked by hospital peerage committees'.
the AAPS, for instance, sued over the secrecy of the proceedings of the health care task force created by the clinton administration in the 1990s. the task force, headed by hillary clinton, pushed for congress to approve a universal health care plan. the AAPS lawsuit helped to stoke public interest into what was going on theree and slowed the effort down enough so that it could be defeated, orient says.
the doctor has tried to influence public understanding of the problems with governmental interference in health care thru AAPS, her book 'YOUR DOCTOR IS NOT IN'' and many articles. but she also has used fiction as a tool, writing 3 medical-suspense novels with freelance writer linda j. wright: SUTTON'S LAW, NEOMORTS and MOONSHINE.
the idea was maybe we could teach people in fiction some things they wouldn't learn any other way, orient says. ann rand (the fountainhead, atlas shrugged) did that. a lot of novelists have done that.
the 3 novels were each self-published because the authors weren't willing to do what it takes to break into the fiction market thru publishing houses there days - write obscene material. if you don't write like that, publishers aren't going to want to buy your books, orient says, and she was not willing to go there.
but she also engaged in a bit of prophetic writing in the mid- 1990s with YOUR doctor is not in: healthy skepticism about national health care. voicing her concerns about the 1993-4 clintonian national health care proposals, orient could have been writing about the patient protection and affordable care act of 2010. she warned about
RATIONING OF CARE
LOSS OF FREEDOM FOR DOCTORS AND PATIENTS
LOSS OF PRIVATE PROFIT
A BURDEN ON THE NATIONAL DEFICIT
A SQUELCHING OF MEDICAL INNOVATION
all major concerns about the health care law signed this year.
and what will you get as a result?, she writes there, let me tell you
A FREEWAY TO CLINICS THAT DISPENSE ASPIRIN, OAT BRAN AND WELL BABY CHECKS with access impeded mainly by traffic jams; roadblocks on the way to the hospital that offers lifesaving technology to the sick and the injured; and higher, more expensive hurdles for new technology that might enable the deaf to hear or the paralyzed to walk.
the list of her writings is extensive, including homeschool materials such as PROFESSOR KLUGIMKOPF'S OLD-FASHIONED ENGLISH GRAMMAR and PROFESSOR KLUGIMKOPF'S SPELLING METHOD (both a part of the robinson self-teaching curriculum); SAPIRA'S ART AND SCIENCE OF BEDSIDE DIAGNOSIS, a medical textbook; and dozens of articles in medical and other kinds of journals. she also has testified before congress several times as well as a few state legislatures. in addition, she is editor of the AAPS newsletter. because of all these other responsibilities, dr. orient says she hasn't developed her practice as much as she could have, devoting more time to her AAPS duties. she expects business to pick up if most of the PPACA is allowed to be implemented. people will be looking for physicians willing to work outside 3rd party payment arrangements...
one of the main attractions of samaritan for orient was that she wouldn't be required by the ministry's guidelines to enroll in medicare. THERE IS A LOT OF CARE OUT THERE WHICH IS BETTER AND IS REASONABLE IN PRICE, BUT IT'S NOT COVERED BY MEDICARE. IT'S DISAPPROVED OF...people who need a physician should find one they can trust, who will take an interest in them and who will accept payment in cash...being dependent on the insurance company is not really a safe position to be in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)