WHY CAMBODIA?

Shortly after one of my first visits to Cambodia many years ago, I wrote in the Kauai newspaper "The Garden Island" about my visits to the country and described Cambodia as being "a forgotten country".   Back then, that is what it was so  far as the western world was concerned.  The country had only recently emerged from so much fighting and the atrocities of war - the secret devastating bombings of the country by the US during the Vietnam war, the genocidal regime of the Khmer Rouge, the subsequent confrontation with Vietnam and the eventual civil war.  No small country had gone through so much in so short a time span.  Yet it was ignored by the major western countries who had left it to its own devices in spite of the fact that they had known the very real possibility that literally millions of its citizens would be killed and eliminated. The only interest any western country had shown after the defeat of the Khmer Rouge was by the USA who decided that it would get rid of the then Head of State - Prince Norodom Sihanouk - and instal what was virtually a puppet govenment under Lon Nol who would do its bidding.

By the time I went there, fighting was still going on in places and some hand grenades were being thrown around occasionally but the puppet government of Lon Nol had been ousted and Prince Norodom Sihanouk was now back from exile as King Norodom Sihanouk. This did not please some western countries, so they withdrew most of their interest. China came to the fore and practically all of the much needed aid came from there.   Not many people in the west were hearing about Cambodia or knew much about it, and when I mentioned I was going there, I inevitably got the response "Are you sure you should be going?"   This was why I referred to it as "a forgotten country".

In spite of all I said above, I fell in love with both the country and the people as soon as I got here.   Literally every family - including the Royal Family - had someone who was imprisoned and/or killed by the Khmer Rouge regime alone never mind those who were wounded and killed by the bombings and fighting.  The Queen Mother had a sister and brother killed, and King Sihanouk had three of his children killed.  Nevertheless I met a people who were always happy, always smiling, always friendly and never angry.  I would walk down the street or sit on Riverside overlooking the Mekong and Tonle Sap Rivers and people I never saw before would come up and chat and ask where I came from.  In those days complete families would bring their dinner and eat it on mats spread on the grass and I would always be invited to join them.  How could I not love a people like that?

When I retired I decided to come and live here and I have never regretted that.  I expect I shall be here until I die.  That has puzzled many people too.  "Why Cambodia?" they would ask.  Apart from one very obvious reason - it is very affordable to live here especially if one is on a retirement income - there are other reasons too.

I have been living here now for exactly five years and three weeks as of the time I am writing this and in those years I have seen many changes in the country and in this city of Phnom Penh.

The country has been established as a democratic constitutional monarchy although some observers say that the Prime Minister rules the place with a "heavy hand" and not democratically.  Whether that is true or not, is not something on which a foreigner like me living in the country should comment. However what is true is that "heavy hand" or not, the Prime Minister has made this country very stable, and as His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan famously said in an interview on CNN a couple of years ago "Democracy means different thngs to different people".  The European or American style is not always good for everyone.

There is corruption here on many levels of course, but while not condoning it in any way we have to understand it is a developing country and corruption happens in every developing country - indeed it happens in developed countries also.  The US Senate and Congress, the British Parliament, big corporations and several other European countries - not to mention the big South American countries have not exactly been free lately of corruption and greed either.  In the developed world there is totally no excuse for corruption - salaries are high and most officials get enormous "perks" as well, but still they want more.  Here - while again not condoning it - one has to understand the reason for it.  Salaries and wages are pitiful in all walks of life.  A fairly senior policeman may get $100.00 a month.  A senior bank clerk will get between $90 and $100 a month.  Until recently the judiciary received a few hundred a month and an unskilled worker is lucky if he/she gets $50.00 a month.   Many NGO (non Government Organizations) workers who come from overseas to show Cambodians how to do a job will receive several thousand dollars a month plus expenses for the same job that the Cambodians are expected to do after the NGOs leave for maybe a maximum of $100.00  It is not hard to understand why some people will try to find ways - fair or foul - to get more money.   Unfortunately, most foreigners living here are unconcerned about what they can contribute to this country.  Their main objective is to earn their big salaries, live cheap and take what they can get without giving back to the country more than they can help.  I have got into much trouble from foreigners here when I state this truth.

In spite of  all the above - the Cambodians smile and are not angry.

There is poverty here which no one can deny but there is poverty in almost every country.  One reason for this is that an entire generation received no education due to the Khmer Rouge regime and the subsequent unrest.   If you have no education, then it is almost impossible to get a job.  Many provincial small farmers survive on $20.00 a month.  These are unfortunate facts but one also has to remember it is only 30+ years since the entire economy was very successfully destroyed - together with much of the infrastructure by the Khmer Rouge and nothing can be accomplished over night.  Thirty years is a very short time in the life of a country and more especially so if it is starting virtually from scratch and is ignored by others.  However, the Government now is providing many jobs for the poor people in various ways by employing people to maintain the new public gardens, by employing others to be security personal and by providing construction and other jobs.  But it takes time.

In spite of all the above - the Cambodians smile and are not angry.

There is crime here which no one can deny, but it has dropped significantly in the last couple of years.  Every country has crime. In the last twelve days eighty-three people have been shot in Chicago alone and what about the spree of killings in the United Kingdom last month?    These things happen unfortunately these days because of the anger that is felt in most places over sometimes the smallest of things.

But in spite of the above - the Cambodians smile and are not angry....and there are even more reasons than those for liking it here.

In the past few years I have become involved in many things concerning university students and young business people and entrepreneurs and I have been so impressed and proud of their ideas, their insights and their attitudes as well as their abilities.

Education is a main concern of everyone here from His Majesty the King - who works so hard for the good of his people - downwards.  The vast majority of students at university are from poor families in the provinces.  What impresses me is the lack of selfishness in the students. They are not just studying for themselves, they are studying for their families as well.  They take on sometimes meagre jobs while they study in order to send money home to help pay for education for their siblings and to help their parents. Do we do that in the west? No!  These young people have to be saluted and admired.

The Junior Chamber International - a worldwide federation of young leaders and entrepreneurs has been started here within the last year and I have been graciously invited to go to their meetings.   The quality, calibre and qualifications of these young people reaches the standards of the highest anywhere.  This is a side of Cambodia that the tourist and casual visitor doesn't see.   What is also impressive is that these young people are not just working for themselves,  they make it quite clear that they are working also for their country to take it to the place where it can hold its head high and command a place on the world stage.   With their determination and ability, they will succeed too and the so-called developed countries should be aware that in the not too distant future, Cambodia will be an important actor on the world's stage.

These are reasons why I like it here and why I am proud to do whatever I can to help these people on their way.  Cambodia has become my adopted home and whenever I leave it, I am so happy when my plane touches down on my return.  It is a place where there are smiles and where there is a lot of friendship and where people help each other without question. I would like all people to come and see for themselves.

Are we Still Interested in the Morbid?

On June 11, 2001, Timothy McVeigh, better known to some as The Oklahoma Bomber, was put to death by lethal injection and many in the western world rejoiced.

In the days immediately prior to his execution the media was full of the details of this upcoming event.  Indeed in the first week of April that year, the U.S. Government announced that the Federal Government would provide - and pay for - closed circuit television of the execution. 

I have never been and never will be in favour of the death penalty in any shape or form but the announcement that an execution would be televised to the world totally shocked me at the time.  Following that announcement, the Chairman of Entertainment Network Inc., in Florida announced that within an hour of the execution he would have the film all over the internet.   Not a word of protest or comment of any kind came from anywhere - let alone the many church leaders - until on  April 19th the then Presiding Bishop of the Episcopl Church, Bishop Frank Griswold, issued a strong statement protesting the Attorney General's announcement.  If my memory serves me well it was not until two weeks before the execution that the Attorney General withdrew the order to have the execution televised.

On Saturday May 5th 2001, the Honolulu Star Bulletin published an article I wrote (for which I got some flack from some church authorities, I might add) querying the lack of voices of protest - especially from political and church leaders  and asking had we become so accustomed to violence and hate, that watching an execution on television was now just a matter of entertainment and daily life.   It reminded me then of the description of the crucifixion of Jesus as described in St. Luke Ch. 23 v.35  where it says: "The people stood by and the rulers jeered........", and I wondered then if we had become a society just like that.

That was then - 2001.  Now is now - 2010, and I am happy to believe much progress has taken place on this subject and the death penalty is being done away with in many states in the US and in other countries around the world.

However, as I write this a man by the name of Ronnie Lee Gardner is sitting in the condemned cell in Utah awaiting execution by firing squad in a few hours from now.  All appeals and stays of execution have expired.  Mr Gardner  was convicted of fatally shooting a lawyer in a courthouse in 1985. The fact that he is to die by firing squad has aroused the attention of the media in many countries as it will be the first such execution in the United States for quite some time.

Why am I writing this?  Because I was hoping that our love of morbid curiosity when it comes to such things was fading since Mr. McVeigh was executed.  Yet just today CNN has gone to great lengths to show again and again graphic descriptions of the execution chamber, and even a demonstration of how it will be carried out.  It showed the very rifles to be used and the bullets as well, where the shooters will be standing, together with the target paper which will be pinned to Mr. Gardner's chest over his heart, so those shooting will hit the target.  For good measure we were also given a fairly graphic description of what will happen to the heart when it is hit.

Is all this necessary? Do people really want to know all these details?  If it is something that people want, then there definitely is something wrong with society.  I wonder if anyone else apart from me has written to CNN protesting these graphic descriptions.  I was happy to see that the Peace with Justice Commission of the Diocese of Utah has raised its voice on the matter of the execution and the ballyhoo that surrounds it. 

Have any other church or political leaders spoken out?  Or in this election year in the US, are people afraid to speak out on what they fear might be an unpopular subject?

Which Way is the Church going?

As you will see from my profile I am an Anglican Priest and have been for many years.  I have worked in the Church in Ireland, Jamaica, England and the United States.  While in the United States I served as a Clergy Deputy from Hawaii to General Convention, as well as being a member of the Diocesan Council,  President of the Standing Committee and Co-Chair of the Diocesan Bishop Search Committee.  Just for good measure I was appointed by the  Presiding Bishop and President of the House of Deputies to the Commission  on International Peace With Justice Concerns and while on that Commission represented the Episcopal Church on official visits to China, Hong Kong, Cambodia and Haiti.

All of that may read like part of a resumé but I put it down for two reasons.  Firstly because this is my first blog and it will allow those readers - assuming there are any - who may not know me to get some idea of my background.  Secondly to show that the church at all levels has been very much part of my life for many decades and although I am not currently in what is termed "active ministry" and live in Cambodia, the church continues to be very much to the fore in my life.

The Bishop who ordained me Deacon and subsequently priest the following year was the then Bishop of Connor, The Right Reverend Dr. Cyril Elliott - a man for whom I had the greatest admiration.  On the evening before our ordination to the Diaconate, Bishop Elliott told all fifteen of us that we must always remember that the Church "is and always has to be first and foremost about people.  About loving them, caring for them and respecting the dignity of every human being".  Indeed that is part and parcel of our Baptismal Covenant and I have carried those words of Bishop Elliott with me ever since.

The Church - and I am speaking specifically about the Anglican Church, or the Episcopal Church as it is called in the United States - has always been an anchor in people's lives.  Many people were not regular attenders at services every week, but if there was a problem or a marriage, baptism or death, then it was to the Church that the people turned. It was always there and ready to help, advise and console. That was its goal first and foremost - quoting the words and works of Jesus as examples it tried to follow.  This sums up also the ministry of Bishop Elliott who was for ever pastorally concerned for the people of his Diocese as well as for his priests, and this was the type of ministry I tried to conduct myself over the years as did so many others.

Now that I have said all of the above,  I must also say that I am saddened by the fact that the entire Anglican Communion - not just the Episcopal Church - has changed dramatically over the years. It no longer seems to be a Church of love, understanding and compassion. Admittedly much of the dissension and anger in the Communion has arisen due to the decision by the Episcopal Church to ordain and consecrate gay and lesbian people to the priesthood and the episcopate.  But there is more to it.  Double standards and hypocrisy are well to the fore on all levels.  So much is said in public, but in private the opposite is said and done.  Pastoral care is almost a thing of the past and is quickly being replaced by putting churches into certain categories. Numbers are the important thing not people, and if a church happens to be low in numbers - then it has to close.   The quote from the Bible of "When two or three are gathered together in my Name......"  has been conveniently forgotten.  Closing churches rather than planting churches has become the order of the day in so many dioceses.  What a pity, because that immediately gives the non-church goers the impression that the church is only concerned about those places where there are large congregations and lots of money. .... and unfortunately that is sadly true in so many places. It seems the Church authorities also forget the Biblical saying "Healthy people do not need a doctor - sick people do" (New Living Translation). 

So why are the little churches so often regarded as not being worth consideration?  Unfortunately in this day and age of high tech, politics and personal ambitions they are not considered to be of any use because they don't produce large incomes or are unable to work on or get involved in big projects - even though those churches meet the needs spiritual and otherwise of those who attend and are able to pay their own way when it comes to running expenses and assessments. Still, they are considered to be more of a nuisance to the authorities as they have to be serviced.   People concern, tradition, geographical location and the understanding that not everyone is mobile and able to travel longer distances to go to another church are all things of the past unfortunately in today's Church.   Today priests baulk at having to officiate at more than one service on a Sunday.  In my day as a priest - and that may make me sound pre-historic - we were taught that Celebrating and Officiating was our job and we did it.  Very often not just two services a Sunday but multiple churches every week.  That was part of the job we were called to do.  It seems that particular thought has long since gone.  What a pity.

In addition to what I have said above, there is also a lot of anger in the Church and undeniably much of this is due to the Episcopal Church's decisions on the gay issue.  But there is also a tremendous amount of hypocrisy on the subject.  Several Bishops in the Episcopal Church who voted for full inclusion and the blessing of same-sex unions at the General Convention last July, did so because it was "the popular" thing to do, but yet they still refuse to allow such blessings in their Diocese.  To me that has the tone of hypocrisy in it.  They should have voted "no" and stayed true to their convictions.

The consecration of the Reverend Mary Glasspool as Bishop Suffragan of Los Angeles has escalated the dissension within the Communion.   I have no problems with her being a lesbian - that is her business - or a priest or even a bishop, but I do have a HUGE problem with the way the Episcopal Church and indeed the Anglican Communion Office as a whole handled the matter. Knowing that the very fact of her election would cause problems in the wider Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church threw an untold amount of fuel into the fire by making it the biggest consecration for decades with multiple processions, bands,  choirs and American Indians doing a dance thing to remove evil spirits from the place. In addition it was reported that there were more bishops present than at any other consecration except the installation of the Presiding Bishop. Not only does all that ballyhoo play into the hands of the homophobics, but Mary Glasspool herself in her address harped on the fact that she is the first lesbian bishop, as did also the Bishop of Los Angeles in his sermon and as did the Presiding Bishop when she spoke. Was it really necessary to keep on mentioning it? 

All that so angered me, because in the first place it made it sound as if they were consecrating Mary Glasspool just to thumb their noses at the world, and secondly all the ballyhoo of bands, processions, drums, dances and numerous bishops made it look as if the other consecrations for both male and female candidates that take place throughout the year in a normal and quiet fashion are much less important. Even if they had to announce she is lesbian in a committed relationship, they should just have had a normal consecration like any other diocese and leave it at that.  It would not have fuelled so much nonsense. To me the fact that she is a woman capable and competent to be a Bishop is the important thing.  Not the fact that she is lesbian.  So lets just concentrate on her ability and talents and stop shouting about her sexuality.

But the fight goes on.   The Archbishop of Canterbury throws more fuel on the fire in his Pentecostal pastoral letter, suggesting the withdrawal of those members of the Episcopal Church who sit on various commissions in the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop's suggestion has been followed by letters sent by the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, General Secretary of the Anglican Communion to those Commission members telling them that they have had their membership of the respective Commissions terminated.

There is a lot of double standards, positioning and hypocrisy here again.  The terminations came about because the Archbishop said the Episcopal Church did not obey the "request" for a moratorium on the subject of decisions concerning sexuality.   But it was just a "request" and not an order, simply because the Anglican Communion Office as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot legislate for the Episcopal Church.  The Secretary General also wrote to the Archbishop of the Southern Cone (South America) more or less threatening the same treament because they violated the segment of the Anglican Covenant "requesting" that there should be a stop to Episcopal visitations for dissenting churches from outside provinces.  However a double standard occurs here also because no letter was sent to the Ugandan and Rwandan Archbishops who continually interfere in the affairs of the Episcopal Church.  Are the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary General afraid of hurting the feelings of the African Bishops?

Both the Archbishop and the General Secretary have said they hope for a resolution but if you kick someone out, how can you talk with them and get a resolution? Now the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has fired back her own salvo so we have to wait for the next round! 

How long must this go on?  When will the church become the church that cares once more and is not a battle ground of angry people many of them just anxious to promote their own agenda?  We are fast getting into a situation where it will be the Church of Hate and Anger rather than the Church of Love and Peace.  It is time for us - for everyone - to stop and think.

An old friend of mine who is a Buddhist monk, many years ago told me that three things were necessary for living a harmonious life.  First - love yourself and be at peace with yourself, because if not then no one will be able to be at peace with you.  Second - understand the next person because if you understand the other person's position and where he/she is coming from, then you can have a relationship that is good even though you may disagree on many things.  Third - listen to the Divine Being.  Whether you call him/her/it the Holy Spirit, God, Divine Being is immaterial. A name is just a name, but you have to take time out to understand where one must go and what one must do and what one must say, and not just follow your own ambition.  At this time, unfortunately I don't think the Church is doing any of those three things.