Energion Direct

Blog

  • What the Same-sex Marriage Discussion Brings to Light

    by Steve Kindle

    [ncsoc_items product_list=”1631990093″ width=”150″ height=”250″ type=’h’]Many of you read the post and comments in opposition to and in favor of same-sex marriage. What did it bring to light? I know some of you are thinking–Nothing! Most of us are probably set in our considered opinions on the subject of gays and gay marriage. What more can be said than has been said over the past fifty-five years that the church has struggled with this issue? Surely, nothing new surfaced in terms of new arguments. We were exposed to more of the same, including what I had to say on the subject. This is not to say that the pros and cons are irrelevant anymore, just repetitive. Of course, not everything that could be said would occur in our discussions, and possibly something of value may yet come forth. But our discussion ended in an impasse–a draw, if you will, where it seems no minds were changed.
    But changing minds might not be the most important reason for the discussion. After all, if all we want to do is change another’s mind, in my view (and Martin Buber’s, too), we treat each other as objects to be defeated, not equals to learn from. In the process, we deny the other the status of human being, equal to our self.
    Full disclosure:  I am a stanch advocate for gay equality in the church and society. I am the executive director of an organization that works with churches and individuals to encourage gay inclusion. I have given seminars literally from coast to coast including Hawaii, and published two books on the subject. I have stood with LGBTQs in public protests when we were driven off the sidewalks by angry truck drivers. I’ve had stones throne at me during vigils, I know the stories of countless gays whose parents disowned them, churches ex-communicated them, and society discriminated against them and finally shunned them.
    Yet, this is not the end of the story. One thing changed all this. Over the last couple of decades, gays “came out” by the thousands, even hundreds of thousands. We discovered that they are our brothers and sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles, pastors, doctors, even our parents. Our minds changed from thinking all gays are like the demonstrators in the pride parades to seeing they are just like us, for they are us. So now America is solidly behind full equality, including same-sex marriage.
    I bring this up because minds do change. They change, not because they have been argued into a new position, but because they have a personal relationship with someone gay they know well. Most people I have encountered over the years who were pro or anti gay were so out of a disposition, not out of a well-reasoned proposition. The anti-gay folk just found it “unnatural,” and the pro-gay folk disliked discrimination of any kind. In Christian circles, “My Bible says…” was met with “No it doesn’t.” Yet, the anti-gay folk changed their minds in droves, and the pro-gay folk learned personally why they hated discrimination.
    So, what did I learn from our discussion on EDN? Mostly that we are talking past one another. Each side begins from such a different place that communication is almost impossible. Our views of how to understand the Bible turn that document into a jumble of interpretations that make no sense if you don’t hold the same view. Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 didn’t come up, but for many, this is all one needs to know that gay sex is an abomination. Those with an inclusive view can’t understand how a Bible verse can carry such import as to condemn a whole people; we prefer theology to proof-texting.
    I wanted to make clear my total commitment to my position in order to make a larger point. I prefer having a relationship with those who disagree with me over winning the argument. My chief antagonists, Elgin and Nancy (see comments), are model Christians whose lives I admire, and who I hope hold me in the same regard. I can say this, because over the years I have burned a few bridges and wish I had not valued my own position over our friendship. So, in the future, I hope we can continue to raise controversial issues and maintain the priority of people over opinion. Being the liberal I am, I believe God prefers it this way.
    Go in peace, dear ones. God loves us all.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2356′]

  • Am I Willing?

    by Jody Neufeld

     

    Pic“Our Father God loved all of His children so much that He gave the only Son He has as the blood sacrifice, so that everyone who has faith in him who did this, will have eternal life and never really die. And Father God did not send his Son to this world to live with us and condemn us. He sent him to save us!” – John 3:16-17 (my paraphrase and emphasis)
    This is arguably the most known New Testament Scripture, and yet, it is not just the lost souls of this world or even the nominal Believers who occasionally sit in a pew one hour a week who do not get it. We, the Church, do not understand it either! For if we did, the Church would be on fire with love for God and would infect the world!
    There is nothing that I can do to make God love me more. [ene_ptp]

    God’s love is perfect and complete. There is no “more” or “less” in His love for me. Even the love that I have for my child is not that perfect but it does give me a point of reference. Do I love my child less when he/she lies? No. I am sad that they made that choice. Do I love my child more when they throw me a birthday party? No. But I am happy that we spend time together!
    What are we teaching in our fellowships? Are we teaching by our words and actions that there is a checklist which will bring us in greater favor with God? Or are we showing by our teachings how much God loves us? And are we being the hands and feet of God to show how much God loves, even when we are unlovable?
    There is no program that I can conceive which can explain God’s love other than for me to love. Programs, the characteristic of being organized to be God’s hands and feet, are not a bad thing. But when the program, rigid adherence to its tasks and applause to its members, becomes the focus instead of the people it serves and their changing needs, then God is no longer being glorified.
    A thrift store or a food pantry which is conceived in order to meet the needs of the poor, is a wonderful, community-focused 21st century concept which is much like what the apostles did in the first century Church. But what if someone has a need and has no transportation to the store? Will the hands and feet of this program deliver the food or transport the needy? Do those who come have to prove their need? Are they required to confess their need for the Savior first? How many people knew who Jesus was and confessed their belief in Him as Messiah before He healed them?
    Jesus, God-in-the-flesh, did not come to earth to condemn or judge, I do that to myself by my choice. It is so easy to speak John 3:16 and not hear it in context with the whole of that chapter, or for that matter, the whole of Jesus’ three year message. I am still reading and studying that! But if I read John 3:17-21, I am taught, as a member of Christ’s Church, that judgment is not mine to even consider, much less execute. Each person makes their own choice. I am to love. I am to give. I am to go. I do not judge. And isn’t that freeing when I think about my life and what God asks of me, calls me to do in this world?
    My friends, my brothers and sisters who are loved by Father God, let us not grow weary in doing good (Galatians 6:9). Let us just keep doing good like Jesus did. Whoever may come into my path today needs to know that Father God loves them. And Father God has given me the opportunity to deliver that message in a real, true, tangible way. Am I willing? Yes, LORD!

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2498′]

    To get more details about the author or a book, just click on the picture or cover.

  • Universalism in a Pluralistic Age—Part Two

    A Wideness in God’s Mercy: God’s Personal Universalism

    by Bruce Epperly

     
    Epperly picAs he looks over Jerusalem, Jesus compares himself to a mother hen, whose desire is to protect her chicks. For Jesus, God’s love is like a mother – or a father – who is willing to do anything to save her child. Indeed, divine love is so great it goes to the cross for us and our salvation.
    God loves too much, at least in the estimate of many preachers and theologians. They can’t imagine a god who chooses to have no enemies, who rescues the perishing and cares for the dying, even when they’ve gone astray. But, that’s precisely what God does: God rescues the wayward sheep, the coin caught in the cracks, and a son who purposely snubs his father. (see Luke 15) If anyone is not saved, it is surely not God’s doing or intention. “All who call upon God’s name will be saved” (Romans 10:13). What is it about “all” these preachers and theologians don’t get? [ene_ptp] While I have gained from the work of Augustine and Calvin, their vision of an omnipotent deity who is fully responsible for our salvation and either overlooks or predestines the majority of humankind is a far cry from Jesus’ message. Further, the notion that our salvation depends on the recitation of a few sentences is equally distant from the all-embracing love of God. For grace to be grace, there can be no conditions. There may be consequences as a result of our behaviors, but nothing we can do can nullify God’s love for us.   God never gives up on us, even when we give up on God. That’s the love of a parent, the love of a mother for her death row son, the love of a father for his addicted daughter. Isn’t God’s love as great as ours?
    Divine universalism takes two forms: God’s intent to save all persons and God’s desire to be known by all creatures. In the first case, God’s love never ends and has no limits in time or space.   Not even death can defeat God’s love. This is in contrast to the beliefs of many orthodox Christians who see death as stronger than God, that is, if we die in sin or without a relationship with God, God gives up on us.
    For God, death is a “comma” and not a “period.” Beyond the grave, I believe, God continues to work in our lives, enabling us to grow in love and grace and to eventually say “yes” to the One who loved us into life and received us in our deaths.
    In the second case, God provides many ways for us to know God. God reveals Godself in every culture, historical epoch, and religious tradition. It is my belief that the omni-active, omnipresent God, is the ultimate source of spiritual diversity. God’s revelations are tailor made to the world’s differing cultures. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam are not falls from grace, but revelations of divine love appropriate to their time and place. Moreover, the world’s various religious traditions are dynamic, not static, and evolving in relationship to culture and history. Today, the world’s religions are evolving as a result of their encounters with one another. This is as much a result of God’s doing as our own.
    Furthermore, God approaches each person uniquely. God’s call is adjusted to who we are and to our spiritual maturity. In God’s universal love, God is the ultimate relativist, seeking a personal relationship with each unique human. God is a “different god” depending our life situation. That’s what it means for God to have a personal relationship with us.
    I hope to expand on these universalist reflections later, but in the meantime, I solicit your questions and thoughts as we seek to be attentive to the One who loves us into life and whose love companions us into an everlasting adventure.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2461′]  
     

  • Universalism in a Pluralistic Age—Part One

    by Bruce G. Epperly

     
    Epperly picWhen I was a child, there was only one flavor of religion in our small town. We are all Christians, and though Catholics  were forbidden to go into Protestant churches and Protestants weren’t welcome in our town’s Catholic Church, we all shared some variation of Christianity. There might have been a few atheists and agnostics and perhaps a Jewish family in my hometown, but they were quiet about their beliefs. Virtually all the churches believed that there was no salvation apart from a relationship with Christ and his church.
    Today, the world is very different. Christianity is no longer the only option. A click of the mouse can introduce you to hundreds of religious options, and a growing number of people identify themselves as “spiritual but not religious,” gathering their insights from a variety of perspectives, usually shaped by American optimism – Buddhist, Hindu, Sufi, New Age. My congregation sponsors programs on yoga and reiki healing touch, both of which have roots in non-Christian faith traditions, and members read books by Buddhists such as the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh. [ene_ptp] Pluralism is a reality in the marketplace of religions, and a growing number of Christians, including evangelical ]Christians, believe persons outside the faith can experience salvation.  Their positive experience of non-Christians in their dorms, in the medical community, and in the news has opened them to the good faith of persons outside Christianity. This growing universalism has led to cries of relativism and the demise of North American Christianity from fundamentalist preachers and the recent censure of the American Episcopal Church by Southern hemisphere Anglicans for its welcoming of gay and lesbian priests and affirmation of same-sex marriage.
    We can’t turn back the clock to a religiously homogeneous time. In fact, fidelity to God may compel us to recognize truth and salvation outside the Christian witness. The question is: how to open to wider visions of inspiration and salvation without jettisoning the truths of our own faith?
    The bible is a good place to begin, but a careful reading of the bible leaves us with as many questions as answers in the area of universalism. The bible tends to recognize the superiority of the Hebraic tradition over its pagan neighbors. However, scripture also affirms the piety of pagans and their ability to respond to God’s call to repentance, even though it is unclear that they change spiritual affiliations. (See the Book of Jonah, in particular.) While the New Testament affirms the universality of Jesus’ message of salvation, it also suggests that all will be saved as a result of the cross, affirms the continuing witness of God among the Jewish community, and recognizes the universality of divine revelation. Salvation occurs as a result of a relationship with Jesus, many passages affirm, but this relationship is seen as ethical as well as doctrinal, that is, affirming the way of Jesus as well as belief in Jesus as Messiah. Moreover, the Prologue to John’s Gospel clearly notes that the light of the world (Christ) enlightens all people, without distinguishing between followers of Jesus and other faiths. Paul’s speech at the Areopagus proclaims the spiritual superiority of Christ, but also recognizes that revelation is found in Greek philosophy’s claim that God is the one in whom we live and move and have our being. These passages balance the more exclusivist statements of scripture, which limit salvation and truth to those who explicitly call on the name of Jesus.
    Over the past 2000 years, Christian theologians have wrestled with the realities of pluralism, including pluralism in the Christian church. Heterodox, or heretical, factions have suffered persecution and excommunication. Nearly everyone has an ancestor who has been excommunicated for their heretical viewpoints by one faction or another of our faith. Today, some Roman Catholics still claim that they possess the fullness of Christianity, while certain Christian sects wonder if Catholics will be saved as a result of their purported worship of Mary and the Pope! Needless to say, these are not helpful options in a pluralistic age.
    Our own Christian faith suggests a constantly enlarging circle of affirmation. Most Christians recognize diverse expressions of their own faith and are willing to learn from one another’s traditions. We are coming to believe that faith is not static but evolves as new light descends on our scriptures and theological beliefs.
    Still, we struggle with questions of truth and salvation within and beyond our faith tradition.   In the next installment, my focus will be theological in orientation, grounded in my belief that religious truth is manifold as the result of the interplay of divine revelation and human response.

    [Editor’s Note: Part Two runs tomorrow.]

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2461′]  

  • Why Same-sex Marriage Is Not Good for America

    by Elgin Hushbieck, Jr.

    [ene_ptp] A supporter of same sex marriage recently asked me, “Why should I care what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom?” It is a common question and even a valid one in some contexts, but it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, except that it encapsulates a great deal of the problems with this issue.
    To see this just consider the following fact, and it is a fact: The recent Supreme Court ruling forcing states to accept same-sex marriage across the country had absolutely no effect on what people could or could not do in the privacy of their bedroom. None.
    A major reason for this is that marriage is not a private matter, is it a public commitment, and a societal construct. As someone who has been concerned about what author Maggie Gallagher described as “The Abolition of Marriage” long before same-sex marriage was even on the horizon, much less a pressing issue, I approached this debate as yet another in a long line of attacks on marriage, and in many respects one of the final nails in the coffin of marriage, if not the final.
    While I believe there is an important religious component to marriage, religion was not the primary factor in my views. After all, the traditional view of marriage is hardly restricted to evangelical Christians, it is about as universal as any human convention as ever been. Even in societies that had no objection to homosexuality, marriage was still between and man and a woman. The main social experiment was with polygamy, but that seems to be driven more by male desire than family values and was at least until recently seen as undesirable at best, and degrading to women. We are already seeing signs of people pressing for this and other forms of marriage. Given the so-called “legal reasoning” of the decision, I do not seen any way to prevent it, and therein lies the problem.
    Something that can mean anything means nothing; that is pretty much where we are today, with the only thread remaining being a grouping of 2. But, given that historically there is more foundation for polygamy, I cannot see how that will be able to stand for long. Marriage will end up being anything and thus will be nothing. It will effectively have been abolished.
    Neither do I believe this is at all accidental. Serious thinkers on the left have attacked the traditional family and called for its weakening or elimination as a barrier to the state from the beginning, though the intellectual backing for this is largely unknown by the rank and file liberals.
    To them it is just about people (currently two) in love. But if this is the case, why has the traditional family been such a feature of every culture and every time period until now? The main reason has been the raising to children, who it was believed needed a good father and a good mother.
    Today we are told that this is no longer true. That the only thing needed is love. While love is certainly important, this is yet another example of ideology trumping reason and the facts. Its core foundational belief, while a mantra for the left from the late 1960s–1990s, is that men and women are the same. Most people have noticed the difference between the sexes from the beginning of humanity. But that did not keep the belief they are essentially the same from becoming an important tenant that lies behind much of modern leftism. It remains a key underpinning, even today and long after science confirmed common sense by refuting this idea.
    It is this false idea, that there is no difference between men and women that underpins the notion that the only thing you need is love which has governed so much of the left’s attack on traditional values. After all once you admit there is a difference, then it becomes clear that a mother and a father bring different things to the raising of children, and if you allow for this, then you have a reasonable basis for traditional marriage.
    Intellectually this is a death blow to the campaign for same-sex marriage. Its imposition by the courts was grounded on the false belief that the only possible opposition could be homophobia, and this could only be true if there was no basis for traditional marriage, that there fundamentally was no difference between men and women.
    The lasting effect of individual same-sex couples getting married will be nil simply because, other than qualifying for social security benefits, little has changed for them. The social effects, on the other hand, will be to both to hasten and lock in the destruction of the traditional family. The message society sends to the next generation will now be that traditional marriage, rather than being the preferred option, will be just one of many social groupings one can engage in. Again, this was already going on long before same-sex marriage became an issue, and the deleterious effects will only be hastened and magnified, though probably still ignored, as they consistently have been.
    In addition, there will be the further segmenting of society. Those who do not wish to jump on the bandwagon of the left, those who believe that men and women are different, and that marriage is between a man and a woman, will find it increasingly difficult to live in society. There will be a growing list of professions where those with traditional beliefs will be banned. We are already seeing it deepen the divide in churches and even splitting some churches. And undoubtedly this will hasten the exodus from public schools further segmenting society. In short, this will not unify the country, this will further split and alienate a very large and significant part of the population.
    When the court attempted to settle the abortion issue in 1973, they instead created a political cancer that has infected much of politics since that time. I fear that they have done the same thing here, but time will tell.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]  
     
     
     

  • Are we living within God’s will and laws?

    by Doris Horton Murdoch

     
    Murdoch picI recently traveled to the Holy Land. One of the sites I visited was Masada. To prepare myself for this excursion, I watched the mini-series entitled “Masada” produced back in 1981 with Peter O’Toole as Flavius Silva and Peter Strauss as the zealot Eleazar. Then I read Josephus’s eyewitness account of Masada found in The Wars of the Jews, Book 7, Chapters 8-9. I learned that the residents after King Herod were the Jewish zealots. In my limited knowledge, I had always thought of the zealots as members of an ancient Jewish sect that were zealous for God and His Son Jesus Christ and resisted the Roman authority. The word zealot comes from the Greek word “zelotes”, from “zeloun” meaning “to be jealous”. My overall impression of the zealots had always been very positive.
    When I returned home from the Holy Land, I reread the passages from The Complete Works of Josephus. Josephus [ene_ptp] called those at Masada as “Sicarii”. Sicarii is the Latin plural form of sicarius meaning “dagger man”. In Book VII of The Wars of the Jews, Josephus defines Sicarii as ruffians and in 7.8.1.270, the Sicarii are described as those that “imitated every wicked work.” Josephus considered the Sicarri to be barbaric and “wild and brutish” in disposition. These Sicarri killed, terrorized, and plundered fellow countrymen that were trying to live peacefully and cooperatively under Roman rule.
    I now interpret these zealots or Sicarii at Masada as “radical followers of God” just as we have “radical followers of God” and/or “radical Muslims” today. Then and now, some consider the radicals as “heroes of the faith” and others consider them as “radical terrorists.” I’m not sure what side I’m on in this argument, if any side! I know that all men need to live within the will and laws of God.
    The laws of God are found in Exodus 20:1-17 in the Ten Commandments. Commandment 1 is “You shall have no other gods before me.” At what point do extremism and terrorism become our gods? When man fights in the Name of God, at what point in the battle is he taking the Lord’s name in vain? Can warfare misuse the name of God? God commands, “Thou shall not kill”; when does killing another man become acceptable? God says, “Thou shall not steal.” When does it become satisfactory to plunder the defeated? God says, “Thou shall not covet.” Covet means “to be jealous or desirous for” what another has. Zealot comes from the word jealous. When is it appropriate to be zealous to the point of being radical or a sicarii?
    Yes, throughout the Bible, God has allowed these things to happen within God’s will. Knowing God’s will is personal and can only be found in a close relationship with God. Even today, the only way any of us can be zealous about God and political positions is through our relationship with God. As Christians, are we spending enough time alone with God to truly know His will for our lives? Are we spending enough time in spiritual community to know that we are working within God’s will?
    In the sight of defeat, the Sicarii of Masada, led by Eleazar, began to question whether their efforts were within the will or favor of God. In Eleazar’s final speech, he discusses how the group chose to never become servants of the Romans; victory at Masada was not defeating the Romans. Victory would be to die bravely and to not be overpowered by the Romans. Eleazar called this as a favor from God. In the Book of Ecclesiastes, we see a repentant heart in Solomon; he found zeal for worldly (under the sun) victories was only chasing after the wind. In Eleazar’s speech to his most courageous men in the Wars of the Jews, I also see a repentant heart:

    “To be sure we weakly hoped to have preserved ourselves, and ourselves alone, still in a state of freedom, as if we had been guilty of no sins ourselves against God, nor been partners with those of others; we also taught other men to preserve their liberty. Wherefore, consider how God hath convinced us that our hopes were in vain, by bringing such distress upon us in the desperate state we are now in, and which is beyond all our expectations; for the nature of this fortress which was in itself unconquerable, hath not proved a means of our deliverance; and even while we have still great abundance of food, and a great quantity of arms, and other necessaries more than we want, we are openly deprived by God himself of all hope of deliverance; for that fire which was driven upon our enemies did not of its own accord turn back upon the wall which we had built; this was the effect of God’s anger against us for our manifold sins, which we have been guilty of in a most insolent and extravagant manner with regard to our own countrymen; the punishments of which let us not receive from the Romans, but from God himself, as executed by our own hands; for these will be more moderate than the other.” 7.8.6.329-333

    Eleazar later states that true freedom is allowing the soul to be released from its earthly constraints and that is found only when God calls us home to His eternal kingdom.
    Man can become zealous about the wrong things. Our humanity calls us to earthly efforts, but God calls us to things that are above. Galatians 4:26 says, But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. Colossians 3:1-2 confirms where our thoughts and actions should be, Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. While on earth, man needs to: follow God’s laws and strive for that personal relationship with God that guides him to better understand God’s will and plan.
    Thomas Merton expresses well the journey of that personal relationship:

    “My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think that I am following Your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please You does in fact please You. And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this, You will lead me by the right road though I may know nothing about it. Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for You are ever with me, and You will never leave me to face my perils alone.”

    While on earth, Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 concludes what man should be zealous for: Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.  
     
     

  • Changing My Mind about the Bible

    [Editor’s Note: This is another post in our series of “Why I changed my mind.”]

    by Elgin Hushbeck

     
    PicI have changed my mind many times, often quite drastically. The most drastic was probably my journey from Atheist to Christian. But that took many years and many phases. One part of that journey was a softening in my attitude towards the Bible. This occurred while I was in the Air Force working on Minuteman missiles which brought me in contact with a lot of different people. Minuteman missiles were scattered across the country side, and so to work on them involved a lot of drive time. My team member and I would load up a truck, pick up a guard and drive out to the missile site, driving 1-2 hours each way on average. As a result, there was plenty of time to talk.
    Most of the time the discussion was on more mundane topics such as sports, but from time to time I we would get a guard who was a Christian and the talk would turn to religion. When that happened often the sparks would fly.
    Few of the Christians I would talk to actually knew very much about the Bible other than citing a few verses they had memorized. When I would point out the contradictions or problems from the list I had made, for the most part, they had never even heard of these potential problems, much less did they have any answers, other than to say that the Bible was the Word of God and was to be believed despite what might seem to be problems.
    All of this reinforced my belief in the error of Christianity, as it seemed a faith one could believe in only if one did not look too close, or ask too many question.
    Still, from time to time I would come across a Christian who knew something about their faith and the Bible. I would run down my list of potential problems, and they would actually have an answer that could stand up to my questioning. When that happened I was never too concerned, as there were many more items on my list and I would simply move to the next item.
    When someone did raise a serious objection to one of the things on my list of problems, however, it would tend to stick with me, and I would seek a way around it. While sometimes I would find some weaknesses in their proposed solution, there were also times when I had to admit, if only to myself later, that they had a point, and my alleged problem was not really a problem after all.
    As a result, over time, my list of problems and contradictions got smaller and smaller. In addition two other things happened. First, with each problem dealt with, the credibility of the critics correspondingly suffered. After all, if the critics were wrong on these alleged problems and contradictions in the Bible, perhaps they were wrong on the others as well. Second, my diminishing list of errors was being replaced by a growing respect for the reliability of the Bible. I did not yet believe the Bible was the Word of God, but I could no longer write it off as simply a collection of myths and legends either.
    It was at about this point in my odyssey that I had one of the more significant of these discussions. I think this was the only time we had this particular guard, and unfortunately his name has long since been forgotten. He was different than many of the other Christians I had met in the way he listened to my challenges without any confrontation in his responses. It wasn’t that he knew how to answer my remaining challenges all that much, but he did do something, none of the others did. He offered to set up a meeting with someone who he said could better answer my questions and I agreed.
    This someone was an officer at the base, and we talked for several hours one evening. I explained my spiritual journey to that point and we talked about some the remaining problems I saw with Christianity and the Bible. He was able to provide some answers. On a few others, such as why would a loving god allow evil, I was not convinced. But he did show me a different side of Christianity even when his answers were not completely satisfying. He showed me that Christianity and the Bible were something an intelligent thinking person could take seriously. Even if I did not agree with him, I had to respect him as someone who had thought seriously about his faith.
    When I left that evening, he encouraged me to continue my journey and seemed oddly sure and confident as to where that journey would lead me even if I had not reached it yet. I was still over a year from becoming a Christian. And even becoming a Christians was in many ways just a beginning of a new journey.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′] Click on any book for more information and ordering

  • Energion—a model for us all

    by Steve Kindle, Energion Discussion Network Editor

    Head-Brown small
     
    Henry Neufeld, our publisher, has drawn some criticism lately for publishing on this blog and in Energion books opinions that favor LGBT inclusion in our churches. It should be noted that he also has writers with the opposite opinion. Henry will not oblige us with his own point of view on the matter as he sees his role as a facilitator in the discussion, not the arbitrator.
    Now, Henry doesn’t need me to take his side, (nor has he asked) as he is quite able to articulate his own views, as he recently did here. Why I am entering into this discussion is because I see a profound vision of what not only publishing should be, but about how we as Christians should comport ourselves. It is a vision of humility, love, respect, and openness to correction.

    On Humility

    It is presumptuous to assume that one knows all there is to know on a subject, especially one as controversial as gay issues. To assume such a stance places one as judge and jury on a subject that precludes any further possibility of correction, something which the haughty despise. By giving the reading public options in the search for answers, the public is served well. Exposure to many opinions can often lead to a well thought out conclusion. In that vein, Henry/Energion is not going to tell you what you should believe in this or any other matter. But you will find much help along the way to a decision.

    On Love

    By examining the mind and lives of those with whom we disagree, for the purpose of actually learning from them, we open ourselves to the “other” as an act of love. We do this not to convert, or belittle, but to treat them with the dignity of a human possessing God’s image. To reach out to another is to welcome one into your life. And if this is done with no strings attached, it is an act of love.

    On Respect

    Engaging in honest, open dialog with those we disagree with means that we find them just as capable of discerning truth as ourselves.
    Martin Buber taught us the difference between treating a person as a human being (a Thou—one like yourself) or an object (an It—a thing to be used). If our purpose in discussion is to win someone over, we no longer treat our conversationalist as a person, but as a thing to dominate. If, on the other hand, our objective is to discover something valuable and give our conversation partner an opportunity to teach us, we and our partner are one, or I/ Thou.
    We cannot allow differences of opinion to come between us and another created in the image of God. Always bear in mind that we are not the one another is called to please. Follow the Golden Rule. After all, we learn not to appear scholarly, or erudite, or to win arguments, but to follow Jesus as a faithful disciple. That’s the difference between being right and righteous. It’s also the point of why we study in the first place. And I think this is why Energion exists.

    On Openness to Correction

    I’m sure that most of us have changed our minds about many things over the years. I know I have. This seldom occurs in a vacuum. Rather, we engage the questions over time, usually in the company of others or with their books. Had I not changed over time, I’d still have the “know-it-all” attitude of my teenage self, the opinions of an unformed mind, and the inability to appreciate when I am wrong. Being open to correction is a wonderful gift that produces rewards our whole life. Wise people try to surround themselves with people smarter than themselves. This has often led to successful presidencies!
    I have taken advantage of the wide choices in the Energion catalog and will continue to do so. Among my selections are books chosen for what I thought would be more helpful as illustrating an incorrect position. But I actually found them to be enlightening. (I hate it when that happens!) Life is so much easier when we finally realize we’re not Truth’s arbitrator. Rather, working within a community of seekers, truth finds us.
    Therefore, I find in the publishing philosophy of Energion Publications a model for Christian behavior. One that, if taken into one’s life, will yield a humble spirit and a loving heart. Thank you, Henry.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2356′]

    Click on any book for more information and ordering

     

  • I Have Loved You from Inside Out!

    I Have Loved You from Inside Out!

    Image Credit: Adobe Stock, #67735290
    Image Credit: Adobe Stock, #67735290

     

    I did not have to see your face to know that I loved you.

    I would listen to your voice and I found that it soothed me.

    When you were upset, I wanted to cry. But I did not have tears!

    I could hear your laughter and if I would have known how to laugh, I would have laughed too.

     

    The sound I was so very fond of was the beat of your heart.

    The percussion echoed with pitch perfect rhythm.

    It was so peaceful and relaxing.

    Its replicating melody was the best part.

     

    You provided me shelter from the world, and gave me a place to grow.

    I could not see much in there but would hear your voice loud and clear.

    Inside I would toss and turn, I would flip and flop.

    You kept me nourished through a cord attached to your belly from below.

     

    A very long time passed. In that water I swam.

    Then the strangest things happened? My water was gone!

    I heard your voice, it was clearer, I saw an image.

    It said, “Yes my baby here I am!”

     

    At first I was in shock. I did not understand.

    I started to cry. Where am I? What is going on?

    Who is this that, is looking down at me?

    You had my body in your arm and head under your hand.

     

    You placed me on your warm chest.

    That is when I realized, I heard the distinct music in my ear.

    I began to smile.

    I fell asleep listening to the sound I loved the best.

     

    The most unconditional love is the love that a new born child feels for its mother.

    This love is so innocent, so sweet.

    This love is so pure. So full of emotion.

    For that one moment in time is all about her.

  • Educate! Energize! Empower!

    by Henry Neufeld, Energion Publisher

    Henry picWe rolled out a new theme over the weekend. More about that in a few paragraphs …
    A couple of months ago I sent out an e-mail to a few of the people whose advice I count on regarding the slogan we use on the Energion Publications web site: Educate! Energize! Empower! I asked them whether we should keep it or change it. I’ve been told a number of times that those are buzzwords that have no real meaning. The general consensus was that I should keep the slogan as it is.
    [ene_ptp]Buzzwords get used so much that they begin to lose meaning, but one of the reasons they get overused is that they have very important meanings. I agree with the people who told me we should keep these words. Let me expend just a few words defining them as I use them.

    Educate!

    No matter what doctrinal or ethical positions they take, many in the church are not well informed as to their faith and the world around them. In order to carry out the mission of the church, there are things we need to know. Unfortunately, many of us who are church members are there because we grew up that way. It’s habit. We wonder why we cannot attract new people to the church. Part of that reason is that we don’t really know why we are there ourselves.
    The educational mission of Energion Publications is to help us understand both our own faith and that of people around us. We occasionally also use the slogan Scholarship in Service. That slogan tells something of the method. We aim to find authors who will bring the benefits of good biblical and theological scholarship and make it available to the church as a whole. Wonderful ideas die useless deaths when confined to the halls of academia.

    Energize!

    As we educate, we aim to motivate and inspire people to action. We pursue this aim by looking for authors who are active in benefiting their church and community, those whose ideas grow out of a living experience and in turn give birth to action. Ideas and values are important; putting them into action is imperative.

    Empower!

    By empowerment, we mean that accepting ideas and choosing actions are the privilege, responsibility, and indeed the joy of everyone. Neither we, in choosing what to publish, nor our authors in writing, take away the responsibility of all readers to study and decide for themselves.
    To illustrate what I mean I want to quote from a manuscript I’m currently editing, Meditations on the Letters of Paul by Dr. Herold Weiss:
    Paul trusts the ability of his audience to use their minds and reason properly. He writes, “I speak as to sensible [thinking] men; judge for yourselves what I say” (1 Cor. 10: 15). After having had a serious disagreement with the Corinthians, he writes to them, “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you?— unless indeed you fail to meet the test! I hope you will find out that we have not failed [to meet the test to which faith is to be put]” (2 Cor. 13: 5 – 6). Paul does not wish to have others evaluate the Corinthians as to their faith. Neither is he going to do it himself. He trusts the ability of all those who live in Christ to test themselves. He also expects them to evaluate the reasonableness of what he tells them. Their judgment is valid.
    Dr. Weiss is talking about the way Paul approaches his audiences, of course, but we extend this same idea of empowerment. We don’t want to force an agenda on the church. Readers, students, friends, brothers and sisters are all able to make their own decisions. Advocate and exhort, yes! But trust in the Holy Spirit in each person for the decision.

    How Does This Apply to the Energion Discussion Network?

    Yes, it’s time to get to the point. You’ll see a new theme. By some time tomorrow you can expect an improved comment section including better e-mail management for our subscribers. You’ll also notice a change in the way we schedule posts. Rather than irregular scheduling, we’re asking some of our authors to dedicate the time to produce regular articles, some every two weeks, and some every month. We will still have additional articles by our other authors who are not committed to a regular schedule.
    We’re asking these authors to educate, energize, and empower, just as they do with their books. We’re asking those who aren’t contributing regularly to comment on posts, write posts on their own blogs, and also to provide occasional posts to provide the fullest possible examination of issues that confront the church today.
    Please read, study, discern. Give others the benefit of your wisdom and discernment through comments or through posts on your own blog. Don’t hesitate to provide a link if you blog about one of our topics. Relevant links are welcome!
    Test everything. Keep hold of what is good. Keep away from every variety of evil. – 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2364′]

    Click on any book for more information and to order

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.