 |
|
|
.gif) |
 9/1/2004
Vol. 1, No. 15
 |
|
Professional
Practice |
| |
Dr. Wilson
Mertens on the importance
of spiritual counseling in
the care of cancer patients
A
Physician's Support for
Incorporating Spirituality
Into the Healing Process
Many cancer
programs have incorporated “alternative”or “complementary”cancer
therapies in their offerings,
in an effort to engage patients
and caregivers known from
survey data to employ unconventional
healthcare approaches [1].
However, few programs have
robust spiritual or religious
approaches to their supportive
care components; this omission
is the more regrettable given
that religion constitutes
an important aspect of their
lives, and that many patients
become more religious after
a diagnosis of cancer [2,
3].
Perhaps the
most likely explanation for
this is the uneasiness felt
by clinicians and healthcare
program administrators, of
offering care that might
cause distress to patients
who hold religious convictions
of differing types and intensity.
Yet, experience has demonstrated
the remarkable patient receptiveness
to chaplaincy in the inpatient
hospital setting; indeed,
a recent Gallop poll revealed
that 95% of respondents believed
in a higher power, and 82%
felt the need to experience
spiritual growth [4].
Cancer programs
find themselves in a quandary
with regard to delivery of
psychosocial services: while
early detection has led to
dramatic increases in patient
volumes, revenue challenges
and a shortage of behavioral
heath professionals make
the goal of providing services
to all in need, difficult.
Incorporating chaplaincy
might help to address both
the challenges to spirituality
individuals face as well
as the desire to provide
broader counseling by establishing
non-clinical relationships
with as many patients and
families as possible.
I joined our
cancer program as medical
director in 2000, and was
presented with the unique
opportunity to work with
a chaplain specifically assigned
to our service. While accustomed
to the intermittent ministry
of hospital inpatient wards,
the availability of a chaplain,
attached not to the patient’s
local church or synagogue
but to an ambulatory healthcare
setting, providing counsel
and support to patients in
the context of a relationship
developing over time, was
utterly new. Adding to the
novelty was the discovery,
or perhaps my developing
awareness, of the widespread
receptiveness of patients
and their families to spiritual
support provided by a cancer
program. Finally, the opportunity
for reconciliation for patients
estranged from their faith
has had a profound calming
effect for many facing the
struggle of their lives.
Chaplaincy
and spiritual support in
our program provides both
comfort and discovery. It
is an approach we have used
for the implementation of
other so-called alternative
or complementary therapies:
to provide support and relief
without questioning or affirming
an unproven intervention’s
ability to change patient
outcomes, while asserting
a commitment to determine
the true impact on patients
through scientific study.
Varieties of individual,
group, and community chaplaincy
programs are offered, planned,
or led by our chaplain; many
are evaluated for patient
satisfaction and need [5,
6]. Others are involved in
clinical trials, approved
by our institutional review
board, designed to determine
if an aspect of spiritual
support improves the patient
state.
But the most
striking impact of cancer
program-based chaplaincy
is the growing openness with
which patients proclaim their
faith in the clinical setting.
Increasingly, patients feel
a unity of effort between
cancer treatment, chaplaincy,
and belief. While I must
confess that, being trained
as a physician and not in
the ministry, I felt initially
uncomfortable by these demonstrations
and conversations, I never
cease to be impressed by
the concurrent expressions
of hope, relief, and acceptance
that bolstered spiritual
belief can achieve. Now these
conversations are commonplace
in our program and in my
practice, and represent an
important part of the journey
to recovery and peace for
many of our patients and
their families.
The health
benefits of spirituality
are, fortunately, a growing
area of investigative and
clinical interest. When a
cancer program provides such
support for patients a twofold
message is conveyed; the
religious community supports
the patient’s pursuit
of physical well-being and
physicians support their
effort to incorporate spirituality
into the healing process.
Additional goals, including
clinical investigation and
outcomes assessment must
be pursued to fully document
and appreciate the impact
of this aspect of caring.
References
[1] VandeCreek
L, Rogers E, Lester J. “Use
of alternative therapies
among breast cancer outpatients
compared with the general
population.” Alternative
Therapies in Health and Medicine 1999;5:
71-76.
[2] Fehring RJ, Miller JF, Shaw C. “Spiritual well-being, religiosity,
hope, depression, and other mood states in elderly people coping with cancer.” Oncology
Nursing Forum 1997;24:663-671.
[3] Eidinger RN, Schapira D. “Cancer patients’ insight into their treatment,
prognosis, and unconventional therapies.” Cancer 1984;53: 2736-2740.
[4] Gallup G Jr, Lindsay DM. Surveying the Religious Landscape.
Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press; 1999.
[5] Dann N.J., Mertens W.C. “Taking a ‘leap of faith': acceptance and value
of a cancer program-sponsored spiritual event.” Cancer Nursing 2004;
27:134-141.
[6] Dann N.J., Higby D.J., Mertens W.C. “A structured spiritual service
for cancer patients and families: analysis of attendee responses.” Annual
Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncology, New Orleans, LA, June
5-8, 2004 (poster). Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical
Oncology 2004; 23: 758 (abstr).
Wilson
Mertens is the medical director
of the Baystate Regional
Cancer Program, and of Cancer
Services, Baystate Health
System, Springfield, Massachusetts,
and associate professor of
medicine, Tufts University
School of Medicine, Boston.
He completed his undergraduate
and medical training at The
University of Western Ontario,
London, Canada. A medical
oncologist, Dr. Mertens has
specialty board certifications
from the Royal College of
Physicians and Surgeons of
Canada and the American Board
of Internal Medicine. He
also holds a masters of science
in business administration
from Madonna University,
Livonia, Michigan. His previous
positions include director
of Biometry and Outcome Measurement,
London Regional Cancer Center,
and director of quality assurance
and associate professor of
medicine at the Barbara Ann
Karmanos Cancer Institute
at Wayne State University,
Detroit.
|
 |
|
Advocacy |
| |
|
Rev. Russell Myers, Sheilia Withrow,
B.S.N. and Craig E. Litz, MD on chaplains
and Institutional Review Boards
Patients
Place Their Trust in IRB Members
to Safeguard Their Rights —
Who
Can Better Represent Their Interests?
Many chaplains are
familiar with the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) regulations regarding research
on human subjects. Such research
must be reviewed and monitored by
an Institutional Review Board, or
IRB. For those who are unfamiliar
with the IRB process, here are a
couple of definitions:
Under FDA regulations,
an IRB is an appropriately constituted
group that has been formally designated
to review and monitor biomedical
research involving human subjects.
In accordance with FDA regulations,
an IRB has the authority to approve,
require modifications in (to secure
approval), or disapprove research.
This group review serves an important
role in the protection of the rights
and welfare of human research subjects.
The purpose of IRB review is to
assure, both in advance and by
periodic review, that appropriate
steps are taken to protect the
rights and welfare of humans participating
as subjects in the research. To
accomplish this purpose, IRBs use
a group process to review research
protocols and related materials
(e.g., informed consent documents
and investigator brochures) to
ensure protection of the rights
and welfare of human subjects of
research.
(http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/faqs.html#IRBOrg
#1)
FDA regulations require at least
one member of the IRB to have primary
concerns in the scientific area
and at least one to have primary
concerns in the non-scientific
area. Most IRBs include physicians
and Ph.D-level physical or biological
scientists. Such members satisfy
the requirement for at least one
scientist... FDA believes the intent
of the requirement for diversity
of disciplines was to include members
who had little or no scientific
or medical training or experience.
In the past, lawyers, clergy and
ethicists have been cited as examples
of persons whose primary concerns
would be in non-scientific areas.
(http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/faqs.html#IRBOrg
#17)
We serve together on the Institutional
Review Board of US Oncology, whose
mission statement is: To safeguard
the rights and welfare of research
participants while enhancing the
clinical research process. In that
endeavor, we find the interdisciplinary
makeup of the IRB to be a critical
component of the review process.
Each board member brings a unique
and necessary voice to the table.
It is our observation that hospital-based
chaplains provide a valuable contribution
to the healthcare enterprise by serving
on IRBs. The chaplain brings:
1. Familiarity with the healthcare
setting: The chaplain knows the
culture of the hospital and is
comfortable relating to physicians
as peers in the interdisciplinary
care team.
2. Professional expertise: Chaplains review the Consent Form from a non-medical
perspective. They look for language that may confuse or frighten the patient,
who may be anxious due to the diagnosis, and/or ready to take unnecessary
risks to improve their health condition.
3. Conscious awareness of one’s limits: e.g. "I'm an educated
person and if I don't understand the medical terms used in the consent form,
maybe the patient won’t either."
Every hospital or healthcare organization
that participates in clinical trials
of experimental medical devices or
experimental study drugs has an Institutional
Review Board. If you haven’t
been involved already, we encourage
you to consider serving a term on
an IRB. You will be asked to read
a fair amount of material prior to
the meetings, and to serve as primary
reviewer for some of the studies.
You will wade through pages of reports,
looking at the Consent Forms for
unfamiliar terms or phrases. You
may wonder at times if you are making
an impact. We can assure you of the
following:
1. The process depends on the
active participation of non-scientific
board members;
2. The patients on the receiving end of the experimental drugs and medical
devices are placing their trust in the IRB members to safeguard their rights
and welfare; and
3. The medical professionals in your midst will look to you for your expertise
as you work together toward that goal.
Rev. Russell Myers, D.Min., BCC
has been a staff chaplain at United
Hospital, St. Paul, MN since 1993.
He is ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America and is a co-author
of "Providing Spiritual Care to
Cardiac Patients: Assessment and Implications
for Practice" published in Critical
Care Nurse, Vol. 20, No. 4, August
2000. Russ serves as the Association
of Professional Chaplains State Advocacy
chair for Minnesota and has been a
member of the USOncology IRB since
1997.
Sheilia J. Withrow, B.S.N. is
project coordinator for the US Oncology,
Inc. IRB in Dallas, TX. She has worked
in research since May of 2000 as
a research report coordinator, senior
regulatory safety coordinator, and
senior coordinator for the IRB.
Craig E. Litz, MD, is currently
the co-chair of the US Oncology Internal
Review Board (IRB) on which he has
sat for seven years. He works as
a pathologist at St. Paul University
Hospital in Dallas, TX. Prior to
this he was an associate professor
in hematopathology at the University
of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis.
 |
|
Education & Research |
| |
|
Chaplain Michael Pollitt
on spiritual withdrawal
in chemical dependency
Intoxication
is a Form of Spirituality
Withdrawal is defined
as a “positive craving.”
In this instance the
word positive is understood
not as good but rather
as seeking after. It
is my belief, based on
my experience in the
chemical dependency field,
that one of the major
causes of relapse is
something I call a “spiritual
withdrawal.” What follows
is a brief examination
of the work of five of
the leading figures in
the area of addiction
and spirituality. The
underlying premise of
all is that intoxicants
answer spiritual needs.
For the addict and alcoholic,
intoxication is a form
of spirituality, misguided
and destructive, but
spirituality just the
same.
William James, MD (The
Varieties of the Religious
Experience, 1902),
found striking similarities
between intoxication
and the mystical state.
He called this “pathological
mysticism” and “the
anesthetic revelation.”
James believed that
there were two basic
functions in man and
woman. He called these
the “yes” function
and “no” function.
There is a proper balance
between the two. When
the “no” function dominates,
the individual is looking
for something to bring
back a spiritual parity.
What he or she discovers
is that intoxicants
become “the great exciter
of the yes function
in man.” An historical
note: It was James’
book that Ebby Thacher
gave to Bill Wilson
(the founder of Alcoholics
Anonymous) in November
1934 at Towns Hospital,
New York City.
Howard Clinebell, Ph.D.
(Understanding and
Counseling Persons with
Alcohol and Drug and
Behavioral Addictions,
1984), maintains that
“we will never understand
intoxication as a problem
until we see it as a
solution.” He also observes
that the existential
and spirituality anxiety
of the addict and alcoholic
is “quieted” by the “pseudo-religious
sense of oneness with
themselves, others, and
the divine spirit.” The
addict and alcoholic
attempt to satisfy spiritual
needs with chemical means.
Gerald May, MD (Addiction
and Grace, 1988),
a layman, reminded
clergy of the major
spiritual element in
addiction and calls
upon them to utilize
this fact in their
ministry to the addicted.
According to May, addicts
and alcoholics attach
themselves to things
that appear to fill
their spiritual void.
Because intoxicants
produce a good feeling
they become substitutes
for the spiritual.
Stephen Anthrop (Alcohol
and Substance Abuse:
A Handbook for Clergy
and Congregations,
1990), believes that
we seek out things
with apparent spiritual
potential. When the
spiritual potential
is not activated, the
person sees little
reason to exist. Intoxicants
become resources with
apparent spiritual
value until eventually
they become value itself.
Thomas Baker, D.Min.
(Understanding the
Spiritual Nature of Addiction,
1995), argues that both
spirituality and intoxication
involve a search for
meaning, value, and purpose
in life. All persons
desire these, but addicts
and alcoholics are uniquely
afflicted with a spiritual
hunger, and traditional
forms of spirituality
do not satisfy them.
He also observes that
addicts and alcoholics
suffer greatly from estrangement
and intoxicants seem
to provide a sense of
connectedness.
We treat physical and
psychological withdrawal
but to a great extent
we have neglected the
spiritual withdrawal.
The Spiritual Assessment
at the Coatesville VA
Hospital seeks to find
out which spiritual and
existential needs are
being met by the patient’s
drug of choice, and without
that drug, i.e. sobriety,
which spiritual and existential
needs are not being met.
This approach speaks
to the importance of
the spiritual and existential
side of addiction, and
the belief that intoxicants
are used, in counterfeit
fashion, to answer those
needs. The major problem
which addicts and alcoholics
face in recovery is not
addiction but rather
relapse. It is my contention
that relapse, the return
to one’s drug of choice
after a period of sobriety,
is primarily a spiritual
and existential problem.
In sobriety the spiritual
and existential vacuum
that the intoxicant filled
is present again. Nature
hates a vacuum and will
eventually fill it. The
addict and alcoholic
cannot be spiritually
and existentially passive
in their recovery.
Chaplain
Michael Pollitt, D.Min.,
BCC, CAC, is chief chaplain
at the Coatesville (PA)
Veterans Affairs Medical
Center. He is author of
“The Spiritual and Existential
Nature of Relapse in Chemically
Dependent Patients” published
in Chaplaincy Today,
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring/Summer
2003. He is a certified
addictions counselor and
an Episcopal priest. Correspondence
may be directed to Michael.Pollitt2@med.va.gov. |
 |
|
Spiritual
Development |
| |
|
The Rev.
Cari Jackson on the power
of choice
Choices
Motivated by Love
Everyday we have the
opportunity to make choices
— some large, some small.
Sometimes the options
are so slim or grim,
we may feel like we have
no choices at all. Often
we focus on the quality
of the things we have
to choose from. But the
real issue is what is
directing our choice-making.
That is, what is the
greater influence directing
our life choices — love
or fear?
When I was in college,
I read The Purity
of the Heart is to Will
One Thing by Søren
Kierkegaard in which
he raised this question:
Why do you serve God,
because of a fear of
hell or a love of God?
This question transformed
my world. Because my
religious teaching was
deeply influenced by
a fear of G-d, fear was
the basis of my relationship
with G-d. Then I realized
how much fear was the
operating paradigm that
dictated all of my life.
And because I was afraid
to “mess up,” I often
did not take the risks
and the leaps of faith
needed to help me experience
myself as a whole and
courageous person.
Some argue that if people
did not have the fear
that G-d would zap them
for wrongdoing that they
would abuse G-d’s love.
Because this theology
of fear was instilled
in me, at first I could
not get it that G-d’s
love for me is so great
that no matter what “wrong”
turns or “bad” choices
I made, G-d would always
search, find, and bring
me to where I needed
to be–like the parable
of the lost sheep. Over
time, because of the
challenge presented to
me in The Purity
of the Heart, I
began seeking to make
choices in relationship
to G-d and all of life
with a focus on love.
To my surprise, as I
focused more on love,
I had less desire to
engage in any activities
that did not honor G-d,
myself or others. And
the more I focused on
love in all of my relationships,
career choices, etc.,
the more joy, power and
freedom I discovered
in all of my life.
Perhaps you have been
making choices directed
by fear for so long that
you don’t even know when
fear is leading you or
how to follow love. So
here are some things
that work for me.
- Trust that whatever
choices you make or
path you take, G-d
will be with you and
will use the journeying
of your life for your
growth and G-d’s
glory. Remember, it’s
not about the destination,
but the journey.
- Check how your body
responds to your thoughts
about your current
choices, especially
your head, neck, shoulders,
back, chest, stomach,
and hands. What is
your body telling you?
If you feel fear, ask
your body what you
are afraid of.
- Go deeply within
your spirit, through
meditation and prayer,
in order to access
information within
you beyond the level
of judgment and fear
about what the “good
and right and whole”path
is for you now.
- Invite someone with
whom you feel safe to
sit with you and listen
to you while you speak
about the choices before
you. Your partner is
not to interrupt you,
just listen. Invite your
partner to ask you clarifying
questions. Then, ask
your partner to share
what s/he heard and felt
is primarily directing
you—love or fear.
Choices motivated by
love —even though
you may make mistakes
in the process —enable
you to see more clearly
and to live more fully,
freely, and authentically.
Choices about jobs/career,
relationships, self-care,
finances, and so on become
more life-affirming and
consistent with your
life goals and values
when you are directed
by love.
The Rev. Cari Jackson
is the founder and executive
director of The Center
of Spiritual Light, a psycho-spiritual
healing and wellness center
in New York City. She formerly
served as associate pastor
for congregational life
at The Church of St. Paul
and St. Andrew, United
Methodist, interim pastor
and lecturer at Union Theological
Seminary, and as assistant
worship coordinator at
The Riverside Church all
in New York City. Cari
is the author of The
Gift to Listen, The Courage
to Hear (Augsburg Books,
2003). She is a Ph.D. student
in Christian Social Ethics
at Drew University, focusing
on psycho-spiritual self-care
as an ethical responsibility
of clergy.
|
 |
|
EthicsWalk |
EthicsWalk addresses
spiritual care
as an ethical enterprise.
It explores why
relationships between
spiritual care
providers and those
they serve need
protection, and
examines what that
protection entails. PlainViews invites
our readers to
share their responses
to each EthicsWalk column,
which will be published
in the following
issue.
If you’d like
to respond to EthicsWalk,
please send a comment
of no more than
100 words. You
can use the e-form
below (click on "hearing
from you," link)
or submit your
commentary to the
editors in the
body of an e-mail
(or as a “Word”
attachment) sent
to Info@PlainViews.org.
Please put the
phrase “EthicsWalk”
in your subject
line.
We look forward to hearing
from you.
An
Ethical Dilemma
Affecting Clergy
and Other Ministers:
The
First Amendment and
Title VII
The
last EthicsWalk discussed “ethical
dilemmas,”those
instances where one
must choose between
good but competing
moral values. This EthicsWalk examines
an ethical dilemma
directly affecting
ministers.[1] The
potentially conflicting
values are religious
freedom and justice
in employment relationships.
Religious
freedom, meaning
government non-interference
in the religious
life of citizens,
is guaranteed by
the Free Exercise
and Establishment
clauses of the First
Amendment.[ 2] The
decisions of religious
leaders on “matters
of discipline, faith,
internal organization,
or ecclesiastical
rule, custom, or
law,”[3] are
not open to secular
court scrutiny or
civil legislation.
This includes decisions
affecting the paid
or volunteer work
of ministers.
Justice
in employment relationships
is promoted by Title
VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1967
as amended. It applies
to public and private
work places with
fifteen or more regular,
full time employees.
First
Amendment constraints
exempt religious
bodies from Title
VII. How they hire,
fire or otherwise
relate to employees
with “ministerial”duties
is beyond the reach
of civil law.[4]
The WalMart clerk
is better protected
against work place
sexual or racial
harassment than is
the chaplain at a
Baptist Hospital,[5]
the seminary theology
professor [6] or
the associate rabbi.[7]
Clergy and lay ministers have no recourse to legal action if their “civil”rights
are violated in their work with religious institutions. Only the religious
body can enforce rules and remedies. There is an ethical duty to enforce policies
prohibiting discriminatory behavior by or towards all employees: those with
ministerial duties and those without. (The latter remain covered by Title VII
in most instances). Secular policies provide a foundation; the religious body
can articulate higher standards in its codes and procedures.
Some
idealists mistakenly
believe that religious
bodies are free from
behaviors addressed
by Title VII. In
a 1993 survey of
women rabbis, 70%
reported being sexually
harassed during their
career. Twenty-five
percent experienced
harassment monthly.[8]
Figures are similar
for Protestant clergy
women with most problems
occurring during
seminary, field placements,
and pulpit searches.
Public
and judicial trust
in religious institutions “doing
what’s right”is
eroding. Courts reflect
societal changes,
and their resistance
to claims involving
ministers or religious
institutions is softening.
The child sex abuse
scandals exposed
religious leaders
more intent on protecting
their own than the
vulnerable.
This
July the Ninth Circuit
overturned a lower
court’s routine
dismissal of Title
VII sexual harassment
claims by an associate
minister against
her church and senior
pastor. While upholding
traditional First
Amendment protections,
the Court distinguished
aspects of the claim
that could proceed
without implicating
constitutional prohibitions.
The court notes, “These
issues concern the
Defendants’actions,
not their beliefs.”[9] “The
First Amendment should
not require that
churches become sanctuaries
for sexual harassment
by those who act
outside of church
doctrine.”[10]
Courts
appear ready to find
mechanisms to require
compliance with minimal
standards for treating
employees and congregants
with respect. Perhaps
religious bodies
should welcome, rather
than resist, secular
review when moral
failure is alleged.
I
encourage you to
respond to this column.
The
next EthicsWalk notes
that harassment policies
also protect the
people served by
ministers and discusses
why such protection
is an ethical imperative.
[1] Courts apply
the term “minister”to
all ordained clergy
as well as lay
persons who have
some pastoral duties.
For example, EEOC
v. Catholic University,
83 F.3d 455 says
lay employees fall
under clergy exemption
if their “primary
duties consist
of teaching, spreading
the faith, church
governance, supervision
of a religious
order, or supervision
or participation
in religious ritual
and worship.”
[2] “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
[3] Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696,713 (1976)
[4] Id.
[5] Sharon v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Presbyterian Hosp., 929 F.2d 360
(8th Cir.1991)
[6] Maguire v. Marguette University,627 F. Supp. At 1506.
[7] Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 9th Cir., No. 02-35805, 7/23/04.
[8] Cowan, Jennifer R. Moment: The Magazine of Jewish Culture and Opinion,
18 (5,Oct.):34-37.
[9] Elvig at 9729.
[10] Id. 9731.
Anne
Underwood has an
undergraduate degree
in religious studies,
a master’s degree
in rural sociology
and a mid-life
law degree obtained
after working over
a decade as a college
administrator.
She has mediated
for the Maine family
courts since 1983.
Currently she serves
as an advisor to
the ethics commissions
of ACPE, APC, the
CCAR (Central Conference
of American Rabbis),
and NAJC, and consults
with a variety
of Protestant faith
communities on
issues of power,
fair process, and
congregational
conflict management.
Her articles on
mediation and restorative
justice have appeared
in the ACPE News,
The APC News and
on the ACPE web
cite. Articles
on clergy accountability
and judicatory
processes are published
by the Alban Institute
and The Journal
on Religion and
Abuse. A chapter,
“Clergy Sexual
Misconduct: A Justice
Issue,” appears
in Body and
Soul: Rethinking
Sexuality as Justice-Love,
Marvin Ellison
and Sylvia Thorson-Smith,
editors, The Pilgrim
Press, 2003.
|
 |
|
Reviews |
Macky Alston reviews
the film Baraka:
A World Beyond Words
Baraka:
A World Beyond
Words
Baraka: A World
Beyond Words, is
a religious experience.
Many have labeled it
prayer on film. It
has been used creatively
in a range of settings,
from hospitals to universities,
and we recommend it
to chaplains looking
for engaging resources
for their constituents.
There is no dialogue
in this 96-minute film.
It is the images shot
throughout the world
of humankind, often involved
in religious rituals,
and of nature at its
most dramatic, all set
against a haunting musical
score that make Baraka so
spiritual. The film is
shot in breathtaking
70 mm in 24 countries
on six continents.
“Baraka” is an ancient
Sufi word that translates
as a blessing, or as
the breath or essence
of life from which the
evolutionary process
unfolds. The film captures
not only the harmony
and interconnectedness
of humankind with the
earth, but also the disjointed
and harmful relationship
between the relentless
advance of civilization
and the sanctity of our
planet.
Baraka must
be seen to be understood.
Macky Alston is the
director of Auburn Media,
a division of the Center
for Multifaith Education
at Auburn Theological Seminary
committed to supporting,
cultivating and promoting
powerful, engaging, balanced
and responsible media on
religion, spirituality
and ethics. He is a graduate
of Union Theological Seminary
and an award-winning documentary
filmmaker.
Completed: 1993
Running Time: 96 Minutes
Directed and filmed by: Rom Fricke
Produced by: Mark Magidson
Edited by: Ron Fricke, Mark Magidson and David Aubrey
Music by: Michael Stearns, Dead Can Dance, Daivd Hykes/The Harmonic Choir,
Somet Satoh, Anugama & Sebastiano, Kohachiro Miyata, Inkuyo, L. Subramaniam,
Monks of the Dip Tse Chok Ling Monastery, Rustavi Choir, Ciro Hurtado, Brother.
If you are interested in purchasing this film you can do so at www.hartleyfoundation.org.
Just click on “Masterworks” on the homepage for more information. Both the
VHS version and the DVD version of the film are priced at $19.98.
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
| |
.gif){kind=spacer}
