Judge’s comments: Short, pithy, clever. It keeps close to its lovely metaphor throughout…until the end when the metaphor is suddenly dropped in favor of editorializing. This charming piece needs a punchy ending that drives the metaphor home.

A man was walking down a long hall. His leg was broken, and he was without even a splint. Instead he used an atheistic cane to support himself. It was not a walking cane, really. It flexed and bent at every obstacle and was far too flimsy for a man to lean his weight upon. But lean on it he did.

A Christian saw his predicament and offered a splint and a crutch. “I don’t need your Christian crutch,” the man declared. “And a splint is as confining as it is unnecessary. “

“But your leg is broken,” objected the Christian. “It needs repair and support as it heals.” “It is not my leg that is broken, but your head!” With that retort and a huff, the man began to leave.

“If your leg is not broken, then why are you using that cane?” asked the Christian.

“It is not a cane,” the man said. “I am not dependent on it but walk on my own two feet.”

“Certainly it is not a cane to depend on,” replied the Christian, “but you are using it to support your walk, though it bends from your weight and the obstacles it encounters, all the while threatening to break.”

“Better a flexible cane then a rigid crutch.”

“A solid crutch, rigid though it may be, offers more flexibility of travel than a bending cane that can’t handle level ground.”

“Away with your crutch!” cried the man. He then hobbled down the hall rather quickly for someone in his predicament.

The Christian sighed and then saw a woman with a broken leg lying on the ground. He came to her and offered her a splint and a crutch.

“Oh, no thank you,” the woman smiled pleasantly. “I really don’t need one. I’m fine right here. “

And so the Christian sadly went on, and yes his leg was in a splint. And yes he used a Christian crutch. But the question is not whether it was a crutch. The question is—was it needed?