Energion Direct

Author: empower

  • Why Apologetics?

    by Elgin Hushbeck

    EvidenceChristian apologetics has its ups and downs. At times it is seen as a positive force defending the Christian faith against the attacks of critics. At other times it is seen in a far more negative light as trying to argue people into the kingdom, or even worse, arguing for argument’s sake. Most of the time it is just ignored. As the author of two books that hopefully fall in the positive-force category, (Evidence for the Bible and Christianity and Secularism), with a masterโ€™s degree in Christian Apologetics, and who has been doing this for several decades, I do consider myself to be a Christian apologist. As such, I would address the proper role for apologetics and how I believe it should be done.
    First,I would agree that there is merit in these criticisms. I would certainly agree that apologetics can be misused, i.e., done incorrectly or for the wrong reasons, though I would quickly point out that the same could be said about most things. Just think what damage a pastor can do if not working as a true servant of God. But that would hardly be a reason to give up on the role of pastor; rather it would be a call to do it correctly.
    I would also agree that we should not try to argue people into the kingdom of God and, in fact, I have consistently taught in my ministry that the role of apologetics is not to do this. The reason is simple: it cannot be done, and if this is why someone does apologetics, they are wasting their time.
    Of course this raises the question of why do apologetics? A simple one is that we are commanded to do so in passages like 1 Peter 3:15-16,

    Instead, exalt the Messiah as Lord in your lives. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you to explain the hope you have. But do this gently and respectfully, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak evil of your good conduct in the Messiah will be ashamed of slandering you.

    The first part of this verse may be familiar to you. I would hope the second half would be equally familiar. Unfortunately often the โ€œgently and respectfullyโ€ part gets left off. It should not as it is a key part.
    There are practical reasons for doing apologetics as well.ย ย  True, no one is or can be argued into the kingdom, but they can be helped to the foot of the cross.ย ย  One of the ways I teach this is with the metaphor of a wall. We all like to build walls to keep God at a safe distance. Christians build these wall was well, but our focus here is on the non-believer who builds walls of excuses so they can ignore God. It is the role of apologetics to remove those walls block by block till there is nothing standing between the believer and the cross. At that point the role of apologetics in evangelism ends. What happens next it is between the person and the Holy Spirit.
    So while no one is argued into the kingdom, some have been brought to the foot of the cross, and thus apologetics did play an important role in their conversion. I know this to be the case, for I was one of them. I was an atheist who had a long list of reasons why I could safely ignore God. But one by one over several years, Christians answered these objections.
    True, not everyone has such questions or objections, and thus for them discussions on the reliability of the Bible, etc., would be irrelevant at best, possibly even counter-productive. This is why I stress that the first and most important step in apologetics is to listen. Find out what it is that is keeping someone from the cross.
    Now to be clear, I do not expect, or even believe, that everyone would be a trained apologist, ready with all the answers at their fingertips. For me the best answer is often, โ€œthat is a good question, and I donโ€™t know. Let me find out and get back to you.โ€ I like this answer for many reasons. First you donโ€™t need to have all the answers, only a resource where you can get them. If you do not know of one, then I recommend that you start with your pastor.
    Secondly, it opens up a dialogue and builds a relationship. I encourage people to be a safe place where those with questions can get answers; to be a person someone can ask a question to without getting a full come-to-Jesus sermon. Perhaps it is because of my conversion experience, but I see conversion as more of a process than an event. A process that can take a long time, and one in which, while there are many stages, there is no set order. Everyone is different and this is why listening and building a relationship is so key to apologetics.
    I do want to say something in favor of intense debates. I have been in many. But intense does not mean disrespectful. In fact I came to the attention of my editor many years ago because he noticed me in an online forum engaging in some pretty intensive debates, but remaining respectful, even when my opponents were not. At times I would wonder to myself, what is the point? These people never seem to change, and at times the argument would just seem to be going in circles.
    Two things would keep me going. 1) When I was on the other side, I never told the Christians I was debating that they were right. But afterward I would reflect on what they said and I now believe the Holy Spirit used those arguments to work on my heart.ย ย  2) As a Christian working with non-Christians, when I was really discouraged, inevitably I would get an email from someone I had never heard of expressing thanks for what I was doing and letting me know how my responses had blessed and helped them. This is a second dimension of apologetics, strengthening believers. It is important to note that a lie unanswered will be taken as the truth. Currently the lies about God, the Bible and Christianity are rampant and are overwhelming what little apologetics is out there.
    The Bottom line is that I do not judge what I do by how many debates I win or souls I save, because the first doesnโ€™t matter and I canโ€™t do the latter in any event. My goal is to be a faithful servant, and I will leave the results to God.

  • Why I Donโ€™t Argue for Inerrancy โ€“ Too Much

    Why I Donโ€™t Argue for Inerrancy โ€“ Too Much

    by Elgin Hushbeck

    I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. While I believe the Bible to be inerrant, rarely do I argue for inerrancy.   First off, let me briefly explain what I mean by the Bible is the inerrant word of God. While it is possible to be much more explicit, basically I believe that the Bible as written by the Apostles and Prophets is correct in all that the authors intended it to say. (Those wishing a more in-depth discussion should google The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, or get Norman Geislerโ€™s excellent book, Inerrancy).

    Note that this brief definition avoids all of the problems of textual issues, translations, and interpretation and in fact most of the issues that are behind a lot of disagreements we have as Christians. This is in fact part of the reason I do not argue for Inerrancy, though my main reasons fall into two categories, one for non-Christians and one for Christians.

    Why I donโ€™t argue inerrancy with non-Christians.

    For Non-Christians, this is pretty straight forward and easy. It is pointless, I donโ€™t need to, and in fact it only makes things harder.   Inerrancy is a theological doctrine, grounded on many beliefs, some of which are an integral part of being a Christian. For example, a key underpinning for inerrancy is the belief in the existence of God. Thus how can one argue for inerrancy with an atheist?

    More importantly, when dealing with non-Christians, inerrancy is not required. That one does not need to accept inerrancy is amply demonstrated by those Christians who reject the doctrine. Thus for me, why would I want to put a potential stumbling block in the path of someone who needs Christ?

    Not only is it not required it makes things harder. Even when I was an atheist I never bought the argument that if there is even one error in the Bible the entire book should be tossed out. Apply that rule universally, we would not have any books. When I claim inerrancy, I take on an impossible burden of proof. How could I ever demonstrate that there was not even a single error in any of the books? I couldnโ€™t.

    Instead of taking on this impossible burden, when dealing with non-believers I discuss reliability, not inerrancy. If the Bible is reliable when it talks about the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, and the implications of this in our lives, what else do I need? Showing the Bible is reliable is actually fairly straight forward, and it is the critics who have to come up with special rules and exceptions so as to avoid conclusions they do not wish to reach. (See my books, Evidence for the Bible, and Christianity and Secularism) Finally, when you get right down to it, the problem of conversion is not a rational problem of arguments and evidence. It is a spiritual problem of the heart.

    Why I donโ€™t argue inerrancy with Christians.

    While the above reasons are valid when talking with non-Christians, they donโ€™t apply, or apply only secondarily with other Christians. With other Christians my reasons for not arguing inerrancy center around relevance. In short inerrancy simply does not come up that often. As I stated above, a key feature of the definition of inerrancy is that it avoids all the problems of textual issues, translations, and interpretation. While that is good for the doctrine of inerrancy, it does not help when settling other doctrinal disagreements and it is just a fact that there are doctrinal disagreements even among those who those hold to inerrancy. Thus inerrancy is usually the last place I go when attempting to resolve doctrinal disputes.
    In addition, Inerrancy is not a clear teaching of scripture in the sense that there is a passage that says: the Bible is inerrant. While I believe there is a solid scriptural basis, there remain a few steps of faith and issues of interpretation, and so I can see where rational people could reach a different conclusion.

    So does all this mean that I think the doctrine is unimportant? Not at all. But I think there is a deeper issue here: How do we see ourselves in relation to Godโ€™s word. Do we sit in judgment of Godโ€™s word or does Godโ€™s word sit in judgment of us?

    There are those verses in the Bible that I wish were not there; verses that do not conform to my understanding of the way I think things should be. It would be far easier to say, โ€œthat apostle didnโ€™t know any better,โ€ or โ€œthat prophet made a mistake,โ€ so I could simply ignore the passage. A key โ€œdisadvantageโ€ of inerrancy is that this is not an option. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who profess inerrancy and yet avoid all such troublesome issues simply because they do not read the Bible in the first place.

    Instead I must wrestle with the text, digging deeper, trying to understand the background and the setting, trying to figure out why God would say such a thing. Most of all, I must pray for understanding, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Granted, this is no guarantee. At the end of the process it is still not hard to find ways to ignore troublesome and difficult passages. The line between being a judge of the text, and being judged by the text is often quite fine, and I do not make any claims of perfection in this area.

    So even though I believe in the doctrine of inerrancy, I rarely argue for it. Instead, I argue that we place ourselves under, not over, the word of God. That we wrestle with those passages that we find difficult, and that by doing so we let the Holy Spirit transform our lives.

  • The Way Out: Finding Our Way Home

    by Steve Kindle

    I'm Right coverIn my two previous posts, I attempted to make the case that finding a way for everyone to agree on how to understand the Bible is an impossibility. For various reasons, such as language nuances, psychological makeup, differing worldviews, hidden agendas and the like, we are presently, and probably always will be, unable to see eye to eye. This is true not only of the mundane (What swallowed Jonah?) and certainly the โ€œessentials of the faithโ€.
    I donโ€™t see this inability to understand alike as a problem, per se. In the first place, it is a gross misunderstanding of human nature. We are all very different and come to scripture with all those differences intact. To expect conformity is to downgrade humans to the status of androids. Part of being created in the image of God is the ability to think for ourselves, unlike other animals.
    Secondly, the idea that a text can yield only one true interpretation is to misunderstand even how the Bible works. Only one example is necessary, that of how Matthew plucked meaning from Old Testament passages that could never have been conceived of by their original authors or hearers. (You may want to fall back on Matthew โ€œbeing guided by the Holy Spirit,โ€ yet more meaning was in those texts than one.) Some of us may legitimately see things that others miss.
    Thirdly, as long as the hermeneutic circle exists (in order to understand the Bible, one must understand every verse in the Bible. In order to understand every verse in the Bible, one must understand the whole Bible), there will never be a comprehensive or complete interpretation. In the meantime, we struggle.
    So, in a world where ultimate assurance of a given interpretation is wanting, what are we to do? We need to acknowledge the value of disagreement. Disagreement is inevitable and therefore necessary. Necessary? Yes, as it points to the limitations of the human capacity to discern ultimate truth. Itโ€™s another way of acknowledging that we need each other. Your strengths may shore up my weaknesses and vice versa. But this can only happen if we allow it to.
    The problem is not disagreement. Disagreements often arise because some interpreters fail to recognize their own baggage that they bring to the task, and believe they are operating in a โ€œbaggage free zone,โ€ where oneโ€™s assumptions, if they are thought of at all, are assumed to be true, untainted by human error. The real problem is when those with a point of view insist all others must conform to it. This is the original sin of Fundamentalism. โ€œI derived my interpretation from the Bible, therefore it is equal to the Bible itself.โ€ R. W. Dale noted way back in 1889 โ€œthat to put a meaning of [oneโ€™s] own into a Bible sentence and to claim Divine authority for it, was just as bad as to put a sentence of [one’s] own into the Bible and to claim Divine authority for it.” We need to be constantly reminded that in Protestantism there are no popes.
    Where we go wrong, it seems to me, is not respecting human finitude. We must begin with the proposition that regardless of the beauty and sublimity of a particular interpretation, there is no perfect, absolute, final understanding. Even though we may reach profound heights, we still see in a mirror, dimly. The threat to the church is not different outcomes, but those who would insist on their particular understanding at the expense of all others. The โ€œone who knowsโ€ is like the person holding one piece of the jigsaw puzzle believing itโ€™s the whole picture. Paul warned us about those who think of themselves more highly than they ought. Humility before the Bible is a prime requisite of meaningful interpretation. Diversity (spice) is inevitable, and to try to force everyone into the same mold is not only futile, it goes against what it means to be human. And, I believe, Christian.

  • The way in: how we got to be who we are

    by Steve Kindle

    I'm Right coverThe history of philosophy has been aptly summed up thus: โ€œNo matter what is considered the ultimate in metaphysical understanding today, tomorrow it will be replaced by another received as the ultimate in metaphysical understanding.โ€ The same can be said for how the Bible has been interpreted throughout the centuries. I ask you, when was the last time you heard a sermon detailing truth derived from the allegorical method of interpretation? Could we say never?
    I recently led a seminar on the four Gospels. You can be sure I didnโ€™t follow Irenaeusโ€™s lead (the leader of the church in France circa 70 CE) who declared that, “There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic.โ€ Somehow that logic escapes me, yet it was obvious to Irenaeus.
    Psalm 19:4b-6 states, In the heavens he has set a tent for the sun, 5which comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy, and like a strong man runs its course with joy. 6Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and nothing is hid from its heat.
    Before the Copernican revolution was finally accepted as โ€œthe way things are,โ€ biblical interpreters were excused for taking this passage literally. Today, however, few, if any, would want to make a geocentric case. I cite these examples because as worldviews change, so does the manner in which the Bible is interpreted. It could be no other way, as how we look at the world informs how we interpret the Bible.
    Being born into the world is like moving into a fully furnished house that was completely designed, decorated, and landscaped with no input from you. No thought was given to your taste, interests, preferences, needs or desires. You had no say whatsoever in any regard to your new abode. Our individual part of the world is like that. We had no choice as to our country of origin, language, form of government, even our religion. All of these preceded us in our world. The childโ€™s whine that โ€œItโ€™s not fair!โ€ is our first recognition of this reality. No, the world is not set up with us in mind.
    The world we inhabit presents itself to us as the โ€œgivens,โ€ the things we take for granted, the things that โ€œjust are the way they are.โ€ I doubt you worry too much that the sun may not rise tomorrow, or that the laws of aerodynamics may change mid-flight. Most of us reading this are well situated in our Newtonian universe.
    Generally speaking, we seldom give much thought to how we live, or why we do the things we do, or why things are the way they are. We accept our โ€œhousesโ€ as they are presented to us and generally donโ€™t object to much that is there. We easily accommodate the world around us, and this has been true from the beginning of human life. Whether this is good or bad is beside the point. Itโ€™s the way it is. This only becomes a problem when we fail to recognize that we are not self-made, that our opinions, sense of the real, values, and even mores are preconditioned in us. It is virtually impossible for us to completely step out of ourselves and examine our a prioris. And, failing to do so, we truly believe we are able to read the Bible without any encumbrances whatsoever, that we understand what we are reading as though it came from an angel from heaven. With Irenaeus, itโ€™s just so obvious!
    It needs to be stated very forcefully and unequivocally that NO ONE looks at the world totally objectively. Although our โ€œworld housesโ€ are all arranged differently, we all inhabit one. That means that all of us share one thing in common: our worlds, of necessity, will be seen differently. We cannot escape this; it is part of the human condition. This is one of the major reasons we see the Bible differently, and why those differences are often incomprehensible from another point of view.
    I believe that confidence in oneโ€™s opinions increases in direct proportion to the lack of perception of the forces that make us who we are. Conversely, as we become more alert to these forces, we find agreement of our views by others less important than the relationships formed themselves, that truth is found in grace more than in (elusive) absolutes, and that humility before the text opens more widows to heaven than any interpretive scheme. The answer to our differences is found in valuing the person more than needing to devalue that person’s opinions. But this is only possible if we don’t think of ourselves (and our opinions) more highly than we ought.
    Tomorrowโ€™s post: โ€œThe Way Out: Finding Our Way Homeโ€

  • The Battle for the Bible

    by Steve Kindle

    I'm Right coverThe Christian church has never had a uniform understanding of how to interpret the Bible, nor has it had uniformity of belief over its now nearly 2000 years of attempts to do so. The historic creeds were an effort in this direction, but failed to unite all parties. Even among the proponents of the creeds, not all agreed on how to understand each proposition. There is no reason to expect that universal agreement will ever happen; in fact, there is every reason to believe it will never happen. Why? Because truth is ultimate and human beings are finite, incapable of accessing ultimate truth, though we likely touch the “hem of the garment” on occasion. I have no problem with that. My problem is with those who claim to have accessed the ultimate and want to make me (and you) conform to their notions of what the Bible means.
    The title of this post is also the title of a book written by a former editor of Christianity Today, the late Harold Lindsell, back in 1976. He argued that if an interpreter or institution began from the position that the Bible is not inerrant, it could only end in error. The battle that surfaced from this firestorm wasnโ€™t among those Evangelicals who fought for inerrancy against the liberals, but over just what inerrancy meant among Evangelicals! Even here, agreement is hard to come by.
    My book, Iโ€™m Right and Youโ€™re Wrong! is an effort to understand why committed Christians, including even the loftiest of intellectuals and holiest of saints, read the Bible differently, and come to varying, even contradictory conclusions. This is no mere intellectual enterprise, for it involves the very nature of being human, our relationships with others, and our attitude toward those with whom we disagree. How we comport ourselves in relation to others who are involved in interpreting the Bible may well be the best evidence of our Christ-like spirit.
    The focus on inerrancy seemed like a good way to approach biblical interpretation until we dive even a little below the surface. Even if we acknowledge that the โ€œautographsโ€ (original canonical writings) were divinely inspired and free from error, we donโ€™t have them. This makes that point moot. Add to this that the writings must, by necessity, be interpreted, and for inerrancy to have any immediate meaning, they must be inerrantly interpreted. And there are no inerrant interpreters (that I know of).
    Add to this that translations of the Bible are, themselves, interpretations. Any number of articles have been written to demonstrate that theologies often control how certain verses are translated. No matter how good a translation might be, it is always two to three thousand years removed from its origin, and replicating the mindset of the original writer is fraught with difficulty. Even knowing the biblical languages is no panacea as the linguists argue over interpretation as much as everyone else.
    Everything we read is filtered through our worldview, personality, and even our moods. Once, in an adult Bible study, I averred that there is no such thing as an uninterpreted verse in the Bible. One member said, โ€œI can think of a Bible verse that needs no interpretation.โ€ Tell us, what is it?โ€ He quoted, โ€œGod is love.โ€ My response? โ€œWhat do you mean by God, and what do you mean by love?โ€ My challenge is still on the table.
    I think the title of Lindsell’s book is a misnomer. It’s not a battle for the Bible as much as it’s a battle for my interpretation of the Bible to prevail.
    So, whatโ€™s a diligent reader of the Bible to do? That will be the subject of my next two posts. So, please stay tuned!

  • Hospice & Palliative Care: A Quality Alternative to Assisted Suicide

    by Jody Neufeld

    ย What words come to mind when this question is posed: What is a life with quality?
    Dignity
    Purpose
    Comfort
    Joy/Peace/Happiness
    ย Humans have wrestled with the concept of quality vs quantity of life, ever since medication was discovered to both heal disease and prolong a life. With technology, we can keep a 20-something athlete with a brain injury alive almost indefinitely. Cancer, neuro-muscular diseases, chronic lung disease, Alzheimer’s and other dementia continue to be some of the difficult life-journeys which bring us, not just as a family or a community, but as humanity to the question of defining a quality life vs. the quantity of that life.
    Thirty years ago, I (as an RN) left my job as a critical care nurse in a hospital and took a job with the local hospice. It was a relatively small hospice with an average patient census of 25-30 patients over a four-county area. In the next decade, it would grow to over 400 patients, covering a six county area and be ranked in the top 25 hospices in the United States.
    In the 12 years that I worked with hospice, we went from the National Hospice Organization which โ€œtook care of dying patients,โ€ and after much public education, some people, like doctors and social workers, now know that the organization is actually Hospice and Palliative Care. What is the difference?
    Hospice does not just make sure a patient is clean and dry and support the family as everyone waits around for the last breath. The hospice team (nurses, doctors, social workers, homecare assistants, chaplains, volunteers, pharmacists and the family) actively create a plan of care for the patient that will give them life in each day! Nurses are available 24/7 to answer questions and make visits whether it is 2 o’clock in the afternoon or in the dark morning. With so many medications available to help control discomfort and so many different ways to give the medication, I submit that pain is always controllable in patients with a life-threatening illness. Yes, I have had to sit families down to have a difficult conversation which explained that the two options open were: awake with pain or sleeping without pain. But out of control โ€œtormentโ€ should never describe a hospice patient’s situation.
    In my time with hospice, I saw the aftermath of 12 suicides. The families were devastated. All but four were done with handguns. The cleanup, not just of the physical location, but of the families’ shock and mental anguish was very hard to watch. Our counselors found the bereavement period was often indefinite. Families had to process not only their loved one’s death but what they perceived as their inability to meet needs or know their loved one’s mind and do whatever to keep them comfortable.
    If you know someone who is caring for someone who has been told that curative treatment is no longer an option for their life-threatening illness, or caring for someone who is experiencing pain and discomfort which is creating a life without quality, encourage them to consider hospice. The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization can give you a list of hospices in your local area. If you know someone who has received care from a local hospice, a personal recommendation is always good. Many hospices now employ physicians as part of the care team who are well educated in palliative care and will even make house calls! Options in pain control may also include daily assessment by the patient’s assigned RN, so that the administration of medication and non-pharmaceutical treatments are carefully monitored and, what I used to call, โ€œdialed inโ€ to balance with the person’s pain.
    Let me quickly answer just a few questions that are often asked about hospice care:

    • Once I sign up for hospice care, can I change my mind? Of course!
    • How much does hospice care cost? Most health insurance policies (now!) have hospice benefits. Like in any other medical treatment, ask up front how a particular hospice does billing. The hospice I worked for was a non-profit and patients did not pay any fees. Each hospice is different so ask questions.
    • Are all hospice patients placed on morphine for pain control? No. While morphine is an excellent drug for the pain management of advanced cancer, there are several options. My son who died from cancer (rhabdomyosarcoma) only required Tylenol #3 (codiene). This is why the field of medicine is an art, not a science. Each person must be assessed individually.
    • Are all hospices the same? No. Like hospitals, there are non-profit and for profit hospices. Some have inpatient facilities. Some โ€œspecializeโ€ in the care of children.

    I hope that while what I have shared here is a preliminary overview, it may encourage those who are struggling in a difficult situation to know there are options. As I was scanning the Internet for โ€œwhat’s new in palliative care,โ€ I found a website called โ€œNext Step in Care.โ€ It had some wonderful information about hospice, home care, and facility care. Assisted Suicide is not the only option; I do not believe it is even the best option.
    And finally, as a hospice team member, the daughter of a hospice patient, and the mother of a hospice patient, I have stood as a witness in the final months and weeks of someone’s life. It can be a time to reflect on good memories and share heart-felt words which may bring healing in the spirit to the one moving on and comfort in the days ahead to those left behind.
     
     
     
     

  • 3 WAYS TO TELL IF YOUโ€™RE IN A CULT

    by Nick May

    Cover3Titles like these honestly make me wonder how many folks per year are unwittingly lured into participating in organized zealotry and/or brainwashing. Like, does the thought never cross your mind? Waitโ€ฆthis reminds me of an episode of Boy Meets World I saw once. We all know โ€œcultsโ€ in the traditional sense. Itโ€™s probably a good indicator as to why weโ€™re reading this instead of lying belly up somewhere with a Kool-Aid mustache as drones fly overhead, photographing our bodies. MOLE CRICKET, my third novel, deals with a cult boy named Moses, who has the excuse of being a twelve-year-old. Whatโ€™s yours? Here are 3 ways to tell if youโ€™re in a cult.
    Your allegiance is tied to a man, not a mandate.
    None of these describe a traditional cult model, but they all find their roots in the DNA of devoted fanaticism. The idea of attributing most, if not all, of oneโ€™s motivation to a figurehead, rather than the calling or cause that figure champions, can lead to borderline occult tendencies. In the book, Mosesโ€™s parents lose sight of the convictions they once shared, and instead, place their hope and trust in a person. And weโ€™re not talking Jesus here. Itโ€™s one thing to baptize folks. Itโ€™s another thing entirely to drown them. A good vision always outlasts the visionary.
    Your mom is your best friend (and not by choice).
    Iโ€™m imagining the scores of mother/daughter combos that want to curse me to no end for making such a statement. But if youโ€™re offended, I want you to take the parenthetical portion of the subtitle and renounce this particular rule with all the gumption you can muster! What I mean here is that itโ€™s been a while since youโ€™ve made a new friend. Youโ€™re comfortable in your bubble. You like compartmentalizing the company you do keep. Itโ€™s easier. In Mosesโ€™s case, his mom was the only person on the farm who ever displayed a remote sense of love unabashed. But then *spoiler* she betrays him pretty hard. What a tool.
    Your death involved someoneโ€™s misplaced hope.
    Ok, so this oneโ€™s a bit of a stretch, and, of course, thereโ€™s no way of knowing until Steve Jobs gets iPhones working in the afterlife, but the premise is simple. Your death is the immediate result of your own belief that some mortal being or some temporal thing was going to come through for you, and they didnโ€™t. A lot of overly skeptical celebrities or successful people will say to flee headlong from the dependency of people coming through for you. Iโ€™m of that same school of thought, but just in a way more hopeful โ€œfaith in the human raceโ€ kind of way.
    Make no mistake, you donโ€™t have to work at a co-op or wear breathable pants to be in a cult. In fact, your cult leader doesnโ€™t even need to profess himself as โ€œI AMโ€ the way Mosesโ€™s Man in the Woods does in MOLE CRICKET. They might be completely blind to your fanaticism. Wouldnโ€™t that be the worstโ€”to birth someone into cult status without them even knowing? Good grief. Get a grip on yourself, man!

  • 3 WAYS TO TELL IF YOUโ€™RE IRREDEEMABLE

    3 WAYS TO TELL IF YOUโ€™RE IRREDEEMABLE

    by Nick May

     MINUTEMEN was a book I wrote that repeatedly caused my mom to ask, โ€œHow can you tell a story with no redemption?โ€ She questioned whether or not it was even biblical to do so. I questioned whether or not I even cared. Regardless of my attempts to write stories with no moral or tidy sense of redemption, such elements often have a hard time staying buried for long within lines about real people in authentic situations. Even I couldnโ€™t spin a yarn (knowingly or unknowingly) without some kind of inherent moral compass. Maybe you identify with one of the four dudes from my sophomore title. Just in case, here are 3 ways to tell if youโ€™re irredeemable.
    Your current life path was determined by a girl you no longer know.
    This one is funny, because I assume it could pertain to a male or a female, but I hear more stories about girls attracting guys down ambitious roads that, at some point, bear a flagrant fork in their destinies. Think back for a moment. Are you sitting where youโ€™re sitting today because some girl you liked was a part of something you might have never discovered without her? I think youโ€™ll be surprised at how many of your life choices are a direct result of chasing teenage girls who now have kids that look half like what your potential child would have lookedโ€ฆ
    Somewhere back there, you chose beef stew over birthright.
    Some of us may have taken the shorter route to satisfaction. Maybe we saw that long haul and decided it was just too much gas. Thom, John, Nate and Ezra (the bookโ€™s main characters) each display a piece of this mindset in their own way. Thom believes heโ€™ll never love again, John believes he never should, Nate doesnโ€™t even understand love, and Ezra, well he finds a way to have his stew and eat it too. In each of their cases, the boys give up meaningful commitments in favor of immediate belonging.
    Your long-term plan looks more like an escape plan.
    Thereโ€™s a mess that youโ€™re standing right in the middle of. You made it, now youโ€™re making your bed in it. Maybe you didnโ€™t even make the mess. Maybe you were born into it, like a pig in the pods, and thatโ€™s your excuse. Either way, youโ€™ve probably uttered the phrase: โ€œIโ€™ll be so glad when Iโ€™m out of this townโ€ฆthis jobโ€ฆthis relationship.โ€ Trust me, no plan worth keeping is one that begins with you running away from something.
    If thereโ€™s one thing MINUTEMEN did right, itโ€™s scare folks. It may surprise you that Iโ€™ve never cast a shadow on the door of a strip club, or been inside a rundown beach motel where theyโ€™re cooking crystal meth for frisky hazwopers, but I know, first hand, that messy people most certainly exist, and they absolutely lead messy lives. A lot of us would call these kinds of bottom feeders irredeemable. Iโ€™ll let you judge for yourself.

  • 3 WAYS TO TELL IF YOUโ€™RE A MODERN โ€œBELTERโ€

    3 WAYS TO TELL IF YOUโ€™RE A MODERN โ€œBELTERโ€

    by Nick May

    ย Cover1When I wrote MEGABELT, the “Bible Belt” South had the market cornered on funny traditions, religious stereotypes and condemnation disguised as good-natured child rearing. Back then, it was easy to tell if you were a Belter. Like Gil (my main character), you attended a gospel sing followed by an ice cream social, you knew not to use a lowercase โ€œgโ€ when referring to the God of Abraham, and you may have even fooled around in the back of a church van. Things are nowhere near as black and white as they used to be. We live in a very different version of the Belt today. Here are 3 ways you can tell if youโ€™re a modern Belter.
    Youโ€™re not exactly sure what the protocol is for saying the blessing anymore.
    In MEGABELT, I poked a lot of fun at the idea of โ€œblessingโ€ meals or people who just sneezed. The question was never โ€œWhoโ€™s gonna do it?โ€ Instead, it was โ€œReally, whatโ€™s the thought process behind this?โ€ Now that my little novella has liberated so many from these empty traditions (I also started the YoYo craze of 1998), the question has morphed into the panic-stricken uncertainty of โ€œShould we even cast a magical spell over our food at all?โ€
    Church is something you occasionally give yourself a break from.
    In Gilโ€™s South, church was what you did. It was what everyone did. And if you didnโ€™t do it, you lied about it and said you did. Today, church attendance is something you feel the need to purge yourself from every now and then. You post an Instagram of yourself โ€œWorshiping the creator at the beach today. #blessedโ€ Itโ€™s something we do as much as working, and something we get as shifty with as our three hour night classes at the community college.
    You sometimes miss the simplicity of your parentsโ€™ Jesus.
    Gil couldnโ€™t wait to get away from his parentsโ€™ church. There was nothing to get excited about; nothing to work towards (other than perfect attendance). Today, Belters are so much more aware of whatโ€™s behind the curtain. They know the ins and outs of churches that appear to be fruitful and busy. The things that used to leave you dissatisfied (like a lack of programming, serving opportunities and easily understood sermons), now seem like precious commodities.
    Whether you admit it or not, chances are you can identify with one or more of these things. If youโ€™re familiar with all three, well then ring a bell, youโ€™re a Mod Belter. Maybe you were offended by one or more of these statements. That would be swell. Letโ€™s hear it. Tell us what is that you miss about the old Belt, and let us know what other designations you think fit on this list. Until next time, god bless.

  • What did Jesus say?

    What did Jesus say?

    by David Cartwright

    ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Coverย ย  Of the three questions that drive my quest for an answer concerning the paradoxical teachings of Jesus, โ€œWhat did Jesus say?โ€ would seem to be the easiest to answer. On the surface, โ€œWhat did Jesus mean?โ€, and โ€œWhat would Jesus do?โ€, surely require more reflection and discernment. Not so, Iโ€™ve found, during my study of these sayings of Jesus. In fact, all fifteen sermons in my book deal with the question, โ€œWhat did Jesus say?โ€ with varying degrees of difficulty and success. Whether it is โ€œTo Speak or Not to Speakโ€, โ€œA Public or Private Affairโ€, or โ€œTo Turn the Cheekโ€, each is a representation of the on-going struggle to uncover what Jesus actually said.
    An example can be found in complimentary passages from the gospels of Matthew and Luke. I am thinking right now of a passage that I could have included in my book, but for some reason at the time of writing, escaped my search. It all has to do with loving oneโ€™s enemies. The discussion can be found in Matthew 5, The Sermon on the Mount, and Luke 6, The Sermon on the Plain. Both report Jesus saying, โ€œLove your enemies.โ€ Matthew 5: 44 puts it this way, โ€œLove our enemies and pray for those who persecute you.โ€ Luke 6: 27: โ€œBut I say to you that hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.โ€ So far, so good, as far as I can tell. But then we come to Matthew 5: 47, โ€œAnd if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?โ€ Compare Luke 6: 34: โ€œAnd if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.โ€ Notice that Matthew, a Jewish Christian, uses the loaded word, โ€œGentiles.โ€ Luke, a Gentile himself, uses the much more generic word, โ€œsinners.โ€ What did Jesus actually say? One of these, or perhaps, both? And to make matters even more puzzling, this is one of those places in scripture that we call โ€œQ,โ€ where Matthew and Luke are evidently following a source that is not in the gospel of Mark. Conceivably, Jesus may have said something that neither Matthew nor Luke chose to incorporate in their reports. My hunch is, that is all we can know until we find the lost source โ€œQ.โ€ It seems clear to me that both Matthew and Luke chose words that their audiences would or could relate to.
    But thereโ€™s an even more intriguing saying that also reflects the biases of these two gospel writers. In Matthew 5: 48, Jesus says, โ€œYou, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.โ€ While Luke 5: 36 concludes, โ€œBe merciful, even as your Father is merciful.โ€ Which is it? Or both? Or again, did Jesus say something entirely different that neither gospel writer chose to use? As I said before, we simply do not know.
    For myself, I can see how Jesus may have at one point in his ministry said, โ€œBe perfect,โ€ and at another time, โ€œBe merciful.โ€ The overarching point of agreement is that Jesus is telling us that we should emulate these qualities of our heavenly Father. We should strive to be as perfect (complete) and as merciful (compassionate) as God is and desires us to become.
    Iโ€™m glad for this opportunity to expand my thought, as I wish I had spent some time on these sayings and included them in my book. Which is only to say that my quest to answer the three questions continues.

     

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.