Energion Direct

Blog

  • Equal Justice For All?

    Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

    You are not to be unjust in deciding a case. You are not to show partiality to the poor or honor the great. Instead, decide the case of your neighbor with righteousness. (Leviticus 19:15)

    When the investigation into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia began, while I was bothered about the double standard applied to Trump vs Clinton. I believed that Trump was being treated normally and Clinton was effectively given a get out of jail free card. While I did not believe the charges and thought he would be cleared, I am not really a Trump fan and if the investigation did find evidence of collusion, that was fine as frankly I would much prefer a President Pence.

    As the investigation has dragged on, my main concern is that it is distracting us from more important issues. If, after nearly 18 months, you look past the daily hype and speculation, something has become clear: there is no evidence of collusion. Now, admittedly much of what would be evidence is classified, everyone who has seen the evidence and who has commented on what they have seen, including Democrats, have said they have seen no evidence of collusion. So why is there still an investigation?

    To be clear, this is not to claim that Russia did not try to disrupt the election – of course they did. They want to cause problems for our government, and did not care which side won. This is why they have been caught funding the rallies of both sides. They are not interested in one side or the other of our internal domestic politics. They are interested in generating plenty of heat such that we are divided internally and ignoring what they do internationally. As we have learned more, the origin of the special council is now at best dubious. Former FBI director Comey admitted that he leaked government documents to a friend, so he could give them to the press, hoping the ensuing controversy would spawn a special council, which it did. Then, out of all the people in the country who could have been appointed, Muller, a close friend of Comey, was chosen. So the special council started off with a serious conflict of interest, and that is before one even begins to considers Muller’s hiring of staff whose objectivity is likewise in doubt.

    True, Muller has made some indictments, Paul Manafort and General Kelly, but even here there is cause for question. The idea of a pre-dawn, guns dawn raid, where Manafort’s wife is not allowed to leave her bed until she had been searched, is treatment normally reserved for gang members and drug lords, rather than white collar criminals, and thus it is hard not to see this as little more than harassment. As for General Kelly, his interview has been described by those who know, as a classic perjury trap, particularly given that what Kelly is supposed to have lied about to the FBI was not illegal.

    Long ago, I became trouble by these perjury traps, particularly when there is no underlying crime. The simple fact is that human memory is not good enough to remember everything perfectly. In fact, it is not uncommon for people to think they remember something and yet find out they were wrong. So it is not difficult to question someone enough and have some sort of inconsistency to occur. Talk to an FBI agent, and you could end up in jail if they want to get you.

    And that is the point. With the Clintons and their allies, there were numerous blatant “inconsistencies” that the Justice Department simply ignored. No harm, no foul. That is because they wanted to let her off. They want to get Trump so they use every means possible. Add to this, the report that if Kelly had not agreed to plead guilty, they threatened to go after Kelly’s son, and again one has reason for concern. What would you do to protect your child from a Special Prosecutor with an unlimited budget, and a proven record of using his tools to punish his targets?

    So why are we doing all of this? Collusion with the Russians? To date the only actual evidence of one side working with the Russians, has been the Clinton campaign paying for Russian “information” to include as part of a dossier on Trump ,that was then given to the FBI and used to get wire taps on members of the Trump campaign. The results of these wire taps were then sent to the Obama White house where the names were unmasked and leaked to the press.

    We are told by Democrats that there was nothing wrong with all this. Really? Is this really the new norm? So in 2020, the Trump campaign can pay for dirt and gossip about the democratic nominee and then use that to get a warrant to wiretap the Democratic campaign? Then Trump’s White House can request the names be unmasked so they can leak them to the press? Is that really the new norm? I sincerely hope not. But it does show the level of hatred toward Trump that would excuse such actions directed against him. A hatred that blinds people to the long term ramifications of what they are doing.

    You can also see this in the arguments that it was illegal to fire Comey and would be to fire Muller. Again really? According to the Constitution, all executive authority is vested in the President and as such all officers in the executive branch serve at the pleasure of the President. If Trump cannot fire them, no one can, and they would be accountable to no one. Is that really what we want? That would effectively be a police state, and as benign as it may be now, there would be no guarantee that it would remain so in the future.

    Now that Russian collusion appears to have been a dry hole, the investigation seems to be expanding in its effort to find something – anything – on Trump. This week we saw the seizing of the President’s attorney’s papers, something that has never happened before in history. This would have been met with an outcry had it happened to any previous President. But this is Trump, so most, but not all, of the civil libertarians have remained uncomfortably quiet. And if they can do it to Trump, they can do it to anyone.

    Yet again the double standard, with the Clintons,is astounding. Ignoring standard practices, guidelines and even ethical standards, the Justice Department allowed Cheryl Mills, an actor in the very things being investigated, to claim attorney-client privilege, a claim they then respected, even though she was not Clinton’s attorney at the time of the investigation.

    We are told that the raid was justified because of Cohen’s involvement in a campaign law violation. Yet the campaign laws are so complex and difficult that many politicians run a foul of them in every election and simply pay the fines as a part of doing business.

    Following Obama’s election, his campaign was found with millions of dollars in questionable donations and paid a fine of over $300,000 as a result. This is not an indictment of Obama. Because of the number and complexity of the campaign laws, many, if not most campaigns Republican and Democrat, have had to pay such fines. They are often seen as just a cost of doing business and no one pays much attention to them. Given this, and the fact that the fine to the Obama campaign was larger than the payment here, was Cohen’s payment a real concern or just a convenient pretext to seize the President’s papers? If this was anyone other than Trump, the answer would be clear.

    So while I began, 18 months ago, thinking that the problem was that the Justice Department had simply gone easy on Clinton to let her off, now I believe that many of our protections and safeguards are being broken down in the attempt to get Trump. I have no doubt that they can get him. Not only have “all sinned and fallen short,” the current laws are so numerous and complex, even contradictory at times, that a determined prosecutor who free forms the normal constraints, should be able to find something on anyone.

    What is clear to anyone willing to look, is that we have a highly politicized Justice Department and how you are treated depends on whether they like you or not. If allowed to succeed, they will be left with the tools and precedents which will allow the administrative state to remove any President that they do not like. While many would undoubtedly celebrate Trumps removal regardless, such power and privilege, once granted, is hard to remove but easy to expand and even easier to abuse.

    Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.

  • Response to "Prayer is Not Enough" Part 2

    In the first part of my response to Steve Kindle’s article on the recent school shooting in Florida, I talked about some of the factors that make this issue so divisive and difficult even to the point that there is disagreement over the actual problem. Along those lines I would point out that since part one of my response we had another school shooting, this one in Maryland. However, rather than a large death toll, only two students were wounded before an armed officer was able to stop the shooter. This would argue against the concept of gun free zones.
    Beyond the political questions, however, Steve raised some questions about prayer and God that I would like to address. The first is his claim that “Prayer is not enough.” Here I agree. It is vital and important, but it is not enough. 1 John 3:18 says, “Little children, we must stop expressing love merely by our words and manner of speech; we must love also in action and in truth.” We are to pray, but we must do more, we must act and what we do must actually be effective. Where our disagreement is, is over what actions would, or would not, be effective.
    Steve had 3 “unanswered questions.” The third I addressed last time. Here are the first two.
    1. If an angel could warn Joseph so Jesus could escape, why not have an angel kill Herod and let all escape? After all, an angel killed all the first-born sons of the pharaoh. Why not send an angel to kill all mass murderers? (Yes, I know, God works in mysterious ways.)
    This is a good question, and in its various forms we could ask that of any number of situations. Ultimately it comes down to the problem of evil, i.e., why does God allow it, which is the most difficult question that Christians face. We believe in a loving and all-powerful God, so why does He allow evil? There is no completely satisfying answer. We can go a long way towards an answer by pointing to freewill, but even with freewill problems remain.
    So again, I agree with Steve, at least to some extent that God works in mysterious ways. How could it be otherwise? To effectively judge the actions of another we must be in a position to understand the situation and alternatives as well or better than the one who made the decision. But how can we ever be in that position with an all-knowing God?
    Say the angel had killed Herod and let all escape. God certainly could have done that, but then what? There are things that seem good to us in our limited understanding, that ultimately turn out to be horrible. Neville Chamberlain thought he was doing good by avoiding war. Now we know that what he really did was allow Hitler to grow in power to the point that a vastly larger and more destructive war was inevitable. He tried to do good, but ultimately made things worse.
    Of course, one could argue, why doesn’t God send an angel to kill all the Herods and Hitlers, would that solve the problem? Perhaps, but then we would be focused on those still left, and the evil they did. After all, it is possible that the Herods and Hitlers are only the worst, because God did remove those who would have been even worse than they were. If, on the other hand, God were to remove anyone who does evil, there would be no one left.
    We know that God allows freewill and thus evil. We also know that God has a plan. Ephesians 1:9-10 speaks of God’s “plan that he set forth in the Messiah to usher in the fullness of the times and to bring together in the Messiah all things in heaven and on earth.” How our freewill and God’s plan fit together is beyond our ability to understand, and least this side of eternity.
    2. Why do so many of our urgent prayers go ignored? Pastors, think of all the times you prayed over spouses whose marriage was falling apart, to no avail; think of all the parents you prayed with whose child needed relief from drugs, crime, etc., to no avail; think of all the times you prayed for God to heal only to learn of continued chronic illness or death? Just to mention a few. (I know, God says, “No.”)
    The answer to this question is strongly related to the first question. However, there is another factor here. To see this, turn the question around, what if every prayer was answered? Would that really be a good thing? Strange as it sounds Hollywood has dealt with this question in the movie Bruce Almighty. Have a problem with your spouse, just say a prayer and its fixed. Have a child in trouble, just say a prayer and its fixed. If you are sick, say a prayer and you are better.
    Put this way the problems become clear. Should we raise our kids giving them what ever they asked for? Of course not, and neither does God. In fact, if it did work this way, God would be more the Great Vending Machine in the Sky serving us, rather than the God to whom we seek a relationship with.
    So the question really is not why so few get answered (i.e, the way we want), but rather, why any get answered at all. They do because He is a merciful God.
    Finally, Steve writes, “The doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, which refers to God being in complete control as he directs all things, has to go. Sure, you may tell me that God allows humans their free will and therefore accepts, consequently, innocent deaths. If, then, the survival or not of the people at Stoneman Douglas is finally left to chance, then prayer is not a factor at all.”
    The problem with Steve’s statement is that is assumes God’s actions are all or nothing. We do not know what God did that day. What we know is that that He did not completely stop the killer and that 17-people died and 16 were injured. Maybe He did nothing. Maybe He did a lot and many more would have died, but for His intervention. We simply do not know. Nor can we know why those 17 and not others.
    What I believe has to go, is not the Sovereignty of God, but the belief that we must be able to understand everything. As science has removed much of the mystery of nature, bringing it under the control of human understanding, the belief has developed that our understanding trumps everything. This is not really new. You can see it in all the various attempts to transform the nature of God into something we can understand, but now it has taken on a new importance.
    In many respects, science and reason are the new ultimate, and everything must conform to our current scientific understanding or be discarded. This view has many problems, particularly given the increasing blurring of the lines between science and agendas. But the biggest problem is that this is in and of itself an irrational position when it comes to God. It is impossible for the finite to understand the infinite, and to demand that he infinite fit the finite, is irrational. So yes, God does work in mysterious ways.
    One final comment; however right or wrong my understanding is here, I fully acknowledge the emptiness and futility of such explanations to those who are grieving. These are explanations of the head and completely ill suited to comfort the heart. Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of When Bad Things Happen to Good People, once said that when dealing with those who are grieving we should “show up and shut up.” To this I would add, and pray.
    by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., Engineer, teacher, Christian apologist, and author of Preserving Democracy, What is Wrong with Social Justice?, Christianity: The Basics, A Short Critique of Climate Change, Christianity and Secularism, and Evidence for the Bible.
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]

  • Response to "Prayer is Not Enough"

    Steve Kindle’s article on the recent school shooting in Florida raised some interesting questions and in the process demonstrated some problems that makes this issue so divisive. One of the issues that divides people is the very nature of the problem itself. Steve is clear in how he sees the problem when he writes, “The answer to our present difficulty—too many guns available for harm—lies in the Herod story,” which is a common view for those on the left, at least the too many guns part.
    This is not just an issue with this problem, it is a division between how those on the Left and Right generally look at the world. Are problems to be found in people or in things. This might even explain why the left hates corporations, which they insist are not people, but love government which they see as the embodiment of people.
    Those on the right, on the other hand, tend to see problems not with things, but in people. As one commentator put it, imagine three 19-year-old men with guns. One is hunting, one is on patrol in Afghanistan, one is entering a school with evil intent. There is only one problem here and it is the last 19-year-old with the gun, not the guns themselves.
    Steve’s analogy equating Herod to guns does not really work. If you’re going to make an analogy, the 1st century parallel would not be Herod, but swords. Herod would then be the school shooter. Just as the problem in the first century was not the lack of sword control, but Herod, the problem with school shooting is not guns, but those with evil intent.
    In the case of the most recent school shooting, it is increasingly becoming clear that the main problem, beyond the murderer, was not the gun, but the virtually complete and systematic failure of multiple levels of government to react to the numerous red flags. Why so many levels of government failed is still unknown.
    Yet rather than focus on that failing Kindle writes “The students and faculty of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School show us the way.” But which students? Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is a very large school with a diverse range of opinions. But the left has picked out those that agree with their agenda and presents them as if they were the only students.
    To make matters worse, they demonize those who disagree, particularly focusing on the NRA. I do believe there are things we could do to make schools safer, but to do so will take laws, and laws take persuasion and compromise, and that takes trust. This is something both sides seem to have forgotten. Currently, neither side has much trust of the other. Demonizing your opponent is hardly a way to build trust.
    Nor is some the rhetoric from the right. Not everyone who wants to tighten up gun laws wants to confiscate all guns. On the other hand, putting words like “common sense” in front of “gun laws” does not make it so. Take for example the often-heard call to ban “assault rifles.” However reasonable that may sound, the problem is that “assault rifle” is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, term to define and ultimately means little more than “a gun I do not like.”
    Nothing shows the split between the two sides more than the proposal to allow some trained personnel to carry concealed weapons at school. To many on the right it is a completely reasonable proposal to consider as they do not see the problem as an inanimate object, i.e., the gun, but the person with evil intent, i.e., the murderer.
    Mass shootings end when someone else with a gun shows up to stop the murderer. In a few instances, there have been people already on site with a concealed weapon who were able to stop the murderer quickly, vastly reducing the death toll, but in places were guns are banned, such as schools, you have to wait for the police to arrive and that can take critical minutes, during which many lives are lost.
    Thus, why not have a few trained personnel already on site? In fact, many on the right suspect that one of the reasons these murderers choose gun free zones is that they are confident there will be no one there to stop them. Having even the possibility that there may be someone with a concealed weapon on site may have a deterrent effect. Yet for many on the left who see guns as the problem, having guns in schools is horrifying.
    Steve’s third “unanswered question” (I will deal with the other two in my next article) was, “Why does ‘the right to bear arms’ trump the right to live without fear of being murdered by one?” While there are several ways this could be answered, the most obvious reason is that we are a nation of laws and the former is in the Constitution and the latter is not. One could of course propose an amendment to change or repeal that right, but it is highly unlikely it would pass.
    Going forward, I take it as a given that we will not confiscate all guns. Even if the 2nd amendment were legitimately changed through the amendment process, or illegitimately changed by a court ruling, there are simply too many people who own guns to allow this to happen in the foreseeable future. But again, the desire to get rid of guns shows the focus on things.
    If a person desires to do evil they will find a way. After all, the deadliest school massacre in the United States was not one of the recent school shootings, but the bombing of a school in 1927. 2014’s attack in Kunming China using knifes left 31 dead and 140 others injured. Removing guns, even if it was a realistic option, would only shift the problem, not remove it. Given the information available on the internet, those seeking to do evil may be led to even deadlier options.
    In terms of the overall debate, there is nothing really new about our current situation, other than the percentages. There have always been those on both sides who will seek to build trust and work together, and those who seek to demonize and defeat. This is nothing new. What has changed is that the percentages have changed such that those who demonize are currently dominant, and here again there is fault to be had on both sides. The solution is not to be found in focusing on those that can easily be condemn. Rather it will be found in the more difficult task of seeking out those who are willing to discuss the differences so as to begin building some trust.
    For there to be “common sense” gun laws, there must first be common ground upon which to build a consensus. That will take open and honest discussion and debate. It does not mean ignoring our differences but discussing them seeking a common ground upon which a consensus can be built. It means learning to understand the other side, rather than just characterizing them into a convenient strawman to be attacked or rejected. Doing this over time will build a level of trust that could lead to a consensus that might lead to actually doing something constructive.
    by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., Engineer, teacher, Christian apologist, and author of Preserving Democracy, What is Wrong with Social Justice?, Christianity: The Basics, A Short Critique of Climate Change, Christianity and Secularism, and Evidence for the Bible.
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]

  • People Are the Wreath of Victory

    (From Dave Black Online, Sunday, February 25, 2018)

    3:36 PM Hey, here’s something to think about from 1 Thess. 2:17-20 (our passage for this week in Greek 4). The word usually translated as “crown” is a metaphor drawn from the Greek athletic contests.

    It “alludes to the wreath which was awarded to the victor in an athletic contest: victory in such a contest afforded the victor and all associated with him ample grounds for … (‘boasting’)” (Bruce, p. 56).

    Paul “looks forward to the occasion of final review and reward, when he will present his converts to the Lord who commissioned him, as evidence of the manner in which he has discharged his commission.”

    Have you ever thought of the people you influenced for Christ as a “wreath of victory” in whom you could rejoice? It’s astonishing to me that Paul actually considered people as his reward. He’s so utterly identified with his converts that he calls them his glory. I can well imagine Rudy Ulrich sitting in heaven wearing the wreath of Dave Black, whom he led to the Savior in 1960. We are the body of Christ. God uses us to reach others with His love. The good news is that He uses us in spite of ourselves. Truth is, there are some people who will never hear about Jesus unless I tell them. All that we touch, everything we bump up against in our lives, is to be offered to Him for the work of salvation. God calls us, pleads with us, to be involved. Our world is starved to see Christ’s love modeled somewhere. All we need is a willingness for whatever. Paul was always moving “with hands outstretched to whatever lies ahead” (phil. 3:14). But he did that with open hands — a total stripping from all this world has to offer. The Thessalonian believers were living proof that Paul had done just that. May God show us every thread of self that still needs stripping away.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2299′]

  • Prayer is Not Enough

    Prayer is Not Enough

    After the school shootings in Parkland, Florida, the political class issued its now familiar response, “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.” Interestingly, the very people it was supposed to mollify were outraged, prompting the response of voice and sign, “Prayer is not enough.” And it surely is not enough.
    The well-known story of the Magi’s visit to Herod is illuminating. It resulted in the deaths of all the male children aged two and under in Bethlehem and environs, because Herod’s position as king was threatened by the news they brought about a “King of the Jews” being born there. Were it not for an angel warning Joseph in a dream to get out of town, Jesus would surely have been in that number.
    There are several issues that arise from this story that have implications for Parkland (and all the other mass shootings of innocents of late). Among these are that Herod feigned piety all the while he was plotting to save his throne; the politicians who offered prayers are often noted to be anything but pious (especially our president). The motivation for Herod was potential loss of political power; our political class today has the same motivation. While Jesus was spared, an unknown number of innocents were not; surely the pious families prayed for the protection of their children. Jesus was unable to return safely to Judea as long as Herod was alive; as long as the potential exists for mass extermination, no child will be safe in our schools.
    Prayer did not help the children of Bethlehem, nor the seventeen who died in Parkland. It will likely not help you or me in any threatening situation. No person is relieved of the vagaries or vicissitudes of life. As Ecclesiastes put it, “Time and chance happen to all.” When I hear, “Why me?” (or my child, or my friend…), I am tempted to ask, “Why not you? Why are you to be relieved of misfortune that befall others? What makes you so special?” Even Jesus did not escape the inevitability of tragedy—an unjustified death on the cross.
    The answer to our present difficulty—too many guns available for harm—lies in the Herod story. As long a Herod was alive, Jesus was not safe and innocent people died. As long as we make guns readily available, no one is safe in America. Prayer will not change this unless you agree with this sentiment: “Pray as though everything depended on God, and act as if everything depended on you.”
    Unanswered questions:
    1. If an angel could warn Joseph so Jesus could escape, why not have an angel kill Herod and let all escape? After all, an angel killed all the first-born sons of the pharaoh. Why not send an angel to kill all mass murderers? (Yes, I know, God works in mysterious ways.)
    2. Why do so many of our urgent prayers go ignored? Pastors, think of all the times you prayed over spouses whose marriage was falling apart, to no avail; think of all the parents you prayed with whose child needed relief from drugs, crime, etc., to no avail; think of all the times you prayed for God to heal only to learn of continued chronic illness or death? Just to mention a few. (I know, God says, “No.”)
    3. Why does “the right to bear arms” trump the right to live without fear of being murdered by one?
    The doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, which refers to God being in complete control as he directs all things, has to go. Sure, you may tell me that God allows humans their free will and therefore accepts, consequently, innocent deaths. If, then, the survival or not of the people at Stoneman Douglas is finally left to chance, then prayer is not a factor at all. Surely the solution is found somewhere between “It’s God’s will,” and Chance.
    Perhaps a rabbi offers us a suitable explanation. How does God make a difference in our lives if he neither kills nor cures?

    “God inspires people to help other people who have been hurt by life, and by
    helping them, they protect them from the danger of feeling alone, abandoned, or judged. …
    God, who neither causes nor prevents tragedies, helps by inspiring people to help.”
    (Harold Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People)

    God, we are told, began the creation of the world by bringing order out of chaos. This is the continuing reality of daily life in the cosmos. Ultimately, I believe that chaos will finally be fully ordered into Shalom—perfect wholeness. In the meantime, we are caught in the squeeze between the two. The “God, who neither causes nor prevents tragedies,” has not abandoned us to our fate, but calls us to assist in defeating the chaos of our world.
    The students and faculty of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School show us the way. We are to come together as a family, protect one another, expose the Herods of our world, and use nonviolent means (the ballot box and organized resistance) to overcome. But, please, if you think “prayer is the answer,” put your actions solidly behind your petitions.
    Rev. Steve Kindle, a retired minister, conducts a variety of seminars in churches across the country. He is the author of Stewardship: God’s Way of Re-creating the World, If Your Child is Gay, Marriage Equality: Why Same-sex Marriage is Good for the Church and the Nation, and I’m Right and You’re Wrong.

  • Simplicity

    If you are serious, often you cannot always be satisfied with the simplest explanation. For there is no guarantee that the simple explanation will be the best one, let alone the correct or the only possible one. So, sometimes you have to suspect simplicity. For not every explanation can be given in six simple sentences. The converse is, of course, also true. An explanation is not satisfactory by virtue of being complex. Some explanations should be simple. Some explanations should be complex.
    Then there is the demand we so often meet. Just simplify. Is it because I am a lay person that I need a simple explanation? Do I not want to overcome a bias, or even prejudice and so do not give myself a chance to understand further? If it is a lengthy but adequate explanation, I am not willing to devote the effort needed to understand it when it goes on a little beyond a relative simplicity. So you read the first paragraph of the book and make a judgement as to whether you will read the book on the basis of the demand it is making on concentration and effort.
    You read two sentences of an article in a magazine and decide whether you will read the rest, often on the basis of its immediate impact. You register its difficulty and refuse the opportunity if you decide it seems the least bit obscure. Mind you there are other factors involved in making that choice. You subconsciously ask yourself, “Is it within the range of my interests? Will it prove to be interesting enough? What if I have to revise my ideas?”
    Simplicity and vocabulary
    I believe in simplicity, that is to say simplicity when it is appropriate.
    Simplicity is appropriate as the vocabulary in which it is expressed is suited to the subject and subject matter that is being expressed.
    We are often content with a simple solution to a complicated problem or with a simple-seeming statement proffered as a solution. Simplicity is most desirable where it is appropriate. We do not want a lesson in physics when the electric light goes off. But the effort at simplicity at all costs can be very misguided. If the vocabulary is limited the answer, the explanation will be short sighted. The teacher sometimes hears an inappropriate answer to a question that has not been adequately understood. The simple answer will hardly suffice to the question not understood. But one might well understand the question and still, not having considered it sufficiently, give an inadequate answer because one does not have the vocabulary to answer it appropriately. Often to direct oneself to answering a question satisfactorily one has to master a new vocabulary, even sometimes to create one. A wider range of vocabulary means a wider range of understanding. A first step to increased understanding is very often the willingness to learn new words.
    By all means we should tackle a problem with the resources we have at our command. But when I make a point you did not think about, and use words you have not mastered you will have to move forward, make effort at progress toward a new understanding. If you don’t recognise the words, you will have to learn them and then move on! That is what philosophers have been saying for generations. ‘Try this set of concepts!’
    It takes effort. The lazy hearer or reader will not make the effort and then unfairly blame the speaker or writer for not making the meaning clear.
    O course there is a corollary. One who tries to help people understand must realise their responsibility to take their audience from where that audience is. Understanding between people requires mutual effort. But it is an unwarranted criticism to demand inappropriate simplicity, as it is unwarranted to expect understanding beyond the capacity of the audience. But a willful and deliberate unwillingness to make the effort to understand when one has the capacity is both unjustified and possibly prejudiced.
    by Dr. Edward W.H. Vick, retired professor and author of Death, Immortality and Resurrection, From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully, Philosophy for Believers, Creation: The Christian Doctrine, History and Christian Faith and more!
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]

  • Remembering Billy Graham

    Some of our Energion authors have posted memories of Billy Graham on their blogs. I’m going to link below. I’m sure many more authors were impacted by his life, but these are the notes I’ve found. I’ll add if I find more.
    Bob Cornwall, author of Faith in the Public Square and many other books, and editor of both our APC related series writes Billy Graham: A Remembrance. ” In this day when we are extremely polarized in our politics and our religion, Graham has engendered respect and appreciation even from those who do not abide with his evangelical beliefs.”
    David Alan Black, author of The Jesus Paradigm and many other books writes Billy Graham. “Billy Graham is now in heaven. What a great soul. Everything for him was wrapped up in the Gospel.”
    Robert LaRochelle, author of Crossing the Street and many other books called my attention to this article, How Billy Graham Shaped American Catholicism. Bob is deeply interested in Catholic-Protestant relations.

  • Relationships of Grace: Responding to Shauna Hyde's “Fifty Shades of Grace”

    “This book [Fifty Shades of Grace] has been written to honor all people, male and female, who have been mistreated, overlooked, and unloved,” so writes Shauna Hyde as she seeks to provide a holistic approach to the healing of relationships.

    Scripture proclaims that humans are not meant to be alone. We need one another to find wholeness. We need institutions like the church to nurture our spiritual adventures. Yet, life is messy, and relationships and institutions, like the church, are messy, too. The response, “it’s complicated” relates to virtually all of our lives and relationships. Sometimes the messiness and complication of life lead to abusive relationships, in which wounded people wound others by word and deed. While we are created in original wholeness, brokenness and sin touch every aspect of our lives, bringing pain where joy should be the primary reality. Sometimes even the church, intended to be God’s instrument of healing and wholeness, becomes an instrument of relational abuse when victims are blamed and persons are counseled to stay in abusive relationships or forgive others prematurely. The church can be an agent of spiritual abuse by shaming, creating unnecessary guilt, and using scripture as a tool of violence rather than an agent of healing.

    Shauna Hyde invites us to seek relationships of grace, in which our wounds are healed and we can give and receive healthy love. As the imperfect children of imperfect parents, living in the midst of imperfect institutions, this task is often quite difficult. Yet, Jesus came that we might have life in all its abundance, and that means relationships of abundant affection and reciprocity. Such relationships emerge when couples and communities make a commitment to empathy and equality, and promote maximal freedom, creativity, and affirmation in their approach to relationships. Very much like our discoveries and then healing of ethnic privilege, this process involves paying attention to our behavior, noticing the impact of the past on the present, positively and negatively and our willingness to attend to our emotional and spiritual lives, recognizing our limitations, and challenging our own and others’ behaviors. Because of the power of the past, such transformation is as much a gift of grace as the result of our individual or corporate effort.

    As we move toward the Lenten season, we would do well to ask God to “create in us a clean heart and renew in us a right spirit.” (Psalm 51:10) We no longer need to be conformed to unhealthy behaviors and institutional abusiveness, we can be transformed by opening to divine renewal. (Romans 12:2) With God’s grace, we can let go of the past, affirm our value as God’s children, and insist that our own and others’ dignity be respected in every relationship.

    by Bruce G. Epperly, author of over 45 books and a number of Energion Publications’ titles, including Angels, Mysteries, and Miracles,  Process Theology: Embracing Adventure with God and Process Spirituality: Practicing Holy Adventure He is also the author of various Energion scripture studies including, Experiencing God in Suffering and Jonah: When God Changes as well as Angels, Mysteries and Miracles: A Progressive Vision.

  • Response to Allan Bevere's "The President as Pastor-in-Chief?"

    Response to Allan Bevere's "The President as Pastor-in-Chief?"

    Allan Bevere’s recent article made good points that I generally agreed with, but I do not think the situation is quite as black and white as he presents it.
    Concerning refusing to support either Clinton or Trump, while I understand that such thinking makes sense in the primary, when it comes to the general election, either Clinton or Trump was going to be president. My stated view before the election was that neither was electable, but one would be. Thus, I do not believe people can be faulted for making a choice instead of sitting it out and letting others make the decision for them (and yes, voting third party is still sitting it out).
    My biggest disagreement was with the statement, “When it comes to lack of moral character, Donald Trump is Bill Clinton on steroids.” I see a big difference between Bill (and Hillary) Clinton, and Trump. Trump has a massive ego, is brash, insensitive, boastful, crude, vulgar, argumentative and is clearly willing to sacrifice the truth to put himself in a good light or to attack a foe. Strange as it may sound, this was a positive for some of his supporters. Not the behavior itself, but because there is the sense that like him or not, this is Trump, and he is being honest about who he is.
    The simple fact is that most people do not trust politicians of either party, and this is especially true of many in Trump’s base. A big factor in understanding Trump’s election is to realize that there are a lot of people, including many evangelicals, who right or wrong, believe that the government no longer works for them but is more concerned about itself.
    In my review of Trump’s first year, while I gave the President a D on performance as President, i.e., much of which falls under the heading of character, I gave him a B on policy. While I would like to think that the other Republicans running in the primary would have done at least as good on policy, I am not sure, and in any event they lost to Trump.
    A large reason for this was the sense he is being himself and not just being a politician. For Republicans, the recent norm has been to talk a good game during the election, but once in office they are full of excuses on why they could not do what they said they would. His supporters believed that Trump would do what he said, and so far, he has generally lived up to his promises.
    As for many of the other charges against Trump, i.e., that he is a fascist, racist, etc., perhaps the Left has cried wolf too often, but I see little actual evidence for them, as such labels are routinely applied to anyone the Left disagrees with. Given his ego and insensitivity, Trump is more susceptible to such charges as he is virtually tone deaf to the restrictions of Political Correctness, which again gives him a sense of freshness and honesty when compared to the tightly scripted, poll tested statements you normally get from politicians. Who is more trustworthy, a person who is politically incorrect, or a person who holds the similar views but lies about it?
    The Clintons, on the other hand, were known to poll test everything. They were also, I believe, very corrupt, driven by a desire for power and money, a dangerous combination. Now, with the me-too movement, Democrats have finally begun to question their shielding of Bill Clinton’s well-known tendencies with women, yet the Clinton’s problems were far broader than just Bill and the women he victimized. While many still reject any charge against the Clinton’s as a conspiracy theory, and true, some of the wilder charges do fall into this category, I believe the evidence is clear that the Clintons abused their positions to benefit themselves and expand their power. This is far more dangerous than Trump’s personal, but very visible, flaws.
    Frankly, I believe that one of the biggest problems with the modern Democratic party is that, in their efforts to shield and defend the Clintons, they have allowed corruption to be more acceptable. This is not to say that all Democrats are corrupt. I believe Obama for example, unlike the Clintons, to be an honest man. Still there was a problem. Acceptance of the Clinton’s bending the rules for their own personal gain, led to a tolerance for bending the rules, i.e., a weakening of the rule of law in general.
    For many Democrats now, what the law said, or what is right or wrong, is not as important as whether it benefits the agenda. This can be seen for example in the Obama’s administration use of the IRS for political purposes, and then the use of the Justices Department to shield the IRS. Andrew C. McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, has written about the different ways the Justice Department handled the Trump and Clinton investigations and it is both striking and disturbing.
    In my review of Trump’s first year I gave Trump an A in only two areas, the economy and the Rule of Law, the latter being a clear improvement over the previous administration and certainly better than Clinton would have been. For me, that a President follow and respect the Rule of Law is more important than any of Trump character flaws. Sure, I would like good character and the Rule of Law, but if I have to choose, I will choose the Rule of Law.
    So were evangelicals wrong to support Trump, despite his personal failings? I don’t know. We cannot replay the primaries to see what would have happened if things had been different. God does use broken vessels, after all, look at King David. Perhaps Trump is what is needed to break up the business as usual that has plagued Washington. Either way he did win and is the President.
    Frankly, I think the current fishing expedition to try and find something, anything, on Trump, is in and of itself troubling as everyone, Republican and Democrat, who has had access to the classified materials, has reviewed it and has commented on what they have seen and said they have seen no evidence of collusion. Even Peter Strzok, the lead investigator who was removed because of his bias against Trump said he did not believe any collusion occurred. So why is there an investigation, except to try and overturn the election? In fact, given the recent revelations, the whole investigation itself may, I repeat may, be yet another example of the politicization of the Justice Department and possibly even some elements in the FBI.
    If Mueller’s investigations do end up finding actual evidence of real wrong doing, i.e., collusion with the Russians, then those guilty should be prosecuted, and if Trump is guilty, he should resign or be impeached. Frankly, in a perfect world, I would prefer a President Pence, or a President Ryan, the next two in line. But I do worry about the country should that happen, for many of Trumps supporters would see this, with justification, as the Washington Establishment taking down an outsider. It would correctly be seen as Washington vs the people, with Washington defeating the people’s efforts to be in control, and this would only further alienate them from government. Because of this I hope Mueller finds nothing, and Trump serves out his term. But the examples of the highly questionable prosecution of Scooter Libby and wrongful prosecution Ted Stevens do cause me concern.
    Still, I would like to end on a note of agreement. I think it is important not to accept the behavior, even if you accept the person or the policy. While I think Trump has done a fairly good job as President in terms of policy, I remain troubled by his behavior as President and I think that is an important distinction to make, lest acceptance of the policy becomes acceptance of the behavior.
    by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., Engineer, teacher, Christian apologist, and author of Preserving Democracy, What is Wrong with Social Justice?, A Short Critique of Climate Change, Christianity and Secularism, and Evidence for the Bible.
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]

  • Allan Bevere: The President as Pastor-in-Chief?


    Words, sentences, and paragraphs have context and content. Often what we say reveals deeper things about our convictions than we realize when we utter them; and if we reflect upon what they actually reveal about us, we might wish we had not opened our mouths.
    It has been common for Donald Trump’s evangelical supporters to justify their support of a man of extremely questionable character by uttering the now familiar shibboleth that the POTUS is not the “pastor-in-chief” (a phrase first uttered in reference to President Obama). I think if we drill down beneath that phrase we will find something unacknowledged by those who have used it and also something quite unsavory. Let’s get underneath the topsoil, shall we?
    Read more …
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2564′]

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.