Vatican again urges radical reform of global marketplace – The Irish Times
Excerpt: TRADE ISSUES: FOR THE second time in the last month, the Holy See has argued that international trade markets need to be radically reformed.
The point was made by secretary of state Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who, at a Vatican meeting of European Bishops’ Conferences on the New Evangelisation yesterday said: “The [global] crisis illustrates clearly the untenability of a market that has become totally self-referential . . .
“This present difficult situation prompts a whole series of new questions about the responsibilities and the ethics of the marketplace; it urgently asks a fundamental question about the destiny, dignity and spiritual vocation of man . . . ”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/1123/1224307999115.html
Vatican Radio – Full Text: Note on financial reform from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace
The full text of the document released earlier today.
http://www.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=531752
CNS STORY: Vatican document calls for global authority to regulate markets
Excerpt:
While the Vatican document focused on financial issues, it envisioned a much wider potential role for the global political authority. The agenda also includes peace and security, disarmament and arms control, protection of human rights, and management of migration flows and food security, it said.
Establishing such an authority will be a delicate project and will no doubt come at a cost of “anguish and suffering” as countries give up particular powers, the document said. The authority should be set up gradually, on the basis of wide consultation and international agreements, and never imposed by force or coercion, it said.
The authority should operate on the principle of subsidiarity, intervening “only when individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them,” it said. Countries’ specific identities would be fully respected, it said.
The authority should transcend special interests, and its decisions “should not be the result of the more developed countries’ excessive power over the weaker countries” or the result of lobbying by nations or groups, it said.
“A long road still needs to be traveled before arriving at the creation of a public authority with universal jurisdiction. It would seem logical for the reform process to proceed with the United Nations as its reference,” it said.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104173.htm
Vatican calls for global authority on economy – Reuters
Excerpt:
VATICAN CITY,Oct 24 (Reuters) – - The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKL5E7LO1LS20111024?irpc=932
From the Vatican document:
“Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world authority and to regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalizes world.”
Fear, Incorporated: Who’s Paying for all that Islamophobic Paranoia (FP)
EXCERPT: One of the distinctive features of American democracy is the permeability of our political institutions. It’s an incredibly wide-open system, given First Amendment freedoms, the flood of money that corrupts the electoral process, and a wide array of media organizations and political journals that can be used to disseminate and amplify various views, even when they have no basis in fact.
This situation allows small groups of people to have a profound impact on public attitudes and policy discourse, provided that they are well-organized, well-funded, and stay on message.
– Stephen M. Walt
Herbert E. Douglass – Red Alert: Hurtling Into Eternity (Book Excerpt)
In his new book, Red Alert: Hurtling Into Eternity, Dr. Herbert E. Douglass connects Bible prophecy with current headlines – increasing natural disasters; appearances of the Virgin Mary; wars and rumors of wars. Prophecies are being fulfilled all around us, reinforcing the belief that time is short.
Here is a brief excerpt from this book:
Perhaps some are asking, “What does an economic collapse have to do with the Second Advent? Answer: The coming international economic meltdown, coupled with natural disasters, will drive governments to find scapegoats for the escalating calamities.
The religious card will be played. Something like this will be said, perhaps by the president of the United States: “We are in an enormous crisis. We need unity as never before. We need to restore our common values, our religious roots. We need fewer divisions, less hate talk. In fact, we are going to outlaw any group talking negatively about anyone else. This is a time to come together and fulfill the American dream. Remember, ’Righteousness exalted a nation.’ Let’s restore peace to our communities, at least for one day of the week. Let’s restore America to the way it used to be.”
Bingo! Sunday will be the day of choice, and the plea for tolerance and national unity will trump all negative talk about anyone’s sexual orientation, ethnic origin, or religious beliefs.
So what? someone may ask. These unprecedented conditions we have been reviewing in these pages will soon compel frightened citizens to enact strict government laws that will evaporate the basic freedoms on which this country was founded. For instance, no longer will it be permissible to argue for which day is the Sabbath or to point out who changed it-that will be considered intolerant, divisive, and subject to rapid, legal incarceration.
These unprecedented conditions we have been reviewing in these pages will soon compel frightened citizens to enact strict government laws that will evaporate the basic freedoms on which this country was founded.
…
Bottom line–such a time will come, when loyal, patriotic citizens will not be able to buy or sell. And if they continue to be divisive with their appeal to freedom, as guaranteed in the Constitution, Revelation 13 comes into play. Verse 15 predicts that the law will say they should be killed! We are not there yet, but the stage is surely being set. Really, it has never been this late before!
Does anyone still doubt the accuracy of the predictions in Revelation 13 and 18 that we have just reviewed, and Testimonies, volume 9, page 13? In this chapter, we have briefly flown over the current economic/political distress primarily in the United States. Only a fool is saying, “All is well!” But the U.S.A. comprises only part of the world’s predicaments.
In our next chapter we will focus on the quiet, though extraordinary methods being used to globalize all aspects of our lives, no matter what country we may live in. “All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players,” Shakespeare said so well in “As You Like It.” Never before in earth’s history has Planet Earth become such a world theater! Yes, we all are “bit” players! For the world to be bankrupt, “when great riches came to nothing”-that is still ahead.
—
Order your copy of Red Alert: Hurtling Into Eternity by Herbert E. Douglass from the Pacific Press Publishing Association at http://pppa.com/index.php?pgName=prodBooks&sku=0816324883
During his 60 year ministry, Dr. Herbert Douglass has served as a college theology professor, Atlantic Union College president, vice-president of a publishing house, president of Weimar Institute, vice-president for philanthropy at Adventist Heritage Ministry, and most recently, as consultant for Amazing Facts Ministry. Author of many books and articles, Dr. Douglass earned his doctorate in 1964 at the Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, California.
Buying Power: Human Trafficking and the Local Marketplace
I’m not willing to pick cocoa beans or cotton for a dollar a day, so who is? Trafficked boys on the Ivory Coast and factory children in Asia whose fingers are small enough to work intricate and dangerous machines fill this gap.
Spending four dollars on a candy bar seems irrational. There are so many great tasting candy bars for 90 cents, why would I spend three more dollars for this Alter Eco specialty chocolate? In the end, they’re both equally bad for me and I won’t remember the difference tomorrow. Plus, I’ll be able to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks with the leftover change. Being a business major, I began wondering if these “socially conscious” products like Alter Eco chocolate, Threads for Thought clothing, and other specialty made products were all cutting edge ways for people to make money with the front of caring about the sustainability for the world and people. It seemed to me that it was a great marketing scheme, and that these people in the companies focused on promoting a cheaper product for a greater cost to consumers because they put the emphasis on the individuals making them. The government already has regulations, like labor laws, in place so maybe all this hype about building “sustainable communities” is just a fad or another way for small companies to make it against these transnational corporate giants.
To make things clear, I really am all about supporting the local coffee shop or book store instead of always flocking to big corporations; but when Amazon has the same product for less, it has been my impression that I would be a careless buyer to go somewhere else. This is a question that has been introduced to us with globalization. Growing up in a consumerist society, I’ve repeatedly been taught to find the best product with the lowest cost, it’s Business 101. Gobbling up my 90 cent chocolate, I started worrying about how many insects the FDA allowed per candy bar, realizing that maybe that was the downside to cheaper chocolate. My business professors teach that the bottom line is what matters the most, but I have grown up in a family immersed in mission work and advocating global consciousness. I have started wondering what is most important in order to simultaneously be successful and yet not cross my personal ethics. Is there a way to be both? Is money the only way to success? Surely there was a way to balance both sides instead of veering off in just one direction.
With these thoughts mulling through my head and chocolate lingering in my mouth, I walked into the Freedom Summit conference hear about all the forms modern day slavery takes, and how globalization has created prime breeding grounds for the vulnerability of the masses. The speakers included Condoleezza Rice—former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, Bradley Myles—CEO of Polaris Project, and David Batstone—a Professor of Ethics at USF and founder of Not for Sale Campaign. In the hardest days as Secretary of State under the Bush Administration, Condoleezza turned to the Founding Fathers biographies and came to the conclusion that with every large struggle, “what seemed impossible one day, seemed inevitable the next.” She introduced us to the idea that anti human trafficking is the social justice movement of our century and what is happening behind the backs of the general public is far worse than slavery in the past. There are more slaves today than in any other time in history, and we are all doing our part to help propel it forward.
Much of this shocked me—while not being completely ignorant to the struggles of people globally, I still had the rude awakening that every person is participating in this victimization process, where the marginalized people of society always become the victimized, from sex slavery to forced labor. As middle-class consumers, we want to support our families and ourselves while still having our 401ks and Baskin Robbins family night. The great disappointment to us is not having the fudge sauce on our two scoops because they ran out; but where does the chocolate Baskin Robbins buys come from? Consumerism doesn’t leave much room for humanity. It turns people into self-centered buying machines. Instead of being praised for finding the best deal, maybe we should be praised for being globally aware.
Nathan George, founder of Trade as One, switched from working at a lucrative software company to starting his fair trade company and discussed the business side of slavery. Common sense shows that resellers want the best price, and distributors want to make money, so somebody needs to make up for the gap at the bottom line. I’m not willing to pick cocoa beans or cotton for a dollar a day, so who is? Trafficked boys on the Ivory Coast and factory children in Asia whose fingers are small enough to work intricate and dangerous machines fill this gap. At the other end of the sheltered world, people want more chocolate and twenty t-shirts from Costco, therefore creating a demand for this work. All traffickers need to do is provide children to employers who solely care about money, and the cycle keeps going.
Most human traffickers tend to be ex drug traffickers who have realized that unlike cocaine, people are a resalable commodity. This creates a higher earning power for the trafficker and minimal risks because in developing countries, people cannot search after every child. With a high reward and low risks, it is a perfect business set up; that is, if you just look at numbers. The chocolate didn’t taste as sweet in my mouth as I heard about how I was eating slave-produced products and wearing a shirt made by 10 year old hands.
Realizing that my demand is directly correlated with the amount of their exploitation was not satisfying. Instead of being a savvy shopper by looking for the yellow smiley faces on weekly deals, maybe the valued knowledge actually comes in knowing the product’s supply chain. The advertising for a product tasting the best or being the cheapest shouldn’t trump what is happening on the underside of their business. I don’t see a change coming in my chocolate addiction, but the 30 minutes more of work to buy the slave-free chocolate won’t strain my body as much as theirs. This conference probed me to think about the validity of these brands that I was a skeptic of. One of the careful statements that Nathan George, founder of Trade as One, made during the conference was that we as consumers may be overwhelmed at the prices of actually buying socially responsible items, but the first step is to reduce what we consume in order to balance it out. Do I really need to have a candy bar and Starbucks? Aren’t both of those luxury items anyways? By living responsibly, I’m giving others a higher chance of simply living.
This is easier stated than done. With opportunities for “deals” surrounding us daily, it’s hard to not fall into a pattern that we, as free people, are used to. One of the biggest reminders and strongest points I repeat daily is that I have done nothing to secure the position I have in life of being in a free country, just like these modern day slaves have done nothing to have their entire lives indebted to us because of the harsh demands we put on them with our high consumerist behavior. These socially conscious products contain more than just a new age aura or a better selling point; they represent a desire for the priority of humanity instead of selfish search for profit. The balance that fits in my life is one that requires awareness of what I consume, learning to live on less, and realizing that I can be socially active this the model and with my voting power. What changes can you make in your life to leave room for others?
Kate Case, a Global Studies major at La Sierra University, is a campaign strategy intern for California Against Slavery, a non-profit, non-partisan human rights organization working to get an anti-human trafficking initiative on the 2012 ballot for California. Case is the founder of the blog, The Priority of Humanity (http://www.priorityofhumanity.com), which is a compilation of books, documentaries, and other resources related to human trafficking. The blog also has information on current and pending legislation on the issue. This fall, she will be interning with Seventh-day Adventist Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department in Washington, DC where her duties will include research and advocacy.
Church, State, and the Postal Service: The Contentious History of Sunday Mail Delivery
For 81 years, the United States Postal Service accommodated Loma Linda, California’s largely Seventh-day Adventist population by delivering the mail on Sundays instead of Saturdays. This ended on April 23, 2011 when the Postal Service, citing economic considerations, brought this rare accommodation to an end.
The delivery of mail on Sundays in the United States has a fascinating history, and most people do not know that until 1912, the Postal Service routinely delivered mail on Sundays. It was only under pressure from religious and labor organizations that the USPS gradually transitioned to the now-familiar Monday through Saturday schedule.
The Postal Service is as old as the nation itself, beginning with the kite-flying, bifocal inventing, and noted Renaissance man Benjamin Franklin who organized the USPS at the direction of the Second Continental Congress on July 26, 1775. The founders then gave Congress the power to establish and maintain the postal service as one of the enumerated powers in Article One of the Constitution. The mail was the sole communication lifeline of the newly formed nation, and the Postmaster a cabinet position and the final position in the presidential line of succession until the USPS was reorganized in 1971.
Between its inception in 1775 and 1912, postal employees delivered mail seven (7) days a week. In the early 1800s, religious leaders became concerned that employees were forced to work on the “Christian Sabbath,” or Sunday, and began to petition Congress to use its Article I powers to disallow Sunday delivery. This concern reached a fevered pitch in 1810 when Congress required post offices to open at least one hour on Sunday.[1] Outraged that Congress had thus “enforced Sunday desecration,” religious leaders began to clamor for legislation that would outlaw Sunday operations.
This stemmed, in part, from the fact that prior to the passage of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which was one of the post-Civil War Amendments which applied the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the states, state and local governments were able to regulate Sunday closings of businesses and even regulate what private activities a person could participate in on Sundays. The post office, however, was Federal territory and people could go there and conduct business, or socialize and the local religious leaders had no jurisdiction to interfere.
In response to the petitions, in January 1811, Postmaster Gideon Granger issued a report to Congress describing his approach to the law requiring at least one hour of postal operations and expressing his concern that it might compel his employees to violate Sunday sacredness. Writing in the third person, he stated, “to guard against any annoyance to the good citizens of the United States, he carefully instructed and directed the agents of this office to pass quietly, without announcing their arrival or departure by the sounding of horns or trumpets, or any other act calculated to call off the attention of the citizens from their devotions . . . .” After describing additional methods whereby he intended to mitigate Sunday desecration, the Postmaster concluded on a religious note, “that compelling the Postmasters to attend to the duties of the office on the Sabbath, is, on them, a hardship, as well as in itself tending to bring into disuse and disrepute the institutions of that holy day.”[2]
“[C]ompelling the Postmasters to attend to the duties of the office on the Sabbath, is, on them, a hardship, as well as in itself tending to bring into disuse and disrepute the institutions of that holy day.” Postmaster Gideon Granger
In 1815, the United States House in Committee of the Whole held hearings on the petition of citizens from five states to prohibit Sunday transportation and opening of mail. After reviewing the petitions, the committee responded that communication was necessary, particularly since the nation was at war, and resolved that, “at this time it is inexpedient to interfere and pass any laws” prohibiting mail transportation and opening on Sundays.[3]
The debate continued and in 1830, 75-year-old John Leland, a prominent Baptist minister who had championed liberty of conscience at the founding of the nation, addressed the issue. After describing America’s religious diversity, ranging from Islam to Judaism, paganism to Christianity, he stated that he believed that in deciding to close on Sunday, Congress would be making a theological decision in deciding which day was holy. After all, he reasoned, Congress should also recognize that Saturday was holy to Jews and “Sevendarian Christians.” Leland concluded:
“The powers given to Congress are specific-guarded by a ‘hitherto shalt thou come and no further.’ Among all the enumerated powers given to Congress, is there one that authorizes them to declare which day of the week, month, or year, is more holy than the rest-too holy to travel upon? If there is none, Congress must overleap their bounds, by an unpardonable construction, to establish the prohibition prayed for. Let the petitioners ask themselves the question. If Congress should assume an ecclesiasticopolitical power, and stop the mail on the seventh day, and let it be transported on the first, would that satisfy them? If not, are they doing as they would be done by?”[4]
A group of citizens from Salem, New Jersey, including some Saturday-Sabbath keepers also wrote to Congress in 1830, concerned that the proposed Sunday closing would favor some religions over others, and called for the continued separation of church and state. “We cannot be too thankful,” they wrote, “that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to every one the rights of conscience and religion; . . . the proposed [Sunday closing] measure would operate as a violation of these rights . . . would pave the way to a union of church and state, against which our horrors are excited by the awful admonitions of history; which would be the death blow to our civil and religious liberties . . . and end in the worst of all tyranny ‘an ecclesiastical hierarchy.’”[5]
Near the turn of the century, religious leaders once again sensed the need for greater observance of Sunday sacredness, and pushed for legislation that would prohibit various types of work on Sunday. On August 24, 1912, President William Taft signed H.R. 21279 (Mann) into law, closing all post offices on Sundays an introducing a six-day work week for postal clerks and letter carriers. The bill provided “that hereafter post offices . . . shall not be opened on Sundays for the purpose of delivering mail to the public.”[6]
The bill was put into effect on September 1 of that year, and although it was hailed as a victory for workers’ rights by the American Federation of Labor, Sunday sacredness advocates viewed it as a spiritual victory. Among the many religious groups who claimed victory, the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, in its quadrennial report noted that “it is gratifying to know that through the co-operation of the associations of letter and postal clerks, under the leadership of the Lord’s Day Alliance of the United States, a bill passed the last Congress, which closed to the public all the first and second class post-offices in the United States on Sunday.”[7]
However, the Postmaster cited scheduling difficulties, particularly the requirement that those employees fulfilling necessary work on Sunday be granted compensatory time in the next six days, and said that the new law “has greatly increased the difficulties of efficient post-office service.”[8] This would seem to indicate that religion, not efficiency, was the primary reason for closing on Sundays.
Today, all United States Post Offices are closed for Sunday delivery except for two: Angwin, California and Collegedale, Tennessee where a significant percentage of people observe the Sabbath on Saturday and where private post offices, owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church which operate universities in these towns, have contracts that guarantee no Saturday deliveries.
[1] “11th Congress, 2nd Sesssion, An Act Regulating the Post-Office Establishment, Enacted April 30, 1810.” American State Papers Bearing on Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, compiled and annotated by William Addison Blakeley, Revised Edition edited by Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association, Washington, D.C. 1911, 176.
[2] Harmon Kingsbury, The Sabbath: A Brief History of Laws, Petitions, Remonstrances and Reports with Facts and Arguments Relating to the Christian Sabbath, S.W. Benedict, Printer, New York, 1840, 26.
[3] Blakeley, 393.
[4] The Writings of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times, New York, 1969, 564-66.
[5] Blakeley, 298.
[6] American State Papers and Related State Papers on Freedom in Religion, compiled and annotated by William Adison Blakeley, Published for the Religious Liberty Association by the Review and Herald, Washington, D.C., 1949, 273.
[7] Christian Unity at Work, The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America in Quadrennial Session at Chicago, Illinois, 1912, Published by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ, edited by Charles S. Macfarland, 1913, 242.
[8] Post Office Department Annual Reports for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1914: Report of the Postmaster General, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1914, 143
###
Michael Peabody is the editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV.
Charity: How Our Tax Laws Affect Charitable Activities, Religious Institutions, and Free Speech
The architects of our nation took great care to constitute a limited government founded on personal responsibility and individual liberty. Do our internal revenue laws promote or undermine these founding principles? Are they an appropriate vehicle for implementing sweeping social policy? These and other questions will be the focus of our conference.
Panel II: Charity: Whether and, if so, How Our Tax Laws Affect Charitable Activities, Religious Institutions, and Free Speech
–Mr. Lee E. Goodman, Esq., LeClairRyan
–Mr. Kevin Hasson, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
–Ms. Anne D. Neal, American Council of Trustees and Alumni
–Moderator: Mr. Matthew Vadum, Capital Research Center
The End of the Community Action Program?
By Monte Sahlin -
One of the items on the hit list of the new majority in the House of Representatives to “balance the budget” is the Community Action Program (CAP) or what is currently labeled Community Service Block Grants. This is a program begun in the 1960s in the Lyndon Johnson administration. It is a nearly unique program in that it empowers local, grass-roots organizations made up of partnerships of citizens and local elected officials. It is perplexing that the same party that wants to encourage solutions outside of government bureaucracy also wants to do away with one of the few examples of this kind of strategy actually being implemented.
I have personal knowledge of CAP because I worked in it for 18 months in 1971-72 while in graduate school. It was launched with the idea that it would help local citizen groups reduce or end poverty in their communities and it never really provided much that is in the self-interest of politicians or political parties. Over the years it has been weakened by every administration and both parties. Yet there are hundreds of local Community Action Agencies (CAA) that continue to work as best they can.
There are those that argue that CAP is a government program, despite the fact that each of the CAA are locally controlled and almost all of them are incorporated as nonprofits with 501c3 tax-exempt charity status. The law originally required that the majority of the board members be people living below the poverty line and some CAA still follow that guideline. The Federal funding is simply a catalyst, not the major source of the budgets for most CAA.
The savings to the Federal budget from cutting these funds is miniscule. It cannot make any difference in the deficit or repaying the debt. This is actually a good example of how budget cuts are often just a cover story for getting rid of things for other reasons. In fact, both parties have already agreed to not cut the items that are necessary if anything significant is going to be done about budget deficits or the national debt.
There are three kinds of opponents to the Community Action Program:
(1) Those who do not believe in doing anything about poverty. These are often people who believe that the economy will take care of itself and if no one helps the poor they will get jobs and take care of themselves. In my opinion, this view can only be sustained out of ignorance, even if it is willful ignorance. Any significant experience with entrenched poverty reveals that intervention is necessary to overcome it.
(2) Those who think private nonprofit organizations can fight poverty more cheaply than government. This category includes people who really do not care about the poor, but feel that civilization demands that something be done about poverty and want the cheapest possible solution. They choose to ignore the fact that the cheapest solution is not always the best solution.
(3) Those who think private nonprofit organizations can fight poverty more effectively than government. It is tragic that there are people who want to defund CAP on the basis of this logic. This is the very purpose for CAP. The inventors of CAP believed this precisely and designed the CAA on this basis. The Federal funding is simply a catalyst and the CAA are weak enough (especially at this moment in our economic history) that without the catalyst the whole structure could collapse in many communities where it is most needed.
In 1927 the great Mississippi flood demonstrated to Americans that the country had become too large and complex to continue a policy of non-involvement by the Federal government in issues related to disaster response, unemployment and poverty. It is unfortunate that most Americans have such a limited knowledge of history that we seem fated to relearn important lessons every 80 years or so.
—————
Monte Sahlin is chairman of the board for the Center for Creative Ministry, a research organization and resource center helping pastors, congregations and other organizations understand new generations and how to engage with them. He is also chairman of the board for the Center for Metropolitan Ministry, a “think tank” and training organization based on the campus of Washington Adventist University in Washington, DC, as well as an adjunct faculty member at the Campolo Graduate School at Eastern University in Philadelphia and in the DMin program at Andrews University. In addition, he serves on the steering committee of the Cooperative Congregational Studies Partnership, a coalition of researchers from more than 40 denominations and faiths who produce the Faith Community Today (FACT) research.
Sahlin is an ordained pastor in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, currently serving in the Ohio Conference of the denomination. He is the author of 20 books, 56 research monographs and hundreds of magazine articles. His most recent book is entitled “Mission in Metropolis.” Others currently available are “Ministries of Compassion,” “One Minute Witness,” “Understanding Your Community,” “Trends, Attitudes and Opinions” and “Adventist Congregations Today.” In 2005, he coauthored with Harold Lee, “Brad: Visionary, Spiritual Leadership,” a history and evaluation of the career of Charles Bradford, the first African American to serve as president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America.
This article was originally posted on his blog at MonteSahlin.com.