Energion Direct

Blog

  • Obedience to the heavenly vision

    by Robert MacDonald
    Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

    PsalterSuch words we read in the New Testament. Paul claims he was not disobedient (Acts 26:19) but Festus interjects a few verses later that Paul is mad.
    How do we know? We are not all given heavenly visions to ‘obey’ as Paul was. How do we know we are not mad in our pursuit of the calling that is in the Anointed Jesus? How will we be like-minded? Paul writes to the Philippians (3:14) that God will reveal our situation to us.
    Now the question is: do we really want to know our situation? Take care. You may find things you did not want to know. But here is an excellent method, one that was used by Jesus himself in his own growth and maturing.
    I was brought up with a certain inertia. You know what inertia is: it’s what happens to you when you are pushed in a particular direction, and you have to work to stop going in that direction. You may have had a good push or a bad one, but we all need to take charge of the momentum at some point in our lives. I reacted with a favorite word: No! No to the distortion produced by dangerous directions – take alcoholism for example, or to violent actions against others, or even to my own longing for I did not know what. ‘No’ came easily to me, but I really did not know a Yes that would satisfy. At some point I learned the gospel and learned the love of Christ that is without boundaries. But I had not been taught consciously of what I must do to enter into that glory.
    The work which is explained in the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament is a work described for us as if we were overhearing a conversation between a father and a son. Unto which of the Angels did he say: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? (Hebrews 1:5 citing Psalm 2.)
    This work includes our work, individually, mine and yours, and together, ours, caring for the work of God that is from the beginning and that is complete from then. We must become part of this conversation that we are overhearing. The conversation is an extended conversation that continues forever. In that letter to the Hebrews, the conversation is taken from the Psalms.
    When I learned that the Psalms were where Jesus himself is in conversation with his Father, I knew that I must learn them more carefully. I knew when I discovered this, that I must hear that conversation in its original tongue. That meant learning a language that I knew not. (Psalm 81:6). Though I had discovered something of truth already, it was in the Psalms that God reached deeper into me and showed me more of how to live. It is there in that very personal conversation that we will find the truth of our situation, and complete the journey of obedience which God will reveal to us.
    I could not find a book that would help me read them in sequence with a close reading that preserved the ancient foreign thought form in the way I wanted to see it. So I wrote it myself and called it Seeing the Psalter. It helps us see the story in the Psalms, and it slows us down in a number of ways so that we will not rush through the necessary time that we need for such hearing and obedience. Still, it is a beginning, but I am convinced we can continue in such a work.
    If this be madness, Festus, it is a madness to be deeply desired, like David’s pretense when he feigned his madness in the face of Abimelek (Psalm 34:1). And he writes there in the 7th verse: this poor one calls and the Lord hears and from all his troubles he saves him. And later “taste and see that the Lord is good.” This word taste has the same letters in Hebrew as the word used for madness.

  • The Clinton Compromise

    by Elgin Hushbeck

    DemocracyFor all but the most dogmatic Christians, living in the real world is full of compromises. This is probably one of the reasons monasticism has played a significant role in the history of Christianity. There is something appealing about cutting oneself off and just living as Christ would want us to live, free from the temptations of the world.
    Whatever your theological stance on these issues, most Christians do not have the ability to cut themselves off so completely and often; we are faced with having to make compromises. This can be particularly true when it comes to influencing our society as citizens of a democratic government. (Note, I use democratic in its broad sense that would include a number of types of democratic governments including a republic, and not just direct democracy). Rarely do we have a choice between candidates we can fully support, and often we are trying to choose the better of two evils.
    Some try to avoid the choice by not participating. But this is also a compromise. We abandon our duty to be good citizens, and we abandon our ability to shape the society. For me, the famous line “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” sums up the problem I have with such a view.
    The opposite of not participating at all is always supporting “your side” no matter what. In the last 45 years, both the Democrat and Republican parties have faced just such a choice. For the Republicans, the choice came in the early 1970. While many rallied to President Nixon as the Watergate scandal began to unfold, seeing it as the result of political attacks and a liberal media, eventually a point was reached where it became clear that Nixon had committed obstruction of justice. In short, whatever role politics played in the accusations of his opponents, Nixon broke the law, and that could not be acceptable in a President. As a result, a delegation of Republicans led by Senator Barry Goldwater went to the White House and demanded that Nixon resign.
    The Democrats faced their choice in the mid-1990s with the Clintons and their numerous scandals from their time in Arkansas, violating campaign finance laws, shady trade dealing with China, and of course the claims of philandering, sexual harassment and even a rape charge.
    Like the Republicans and Nixon in the early days of Watergate, Democrats rejected all of these as politically motivated attacks, despite the fact that there were a number of convictions of those close to the Clintons.  Then, like Nixon, eventually it became clear that Clinton had committed obstruction of Justice, but in addition, and unlike Nixon, he also committed perjury. Yet rather than a delegation of Democrats going and asking Clinton to resign, a large number went to hold a rally of support. Their guy was to be defended no matter what. As a result, Clinton survived impeachment, though he was the only President who had to negotiate a plea bargain so that he would not be arrested upon leaving office.
    Such things are rarely one-off events. If people know there will be no consequences for bad actions, they are much more likely to act badly. Thus in the current administration, several officials have been caught lying to Congress with no consequences. James Clapper, when confronted with his lie, passed it off as the “least untruthful” answer. But then the President himself has been shown to have lied on numerous occasions, perhaps the most notable being “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor,” something documents released showed the administration knew was not correct from the start. Then there is the more recent claim that the deal with Iran would have anywhere-anytime inspections, only to have Kerry say that was never even sought.
    Now the Democrats find Hillary Clinton their main candidate in serious trouble having run afoul of the law. Once again, we get a long line of excuses that are shown to be false, only to be replaced with new excuses. There is also the suspiciously timed, extremely large donations, to the Clinton foundation from those with business before the Secretary of State.
    Now, despite earlier claims to the contrary, we know that Clinton’s emails did contain classified material. Given that so much of what the Secretary of State does is classified, it would have been extremely surprising if they hadn’t. So she broke at least some laws, and the FBI is investigating. Aggravating this, General Petraeus recently plead guilty to giving his biographer/mistress classified material (reportedly his schedule – which as CIA Director was classified). What Clinton has done is far worse.
    For nearly two decades Democrats have closed their eyes to the long list of scandals that surround the Clintons, and the Clintons’ lawlessness has been spreading through their party. Winning, not character, was what matters. But compromising on issues of character is different than compromising on political positions. Perhaps for the Democrats, the bill is coming due.

  • Confessions of a Climate Denier

    by Elgin Hushbeck

    DemocracyI am skeptical of the theory that human activity is causing the earth to warm at a rate that is threatening. I freely admit that I am not now, nor have I ever been a climatologist, and for some this means I am not allowed to have an opinion or reach a conclusion in the matter. I am just supposed to sit down and blindly accept whatever the high priests of science pronounce. But I don’t.
    I ask questions. I look at the arguments made on both sides, and have reached a conclusion that is in opposition to the consensus view. Frankly, I find that historically I am in pretty good company. At one point it ran against the scientific consensus to believe that rocks fell from the sky; only the unenlightened believe such things. Now we know that meteorites do exist.
    When the theory of plate tectonics was proposed, it ran against the settled consensus view in geology, and opposition was expressed as, “If we are to believe this hypothesis, we must forget everything we learned in the last seventy years and start all over again.” (Hushbeck, 2007)   Because of this its proponent, Alfred Wegener, was rejected and denounced and had to leave his country to find a teaching position, and then in another field.   Then there was the scientific consensus that was Eugenics.   So I do not rate consensus that highly and instead look at the evidence.
    When it comes to the evidence, I have been blessed, or cursed, depending on your point of view, to have been following this debate for 40 years. And for 40 years the alarmists have been consistently wrong. They have gone from predicting a new Ice Age to Global Warming and now, since we have not been warming since the mid-90s, they cover their bases with the generic term Climate Change.  In recent months, I have seen some reports about how the data has been “reevaluated” during this pause, so as to find some warming, but I remain skeptical. On several occasions in the past they have been caught, at the least, distorting the data.
    More importantly for me, the alarmists have attacked anyone who disagrees with them as being somehow biased, selling their soul to big business, or just being evil. This is the irrational fallacy of ad hominem attack, and fallacies hardly make for sound arguments. In addition they actively try to suppress differing points of view. (The latter being a small part of a much larger problem of enforced conformity by the left.)
    For me the four key questions are:
    Are we warming? In the long run probably, as we are coming out of a Mini Ice Age and are still below the average temperature for the last 10,000 years, which itself is below the long running average. After all Greenland got is name when people lived there in settlements that are now frozen.
    Are we the primary cause? Probably not, as there have been many more significant periods of warming and cooling in the past long before we could have had any impact. Given that the current claims are based on computer models that have consistently been wrong, I see no reason to hold otherwise.
    Is there anything we can do about it? Even if the first two answers are yes, the plans put forth would have little if any actual effect on the climate. Any effect they had would be greatly outweighed by their negative impact on people, particularly people in the third world who would benefit the most from economic development and growth. As a Christian I do value the planet, but I value people more.
    Is warming a bad thing? Probably not. It would certainly cause disruption, but considering that far more people die each year from cold related causes than from heat related causes, and much of the land mass is currently in colder regions, warming would probably be a net positive.
    One other factor.  As an engineer, I do know a little about control systems.   The earth’s climate has numerous such systems, and if climatology is like any other science, I suspect these are far more numerous and far more complex than we now know or understand. I suspect that our lack of understanding of these systems is a primary factor in the models being so consistently wrong.
    For the planet to have survived as it has this long, these systems must be robust and strong. For example, in very simple terms, increasing temperatures causes more evaporation, leading to more clouds, which reflect more sunlight out into space, cooling the planet – note until recently the climate models have not factored in cloud cover. Increased CO2 means more food for plants, and this means more plants, which then consume more CO2. If the climate was as fragile as climate alarmist claim, we would not be here in the first place as the climate would have spun out of control long ago.
    So I remain skeptical. Maybe if the models had a track record of 40 years of accurate prediction, I would think otherwise, but they don’t.  And until the alarmist give up their irrational arguments to support their claims, I am likely to remain skeptical.

  • Christians, Government, and the Market Place

    by Elgin Hushbeck

    9781631990830One of the issues that divides Christians on the right and left, and the right and left in general, is their view of government and the market place. This, in and of itself, raises some interesting questions concerning how and why we develop the values and positions we hold. How much do our political opinions influence our religious views, and how much do our religious views influence our politics? In this post, however, I will look at the left’s preference for government over the market place, and whether or not their underlying assumptions are correct.
    For many Christians on the left, looking to government to address social ills and problems is an easy choice, at least when the government is in some fashion a democratic form of government. This is because they see government as an institution led by people they elected who operate as an expression of the people’s will. They regard it as an institution that is guided by values such as equality and a concern for the poor that they share.
    The market place on the other hand is governed by large corporations, led by people they do not know, people they have no say over, and motivated by less desirable values such as greed. In fact, as my co-host Chris Eyre, on Global Christian Perspectives, labeled it, “satanic.” Thus when the question is, where should we look to address a social problem such as dealing with the poor, or health care, it is an easy choice.
    As someone on the right, it is probably not that surprising that I would disagree with many of these characterizations. For example, I make a distinction between big business and the market place. In fact I would probably agree with much of the left’s critique of big business. The really big difference is that I see government as even worse.
    While the left’s description of democracy is good in theory, it hardly lines up with reality.   Its most basic flaw is that it assumes that those elected to government will act in the interest of others over themselves.
    The problem with such a view was elegantly summed up in Federalist 51 (by either, Hamilton or Madison) in the famous statement on the reasons for divided powers and limited government:

    It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

    This is particularly problematic as government becomes more distant from the people. One could argue that this is just democracy in action, yet numerous real world factors such as gerrymandering of districts, advantage of incumbency, campaign finance laws tha,t in reality, only make it harder to unseat incumbents, influence of special interest groups and lobbyist, to mention a few, insulate those in office from the people.   Such factors are not an aberration, but are rather now the norm as government becomes more centralized and powerful. (For a more complete discussion of some of these factors see my book: Preserving Democracy.)
    In a consumer based market place, however, one has some economic say by choosing where to spend one’s money. This requires that the consumers have real choices and businesses must compete for their business. In such a marketplace, to succeed, a business must be concerned with their customers’ wants, wishes and ability to pay.
    Not only can such a system work in theory, it can and has worked, and has resulted in the greatest increase in the standard of living for more people than any other economic system. As Arthur C. Brooks has pointed out, because of such policies, “The number of people in the world living on a dollar a day—a traditional poverty measure— has fallen by 80 percent since 1970, from 11.2 percent of the world’s population to 2.3 percent” (Brooks, A. C. (2012). The Road To Freedom, New York: Basic Books., p. 72).
    Granted no system is perfect, and problems remain, but as we move closer to a true consumer based marketplace, things get correspondingly better. On the other hand, as government is asked to do more, it grows larger and the problems are exacerbated. Rather than being a defender of the public against big business, only the large and well connected can have influence.
    Thus for me the choice is clear.  Government cannot live up to the ideas of the left, and in fact the larger it grows, the more likely it is to be a defender of big business. Not only can a consumer based capitalism make people’s lives better, but it also allows more freedom as well.

  • When is a caregiver not a caregiver?

    Care GiverIn today’s American culture, there is one virtue that seems to be held above all others as the one to be achieved at all costs. That is individual perseverance. And what is wrong with that, actually? After all, isn’t perseverance one of the things we are told we will learn as we go through trials? So, we welcome trials because we know we will get perseverance and, once we get that, we’ll stick to everything and we’ll get everything done possible. And, again, aren’t we told we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us?
    But what if you can’t do everything? I mentioned that in yesterday’s post. There are times when you just can’t do everything and you need someone to come along and show you mercy. And, in my first article, I mentioned about how my family gathered around each other and supported each other in our grief and trials. But that goes counter to everything our society teaches us.
    “Buck up!” “Stiff upper lip!” “You can do it!” “You don’t need anyone!” “Stand on your own two feet!” “Pick yourself up!” Subtly, constantly, our society teaches us that this is normal, this is virtuous. To ask for help, to even need help means that there is something wrong with you. This is part of the reason why caregivers, I believe, get the short end of the stick at times. Everything is focused on the person going through the struggles. They are the heroes. They are the ones that need the encouragement to get through, to pick up, to move on, to conquer. The power of one! Stick to it! You can do it!
    But the caregiver, sitting in the background, has to keep the strength going and keep the power going. They are the ones that make it all possible, really. My wife has told me time and again that if it wasn’t for me, she would have despaired in her own cancer treatments. My wife wasn’t able to make it through alone. Did she fail? Of course not! She is still here. She and her doctors beat the cancer and now she’s back to her recovery. And I was the caregiver that also helped her through.
    But when is a caregiver not a caregiver? The answer: when the caregiver needs care themselves. There were so many times when I was helping my wife through her treatments that I felt so utterly drained, so alone, so tired, that I felt I just couldn’t do it anymore. I was filled with intense grief, suffering, and pain of the heart. Yet, I had to keep on going. “Stiff upper lip!” and everything. But I couldn’t do it on my own.
    You see, caregivers are people experiencing suffering and pain as well as the ones cared for. It isn’t the same, of course, as the people going through the illness. But they are certainly hurting. They need as much comfort, encouragement, and strength as the people fighting off the illness, because caregivers are fighting off the darkness of despair; they just cannot bear to watch their loved one in pain any more.
    This is, really, why I wrote The Caregiver Beatitudes. I realized that I needed something other than myself to get through it. There was so much I was being asked to do, but I needed to know how to get through it. And I realized, as I was writing, that it was not something I could do on my own. I needed God to get through. And, as I found out, I needed a whole family and network of others as well. A caregiver needs their own caregivers. This is how we get through. And this is how, ultimately, we win the fight.

  • Can you or should you do everything for your loved one?

    Care GiverThe short answer: no.
    The long answer: No one can do everything.
    Now, the explanation. When you see a loved one hurting, in pain, struggling with something, or feeling down and out, it is almost instinctive to step in and do whatever is needed. For some reason, when you love someone, you just take on all of their burdens, trials and struggles and make them your own. That’s not entirely a bad thing, though. We are told, as Christians, that if we love someone, we are to give up our lives for them. What’s a little inconvenience of taking on burdens and tasks in comparison to sacrificing your life?
    But there’s a problem. You really can’t do everything. There are just some things that you are not equipped or capable to do. Oh, sure, you could probably struggle your way through it, I’m sure. I don’t know the first thing about cutting someone’s hair, but I’m sure I could figure it out and give my wife a new ‘do when her hair grows in. My wife doesn’t have the first clue about how to change the oil in the car, but she could probably do it if I was incapacitated… maybe.
    The point isn’t really whether or not you can do something. You probably can do what needs to be done. But there may come a time when you may simply be unable to do it. I shared in my book, The Caregivers Beatitudes, one such situation that happened during my wife’s cancer treatments. It was a situation that, try as I might, I just was inadequate to be able to meet a specific need of hers. As much as I tried to show mercy to my wife in her time of need, I just could not. It took someone from outside our little family to offer to meet that need for me to realize that I needed mercy myself.
    That’s at the core of these kinds of things. It’s very obvious that the person going through the illness, or grief, or pain, needs mercy. But it isn’t always so obvious that the caregiver needs mercy as well. Caregivers are a tough lot. We take on a lot and we roll with a lot of punches. Many times, we sit on the sidelines and let our loved ones get the attention. And why not? They are the ones who need the help, not us. We don’t need any help. We’re caregivers. We can do it all. Or so we think.
    But as much as our loved ones need mercy, we need it, too. We need to be cared for and we need our rest, but we rarely take it for ourselves. What we need, ultimately, is for someone else to step in, take us by the hand and tell us, “It’s OK. You can rest now.” We need to be shown mercy, just like we have shown mercy to our own loved ones. That is, after all, why the beatitudes matter.

  • What do we do when a loved one suffers?

    by Robert Martin

    Care GiverThis past summer, as we do every summer, my family (myself, my wife, and our two daughters), met up with my father, his siblings, and all of their families down to grandchildren—The Reunion of the descendants of Clyde and Fanny Martin. As always, it was an amazingly fun affair with many in-jokes being retold, those friendships that only cousins can have being renewed, and all the old stories being brought out and dusted off.
    But one thing struck me this time that I wasn’t sure I had noticed before. Without exception, everyone who was there had been through, either recently or in the not too distant past, some event of suffering and pain. Cancer was present in the room. Broken relationships were inscribed in the faces of spouses and children. Long term illnesses were still taking their toll. While poverty itself was not an issue, certainly finances were difficult for many. Mental illness was not unheard of in our gathering, either. Parents were dealing with difficult children, and even the children were impacted by all of these things as they had been watching and observing their parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and siblings struggle through the many different aspects of pain.
    This was, and is, my family. I don’t know if there are any other families out there like ours, but I would expect that in any such gathering, it would be a rarity for there not to be some form of suffering taking place. It may not be widespread, it may just be one or two people, but it will be there. And, along with those experiencing the suffering, there will always be someone close to the situation who, while the suffering is not their own,  must deal with it every day as caregivers.
    The attention in these family gatherings, many times, is on those who are experiencing the pain directly. We defer to the grand aunt facing chemotherapy. We give space and grace to the grand uncle wrestling with depression. The spouse having to break off the marriage is given comfort by many loved ones. But, what about the grand uncle who drives the aunt to chemo every week? Or the grand aunt who has to diligently be aware of her spouses depression? Or the parents of that broken marriage, tending to the many feelings of pain and anger? What do they do?
    My family has managed to answer these questions. Although, it wasn’t something that we distinctly chose to do, consciously. There was no declaration of “This is what we will do”. It was simply what happened. For us, it was a natural effect of us being family. When a family member is suffering and another family member is a caregiver, the whole family rallies. Prayer, emotional support, finances when needed, a shoulder to cry on, a caring ear, all these things, freely given. We are family. There is no question that we care for each other, both the person needing the care and the caregiver.
    In The Caregiver’s Beatitudes, one of the primary themes I express is the role that community plays in caring for a loved one and for the support of the caregiver. Alone, we will struggle, we will fight, but it will take everything that is in us. There are those who make it through alone, but those are extraordinary situations, I believe. Instead, I believe that the community plays an immense role in this dynamic. What do we do when a loved one suffers? We gather around them, we gather around the caregivers, and together, as a community, we support each other. This is what we do.

  • The problem with homelessness is us

    by Shauna Marie Hyde
    (For the complete post, click here)

    VicarRecently I lost someone who I never dreamed would be someone I would ever meet much less deeply love. Our story is told in the book, “The Vicar of Tent Town.” One day a few years ago I heard about some people living off the Elk River in West Virginia, so I went to see what was going on. It was a slippery muddy hike but I found them. They had cleared off an area and had tents set up with tarps overhead, a fire pit, and had made a fairly decent place to live.
    As I entered the camp, a man came up to meet me. We introduced ourselves and sat down to have a chat. Noah told me later that I was the first church person who had sat down and spent time in Tent Town. That simple act was what made him take me seriously and know that he could trust me.
    I began to visit often trying to bring needed items and to take them somewhere if they needed a ride. The church people began to accompany me or send donations if they were unable to go. Bit by bit they just became a part of the congregation. Noah became a dear friend. I learned a lot about homelessness from spending time with them and hearing their stories. I learned that many of them have jobs, many are educated, and many are cynical about church people. A lot of churches won’t help unless thy sit through a church service, have a long list of unobtainable rules and are so judgmental in their attitudes that they never treat homeless people as people. They get tired of the assumptions that they are lazy moochers, all of them are druggies, or are mentally ill, or are running from the law. There is plenty of that; however, there are two major populations of homeless people that might surprise you: veterans and kids running away from abuse and LGBTQ youth who have been kicked out of their homes.
    Did you know there are more empty buildings than there are homeless people in the USA? “There are more than five times as many vacant homes in the U.S. as there are homeless people, according to Amnesty International USA.” http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/more_vacant_homes_than_homeless_in_us_20111231 I could not even begin to guess at how many church buildings there are that often have empty rooms the majority of the time.
    How is someone living on the streets, working less than 30 hours per week because that was the only job they could find, supposed to save up enough money for rent, deposit, utilities and its deposit, etc.? What little money they make goes to food, required clothing for the job, and bus fare and basic survival.
    There was a time when anyone could find sanctuary in a church. Now people are more worried about their buildings, getting sued, vandalized, stolen from, and that something terrible will happen when they offer sanctuary. Guess what? Something terrible is happening without “those people” being around. We see life-threatening violence in schools, malls, and churches…and it isn’t “those people” doing it. That is a heartbreaking issue for another blog.
    When it comes to the homeless and working poor we are just too busy, too selfish, too focused on what we want, getting our way, etc., to offer people sanctuary. It is time to be proactive with world transformation! It is time to be the church and offer sanctuary to those who are hurting, lost, scared, unheard, and slipping through life as living ghosts.
    The irony is Christians worship someone who was homeless when he walked this earth. Possessions did not slow him down, people did. Guess what else? He was crazy – crazy in love with humanity! He was crazy enough to sacrifice a life of comfort and then life itself in order to offer the world sanctuary.   I propose revival! I propose we sell all the trappings and fancy accoutrements we believe we simply must have in order to worship a God who decided to become human and homeless in order to reach us. I propose we offer sanctuary to any and to all in the name of God who went to such great lengths to offer sanctuary to all of humanity.
    Who knows? Perhaps my friend Noah might still be alive and well on this earth.

    Order The Vicar of Tent Town here: http://direct.energion.co/authors/authors-d-k/shauna-marie-hyde/vicar-of-tent-town

  • Are our Christian priorities in the right place?

    fiftyby Shauna Marie Hyde

    I simply cannot wrap my brain around the claim that homosexuals are going to Hell. I have watched people fight over this while I have sat and wondered why many single out this particular group? Why is sex really that big a deal? Why not murder, poverty, abuse, human trafficking?  It really bothers me that we claim salvation through the loving act of Jesus except for one group of people.  How is it that one earthly attribute/action/concept can defy and completely nullify the loving act of an all-powerful God?  Is God really so small that one human trait/act can completely undo what God did? Either God is all-powerful, and all means all (John 3:16) or it doesn’t. I am not aware of shades of beauty in salvation.  If there were shades of beauty then those who are saved after being a rapist, a molester, a murderer would not have the same salvation as the missionary, the servant of God, and others whose whole lives were devoted to God.
    Some say it is because homosexuals have not repented of their sin (1 Corinthians 6). Well, in my experience, every human has some unrepented sin.   I do not know of a single person who is without sin and we have all fallen short (Romans 3:23)  Why is it that there have become “acceptable sins?”  Don’t tell me this is not the case, otherwise there would not be so many church folk who are overweight, cliquish, clannish, extremely judgmental, gossipy, hate-filled, unaccepting, abusive, addicted, making power plays, being selfish, having affairs—need I go on?
    The only reason I can think of for why we are stuck here is that we have a problem with sex and a problem with pleasure.  We still seem to think that holiness is human, won through pious acts instead of God-given through the act of a merciful God. (Eph. 2:8-9)
    A man is to be “a man.”  When two same gender people are in a relationship they are inevitably asked who is the woman and who is the man?  We cannot escape our “who is on top” thinking.  This bothers me because the underlying thought is still that the role of a woman is inferior and she should be on the bottom.
    People focus on certain passages of scripture to defend their beliefs, yet they miss certain aspects that trouble me. We are back to the act of Christ.  The Old Testament does not govern Christians.  We believe Christ died and was resurrected making a new covenant, thus the “New” Testament.  So when we start using NT scriptures to justify our belief about homosexuality, we get into trouble there as well.  For every scripture that you tell me about how gay people are committing sin, I can give you a scripture about other sins that we are committing.  Paul addressed homosexuality, and I see a lot of people quoting those scriptures, but he also upheld slavery and subordinated women.  So, why is one passage more doable, quotable, and believable than others?
    Since we are not consistent in our theology, we have failed to teach the world about love, forgiveness, and grace.  Instead of being associated with Jesus loving spirit by our non-Christian neighbors, we are considered closed-minded, hate mongering, bible clobbering people.  I am not that kind of Christian, so I do not want that to be my reputation—or the reputation of my religion.
    Isn’t anyone else bothered by the fact that it is the good Christian families who are throwing away sons and daughters who come out as gay?  They are the second largest homeless population in America.  Congratulations Christian Church, we directly caused that demographic.  Why are we not stopping hate crimes and the bullying and murder of gays?  By our not stopping the hate mongering, we are just as culpable in the crimes as those who committed them. Why are we not stopping it?  Why am I not stopping it?

  • #Loverevolution

    by Shauna Marie Hyde
    (For the complete post, click here)

    fiftyI won’t lie; I struggle as a Christian pastor. There was a time when I wore my clerical collar with great pride and now sometimes I wonder if I really want to put it on. The Christian church is failing and it is sad to see that we continue to readily accept unwelcoming, judgmental, harsh attitudes as the correct moral approach to people and life. Churches eat their people alive with constant criticism, negativity, lack of commitment and general apathy. We have driven away pretty much anyone 45 years old and younger with our arguing, nastiness, gossipy, holier-than-thou attitudes. Everyone thinks they are in charge but are not required to do any work. Everyone thinks their opinion is the right one, their belief the only one, and how dare you tell them about themselves – you are to listen to them tell you about you!
    God is not important anymore…and neither is the value of life itself. All that is important are opinion, right of way, and hate. If I wasn’t clergy I wouldn’t go to church today. I am told I cannot do certain things because I am a woman and I am to be a second class citizen even though I have all the same rights, abilities, and often more education than the men in the church. My friends and family who have dark skin, who are poor, uncultured, or labeled as “trailer trash,” or who are gay are not welcome. Children are “wanted” only if they are perfect, quiet, never make a mess or a sound and are cute. We want everyone to come but not those who stink, dress inappropriately, make a mess, ask for money, say “amen” too loud, and sing off key or sit in our spot.
    What happened to being the one place where sanctuary and safety was offered? What happened to love – the kind that heals instead of demands perfection (which means to be like us)? What happened to being like Jesus?
    That’s what makes it all so sad. We have the answer and we are the best possible solution for the world today. We have just gotten to where we believe in Paul more than Jesus. We think that the law supersedes grace instead of remembering that Christ came to break all the rules and to change the world with grace. If we want to survive and be viewed as having any good street cred we have to start being who we were intended to be – the Body of Christ. We are God with skin on only without the power and ability to determine who will reach Heaven and who is lacking in salvation. For that matter we cannot save people – only God can. Our job is to make the introduction. My lovelies, this is a wonderful, powerful, and important job to have! We must introduce people to God instead of trying to be God. We must remember that people know what is wrong with them and they are literally dying to know that they are still loveable, worth saving, and valuable to someone. They need to know that they can trust us and that we will accept them for themselves; not for who we tell them they must become in order to win our love. God doesn’t do that, so where did we get the idea that we must do that?
    Christians, let us be like Christ. Let us vow to be his hands and feet in this world. Let us be so filled with love that we are unafraid to sit with sinners, touch lepers, love those who are struggling, and offer hope. Instead of keeping people from church let us go out and remind them they are loved. The next great revival needs to be a #loverevolution!

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.