Category Archives: Social Issues

Social causes, activism, and projects

Diversity and Speech No. 35: Rockin’ Diversity – by Carlos E. Cortés and Teri Gerent

Carlos:  Tell me, Teri.  How did you come up with the idea of teaching history through rock and roll music?

Teri: I’ve always loved music.  From the time I became a history teacher in 1998, I thought of music whenever we reached the twentieth century.  Then it hit me.  Why not help students reconsider U.S. history by structuring a course around music?  It worked.  

Carlos:  Well, if music works for teaching high school students, why not for diversity workshops, too?    

Teri: It certainly can.  Lyrics are a great way to generate discussions about tricky topics involving diversity.

Carlos:  Could you be specific about how you use music to explore diversity?

Teri: Sure.  I call one of my strategies “implicit vs. explicit.”  Explicit lyrics are usually straight forward.   For example, Marvin Gaye’s “Inner City Blues” explicitly critiques politicians who spend taxpayer dollars on the space race rather than helping poor communities that are struggling to stay afloat. 

Carlos: How about implicit lyrics?

Teri: Because implicit lyrics use metaphors, they foster differing interpretations and spur intense discussions.   Take the Rolling Stones’ 1966  “Under My Thumb.”  I ask students to identify lyrics that might be considered implicitly misogynistic and indicate why they came to that conclusion.  Then I ask them to compare that song’s treatment of gender with the Statement of Purpose of the National Organization of Women, which was formed the same year.

Carlos: How ironic, Teri.  But did your teaching approach encounter any criticism?     

Teri: When I tried to get my course into the District catalogue, my title, “A Socio-Political History of Rock ‘n Roll: the Blues through Hip Hop,” caused some resistance.  But I documented how the course met statewide curriculum standards and, over time, demonstrated that my use of music sparked students to explore historical dynamics in greater depth.  My students regularly scored higher on Advanced Placement national history examinations than students who had not taken my course.  When the California Council for the Social Studies gave me its 2011 Senior High Outstanding Teacher Award, most skepticism seemed to disappear.  

Carlos: Why did you focus on rock and roll? 

Teri: I was born in 1957 and grew up on rock and roll.  It commented on the world in which I lived and helped me think differently about such things as the many struggles for social justice.  So I decided to use rock music as social documents to explore the second half of the twentieth century, from Eisenhower through Clinton.

Carlos: So let’s talk about how your use of musical documents could be adapted for diversity workshops.  

Teri: There are lots of songs that deal with diversity, like TuPac’s “Changes” and Bob Marley’s “Redemption Song.”   Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way” advocates for the LGBTQ+ community.  Rage Against the Machine’s “Freedom” challenges the incarceration of the American Indian Movement’s Leonard Peltier.

Carlos:  What are some of the approaches that lyricists use to address diversity?

Teri: Take the theme of equity.   Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind” poses questions like “How many years can some people exist before they’re allowed to be free?”   In “Talking Birmingham Jam,” Phil Ochs employs satire to tell the story of the 1963 Children’s March that challenged Alabama Governor George Wallace, who called for the maintenance of racial segregation in his inaugural speech.  War’s “The World Is a Ghetto” tugs at the heart strings by invoking a sense of hopelessness in black and brown communities.  People can examine the theme of equity by comparing these different approaches.  

Carlos: How about using music to consider how thinking about diversity has changed over time?   

Teri: Well, you could listen to Sam Cooke’s 1964 “Change is Gonna Come” about the treatment of African Americans and Macklemore and Ryan Lewis’ 2012 “Same Love,” which deals with the LGBTQ+ community.  Different groups.  Songs nearly half a century apart.  These two songs can be used to spur reflection on continuities and changes in thinking about social justice.  

Carlos: What was your most fundamental framework for using music as social documents?

Teri: That’s easy.  Multiple perspectives.  To understand diversity, you need to recognize that human experience is comprised of multiple stories.  Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s video, “The Danger of the Single Story,”  reveals how uniquely each person experiences, interprets, and communicates about the world.  Rock music is social storytelling replete with different, sometimes conflicting, points of view.  

Carlos: You’re so right, Teri.  Could you give an example?  

Teri: Let’s go back to the Rolling Stones’ 1966 “Under My Thumb.”  Just six years later Helen Reddy came out with “I Am Woman.”  Consider the change of perspective from the misogynistic lyrics of “Under My Thumb” to the roaring words of “I Am Woman,” which became a sort of 1970’s anthem for the women’s movement.  

 Carlos: Terrific idea, Teri.  So do you have any final thoughts?

Teri: One in particular.  I’ve found that using music to explore social phenomena reduces defensiveness and sparks meaningful conversations about difficult issues.  It could work in diversity workshops as well as classrooms.


Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Ron “The Banner” DeSantis! – by Terry Howard

Doggonit Ron DeSantis, so-called “governor” of the great state of Florida. You just can’t seem to let well enough alone, can you? Your obsessive thirst for power and a move to the White House knows no boundary. Here you go again with another asinine effort to “ban” something, this time the teaching of an AP African American History course to be taught in Florida public high schools. 

Now if memory serves me correct, it was not that long ago when you got your  jollies off by banning books and – the absurdity of all absurdities – banning the word “gay.” There’s something pathological sick about your weird penchant for banning stuff. 

Continue reading Ron “The Banner” DeSantis! – by Terry Howard

Diversity and Speech Part 32: Language Tensions of Speech and Social Justice  – by Carlos E. Cortés

Most public surveys about free speech and the First Amendment go something like this.

  • “Do you believe in the idea of free speech?” Overwhelmingly yes.
  • “Should group slurs be allowed?” Overwhelmingly no..
  • “Do you support the First Amendment?” Overwhelmingly yes.
  • “Should hate speech be permitted?” Overwhelmingly no.

What gives? Aren’t these positions inconsistent? Yes, in the abstract or in the arcane world of constitutional interpretation. No, in the walk-around world where most people reside. Turns out most people like the idea of being protected from government interference with their use of speech. But they also like it when governments and private entities step in to mute certain categories of speech, categories that they might consider harmful, divisive, offensive, or misleading. The problem is that people do not agree on which speech categories should be banned. One person’s sense of truth telling is another person’s sense of disinformation.

Continue reading Diversity and Speech Part 32: Language Tensions of Speech and Social Justice  – by Carlos E. Cortés

Antisemitic Rhetoric on Chattanooga Campus – by Rabbi Craig Lewis

Of all the times to learn that about antisemitic literature circulating in my city, the news reached me during the intermission of “Fiddler on the Roof.” It is a great show that captures a moment in time, combining the folklore of Sholom Aleichem, the imagery of Marc Chagall, and great music by Jerry Bock and Sheldon Harnick to tell a story from the collective Jewish memory. As with true Jewish history, it includes the good and the bad parts of being Jewish. We love “Tradition,” but much of our tradition has been built under the weight of oppression. “Fiddler” does not ignore this as the Russian constable’s promise of a pogrom, a violent attack against Jewish communities, mostly in the Russian Empire. Like Chekov’s gun, the mention of a pogrom comes to fruition and disrupts the joyous wedding scene. Being that this is still musical comedy, the pogrom is sanitized: a few goose pillows are torn up, a table flipped over, and one wedding guest is beaten. There is just enough to suggest what really would have happened. An informed viewer of the show knows it more likely looked like the description from Chayim Nachman Bialik’s poem, “The City of Slaughter,” written about the 1903 pogrom in Kishinev. Here are a few excerpts:

Behold on tree, on stone, on fence, on mural clay,
The spattered blood and dried brains of the dead….

A tale unfold horrific to the ear of man:
A tale of cloven belly, feather-filled;
Of nostrils nailed, of skull-bones bashed and spilled;
Of murdered men who from the beams were hung,
And of a babe beside its mother flung,…

And when thou shalt arise upon the morrow
And go upon the highway,
Thou shalt then meet these men destroyed by sorrow.

These are the images brought to mind by the word pogrom, which marks the end of the show’s first act. Walking to the lobby, I opened my phone to discover a text message from a Jewish student at UTC (University of Tennessee- Chattanooga) who had discovered the antisemitic flier. 

As if it were fact, the flier stated:

“At the height of American slavery, 78% of slave owners were ethnic Jews.” It also asserted that “40% of the Jewish population were slave owners, while only 0.35% of white Americans owned slaves.”

Then there were three footnotes, one presumably to The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery by Junis Rodriguez, and the other two to census data posted on websites of legitimate Jewish organizations. There is so much that is wrong with this flier, my head spins trying to unpack it. First, we start with the statistics and the footnotes. The footnotes do not even come close to supporting the figure it claims. Following the first footnote brings you to a statement that Jews comprised about 1.25 percent of all the slaveowners in the antebellum South,” a far cry from the statistic the flier wanted to prove. Then from the census data linked to the other two footnotes, I tried to determine how the 78% figure was contrived, but it is impossible. Secondly, in addition to making unsupported statistical claims, the flier also sets in opposition “ethnic Jews” versus “white Americans,” as if the Jews in America were not true Americans. Thirdly, and this, in my opinion, is the most important consideration, we have to ask what motivates someone to plaster such misinformation around a college campus, which sits within walking distance of three synagogues and a Jewish cemetery?

Forced to rebut falsehoods, we allow everyone to miss the point. There are nefarious forces trying to sow distrust of Jewish people. They advance a conspiracy theory that there is a hidden truth the Jews do not want you to know. They pit “ethnic Jews” against the pure “white Americans,” and they invite African-Americans to believe the Jewish people are singularly responsible for their oppression. It is damaging and painful, in part because of the historical bond between Blacks and Jews during the Civil Rights movement and beyond, and also because it makes the Jewish community, as a vulnerable minority, hounded by outrageous conspiracy theories since the Middle Ages, fearful that words will lead to action. Labeled as “Christ Killers” during the Crusades, Jewish villages were attacked by religious zealots as they made their way toward the Holy Land. Victims of the “Blood Libel,” a false claim that Jews kidnapped and tortured Christian children to use their blood in the making of Passover matzah, many Jews were wrongfully imprisoned and murdered. Viewed as being untrustworthy and greedy, Jews were expelled from Spain, France, and England. And as the subject of a fictional work, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which was sold as a historical document, allegations of a Jewish plot to control all the world’s wealth and government led to acts of violence against Jews, first across the Russian Empire and eventually around the world. The accumulation false claims about Jewish people motivated attacks, like the fictional pogrom represented in “Fiddler on the Roof,” or the very real Kishinev pogrom described in “The City of Slaughter,” and ultimately the Holocaust which leveraged baseless hate and propaganda to justify the systematic murder of 6 million Jews.

The real kicker is, even though those who posted the insidious flier want to pin responsibility for American slavery on the Jewish people, and even though a preponderance of Jewish Americans at the time lived in the North supporting and fighting for the Union, the vast majority of the world’s Jewish population prior to and during the Civil war was still in Eastern Europe, living under the oppressive rule of the Czar, fleeing from Cossacks, and enduring vicious attacks. Half a world away, America stood as a beacon of freedom, and waves of immigrants fled burning villages for the promise of equality and security. In 1880, there were roughly 250 thousand Jews living in America. Over the next 50 years, nearly 3 million Jews would cross the ocean to settle in the United States. Therefore, the experience of most current American Jews’ ancestors, at the time of the Civil War, was as an oppressed people. Still, those who posted fliers on the UTC campus, would have you believe a false view of history, motivated by the very same lies and bigotry that led to persecution, pogroms, and to the Holocaust.

All of this weighed on my mind as I returned to my theatre seat for the second act of “Fiddler.” I struggled to focus and enjoy the performance as I realized, in 2022 America, the very same lies and beliefs that led to the oppression of my ancestors in Europe, were very much alive. It is part of a larger pattern that is growing in plain sight. Amid the proliferation of antisemitic rhetoric and the permissive silence from those who know better, Jewish people in Chattanooga and around the world are rightly worried, and becoming increasingly afraid that history is about to repeat itself.


1Pogrom is a Russian word meaning ‘to wreak havoc, to demolish violently.’ Historically, the term refers to violent attacks by local non-Jewish populations on Jews in the Russian Empire and in other countries.” (From the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum).


3 Gross overstatement of the Jewish role in the slave trade is a common trope shared by White Supremacist groups as well as the Black Hebrew Israelites (as in the film recently promoted by basketball player Kyrie Irving) and the Nation of Islam. Rather than factual statements about Jewish slave owners in the South, who comprised a small fraction, they attribute blame and responsibility for slavery to the Jewish people as whole. 

4 The flier just says “Rodriquez, p. 385.”

5 “The Jew in the Modern World,” Paul Medes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz, eds., Oxford University Press, 1980, p. 528.

6 “The Jew in the Modern World,” Paul Medes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz, eds., Oxford University Press, 1980, p. 529.


The Heartbreak in Hanger Sales – by Samantha Belcher

In early May of 2022, I noticed a couple of protestors yelling at the downtown traffic on my drive home. Ironically, I believe I was on my way home from grabbing boba with some friends to commemorate the end of our junior year of college. I was unable to make out what their signs or chants depicted nor did I have much interest. It wasn’t until a few hours later when my father texted me a link to a news story covering what would be known as the beginning of worldwide heartbreak: the leaked draft of the Supreme Court majority decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) that would explicitly overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Continue reading The Heartbreak in Hanger Sales – by Samantha Belcher

Discrimination in America’s Healthcare Systems – by Rose Joneson

Where Can Change Start?

A considerable number of patients experience discrimination in the country’s healthcare system. Over 21% of adults report being discriminated against, and 72% of this group say they’ve experienced discrimination more than once. Racial and ethnic discrimination are the most commonly experienced by Americans seeking medical attention. These events affect the kind of care patients receive, putting their well-being at risk. For instance, a doctor’s refusal to treat a person of color (POC) in an emergency highly endangers the patient’s health.

On that note, let’s dive deeper into discrimination in America’s healthcare systems—and what’s being done to address it.

Stories of discrimination in healthcare

Gender discrimination

The LGBTQ community is receiving the brunt of gender discrimination. Take the story of Jacob Gammon, a Black gay man in his early twenties. Clinic staff kept refusing him when he went for a checkup, persuading him to seek care in other places after learning of his sexual orientation. This experience discouraged him from seeking and taking care of his health needs, as he only started looking for another care provider a further 6 months after the incident. In more urgent situations, such a delay would have more seriously worsened Gammon’s health condition.

Racial discrimination

Racial discrimination is prevalent despite efforts like the Black Lives Matter and Stop Asian Hate movements. Tomeka Isaac is a Black woman with an undiagnosed condition that affected her pregnancy. As it turns out, her OB did not perform standard procedures like urine testing that would have detected her HELPP syndrome. This resulted in a horrible birth experience that traumatized Isaac and her husband. Moreover, she shared that doctors often assumed Black women’s pain tolerance to be higher. Her experience and these baseless assumptions continue to endanger Black women’s health.

Where can change start?

Improving healthcare management education

With the above stories proving the dire need for more equal treatment in healthcare, changes to improve diversity must start with healthcare leaders. This way, they can set the tone for these changes and encourage other medical professionals—doctors, nurses, and other health staff—to follow suit. Healthcare leaders at universities are leading the charge by upgrading their healthcare management degrees to help prepare healthcare leaders. This education more effectively trains them to identify modern healthcare challenges in their respective institutions and present practical solutions. For instance, they can propose organizational policies that promote anti-discrimination in their healthcare facility.

Hiring more diverse healthcare professionals

Aside from patients, healthcare workers experience discrimination in the healthcare system. POCs and LGBTQ medical professionals have a more challenging time getting hired. For example, overseas nurses are discriminated against for their supposed inferior and foreign nursing education. Despite being qualified nurses, they’re stripped of the chance to provide care due to race. These can potentially cause problems for America’s healthcare system amid nurse shortages. A less diverse system also endangers patients. Previously mentioned was a Black woman’s traumatic birthing experience because doctors had assumptions about her pain tolerance. With a more inclusive and diverse medical staff, patients like her will be treated without prejudice. Lastly, a diverse team can educate fellow professionals on any false assumptions they may have.

Better anti-discrimination education for the healthcare industry

The Office for Civil Rights has enforced several anti-discrimination regulations regarding healthcare. One includes Section 1908 of the Public Health Service Act, which prohibits discrimination based on age, color, race, and disability. While this is a great initiative, it will improve with better anti-discrimination education for health professionals. This should include a better understanding of such policies, suitable actions when witnessing discriminatory acts in medical facilities, and the dangers of discrimination in the industry. A deeper understanding of these issues can prevent discrimination within the healthcare system more effectively.

While discrimination still exists in America’s healthcare system, there are several ways to change it. Improved healthcare management education, a more diverse healthcare staff, and better anti-discrimination education can help address the issue.


Graphic by pexels

The Ministry of Conversation – by Minister William H. Hicks

“For wherever two or three are gathered (drawn together as My followers) in (into) My Name, there I AM in the midst of them.” [Matthew 18:20AMPC]
(Part of the Series of Practical Instruction for Disciples of Christ)

What is ministry? “A person or thing through which something is accomplished.” [Merriam-Webster Online dictionary]; to serve the needs of others, especially their spiritual needs.

What is conversation? Conversations are discourses, usually between two (2) individuals or, at most (in numbers) small groups of 6 to 9 persons. Conversations are characterized by: intimacy and proximity (although this latter has been redefined by modern communication technology); respect; good listening skills; patience; good intentions; positive energy/passion; no fear; trust/honesty and honest differences of opinion; integrity; hope for a strengthened relationship from having participated in the conversation.

Conversations are usually intentional but may occur spontaneously between two strangers “on a boat, in a car, on a train or on a plane”. One can “strike up” a conversation to “fire up” a relationship. 

Conversations occur at the “intersection of our interactions” (from “Discipleship and Discipline: Second Edition” by William H. Hicks, copyright 2005, 2019). Conversations are the traffic pattern, the thoroughfares of our exchanges, occurring on the social, educational, economic and political freeways of society and culture as well as on the corners of the Main Streets and Maple Avenues of our minds. 

Ever notice how some people are described as skilled, even “brilliant” conversationalists? Debates, even arguments, are conversations (though ‘specialized’). Debates are usually highly structured, with attendant “rules of engagement” and sometimes pre-defined terms that identify the meaning of certain words and may also describe the parameters of the debate in order to identify the winner(s). Arguments are different. Arguments  are almost always subjective, having elements of disagreement based on emotions/feelings vs differences of opinions or competing source materials, aka “facts”.

What then, is the ministry of conversation? It is a special and “specialized” approach to conversation which prioritizes not just the strengthening of the relationship between the apparent participants in the conversation. The highest aim of the ministry of conversation is to strengthen the relationship of the visible participants with the Object and Focus of their conversation, the Lord God, Whose presence is not always ‘apparent’.

This essay will look at five (5) conversations taken from the Bible to examine their characteristics for clues as to how to successfully navigate a relationship (WHAT WE SEE HERE). There are, of course, other conversations that can be reviewed. Further, what the participants bring “to the discourse table” are also important considerations, such as personality, personal history, values, culture, their sense of what makes “community”, their “gender”. The five instances chosen are: The conversation between The Lord God and Moses in Exodus 33:11(AMPC); Paul at Athens on Mars Hill, Acts 17:17-34AMPC; Jesus and Nicodemus, John 3: 1-10AMPC; Jesus and the Samaritan Woman at Jacob’s Well, John 4: 1-30AMPC; and, Jesus, Cleopas and Cleopas’ companion on the road to Emmaus, Luke 24: 13-35AMPC.


Exodus 33:11aAMPC: “And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” As we arrive at Exodus 33, we see that God and Moses have a history shared between them, a history of conversations that detail the nature and substance of their relationship (burning bush, Mount Horeb/

Sinai). The Hebrew word for “friend” used in this verse, rea, “connotes companion, friend” (Vine’s; Strong’s), but the connotation in the Hebrew regarding the participants to this conversation conveys a superior (God) and subordinate/supplicant (Moses) aspect to their relationship. This is borne out by the nature and substance of their conversation as it follows in Exodus 33: 11-23AMPC. 

Of the many aspects of the conversation, these stand out: Moses says to his Friend, “Yet You said, I know you by name and you have also found favor in My sight. Now therefore, I pray You, if I have found favor in Your sight, show me now Your way, that I may know You [progressively become more deeply and intimately acquainted with You, perceiving and recognizing and understanding more strongly and clearly] and that I may find favor in Your sight.” Moses establishes his position vis a vis his relationship with his Friend as based on God’s statement that Moses has “found favor” in God’s sight. Yet Moses beseeches God, based on that assurance, that God show Moses His way, so that Moses “…may know You… and that I may find favor in Your sight.” This seems rather ‘circular’ to the casual observer, but Moses is really moving to strengthen his relationship with his Friend, having found favor with Him, by seeking greater, deeper intimacy. Moses reminds his Friend, “And [Lord, do] consider that this nation (that, in prior conversations, you have commissioned me to lead) is Your people (my italics)”. Moses takes his commission seriously and his friendship with God as essential to his ability to be successful in discharging his responsibility. Moses knows where he stands with his Friend and Moses knows that he must never abrogate that position. Moses seeks greater intimacy with his Friend as the only position from which he can do successfully what he has been called to do.


These aspects of the conversation between God and His friend, Moses, characterize a healthy relationship between them: intimacy and proximity; respect; good listening skills; patience; good intentions; positive energy/passion; no fear, although on Moses’ account his reverential fear of the Lord is real and tangible; trust/honesty; integrity; hope for a strengthened relationship from having participated in the conversation. This latter is the unspoken, yet core desire of each party to any conversation. As the conversation proceeds, Moses gains confidence and asks his Friend to assure him that his Friend’s Presence will always be with him as he pursues his mission. Emboldened further by his Friend’s assurances (v.17), Moses makes the ultimate petition: “…I beseech You, show me Your glory.” 

The relationship between God and His friend was so strong that the Lord even shared with Moses His intentions to destroy the Israelites out of His righteous anger at their idolatry. I mean, God was “incensed”! The Lord says to His friend, “Now therefore, leave Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and that I may destroy them; but you (My friend- my addition), I will make of you a great nation.”(Exodus 32:10AMPC). God’s friend, Moses, does not “leave God alone.” A friend sticks closer than a brother. A friend knows the value of listening to their Friend’s heart, when to be silent and not being quick to offer “solutions”. God’s friend ‘helped’ Him with managing His righteous anger by interceding on Israel’s behalf, reminding his Friend of His prior promises and commitments outlined in previous conversations between them. Ultimately, God strengthened His and Moses’ relationship throughout its duration. Yes, Moses did disappoint his Friend on subsequent occasions, but Moses’ Friend was always faithful to their relationship.


Acts 17:15-34AMPC recounts the apostle Paul’s visit to Athens, Greece and specifically to the Mars Hill neighborhood of that city. Mars Hill was where the “intellectuals”, the Epicureans and the Stoic philosophers hung out and engaged in discourse among themselves. Two things of import are noted in the passages recounting the ensuing conversation between Paul and the Grecian intellectuals: 1) Paul was ‘angered’ by the presence of all the idols in Athens; 2) Paul’s personality- fiery, confrontational, fueled by his great passion and energy (Acts 9:1-2AMPC; Acts 15:38-40AMPC;!Al4xqC0eZvxWilPY3JKzrY0PiMCJ) was the “accelerant” God used to motivate Paul’s engagement of the Athenian philosophers. Paul was also an intellectual, a linguist and skilled also in the methods of conversational engagement so as to be able to meet the denizens of the Areopagus on their own terms. 


Paul’s point of entry into engagement with the Areopagans was first to notice something about them that he (Paul) had observed. Paul engaged in competent observation before he made any judgments about the Athenians: ‘I notice your shrine to “the unknown god”’. This is a hallmark of a good conversationalist: “My, what a lovely hat you’re wearing, dear! Wherever did you buy it?” Having established “common ground” upon which they could converse, Paul then moved to engagement. Paul proceeded to present the Gospel as the answer/insight to their curiosity about that which they sensed intuitively but couldn’t quite put a finger on. Some of the Athenian philosophers scoffed; some of them were engaged but not, at first, convinced; a few (Dionysius and “a woman named Damaris”) were convinced and converted. When Paul was confronted by Jesus on the road to Damascus and converted from being Christ’s enemy to being Christ’s advocate, the Lord did not change Paul’s personality. Paul was the same “fired up” individual he was when he was called “Saul”; what changed about him, among other things, was the purpose, focus, direction and method of application of his energy. Paul was, essentially the “same guy” from a personality perspective (Type A), but he was changed for the better in order to discharge more effectively the mission upon which he had been sent.

A note about venue: Paul converses with anyone at any time in any place: Acts 17:17AMPC: “So he reasoned and argued in the synagogue with the Jews and those who worshiped there, and in the marketplace [where assemblies are held] day after day with any who chanced to be there.” See prior reference to “planes, trains and automobiles.” The “church” has no walls.


In John 3:1-11AMPC, Nicodemus, identified in the translation as a “Pharisee, a ruler/leader (member of the Sanhedrin), an authority among the Jews”, visits Jesus by night to engage Him in conversation. Some might say, to debate Jesus; I don’t agree. Seeking to establish a rapport with Jesus, Nicodemus calls Him “Rabbi”, notes that “we” know and are certain that You have come from God [as] a Teacher;… Thus, I believe that Nicodemus came seeking instruction and not merely validation of his status as an authority, his “position power”. For Nicodemus, the conversation goes in an entirely unexpected direction. Jesus ignores Nicodemus’ attempt to establish a rapport based on  ‘common values’ of  flattery and “position power” recognition, to establish a “common ground” in a hierarchy in which Jesus has absolutely no interest whatsoever.  Jesus starts talking about “anatomy” (or so thinks the learned Nicodemus)! Jesus completely ignores Nicodemus’ attempt to “butter Jesus up” and goes straight to the heart of His concern: Nicodemus’ salvation. Nicodemus, thoroughly disconcerted, defaults to biology until Jesus, the Teacher, begins to educate Nicodemus about “spiritual biology”. Jesus diverts Nicodemus’ attention away from the temporal to the eternal, from the mundane to the magnificent. 


Once Jesus had created the opening in Nicodemus’ mind to consider spiritual matters vs merely “religious” concerns (“we know…”), Jesus turns the conversation into a teaching opportunity. Jesus goes straight to the heart of the real reason Nicodemus came to him (by night) in the first place: (“we… are certain that You come from God [as] a Teacher;…) Nicodemus is really seeking enlightenment and illumination. Jesus gives Nicodemus what he is truly seeking, that is, insight into the God Whom “we” (the Pharisees) worship. ‘We’ are “certain” that You are acquainted with and know our God. Tell me about God. Jesus obliges Nicodemus’ curiosity by use of metaphors (water and wind), temporal things with which Nicodemus is familiar. Jesus assures Nicodemus of His authority to speak on these matters based on the truth (and fact) that He is speaking from experience, Gr., epignosis, or knowledge based on actual interaction with that about which (and Whom) He is speaking (John 3:11-13AMPC). At this point in the gospel narrative, it’s unclear whether the conversation with Nicodemus continues, but what follows is the Great Declaration: “For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life. (John 3:16AMPC)”. 

We know from further reading that this conversation with Jesus was so impacting on Nicodemus that Nicodemus advocated for Jesus before the Sanhedrin (John 7:50-51AMPC).  Further Nicodemus was the one who bought (at his personal expense) the items necessary to the anointing of Jesus’ body (John 19:39-40AMPC) to accord Him a proper burial. In a sense, it could be said of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus that they risked their  lives going to Pilate to seek Jesus’ body, thereby identifying themselves as Jesus’ followers and potential threats to the Roman hegemony. The impact of honest, in-depth conversations where fear is absent and trust abounds, can have lifelong and positive implications. 


John’s Gospel Chapter 4 has a lot in it; most of it (vv. 1-42) is devoted to the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman from the village of Sychar. The chapter opens with the observation that first John the Baptist, and now this Jesus, are winning the “popularity contest” with the Pharisees. It’s highly questionable whether John or Jesus was engaged in or interested in a ‘competition’ with the Pharisees to see who could gain the most followers, but it’s noted that Jesus was aware of the Pharisees’ concerns. Jesus and His disciples then leave Judea (the region of Jerusalem, Bethlehem) and head north to Galilee (Nazareth, Capernaum, the Sea of Galilee, Chorazin). Why is the geographical orientation important here? First, verse 4AMPC reads: “It was necessary for Him to go through Samaria.” The route taken by Jesus and the disciples was the shortest route to their destination (it usually took three days to make the journey). It is important also to note the context in which the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman took place because the route went through the region of Samaria which the Jews of the day avoided like the plague so as to prevent coming into contact with those nasty, half-breed Samaritans. Sychar is on the west side of the Jordan River, near Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal. The Jews of the day usually went along the east side of the Jordan, through Perea, in order to avoid contact with the Samaritans whom the Jews considered anathema.

As there was no public transportation system at that time (planes, trains and automobiles), the journey was made on foot. By the time Jesus and the disciples got to Sychar (about noon), they were hot, tired, hungry and… wait for it…thirsty. “And Jacob’s well is there” (v.6), given by Jacob to his son Joseph. Jesus sits down near the well to rest His tired, aching feet and asks a Samaritan woman coming to draw water to give Him a drink. Oh, it’s on, now! Er, I mean, the conversation ensues.


I encourage you to read this entire chapter 4 of John’s Gospel CLOSELY. As noted earlier, it has A LOT in it.THING ONE: Jesus, by His behavior, condemns racism and misogyny in one fell swoop. He’s thirsty. Jacob’s well is nearby. A person is coming to draw. Jesus is not concerned nor does He take into consideration that the person is a Samaritan AND a woman. Jesus asks for a drink to quench His thirst. Recall the similar encounter between Abraham’s chief servant Eliezer and Rebecca in Genesis 24 (please see “Discipleship and Discipline: Second Edition” by William Hicks, Zondervan Westbow Press for further insight into the significance of that encounter). The woman recognizes that Jesus is a Jewish man; she knows the socio-ethnic-religious paradigm currently in play at that time, so she is curious that this Guy seems to be ignoring the rules (v.9); He might just be a prophet!  Jesus has “set the hook” and He takes over the conversation, steering it in the direction He always intended, towards the woman’s salvation. THING TWO IN THREE PARTS: a) the Spirit/spiritual vs the physical; b) sparkling/living water vs the plain old variety; c) husband vs no husband number 5 (RELATIONSHIP). 

Thing Two Part a: the woman of Samaria has been drawn into a deep spiritual conversation. She enters therein by noting the Samaritans’ history of worshiping on Mt. Gerizim and the schism between the Jews and the Samaritans regarding the PROPER PLACE to worship the Lord (Mt. Zion vs Mt. Gerizim). Jesus takes her DEEPER, stating that “place” has no place for the true worshipers of God. As God is Spirit/a spiritual being, worship is appropriate, née, de riguer at any time in any place (vv.23,24). In JK Rowling’s “Harry Potter” books, the Hogwarts students play Quidditch, a game in which the “shortest route” to a win is to catch the Snitch; only the seeker can capture the Snitch. Jesus states that salvation is the ultimate objective of God, its no game and God Himself is the Seeker; we are the “snitches” God is pursuing. This is directly in line with the Great Declaration in John 3:16AMPC and Jesus demonstrates and manifests that He is all about that, even for the hated Samaritans and the ill-treated, disrespected women, not just for the “Chosen ones”, the Jews. 

Thing Two Part b: sparkling/living water vs the plain old variety. All water is good… as long as its not polluted! We/our bodies are said to be 55% (women) to 60% (men) water (; water is necessary to life…physical life. You cannot make tea or coffee with it. You cannot “shower” in it, but having been “bathed/washed” in it, you are clean. The water Jesus references is necessary to spiritual life, eternal life. This living water is not H2O. You cannot make it out of anything merely physical, like two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. This living/sparkling water is the Word/word of God itself. It is the Deuteronomy 8:3/Matthew 4:4/Luke 4:4 Word/water that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Note that this Word/water has different qualities and potentialities than the H2O variety. Yes, H2O is necessary for life…physical life, but this living/sparkling Word/water is necessary for eternal life. This Word/water is life itself/has a “life” of its own (Hebrews 4:12AMPC). This living/sparkling Word/water, once ingested, operates ON AND FROM the spirit inside us, changing each of us, our leb (Hebrew), our “heart-mind” fusion from the inside out. 

Thing Two Part c: RELATIONSHIP. It has been noted that we are “spiritual beings having natural experiences.” For most of our lives this reality has been presented as a conundrum, a “confusing and difficult problem or question (Google online dictionary)”. While we are, indeed, physical creatures, we are constantly in pursuit of affirmation/confirmation of our spiritual natures, whether through sex (orgasms), religious experiences (“enlightenment”, “nirvana”, “slain in the spirit”) or interpersonal relationships (marriage, community, culture). The Samaritan woman had been on a quest, a quest to find personal meaning and affirmation. To the point of her encounter with Jesus, her efforts had been futile, fruitless and frustrating. Her culture and community had indoctrinated her to the point that she was convinced that meaning and affirmation could only be achieved only in a certain place (Mt. Gerizim) or in a certain way, i.e.,  in relation to and in relationship with a man/male. Thus, she had sought meaning and fulfillment through five (5) “husband” (v.18) relationships. Note to today: this is the root of misogyny. 

Jesus dismantles the Samaritan woman’s entire paradigm, in favor of a more solid, substantial and eternal foundation. Jesus re-orients her in space and in time: in her “inner” self perception (that space between “her” and “self” is deliberate), spiritually and physically; and in her ethnicity/culture. The Samaritan woman is changed so profoundly that she now becomes the instrumentality through which the reality of her friends and neighbors can be changed. She becomes (instantly?) an evangelist, leaving her “water jar” to become a living/sparkling water “jar”, enabling her compatriots to come into relationship with the Source of her (and their) salvation (vv.27-30, 39-42) through facilitation of a conversation between Jesus and the citizens of Sychar. 


Luke 24:13-35AMPC, records a conversation about current events, a topic which, historically and perennially, has formed a foundation for conversations among acquaintances, friends and even strangers since the beginnings of civilization. In this example, two friends are walking along, discussing the most important (to them) events of recent days, commiserating with each other about the implications of these occurrences and the (seeming and assumed) dashing of their hopes, dreams and aspirations as a consequence of these events. The two friends are joined by another Traveler going in the same direction Who, catching up to them, engages them in conversation about their discourse: “Hey, guys! How’s it going? What’s up?” To them, this Person is a stranger; but, they actually stop walking to look at Him. Cleopas is somewhat amazed that this Stranger, coming from the same direction from which they had just come, could be unaware of what has just happened in Jerusalem (current events). Cleopas shares the news (the crucifixion of the Prophet from Nazareth) and its impact on him and his companion (they are sad and downcast and disappointed). Cleopas gives the Stranger the straight up “skinny”, including all the details of who did what, when these events occurred and the astonishing news from “some women of our company” that the Prophet, having been publicly put to death, was yet alive(!). 


At this point in the conversation and along the journey’s way, the Stranger takes the lead in the conversation and begins to explain the significance and implications of these current events. The Stranger uses a kerygmatic method to share His eschatological world view… wait, what?! He “breaks it down” for them, “beginning with Moses and [throughout] all the Prophets, explaining and interpreting to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning and referring to Himself (Luke 24:27-27AMPC).” The traveling companions are enthralled. As they near their journey’s end and the Stranger signals that He was going further, they “urge and insist” that He stay with them so that they could continue their conversation over a meal. It was at this point, the point of worship, fellowship and the giving of thanks  that the two companions were enabled to recognize Who had been traveling and conversing with them and instantly, He was gone.

Cleopas and his friend realized that they had to share this experience with the other disciples and immediately journeyed back to Jerusalem to tell the Eleven apostles and the other disciples that they had encountered the risen Messiah on their way, only to hear from the disciples the same Good News they were intending to share with them! And then, Jesus Himself appears among them! They see Him. They feel Him. He eats food they had prepared with their own hands. Jesus again employs kerygmatic methods to share His eschatology- OK, He engaged them conversationally in order to translate and transfer to them His biblically-based world view- as the foundation to empower and commission His followers to spread the Good News and to “make disciples” among all the nations (see also Matthew 28:18-20AMPC).  


  1. WE SHOULD TAKE TIME TO MAKE TIME TO TALK TO EACH OTHER. When we are in conversation with each other, it becomes easier to recognize our common humanity. Conversations facilitate our recognition of the God in each other, thereby making it much harder to not “love one another.”
  2. CONVERSATIONS ARE AT THE LEAST RELATIONSHIP “GAME CHANGERS” AND AT THEIR MOST, “LIFE CHANGING” ENCOUNTERS. If our conversations exhibit the characteristics of positive, intentional interactions- “intimacy and proximity; respect; good listening skills; patience; good intentions; positive energy/passion; no fear; trust/honesty and honest differences of opinion; integrity; hope for a strengthened relationship from having participated in the conversation”, it will be well-nigh impossible for those so engaged to walk away unchanged and to not be the “better” for the experience.
  3. LISTENING IS A RELATIONAL ACTIVITY. Some one person talks, another or others listen. Good communications in relationships is built on how well the parties to the relationship LISTEN to one another and not on how smooth one talks or how large the vocabulary of the other. The CHIEF COMPLAINT in most failing relationships- whether they be failing marriages, failing parent-child, teacher-student, employer-employee or Teacher-disciple relationships- is that some one is not listening or some one is being misunderstood. Not allowing your partner the opportunity to express him or herself is the same thing as not listening. Matthew 28:18-20AMPC; Acts 1:8AMPC; Romans 10:14AMPC.
  4. “CLEAR YOUR MIND OF QUESTIONS” (Yoda, Jedi Master). “It’s OK to ask God questions; it’s not OK to ‘question’ God”. Be careful with questions in conversations. Some types of questions are usually the product of a negative attitude and can be a product of prejudice and self-centeredness. The difference is the attitude of our hearts and the position of our minds. Contrast the conversations at Genesis 3:1ffAMPC and John 3:4ffNASB; and see also James 1:5-6AMPC.
  5. THROW OUT THE GARBAGE: We often “hear” through filters. These filters can be:
  • The residue of past experiences;
  • Traditions strongly held;
  • Emotions which echo down through the years.
  1. KNOW YOUR MATH… God gave us two (2) ears and one (1) mouth and we should use them proportionately (Romans 12:3ESV) …AND DON’T LISTEN WITH YOUR EARS FULL. For most of us, we can’t listen well because our ears are full of the sound of our own voices, our own thoughts. We focus on me, myself and I rather than on the one who is speaking to us! Don’t drown out your partner! Allow one who is speaking to you TO BE HEARD BY YOU! Example: “I already know what you are going to say before you say it!” (Jeremiah 6:10NIV; Zechariah 7:11-13NIV; 2Timothy 4:3-4NLT).
  2. CLARIFY, DON’T ASSUME! Often, we assume we are speaking the same language as the person with whom we are exchanging words (Genesis 11:1AMPC). Make sure of this! (John 8:43AMPC). Practice Ardena Hicks’ “Reflection Method”: Reflect, then Respond.
  3. “LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP or PAUSE BEFORE YOU SPEAK”. Hear what YOU are going to say BEFORE you say it (SEE #7, Reflection Method). CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY. Don’t just blurt out the first thing that comes to mind. (Proverbs 18:13MSG; Proverbs 29:20NLT). CHOOSE YOUR VOICE CAREFULLY. Be mindful: it’s not so much alone WHAT you say as it is also important HOW you say what you say. (I Corinthians 13:1 MSG/AMPC/KJV/TLB and other translations of this verse.
  4. Finally, Isaiah 50:4-7NASB/AMPC/TLB/KJV/NIV/NLT/MSG.


1 in 2 Americans Knows Someone with an Opioid Addiction

Few Know How to Get Help

The Opioid Crisis continues to surge in the United States, as fentanyl-related overdoses are on the rise nationwide and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated an already fragile healthcare system. A new report by Bicycle Health, an online addiction treatment provider, surveyed over 1,000 Americans nationwide on opioid use disorder (OUD) and what they thought would help; it also analyzed data from Kaiser Health and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to find opioid addiction rates by state as well as potential opioid treatment deserts across the nation. 

Continue reading 1 in 2 Americans Knows Someone with an Opioid Addiction

There’s No Place Like Home – Unless You’re Homeless – by Susan Dolan

According to Dan McDonald, ‘there’s no place like home’ and most of us would agree unless you’re homeless, of course. That was the name of his keynote speech in Kansas City highlighting the issues around homelessness and what we can do to end it.

McDonald delivered his speech at the annual National Sheriff’s Association 2022 conference. It was designed to raise awareness of how the police deal with homelessness and people who live on the streets. It also highlighted the fact that jails are becoming the largest homeless shelters in many communities and the cost implications of this for the taxpayer.

McDonald called for better responses to the issue of homelessness and suggested ways in which the authorities and local communities could develop cost-effective, legal and compassionate approaches for dealing with the issue, such as the development of police homeless outreach teams.

Continue reading There’s No Place Like Home – Unless You’re Homeless – by Susan Dolan

The lifelong regret – by Terry Howard

This picture is a replica of the one from a remote spot in a parking lot across from a local Walmart. Until recently, that spot was occupied by a blue pickup truck with watermelons for sale on the back. I’ll get to the story behind that photo momentarily. 

But first, let’s go to Marriam-Webster for a definition of the word “regret,” the crux of this narrative and for my fair-minded readers, something to think long and hard about when reexamining your life.

Regret is a feeling of sadness or disappointment about something said or wrong about a mistake you made and wish you could have done differently or better.”

Aha, “done differently!” 

Continue reading The lifelong regret – by Terry Howard