It’s not Persecution to Tax Church-Owned Businesses in Israel

While churches certainly have a right to contest the proposed Israeli legislation, they should be above over-the-top Holocaust allusions and hyperbolic allegations of discrimination and racism.

..by Amanda Achtman
Source: The Federalist

A sign affixed to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem reads: “Enough is Enough: Stop the Persecution of Churches.” The church at the site where Jesus is believed to have been crucified, buried, and resurrected is now temporarily closed. This protest is not against the displacement and extermination of Christians throughout the Middle East but a stunt by the Christian churches responsible for the site in protest against Israeli legislation and a new city tax policy.

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophilos III, Franciscan Custos of the Holy Land Father Francesco Patton, and the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem Nourhan Manougian have released a joint statement on the so-called “Municipal threats and the discriminatory ‘Church Lands Bill.’”

Just what are the “municipal threats” and what is the “discrimination”? Despite the firestorm of media attention over the weekend, the technicalities and nuances remain convoluted. Reportedly, the main issues include: requiring church businesses to pay taxes; placing liens on church accounts until debts are paid; and expropriating lands churches sell to private buyers.

In an inflammatory statement just under 400 words, the church leaders refer to the legislation and tax policies three times as a “systematic campaign” and once as a “systematic attack” against churches and Christians in the Holy Land. The trio states: “Recently, this systematic and offensive campaign has reached an unprecedented level as the Jerusalem municipality issued scandalous collection notices and orders of seizure of Church assets, properties and bank accounts for alleged debts of punitive municipal taxes.”

Religious Activity Is Exempt, Commercial Activity Is Not

Nir Barkat, the mayor of Jerusalem, explained, “The Church of the Holy Sepulcher and prayer houses of all churches are exempt from municipal taxes; there is no change in this and it will continue. But does it make sense to anyone that commercial areas like hotels, halls, and businesses should be exempt from municipal taxes only because they are owned by churches?” Sounds like a reasonable point.

What does not, however, seem reasonable is that the church leaders’ statement hyperbolizes, “The greatest victims in this are those impoverished families who will go without food and housing, as well as the children who will be unable to attend school.” How the proposed tax on church revenue will lead to famine and homelessness and deprive children of education remains unclear.

The Christian leaders deem the bill “discriminatory and racist,” targeting “solely the properties of the Christian community in the Holy Land.” This makes no sense. How is the bill “discriminatory and racist” against Christianity, which is universal and not racial? Is it “racist” against Arabs? Armenians? Greeks? Italians? Filipinos? North Americans?

The bill, moreover, “would make the expropriation of the lands of churches possible,” according to the Christian leaders. This is incorrect. As reported by Haaretz, the bill proposed by Knesset Member Rachel Azaria would not endanger church property, but aims at protecting Jerusalem residents whose homes are located on lands churches have previously owned, in the event that the churches would sell these lands to private real estate companies.

Just when it seems unlikely the exaggeration can go further, the church leaders allude to Nazism with this ominous reference: “This reminds us all of laws of a similar nature which were enacted against the Jews during dark periods in Europe.” While churches certainly have a right to contest the proposed Israeli legislation, we should be above inflammatory accusations, over-the-top Holocaust allusions, and hyperbolic allegations of discrimination and racism.

Business Taxes Are Not Discrimination

Property rights can be disputed and negotiated, even in the Middle East, where a plurality of factors including religion, history, and geography add to the drama. This tumultuous context in mind, we come to the crux of the matter: There is real persecution in the Middle East and municipal taxes are not it.

It would have been one thing for church authorities to close the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to raise awareness about the real persecuted church, particularly during this season of Lent. It would have been one thing to take this drastic gesture in a solemn act of solidarity with the Christians who are chased out of their ancestral homelands by Islamists in the conflict-ridden countries of Iraq and Syria, or with the endangered Christian community living precariously under the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

But no. It is easy to tack up posters or to light up the Colosseum in red. It is hard to take real action concerning the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. Fighting Israel over tax policies instead of jihadists over terrorism reminds me of campus feminists who are up in arms over sex-neutral language because that is so much easier than worrying about an Islamist regime in Iran arresting women for removing their hijabs.

Insisting that church businesses pay municipal taxes is hardly persecution. There are many serious cases of actual, contemporary persecution, and if we misapply the term, we may find we have no adequate words left for today’s truest Christian martyrs.

Deepening the Brotherhood between Christians and Israel

Ultimately, closing the Church of the Holy Sepulcher hurts Christian pilgrims more than it does Israelis. It’s the most important Christian holy site in the world, and the most visited site by Christian pilgrims in Israel. They are already experiencing disappointment because of its closure.

When Pope John Paul II made a pilgrimage to Israel in March 2000, he placed a prayer in the Western Wall. In it, he prayed that Christians would “commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.”

In their inflammatorily expressed zeal to preserve preferential financial arrangements, these church leaders may be harming a relationship that is good for them and Christians across the world. How can we aspire not only to resolve disputes and tensions, but to truly deepen this genuine brotherhood? Perhaps one way is for Christians to think creatively about how we can express gratitude for Israel’s legal protection for all faiths and preservation of access to religious sites important to people of many religions.

Perhaps Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land could first visit Yad Vashem and Mount Herzl before they venture to trace Jesus’ footsteps, to appreciate how the suffering and sacrifices of the Jewish people contributed to the heroic founding of the modern state of Israel that preserves Christian access to sacred sites. In contrast with its neighbors, Israel is the Middle East’s only liberal democracy, and the only place Christians enjoy freedom from religious persecution. That’s ultimately far more important than preferential tax breaks for church-owned businesses.

Amanda Achtman studied political science in her hometown of Calgary, Alberta in Canada. She recently completed an MA in John Paul II Philosophical Studies at the Catholic University of Lublin in Poland and has participated in programs hosted by: the Acton Institute, the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society, the Hildebrand Project, and the Philos Project.

Patriarch's New Year Message: Elephants Still in the Room

On the morning of January 1st, also traditionally known as the World Day of Peace, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Msgr. Foual Twal presided over the Mass of the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God in the concathedral of the Latin Patriarchate in the Holy City.

In his homily, the Patriarch shared his wishes of hope and peace for all. Echoing recent statements made by the Holy Father, Msgr. Twal expressed the need of "educating young people in justice and peace."  He mentioned the recent interreligious dialogue in Assisi, the "Arab Spring," the situation in the Holy Land, as well as some upcoming Church events, congresses and synods that will take place in 2012.

Despite its generally positive, irenic and friendly tone, the substance of the Patriarch's message was disappointing and disturbing. A few months ago, Catholics for Israel published an open letter to the leaders of the Catholic Church in the Holy Land entitled Elephants in the Room? The Hidden Roots of the Crisis of the Church in the Holy Land. As the title indicates, the piece pointed out some issues of serious concern which, despite having a debilitating effect on the work of the Church in the Holy Land, remain virtually ignored and unaddressed by its  leaders.

Sadly, the Patriarch's New Year message is an indication that these "Elephants" are still roaming about freely in the Church in the Holy Land - still ignored and unadressed by the leadership.  Evidence for each one of the ten "elephants" was manifest in the homily. Obviously, it would not be fair to expect that the Patriarch should have addressed each one of these issues in one homily.  But that fact all of them were ignored is a characteristic illustration of the theological malaise that continues to afflict the local Church.

1. Neo-Marcionism, Replacement Theology and the “Great Disconnect” between Israel and the Church

The homily was characterized by the usual silence regarding the Jewish origins and roots of the Gospel. Despite the occasion of the Solemnity of the Mother of God, there was no mention that Mary was and remains forever a Jewish woman, daughter of Israel and daughter of Zion. No word was said about the vital connection and bond between Israel and the Church, about the role of Jesus and Mary as bridges between Judaism and Christianity, about the debt of gratitude that the Church owes to Judaism, or even about the first reading of the Mass, from the Book of Numbers, on the Aaronic blessing.

2. Anti-Zionism and Anti-Israel Bias

The Patriarch also said that "a generation of young Israelis and Palestinians were born and grew up under occupation and in an atmosphere of violence. They experience the checkpoints and the walls that separate people." As usual, the only problem mentioned by name is the Israeli "occupation," as if it were the only culprit behind the "atmosphere of violence."  No word was said about the ongoing Palestinian refusal to negotiate with Israel, let alone accept the existence of the Jewish State. As usual, "checkpoints," "barbed wires" and "towering concrete walls" just exist for no other reason than to "separate people," with no word said about the constant threat of terrorist and rocket attacks that has made these checkpoints and walls necessary for the sake of saving both Israeli and Palestinian lives.

Moreover, no word of gratitude or appreciation was said about the freedom of religion and worship, and the full security that Christians enjoy in Israel, a privilege that is rather rare in the Middle East.

Of course, there was also no mention of the biblical and theological bond and attachment of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel - and this, despite the increasingly aggressive and strident delegitimization and hatred of Israel, not only from hostile neighboring countries but also from the world at large. The name "Israel" was barely mentioned in the message, as usual replaced by the more politically correct expressions "Holy Land" or "Land of Jesus."

3. Palestinian Liberation Theology

The theme of the homily was justice, reconciliation and peace. While this is indeed an important topic, it has become almost a mantra in the Church of the Holy Land, ceaselessly repeated with a marked accent on socio-political aims rather than on solid biblical and doctrinal catechesis. There was the usual call for the creation of a Palestinian State, and the usual silence about the culture of anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish hatred and incitement in Palestinian society (including, for example the recent praise of Hitler in a PLO youth magazine because he murdered Jews), the Palestinian Authority's rapprochement with Hamas despite the latter's continued avowed goal to work towards the total destruction of Israel, or the PA's praise and glorification of terrorists (illustrated, for example, by  President  Mahmoud Abbas openly meeting with convicted terrorists and appointing them as advisors in his government).

4. Dhimmitude: the Surrender to Islam

The Patriarch called the so-called "Arab Spring" a "reawakening of consciences for democracy, peace and social justice" where "Muslims and Christians took to the street side by side," generating "real enthusiasm and great expectation." His only caviat was a strikingly weak reservation that "doubts arise on the form of government that will be implemented."  It is hard to grasp how an educated spiritual leader can arrive as such delusional conclusions about the violent revolutions that have already claimed thousands of lives (and counting) in numerous countries, causing the rapid rise of radical islamist forces and a widespread increase in Muslim persecution of Christians throughout the Middle East.

Despite his complete silence on the problems generated by the "Arab Spring,"  the Patriarch recalled that "the Pope asked the young and old to stay away from extreme nationalism or exacerbated fundamentalism" - as if the violence and killings in the Middle East were but the fruit of random and generic "fundamentalism" to which everyone is prone - certainly not related to any particular religion at all.

Why the silence on these persecutions? Why, if mentioned at all by Christian clergy, are the persecutions always carried out by nameless perpetrators? And why continue to use the ludicrous term "Arab Spring" when the reality on the ground does not even remotely resemble a "spring" but rather an "Islamic Winter"?

Surely such a combination of misguided statements and conspicuous silence cannot be the result of ignorance or malice. So what is left? Wishful thinking? Or perhaps a fear of openly saying the truth, lest this make things worse? Here we have again the spirit of dhimmitude, the fear of saying anything against Islam lest this causes yet greater violent anti-Christian backlashes on the part of Muslims.

5. Dialogomania and Practical Relativism

Another ever-recurring catch word, supported by the ever-popular "Spirit of Assisi," is "dialogue." The Patriarch invited the faithful to follow St. Francis in engaging in "peaceful dialogue between believers" and creating "bonds of friendship and solidarity."  Although this is a good and noble ideal, almost nothing was said about the Church's mission of evangelization and about the urgent need that Christians pray and work for the conversion of sinners and those who do not know Christ.

Msgr. Twal did say that "peace has its basis in the heart of man, in his conversion and reconciliation with God and family," but there was no word on how to practically arrive at this conversion and reconciliation. He gave the impression that anyone, from any religious tradition, can reach this conversion and reconciliation, with no need at all to believe in Christ or be baptized.

The result is that Christians, once again, are inoculated against giving a clear witness of their faith in words and deeds to non-Christians. They are given the impression that being a Christian essentially consists in being a "nice person" who gets along with everyone - including the Muslims who are persecuting them and driving them out of their homes and countries.  And so, with this underlying practical relativism, the Lord's commission and the Church's mission of making disciples of all nations is given a crippling blow and effectively neutralized.

6. Blurring the Doctrine: The Catechetical Crisis

In his homily, the Patriarch did not talk - even briefly - about the readings from the Word of God that were read during the Liturgy of the Word - not from the first reading, not from the Psalm, not from the second reading, nor from the Gospel. The homily was largely devoid of catechetical or doctrinal content, apart a few sentences exhorting the faithful to look to Mary who in her humility was "peaceful, pure and gentle" and at the same time "strong, vigorous, and full of hope."

Moreover, Jesus was almost entirely absent from the homily.  He was mentioned only three times, and two of these were indirect, passing mentions of the "land of Jesus" and "mother of Jesus." Only in his very last sentence did Msgr. Twal wish that Mary's son, "Jesus, the Prince of Peace give us His peace."

7. Battling Evil: Spiritual Warfare and Dormant Soldiers

With the homily focused on peace, dialogue, and social justice, and with no call or encouragement to share the Gospel with others for the purpose of their conversion and salvation, all appeals to prayer were calls to a generic and amorphous "prayer for peace." The element of prayer as spiritual battle and warfare for the salvation of souls was wholly absent from the message.

8. Lack of Prophetic and Eschatological Vision

The homily was also uninspiring in its complete lack of prophetic and eschatological perspective. Its stated aims and goals were mostly horizontal and humanistic - calling for peace and co-existence here on earth, now in this life. Nothing was said about the risks and dangers of a humanly orchestrated peace that is not based on Jesus Christ. Nothing was said about the eschatological vision of the Scriptures (confirmed by recent prophetic locutions) speaking of the rise of evil in the world, manifested by an increasing hostility of the nations against Israel.

9. The Eery Silence of Political Correctness

All of the above issues demonstrate once again that political correctness reigns supreme in the Church in the Holy Land: silence on the Church's theological and biblical roots and foundations in Israel and Judaism; silence on the anti-Israel bias of the clergy; silence on the Palestinian culture of incitement and shared Palestinian responsibility in the perpetuation of the conflict; silence on the growing Islamic oppression and persecution of Christians; silence on the Lord's commandment and Church's mission to lead all people to Christ; silence on the Church's biblical and doctrinal catechesis; silence on the need to pray for the salvation of the world and against spiritual forces of evil; and silence on the prophetic and eschatological vision of the Bible and of the Church.

10. Ignoring the Messianic and Evangelical Communities

Finally, there was also no mention in the Patriarch's New Year message of the growing impact of the Messianic Jewish communities in Israel - a prophetic movement that deserves not only the attention but also the support, help and encouragement of the Catholic Church in the Holy Land.

Conclusion

For 2012, let us pray that the Lord may grant our leaders and all Christians in the Holy Land the grace, strength and courage to be more faithful to the Lord's calling as expressed in the Sacred Scriptures and in the Church's teachings!  As we pointed out in Elephants in the Room, we suggest that this should include the following:

1. decisively rejecting neo-Marcionism, replacement theology, and rediscovering the Jewish roots of Catholicism and of the Christian faith;
2. decisively rejecting anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and fostering among Catholics a true appreciation and love for Israel;
3. decisively rejecting anti-Israel Palestinian Liberation Theology, and supporting the Palestinian people in a way that is more respectful of Israel’s prophetic calling;
4. decisively rejecting the dhimmi mentality and stop being silent or in denial about the increasingly aggressive threat of radical Islam;
5. decisively rejecting religious relativism, and returning the role of dialogue to its proper place as a subset of the Church’s mission of evangelization;
6. establishing vigorous programs of catechesis and doctrinal formation for the faithful;
7. raising the awareness of the need for spiritual warfare, and train and equip the clergy to pass on this awareness to the faithful;
8. restoring the prophetic and eschatological vision in the Church, and translating this vision into action;
9. decisively rejecting political correctness and describing the reality in the Holy Land as it truly is.
10. restoring a genuine ecumenical openness in the Church, with a welcoming outreach to Messianic and Evangelical believers.

Quiz: Are you living out the Church's mission of evangelization?

I am not the most punctual person in the world. Since the AHC conference last October I have wanted to write about the topic of evangelization and proselytism. This project, however, was trumped in our last newsletter by our commentary on Israel as "womb" of the Second Coming, as a response to the controversy with a Palestinian priest on the topic of "Catholics for Palestine" and "Catholics for Israel."

Today, the moment has come. I feel that the topic of evangelization and proselytism is timely for at least two reasons.

The first reason is the urgency of the task of the new evangelization, urgent because formerly Christian countries are seriously threatened on two fronts - by an increasingly aggressive anti-Christian secularism on the one hand, and the equally aggressive growth of Islam on the other.

The second reason is the considerable confusion that seems to reign among many Christians and especially Catholics regarding evangelization and proselytism. Confusion on this topic now would be nothing less than disastrous if  it results in neutralizing believers from carrying out precisely the Church's most critical task of our time. It would not be an exaggeration to even characterize as "work of the devil" any thought construct that would lead to the paralysis of the Church's central mission.

And so today we ask the questions: What is evangelization? What is proselytism? What is the difference between them? How should we relate to non-believers? Should we try to convert them? Or just accept and love them the way they are?

Some would have us believe that proselytism is a great problem nowadays, displaying great disrespect for people of various faiths, religions and walks of life. But is this really the case - in light the Church's definition of  proselytism - or is the real problem actually quite the opposite?

Before we go any further I would like to invite you to do a little self-evaluation quiz. This test will help you to determine where you stand - whether you are being faithful to the Church's call to the new evangelization, and if not, what may be some of the false presuppositions or ideas lurking "below the surface" that are hindering you from responding to the call. The quiz will also hopefully help to make the rest of this article more interesting and relevant to you.

So without further ado, why don't you go ahead and take the quiz now...

[Quiz no longer available]

Well, how did you do?

Allow me to take a guess: My guess is that not too many Catholics are guilty of proselytism. I suspect that more of us are influenced and affected by the secular humanist or post-modernist/relativistic worldview.

Now let's look at a few definitions to help us better understand the results of the quiz. The Church has spoken profusely about evangelization and mission in the last forty years, and so we don't suffer from a lack resources on the topic. For the sake of simplicity, however, I will quote here from only one document - the most recent one published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, called rather unimaginatively Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (hereafter DNE). It is neither the best nor the most inspiring text, but it is relatively short, simple, straightforward and perfectly adequate for our purposes (I will list some of the other documents at the end of the newsletter).

Evangelization 

What, then, is evangelization?

Evangelization "sums up the Church's entire mission." It consists in "the proclamation and handing on of the Gospel, which is 'the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes' (Rom 1:16)."  It is to "proclaim Jesus Christ by one's words and actions."  Note that the document specifies that actions only are not enough; they must be accompanied by words to effectively transmit the Gospel of salvation to others. Every person has the right to hear the good news, and this implies that every Christian has a corresponding duty to evangelize. The gravity of this task is poignantly expressed in St. Paul's words: "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!" (1 Cor 9:16). And the primary objective of evangelization? It is to "help all persons to meet Christ in faith" (DNE 2).

Where is Christ most especially encountered? Through incorporation into the community of believers, that is, in the Church. And so "since the beginning, the Gospel, in the power of the Spirit, is proclaimed to all people so that they might believe and become disciples of Christ and members of his Church."  The desire that people be saved through communion with Jesus in the Church is not something to be ashamed of. On the contrary, "the Christian spirit has always been animated by a passion to lead all humanity to Christ in the Church" (DNE 9).

Proselytism  

But isn't this desire to make people Catholics precisely what constitutes proselytism? No, it is not, and this is precisely wherein lies the modern-day confusion.

Proselytism, actually, is using "deception, selfish motives or arrogance" in trying to convert people, thus "failing in respect for the dignity and religious freedom of the partners in dialogue. For this reason, the Church severely prohibits forcing people to embrace the faith or leading or enticing them by improper techniques" (DNE 8). In other words, proselytism is the "promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person" (DNE 12; n. 49).

How then are we to avoid proselytism? In the task of Evangelization, everyone should "'refrain at all times from any kind of action which might seem to suggest coercion or dishonest or improper persuasion, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people" (DH 4). In short, "the witness to the truth does not seek to impose anything by force, neither by coercive action nor by tactics incompatible with the Gospel" (DNE 12).
Simple enough? Don't force people into the faith at gunpoint (or the equivalent - through fear, guilt trips, etc...). Inviting people into the faith, however, is quite another matter.

"I don't proselytize": Respect for others or cop-out from one's duty to evangelize? 

I have mentioned above that many people nowadays see proselytism as a big problem - a terribly disrespectful and intolerant thing to do. Put on the defensive by such criticism, one often hears Catholics - even some involved in missionary work - assuring us that they "don't do" that awful thing, proselytism. But what do they mean by that? The next time you hear someone make such a statement, ask them to clarify. Do they mean:

"I don't use any dishonest, deceptive or coercive measures to try to convert people" (the right answer!)

Or do they mean, rather:

"I have no interest at all (or lack the courage) to help people come to salvation by inviting them, in respect and love, to repent of their sins, accept Christ's forgiveness and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit through faith and communion with the Church."  (If this is what they mean, they will probably tend to muddle the answer a bit).

Sadly, I fear that too many Christians who claim to not proselytize really mean that they don't evangelize. Perhaps they are simply intimidated be the daunting task, and this is understandable. But perhaps they have fallen prey to what Pope Benedict has calledthe "dictatorship of relativism," that symptom of the post-modern world which refuses to accept any truth as definitive apart from one's own subjective whims.

Relativism: The Great Enemy of Evangelization

Under the leadership of Benedict, the Church has tackled the bull of relativism by the horns. In our document, she expresses her concern for the "growing confusion" today which

"leads many to leave the missionary command of the Lord unheard and ineffective. Often it is maintained that any attempt to convince others on religious matters is a limitation of their freedom. From this perspective, it would only be legitimate to... invite people to act according to their consciences, without aiming at their conversion to Christ and to the Catholic faith. It is enough, so they say, to help people to become more human or more faithful to their own religion; it is enough to build communities which strive for justice, freedom, peace and solidarity. Furthermore, some maintain that Christ should not be proclaimed to those who do not know him, nor should joining the Church be promoted, since it would also be possible to be saved without explicit knowledge of Christ and without formal incorporation in the Church" (DNE 3).

Quite opposite to this relativistic mentality, the Church invites us not to lose confidence in the truth and goodness that Jesus the Messiah has come to reveal to humanity. For this reason,"love impels the followers of Christ to proclaim to all the truth which saves" (DNE 10) - the truth which is Jesus Christ Himself. As then cardinal Ratzinger said a few years ago, "mission and dialogue should no longer be opposites but should mutually interpenetrate. Dialogue is not aimless conversation: it aims at conviction, at finding the truth; otherwise it is worthless" (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 112). Interreligious dialogue is thus not an end in itself but rather a "moment" in the Church's mission of evangelization (AG 11-12).

Let us, then, not lose heart, and may we work with renewed ardor to testify to the risen Lord with all our being, in our witness of holiness and in our words. Let's not forget that "even witness by itself is not enough because even the finest witness will prove ineffective in the long run, if it is not explained, justified – what Peter called ‘giving a reason for the hope that is in you’ (1 Pet 3:15) – and made explicit by a clear and unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus'" (DNE 11). 

Important Church Documents on Mission and Evangelization

Second Vatican Council - Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church Ad Gentes (1965)
Pope Paul VI - Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975)
Pope John Paul II - Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio on the permanent validity of the Church's missionary mandate (1990)
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith - Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church (2000)
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith - Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (2007)

See also Catholics for Israel's PowerPoint presentation:
Go into all the World! The Church's Missionary Mandate