List of  Programs	Coordinators Name	Mobile Number
BFF Training	Sol. Blessy Vivian	+91 98410 34637
Conducting Troop Church	Sol. Mohanasundaram	+91 94451 20678
Paul School of Deliverance (FRP)	Sol.Benjamin	+91 90030 21979
Jeremiah School of Prophecy	Sol. Benovin	+91 82201 23810
David School of Worship	Sol. Theodre	+91 98401 54775
Bethestha  School of Healing	Sol. Dr.Albert	+91 98405 77293
Martha School of Hospitality	Sol. Dinesh Crimson	+91  96633 62589
Nazareth School of Family Building	Sol. Dr.Sujatha / Sol. Paul Hudson	+91 96771 92227 / +91 90031 82275
Joseph school of Financial Discipline	Sol. Dr.Benedict	+91 98405 44151
Night Prayer	Sol. Vani Santhosh	+91 83744 12377
Shadow Parli	Sol. Arvind (Goa)	+91 98221 81817
Communication  (Beryl wing ) Kingdom Gazette	Sol. Felix	+91 73584 20497
Transformation India Programme --TIP (Free service)	Sol. Dr.Acha	+91 93600 18004
Children Programme	Sol. Paul Vasanthan/Dr.Petricia	+91 81246 77493/ +91 98424 82493
24 hours Worship	Sol. Johny	+91 98427 81183
24 hours Prayer	Sr. Leema Rose AJ	+91 94446 53591
Ezhuchikkural (Monthly Magazine – Tamil)	Sr. Anitta AJ	9540328369
Media (Zoom)	Sol. Shaji Thomas	+91 81800 11100

 

Beyond COVID-19: Russia, China Nuclear Threat Grows

Now that 184 countries are grappling with the medical and economic convulsions of China's CCP coronavirus that seems to have originated in a bio-warfare laboratory in Wuhan, what other catastrophes might be headed our way, especially ones we have been forewarned about?

What if America's adversaries might start to believe that because the US has a Covid-19 crisis on its hands, the nation might be distracted and vulnerable, so that now might be a good time to strike? If such adversaries think the US does not have a strong deterrent, does that make it an even more tempting target?

Last month, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu said that by the end of 2020, Russia will have modernized 87% of its nuclear arsenal, up from its current 82%.

Many Americans might shrug it off and say that the Russians are simply being their normal selves, just like the Soviets, year after year, building and modernizing their nuclear weapons.

Many Americans might also assume that the United States would be keeping up to make sure that the Russians were not about to get the nuclear drop on the US, right? The United States, in fact, remains considerably behind the Russians. For nearly three decades after the end of the Cold War, a euphoric United States stopped taking nuclear deterrence seriously. The current administration, therefore, inherited a nuclear deterrent 40-50 years old. Its submarines had first been deployed in 1981, its B-52 bomber cruise missiles in 1982, and its Minuteman land-based missiles in 1970.

At present, exactly zero percent of America's nuclear platforms are modernized. This dangerous "procurement holiday" dates back to the end of the Cold War in 1991, when leaders in the West presumably imagined that modernized systems would no longer be needed. The problem is, presidents and Congresses have been warned. The US has known for some time that the Russians are fully modernizing their nuclear weapons. The US has also been aware that the Russians were increasing the role of nuclear weapons in their security strategy, and had also adopted a policy of "escalate to win." In this strategy, the Russians would use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons early in a crisis, based on the assumption that in face of such threats, the United States would stand down.

Several years ago, for example, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, the senior U.S. military officer responsible for nuclear strategy, General John Hyten, told Congress that by 2020, the Russians would have fully modernized at least 70% of their nuclear arsenal.

Hyten not only warned about the Russia's new "escalate to win" policy; he also took stock of the fact that while the United States had decided -- belatedly -- to modernize its nuclear forces, it was still nearly 15 years away from fielding its first modernized nuclear platform. Regrettably, not everyone in Congress and the nuclear disarmament community listened. For many in politics, after all, it was assumed that the U.S. would "reset" relations with Russia and nuclear threats were happily diminishing toward a "global zero."

Worse, when, in 2017, General Hyten, (now Vice Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff), warned of the Russian threat, a common counter-narrative in the U.S. arms control community -- and shared by some members of Congress -- was that simply by proposing to modernize a then-rusting nuclear deterrent, the United States was "leading an arms race." Even these critics, however, had to know that it takes years to research, develop, test, and then build highly complex nuclear forces, so that no new U.S. nuclear deployments would even be able to start until 2029.

An ideological attachment to the arms control catechism of the day, particularly among the advocates of "global zero," trumped any common-sense support of the potential necessity, even to use as a deterrent, for U.S. nuclear modernization.

Instead, what many disarmers proposed was the elimination of more than half of U.S. nuclear armed submarines, and 100% of America's land-based nuclear missiles and air-launched nuclear cruise missiles -- all eliminated unilaterally, without the Russians reducing anything. In 2018, nuclear critics in the Democratic party, now in the House majority, called for the unilateral "roll back" of the entire ICBM leg of the US nuclear Triad (land, sea and air) to curtail a supposedly "overly aggressive nuclear strategy" by the Trump administration. The proposal appears intended to prevent a presumed "expansion" of the US nuclear arsenal.

Ironically, the Trump administration's nuclear modernization effort at that time was nearly identical to the Obama administration's effort: keeping America's nuclear forces strictly within the New START Treaty limits. The Trump administration's policy at the time did not seek to expand the U.S. arsenal by even a single nuclear warhead.

Even today, however, despite Russia's confirmation that its nuclear forces are nearly fully modernized, and that the new U.S. modernization effort may not be putting new forces in the field until 2029, the same nuclear critics still do not seem to understand the strategy of deterrence: if you look disarmed and easy to overrun, you are inviting aggression, but if you do not look easy to overrun, people might think twice before attacking you. 

Former President Ronald Reagan called it, "Peace through strength". It was how, in large part, by building up the US nuclear arsenal and promising subsequently to build robust missile defenses, he induced the Soviet Union, unable to keep up, to collapse. Even so, one unilateral disarmer inexplicably wondered recently if the current U.S. planned nuclear modernization effort might somehow open "the door to an expensive nuclear arms race".

This critic may be unaware that Russia has already completed 87% of its arms race while the US is just putting on its track shoes. The door to an arms race was opened long ago -- but by Russia, not the United States.

Sputnik News reports:

"Russia's nuclear forces have received or are in the process of receiving a series of new weapons in recent years, including the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, the Avangard hypersonic boost-glide vehicle, and the Kinzhal air-launched hypersonic cruise missile. The maritime leg of the country's nuclear triad has seen the deployment of the new Borei class of strategic missile submarines equipped with R-30 Bulava ballistic missiles. Russia has also upgraded its fleet of Tu-95MS 'Bear' and Tu-160 'White Swan' bombers, increasing their range and capabilities and equipping them with new cruise missiles."

The current U.S. administration is fully aware of the Russian challenge and has robustly funded a U.S. nuclear deterrent. The modernization plan was approved by Congress -- although there is a worrisome emerging decline in the margin of support.

Without nuclear modernization, unfortunately, the United States cannot keep a credible nuclear deterrent against its nuclear armed enemies -- not only Russia but also China, whose nuclear arsenal is scheduled to double in the next decade, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency. It is widely anticipated that the scope of U.S. nuclear deterrent modernization might be a debate topic this election year.

Some members of the House and Senate, may again push unilaterally to reduce much of America's nuclear arsenal to a level even as low as 20% of Russia's current deployed nuclear arsenal. U.S. lawmakers may also again push to require that Congress must first approve any presidential decision to use nuclear weapons, thereby making a timely U.S. response to a surprise enemy nuclear attack virtually impossible. Still other members of Congress may push to pass a new legal requirement that the United States pledge not to use nuclear weapons, even if the country was attacked and suffered millions of casualties from enemy biological, chemical, or cyber weapons.

Is this, then, the right time for the U.S. to stop nuclear modernization or hamstring its nuclear deterrent strategy? History illustrates how deadly being unprepared to face real threats can be, as in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the terrorist attacks of 9-11 or the coronavirus pandemic.

However serious these events were, most people probably know how much worse the outcome would be if an adversary initiated the use of nuclear weapons against the United States. By now, the U.S. should know that its nuclear-armed adversaries are serious about using nuclear weapons -- either straightforwardly or for coercive leverage -- if they think they can get away it and avoid painful retaliation. The only sensible plan, therefore, is for the United States to maintain a nuclear deterrent second to none, to deter not only the threat of nuclear weapons but their straightforward employment, should it come to that.

In the election this November, Americans face a choice -- whether to continue with the planned modernization of America's nuclear forces, or yet again to kick nuclear modernization down the road and again pretend that nuclear threats -- that are potentially existential to the United States -- do not in fact exist.

Survey Shows Faith Can Prosper in Online Services

(RNS) — As houses of worship remain closed due to shelter-in-place orders across most of the United States, and significant numbers of them stream their worship services online, clergy and others are no doubt asking how well virtual delivery is feeding the faith of their members. 

Some answers can be had from a Pew Research Center (via the Roper Center) survey conducted April 20-26, in which Americans were asked about their religious faith and how their houses of worship have reacted to the changes brought about by  COVID-19.

The first bit of good news is how many people said their houses of worship were able to go online. Of those affiliated with a religious tradition, 81.2% indicated that their house of worship had shifted to broadcasting services over the internet.

Even better from the clergy’s point of view is that their members who have gone online report a larger growth in faith than those whose services have not moved to online streaming. Of those who had moved online, 42.4% said that their faith had grown stronger. For those without an online service to watch, the share of those who said that their faith had grown was a more modest 30.9%. Only very small shares of either group said that their faith had gotten weaker because of COVID-19.

It’s perhaps little surprise that the beneficial effect of online worship is especially true for those who attended services most frequently before the pandemic. At almost every attendance level, those who had said that their house of worship was streaming services online more likely to say that their faith grew than those who had no online viewing option. In most cases, the difference was 10 percentage points.

The survey also allayed fears that age or economic disadvantages have created large demographic disparities when it comes to accessing streaming services. For instance, those who are 65 and older were just as likely to say that their institution was streaming services as the youngest respondents in the sample. Only African Americans as a group were slightly less likely to say their churches were online, compared with white and Hispanic respondents.

There are some differences based on education. More highly educated respondents were 6 points more likely to have streaming services compared with those with a high school diploma or less. Evangelical churches were nearly 10 points more likely to go online than Catholic parishes.

So while a furor builds about reopening churches sooner rather than later, it’s worth bearing in mind that in our current situation many houses of worship are still providing spiritual care for their members and many have benefited from virtual services, especially for their regulars.

Baseball Player Blake Bivens Says Bible Helped Him Stay Strong following Brutal Murder of His Wife, Son

Minor league baseball star Blake Bivens has opened up about the death of his wife and young son. Speaking at The River Church in Danville, Virginia, Bivens, who plays in the Tampa Bay Rays’ organization, revealed how he found out about his family’s deaths via social media while waiting for a flight.

“First headline I see is two females and a small child were gone," Bivens said, according to ESPN. "I immediately knew that was them. I found out my family was gone over a Facebook headline. I just immediately began to scream in the middle of the airport.''

Blake’s wife Emily Bivens and his 14-month-old son, Cullen Bivens, had been shot dead, along with his mother-in-law Joan Bernard. Emily’s brother, 19-year-old Matthew Thomas Bernard is accused of murder, though he is unfit to stand trial at this time due to mental illness.

Speaking candidly to the church congregation, Blake recalled the raw shock that followed such brutal and life-changing loss. "I think the hardest moment for me was when I got home and I walked in my son's bedroom for the first time and realized I was never going to see him on this Earth again,'' he said. "That was the worst moment in my life. Nothing ever will come to being, to feeling the way I felt at that moment. Then again, I know I will see him again one day, and it won't be long.''

Incredibly, the Christian baseball pitcher said that in his lowest moments of loss and grief, the Bible offered him tangible hope; when the darkness was thick and unbearable, he remembers turning to John 16:33 and receiving the promise that God is always in control.

“When I read, 'Take heart, for I have overcome the world,' it changed, it completely flipped a switch in my heart," he recalled. "And from that moment on I knew that this was not going to beat me, this was not going to beat family. I was going to live in victory the rest of my life, and I was going to use this as a testimony to show what he has done for me he can also do for others.”

"That moment for me was one of the biggest moments where I just knew God was with me, and the only thing I knew to do was just laugh in the enemy's face, because he thought he had won,” Bivens added. “But all he's done is awoken a sleeping giant and as long as I'm here on this earth, every day I wake up my goal is to pile-drive him right in the face every morning when I get up.'”

Blake said he still deals with many traumatic memories of that horrible day; but despite this, and even in the midst of such searing pain, he is assured that with God, there is always hope for the future. “It's unbelievable how much I can vividly remember from the day," he said. "And it's kind of unbelievable to see how far things have come from that day also."