(or The Three Stooges meet Friends, Feelings and Food)

A pleasant drive on April 19th brought Peter, Steve and myself to Powell House in Chatham, New York, itself a lovely venue. The retreat for Programmed Meeting was co-sponsored by NEYM and its New York counterparts. Facilitator Jan shepherded 35 pastors, elders, and someday elders from 10 meetings though three days of chat, chumminess and chow.

What are our gifts? How do we bring them to our Meeting? Do we expect otherwise from our Pastor? There’s many other questions and answers, too. Plus enough for next year.

The experience was moving and fruitful; with the strength of Friends gathered.

Steve and I agree, it was something we’d do again; but we would rather that someone else should experience such an inspired corporate adventure.

Stan

A more effective, less costly path to national and global security is available.

Some years ago, the New York City fire department made a fundamental paradigm shift away from fire emergency response toward fire prevention. The department changed the way it approached its job and turned more energy and resources into public education, early detection systems, better building codes, and addressing some of the most persistent causes of fire. They saved lives and, over a few short years, found they were fighting fewer and less devastating fires.

Fire fighters, as well as health professionals, have learned that prevention pays. A similar shift in approach to conflict could save lives and reduce the occasion of war. The U.S. can help lead this shift, if it is prepared to make significance changes in its policies and practices for dealing with conflict and violence.

The threats of weapons of mass destruction, terrorist networks, oppressive regimes, ethnic conflict, failed states, and devastating poverty and disease can be diminished through policies and programs designed to peacefully prevent the outbreak of violence and address the root causes of conflict. As U. S. Senator Joseph Biden (DE) proposed in late July 2003, "Instead of a preemption doctrine, what we need is a prevention doctrine which defuses problems long before they explode in our face." Such a U.S. policy framework would build on the efforts already underway within some U.S. government agencies, at the UN, among European allies, in regional organizations, and among civil society groups to develop stronger capacities for early warning, early response, and addressing root causes. It would replace the policy of "preemptive" war with one of war prevention.

Peaceful Prevention of Deadly Conflict FCNL p. 6