Myth 1: “Immigrants will take American jobs, lower wages, and especially hurt the poor.”

FACT: Immigrants don’t take American jobs, lower wages, or push the poor out of the labor market.

Myth 2: “It is easy to immigrate here legally. Why don’t illegal immigrants just get in line?”

FACT: It’s very difficult to immigrate legally to the United States. Immigration law is second only to the income tax code in legal complexity.

Myth 3: “Immigrants abuse the welfare state.”

FACT: Immigrants use significantly less welfare than native-born Americans.

Myth 4: “Immigrants increase the budget deficit and government debt.”

FACT: Immigrants in the United States have about a net zero effect on government budgets–they pay about as much in taxes as they consume in benefits.

Myth 5: “Immigrants increase economic inequality.”

FACT: Maybe. The evidence is mixed. But the standard of living is much more important than the income distribution.

Myth 6: “Today’s immigrants don’t assimilate as immigrants from previous eras did.”

FACT: Immigrants to the United States–including Mexicans–are assimilating as well as or better than immigrant groups from Europe over a hundred years ago.

Myth 7: “Immigrants are a major source of crime.”

FACT: Immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are less likely to be incarcerated in prisons, convicted of crimes, or arrested than native-born Americans.

Myth 8: “Immigrants pose a unique risk today because of terrorism.”

FACT: The annual chance of being murdered in a terrorist attack committed by a foreign-born person on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2017 was about 1 in 3.8 million per year.

Myth 9: “The United States has the most open immigration policy in the world.”

FACT: The annual inflow of immigrants to the United States, as a percentage of our population, is below that of most other rich countries in the OECD.

Myth 10: “Amnesty or a failure to enforce our immigration laws will destroy the Rule of Law in the United States.”

FACT: America’s current immigration laws violate every principal component of the Rule of Law. Enforcing laws that are inherently capricious and contrary to our traditions is inconsistent with a stable Rule of Law.

Myth 11: “Illegal immigration or expanding legal immigration will destroy American national sovereignty.”

FACT: Different immigration policies do not reduce the U.S. government’s ability to defend American sovereignty.

Myth 12: “Immigrants won’t vote for the Republican Party–look at what happened to California.”

FACT: Republican immigration policies pushed immigrants away, not the other way around.

Myth 13: “Immigrants bring with them bad cultures, ideas, or other factors that will undermine and destroy our economic and political institutions.”

FACT: There is no evidence that immigrants weaken or undermine American economic, political, or cultural institutions.

Myth 14: “The brain drain of smart immigrants to the United States impoverishes other countries.”

FACT: The flow of skilled workers to rich nations increases the incomes of people in the destination country, enriches the immigrants, and helps (or at least does not hurt) those left behind.

Myth 15: “Immigrants will increase crowding, harm the environment, and [insert misanthropic statement here].”

FACT: People, including immigrants, are an economic and environmental blessing and not a curse.

The pattern is consistent: most arguments against immigration assume harms that either don’t exist, are far smaller than claimed, or are outweighed by benefits. For the full evidence and citations, see Nowrasteh’s booklet:

• Blog version
• PDF
• Kindle

For more recent data on the fiscal effects of immigration, see Cato’s 2026 study: Immigrants’ Recent Effects on Government Budgets, 1994–2023.

I’ve written recently about why this kind of false neutrality is a moral failure. Calls for “balance” in the face of obvious injustice aren’t wisdom; they’re complicity dressed up in respectable clothing. Briggins’s piece is a case study.

The deaths go unexamined

Consider Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Briggins mentions them as evidence that “tragedy” emerged from “volatile protests” and “chaotic confrontations,” but he never states plainly that ICE agents killed both of them. Videos of the incidents have circulated widely and appear to contradict the administration’s account of events. If you’re interested in truth over manipulation, that’s where the examination should start.

A double standard on inflammatory rhetoric

The double standard on inflammatory rhetoric is just as glaring. Briggins condemns Mayor Frey and Governor Walz for language that “pours gasoline on the fire” and “legitimizes resistance.” Fair enough. But where is the corresponding critique of an administration that has spent years describing immigrants as “animals,” “invaders,” and criminals by category? If words from local officials bear responsibility for violence, so do words from the president and his administration.

Christians especially should care about this. We cannot spend a decade dehumanizing a population and then wonder why enforcement against them turns brutal.

A straw man

The framing also creates a straw man. As far as I can tell, the people protesting in Minneapolis aren’t disputing whether the United States can have immigration laws. They’re objecting to how ICE agents have been conducting themselves: wearing masks and refusing to display badges, entering homes without judicial warrants, detaining citizens and legal residents with apparent indifference to their status, using tear gas on crowds that posed no violent threat.

By describing these concerns as “emotional manipulation” and “sympathy weaponized,” Briggins dismisses them without engaging them. Any reasonable person agrees countries can enforce their borders, so if you’re upset, you must be unreasonable or deceived. But that’s not an argument, it’s a rhetorical move that forecloses the actual debate.

Legality and justice

On legality: even granting that current USA immigration law is just (a larger question worth its own discussion), the issue is whether ICE is following it consistently. Constitutional protections, due process requirements, and warrant procedures exist to constrain enforcement. Concern about whether agents are respecting those constraints isn’t lawlessness. It’s the rule of law working as intended.

Romans 13 doesn’t settle this

The appeal to Romans 13 needs scrutiny too. Paul’s instruction to submit to governing authorities doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The same biblical tradition includes prophets who condemned rulers for injustice, apostles who declared they must obey God rather than men, and Jesus himself, executed by the lawful authorities of his day.

Briggins alludes to the broader biblical witness, but he doesn’t really wrestle with it when it comes to ICE. Instead, Romans 13 is the main lens through which he views immigration enforcement.

But if we invoke Romans 13 to counsel compliance, we should also grapple with what Scripture says about authorities who abuse their power. And we should also take well-documented abuses by ICE seriously, instead of dismissing concerns as mere emotional manipulation.

I’ve addressed some of this at length in “Romans 13 Is Not a Blank Check for Cruelty” and in my longer essay on what happens when Romans 13 meets Matthew 25. The short version: Christians cannot use Paul’s instruction about governing authorities as permission to ignore Jesus’ identification with the stranger. Our response to immigrants is our response to Christ.

An ICE agent shoots someone on video. The administration lies about it in ways that would make Orwell blush. And the response from certain Christian commentators? “Let’s not fan the flames.” “We shouldn’t rush to conclusions.” “There are extremes on both sides.”

This posture has the appearance of wisdom. It sounds mature, measured, above the fray. It positions the speaker as the reasonable adult in the room while everyone else loses their heads.

I used to find this kind of thing persuasive. I don’t anymore.

The Prophets Weren’t “Balanced”

When Jeremiah looked at the religious leaders of his day, he didn’t commend their evenhandedness. He condemned them: “They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace” (Jeremiah 6:14).

Ezekiel was even more vivid. He compared false prophets to builders who stack bricks without mortar and then slap whitewash over the mess to hide the defects. The wall looks fine until the storm comes. Then it collapses and kills everyone inside. The prophets who said “everything’s fine” bear responsibility for the destruction (Ezekiel 13:10-15).

Amos thundered against those who “hate the one who reproves in the gate, and abhor the one who speaks the truth” (5:10). His demand wasn’t for balance between the wealthy and the poor they exploited. It was for justice to “roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”

Isaiah pronounced woe on “those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (5:20). That’s a precise description of what happens when we treat truth and lies as equivalent perspectives deserving equal airtime.

The prophetic pattern isn’t balance. It’s asymmetric compassion: harsh confrontation of the powerful, tender care for the vulnerable. The prophets didn’t split the difference between oppressor and oppressed. They took sides.

Jesus Wasn’t “Civil”

And then there’s Jesus, who we sometimes domesticate into a nice teacher of timeless spiritual truths.

Matthew 23 is, to put it mildly, not a model of civil discourse. Jesus called the religious leaders “serpents,” “brood of vipers,” “whitewashed tombs,” “blind guides,” and “hypocrites.” Seven times he pronounced “woe” on them. He overturned tables in the temple in what one scholar called “prophetic provocation.”

Yet this same Jesus was “gentle and humble in heart” toward the weary and burdened. He welcomed tax collectors and sinners. He wept over Jerusalem even while condemning it.

The pattern is consistent: confrontation with the powerful who abuse their position, compassion for the marginalized they exploit. When Jesus said “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34), he was acknowledging what prophetic truth does. It creates division. The gospel forces a choice.

Bonhoeffer on the Failure of “the Reasonable Ones”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer understood this from inside the nightmare of Nazi Germany. In 1942, hiding an essay in his attic before his arrest, he wrote that “the huge masquerade of evil has thrown all ethical concepts into confusion.” Evil appeared disguised as light, good deeds, historical necessity, social justice.

He was particularly harsh on what he called “the reasonable ones”:

“The failure of ’the reasonable ones’—those who think, with the best of intentions and in their naive misreading of reality, that with a bit of reason they can patch up a structure that has come out of joint—is apparent. With their ability to see impaired, they want to do justice on every side, only to be crushed by the colliding forces without having accomplished anything at all.”

The reasonable person, trying to be fair to everyone, accomplishes nothing and gets crushed.

His alternative was stark:

“Who stands firm? Only the one whose ultimate standard is not his reason, his principles, conscience, freedom, or virtue; only the one who is prepared to sacrifice all of these when, in faith and in relationship to God alone, he is called to obedient and responsible action.”

Bonhoeffer also warned against those who flee to “the sanctuary of private virtuousness”:

“But he must close his eyes and mouth to the injustice around him. He can remain undefiled by the consequences of responsible action only by deceiving himself.”

That’s what “both-sides” arguments often are: a way of staying clean while others suffer.

MLK on the White Moderate

Martin Luther King Jr. named this dynamic from a Birmingham jail cell in 1963:

“I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”

King distinguished between negative peace (the absence of tension) and positive peace (the presence of justice). The moderate prefers calm over change. But calm that preserves injustice isn’t peace at all.

When critics called him “extreme,” King reframed the question:

“Was not Jesus an extremist for love?… Was not Amos an extremist for justice?… The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be.”

His warning still echoes:

“We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.”

Tutu, Freire, Romero: The Impossibility of Neutrality

Desmond Tutu put it most memorably:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Paulo Freire said essentially the same thing:

“Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.”

And Oscar Romero, the Salvadoran archbishop who was murdered while celebrating Mass, asked the question that haunts me:

“A church that doesn’t provoke any crises, a gospel that doesn’t unsettle, a word of God that doesn’t get under anyone’s skin, a word of God that doesn’t touch the real sin of the society in which it is being proclaimed: what gospel is that?”

When critics accused Romero of “interfering in politics,” they made the same move people make today. Reduce prophetic witness to partisanship, and you can dismiss it without engaging its substance.

What This Isn’t

I want to be careful here. I’m not saying every situation is simple or that discernment is unnecessary. Genuine wisdom involves timing, strategy, knowing when and how to act effectively.

But there’s a difference between genuine prudence and cowardly inaction dressed as wisdom. The latter looks like:

• Appealing to “process” when evidence is already clear.
• Calling for “more information” when sufficient information exists to act.
• Distributing blame equally between those wielding state violence and those protesting it.
• Prioritizing institutional safety over prophetic witness.
• Confusing controversy-avoidance with peacemaking.

The Gospel Demands a Choice

Gustavo Gutiérrez, one of the founders of liberation theology, stated it plainly:

“It is not possible to remain neutral in the face of poverty and the resulting just claims of the poor; a posture of neutrality would, moreover, mean siding with the injustice and oppression in our midst.”

This isn’t partisan politics. It’s the gospel. Jesus told us that how we treat “the least of these” is how we treat him. The sheep and the goats aren’t sorted by their theological positions but by whether they fed the hungry, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner.

When the stranger is being shot by federal agents, when the administration is lying about it, when the powerful are crushing the vulnerable, there is no neutral ground. There is only complicity or witness.

I understand why “both-sides” thinking is attractive. I held versions of it for years. It lets you feel wise without taking risks. It lets you maintain relationships across political divides. It lets you avoid the messiness of actually standing for something.

But the prophets didn’t take that path. Jesus didn’t take that path. Bonhoeffer and King and Romero didn’t take that path. They understood that some situations demand not balance but witness. Not calm but crisis. Not peace-keeping but justice-making.

“They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.”

I don’t want to be one of those healers.

Meanwhile, the president launched a military strike on Venezuela without congressional approval. He’s threatening NATO allies with tariffs and won’t rule out military force to seize Greenland—explicitly because he didn’t get a Nobel Peace Prize. And the Epstein files he promised to release? Less than 1% have come out, with documents connecting him to Epstein mysteriously disappearing from government websites before public backlash forced their restoration.

This is what authoritarianism looks like. And the fact that many “evangelical” Christians support these things—or look the other way—makes me sick to my stomach.

The Bible’s witness on immigrants, the poor, and the powerless is consistent from Leviticus through Matthew 25: God stands with the vulnerable, and his people are commanded to do the same.

Yet many American Christians invoke Romans 13 to justify compliance with policies that separate families, demonize refugees, and now kill US citizens on American streets. As if Paul wrote a blank check for whatever governments decide to do.

He didn’t. Romans 13 was pastoral counsel to a specific church in a specific moment, sandwiched between commands to love enemies and overcome evil with good. Read alongside Matthew 25, where Jesus says nations will be judged by how they treated “the least of these,” the picture becomes clear: submission to authority never trumps our obligation to the stranger, the hungry, the prisoner.

Christ identifies with the vulnerable. Our treatment of immigrants is our treatment of him.

I’ve written about these themes before. Here’s where to dig deeper:

• You’re Reading Romans 13 Wrong: Paul wrote to discourage rebellion that would damage the church’s witness, not to provide comprehensive political theology justifying every government action.
• When Romans 13 Meets Matthew 25: Romans 13 cannot be a blank check for cruelty. Christ identifies with the stranger, and our response to immigrants is our response to him.
• You Can’t Follow Jesus and Hate Immigrants: Scripture consistently commands love for foreigners. Check your gut reaction to the word “immigrant” and ask if it reflects Christ.
• What the Bible Says About Poverty: Proverbs: God has a bias toward the poor, standing against the powerful on behalf of the powerless. Oppressing the poor insults their Maker.
• Christians and Wealth: American Christians should reduce living standards to what’s necessary for flourishing and give the excess. We will be held accountable for how we treat the poor.
• A Citizen’s Manifesto: Working principles for democratic renewal, including: no one above the law, leaders accountable to the people, and civic obligations that match our rights.
• How to Resist Tyranny: Practical resources for defending democracy, including Timothy Snyder’s 20 lessons, Gene Sharp’s 198 methods of nonviolent action, and reliable information sources.

Patrick Henry’s famous words have echoed through American culture for 250 years. They show up on T-shirts, bumper stickers, and church signs. They get quoted in sermons, usually around the Fourth of July.

But here’s the thing: Patrick Henry wasn’t quoting Scripture. And if you read what the Bible actually says about freedom, it sounds almost nothing like what Americans mean when we use the word.

This matters because American Christians have fused two very different ideas of freedom into one. We assume the freedom celebrated in the Declaration of Independence and the freedom celebrated in Galatians are basically the same thing.

They’re not. And the confusion has cost us.

American Freedom: Freedom FROM

The dominant American understanding of freedom is simple: I am free when no one can tell me what to do.

Freedom means the absence of external constraint. It means autonomy, self-direction, the right to pursue my own happiness without interference. Don’t tread on me. Leave me alone. My body, my choice. My property, my rules.

This understanding has shaped American life in countless ways, many of them genuinely valuable. It underlies our commitment to religious liberty, our rejection of tyranny, our legal protections for individual rights.

But this is not what Scripture means by freedom.

Biblical Freedom: Freedom FOR

Scripture consistently presents freedom not as the absence of constraint but as the presence of a particular orientation. Biblical freedom always has a direction. It’s freedom from something for something else.

The exodus narrative makes this obvious. God liberates Israel from bondage in Egypt, but that liberation finds its purpose at Mount Sinai, where God establishes a covenant calling the people to a new way of life together. The point of leaving Egypt was never “now you can do whatever you want.” The point was “now you can live in harmony with God and one another.”

Freedom from Pharaoh was always freedom for Torah.

This pattern runs throughout Scripture. Psalm 119:134 captures it: “Redeem me from human oppression, that I may keep your precepts.” The psalmist doesn’t ask to be freed from oppression so he can finally be his own boss. He asks to be freed so he can live according to God’s ways.

The purpose of liberation is faithfulness, not autonomy.

Paul’s Outrageous Claim

The New Testament takes this even further. Paul’s letter to the Galatians contains one of his most emphatic declarations of Christian freedom. But listen to how he frames it:

“You were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Galatians 5:13-14)

Read that again. Paul says we’re genuinely free, then immediately tells us to become slaves to one another.

To American ears, this is incoherent. If I’m free, how can I be a slave? If I’m a slave, how can I be free?

But Paul isn’t confused. He’s operating with a completely different definition. For Paul, freedom isn’t the absence of obligation to others. Freedom is the capacity to love and serve others without the distortions of sin getting in the way.

We are freed from sin precisely so that we can love.

This is freedom as love.

What Freedom Is Actually For

The difference between American freedom and biblical freedom comes down to purpose.

American freedom is essentially negative: it defines what should be absent (external control).

Biblical freedom is essentially positive: it defines what should be present (love, service, harmony with God).

Augustine understood this. He wrote, “There is no true liberty except the liberty of the happy who cleave to the eternal law.”

For Augustine, freedom isn’t the ability to choose anything. It’s the ability to choose what is genuinely good. A person enslaved to addiction may have no external constraints preventing them from drinking, but they are not truly free. True freedom is the capacity to live as God designed us to live.

This means Scripture always speaks of human freedom against the background of our dependence on God. Only God has absolute autonomy. Human freedom exists within a web of relationships and responsibilities. We are free creatures, but we are also created creatures, designed for communion with God and community with one another.

Any definition of freedom that ignores this is not biblical freedom at all.

The Damage

This isn’t academic. The confusion between American freedom and biblical freedom has produced real harm.

When Christians define freedom primarily as “no one can tell me what to do,” we start to see any claim on our lives as an attack. We become suspicious of sacrifice. We resent obligations to neighbors. We treat any mention of the common good as a threat.

You can see this everywhere in American Christian culture right now.

Suggest that Christians have obligations to the poor, and someone will call it socialism. Point out that Scripture commands care for immigrants and refugees, and someone will say you’re being political. Mention that loving your neighbor might require personal inconvenience or sacrifice, and someone will start talking about their rights.

“That’s socialism” has become the reflexive response to any proposal that might cost us something for the sake of others. But here’s what’s strange: the Bible never promises you low taxes. It never guarantees your right to accumulate wealth without obligation to the vulnerable. It never suggests that caring for the poor is optional, or that government efforts to protect workers and immigrants are inherently unchristian.

In fact, Scripture is relentlessly clear that God’s people are obligated to care for the widow, the orphan, the foreigner, and the poor. This isn’t a progressive talking point. It’s Deuteronomy. It’s the Prophets. It’s Jesus.

When Christians shout “socialism” at anyone who suggests we should strengthen the social safety net, we’re not defending biblical values. We’re defending our wallets with religious language.

The logic runs like this: if freedom means the absence of external constraint, then any constraint is an attack on freedom. Any obligation is tyranny. Any sacrifice is oppression.

But this logic is foreign to Scripture.

The biblical vision of human flourishing is inherently communal. We are created in the image of a Triune God who exists in eternal relationship. We are designed to live in community. The common good is not a threat to freedom rightly understood; it’s the context in which freedom finds its meaning.

Jesus told a story about a man who ignored a beggar at his gate and ended up in torment. He told another story about people who refused to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and were told, “Depart from me.” He said it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.

None of this sounds like “don’t tread on me.”

When Christians wrap the American flag around the cross and baptize individualism as biblical truth, we haven’t defended freedom. We’ve traded the freedom Christ offers for a counterfeit Christ who asks nothing of us and blesses our comfort.

That’s not Christianity. That’s idolatry with better branding.

Jesus Was Free. Look What He Did With It.

Jesus himself modeled this understanding. The Gospels present him as radically free: free from the religious establishment, free from social conventions, free from the fear of death.

But Jesus never used his freedom for self-indulgence. He used it for others.

He touched lepers. He welcomed outcasts. He washed his disciples’ feet. He gave his life on a cross.

His freedom was entirely directed toward love.

And this is what he calls his followers to embody: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34).

This is the opposite of American freedom. It’s not the assertion of individual autonomy but the surrender of it. It’s not “no one can tell me what to do” but “I freely choose to serve.”

Two Different Stories

American Christians have been formed by two different stories about freedom, and these stories are not easily compatible.

The American story says freedom is my right to live as I choose without interference. I am the center. Constraint is the enemy. The goal is individual autonomy.

The biblical story says freedom is God’s gift that enables me to love as Christ loved. God and neighbor are the center. The enemy is captivity to sin and selfishness. The goal is a redeemed community worshiping God together.

This doesn’t mean everything in the American tradition is wrong. The protection of individual rights, the rejection of tyranny, the commitment to religious liberty: these are genuine goods. But we must be honest that the dominant American conception of freedom is not the same as biblical freedom.

When we confuse them, we lose something essential to the gospel.

The Better Freedom

The good news is that Jesus offers a different kind of freedom.

Freedom from the bondage of sin. Freedom from the tyranny of self-interest. Freedom from the isolation of radical individualism.

This freedom is not the absence of all constraint but the presence of love. It’s not doing whatever I want but becoming who God made me to be. It’s not independence from others but interdependence with others in the body of Christ.

Patrick Henry wanted liberty or death.

Jesus offered something stranger: liberty through death. His death. And, if we’re willing, the death of our obsession with autonomy.

That’s the freedom worth celebrating.

The Problem: Resigning is Renouncing?

In November 2023, here’s how I put it (emphasis added to highlight the parts now in question):

in accordance with Title III, Canon 6, Section 4 of the ACNA Canons (“Concerning Voluntary Resignation from the Ordained Ministry of this Church”), I have tendered my voluntary resignation from the ordained ministry of the Anglican Church in North America, effective on 2023-11-01.

As of 2023-11-07, my bishop and diocese have confirmed that I am a Presbyter in good standing, not under discipline as defined in Title IV of the ACNA Canons, and that my resignation is not occasioned by misconduct or irregularity, but is voluntary and for causes which do not affect my moral character.

My resignation has therefore been accepted. This means that I am released from the obligations of the Ministerial office. I relinquish the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments in the Anglican Church in North America.

Lastly, I’d like to clarify that the ACNA Canons differentiate between (A) resigning from the ordained ministry of the ACNA and (B) renouncing one’s Holy Orders as such.

While I currently have no plans to pursue ordained ministry within another Christian denomination or jurisdiction, I am solely (A) resigning from the ordained ministry in the ACNA, not (B) renouncing my Holy Orders. This distinction leaves the door ajar for potential ordained ministry elsewhere, should the Lord call me back to such in the future.

In response to my request to resign, my Bishop and Diocese gave me a letter of good standing that read, in part (emphasis added, again, to highlight the parts now in question):

Because of your prior and current status of “being in good standing” as a clergyperson in the Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO), our Executive Team (Standing Committee) has approved your request to resign from ministerial duties while remaining in Holy Orders. C4SO accepts your decision to relinquish the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments in the Anglican Church in North America.

I confirm for all whom it may concern that you are not now, nor have ever been, under discipline and that your resignation is not due to any irregularity and casts no doubt on your moral character.

It’s now being claimed that the ACNA Canons do not, in fact, differentiate between (1) resigning from the ordained ministry of the ACNA and (2) renouncing one’s Holy Orders as such. That those are, in fact, the same thing.

Put differently, the argument is that the phrase “resignation or renunciation of the [ordained] ministry,” which occurs four times in the Canons does not describe two different ways of leaving ministry, but the one way of leaving ministry.

The Canon in Question

Here’s the full text of the canon in question. Let me know how you interpret it. I’ve put the most important language (in my opinion) in bold.

Note the usage of “[in] this Church” language, which is what mainly convinces me that this is describing jurisdictional release. That and the fact that what is relinquished is “the right to exercise in this Church” the gifts and spiritual authority conferred in ordination. Not the gifts and spiritual authority themselves, mind you, but the right to exercise them in the ACNA.

My Options

If resigning and renouncing are one and the same, then my options are:

1. Stay connected to a bishop in the ACNA,
2. Ask to transfer my ordination elsewhere, or
3. Resign/renounce ordained ministry (dropping the “not renouncing my Holy Orders” from my request and “while remaining in Holy Orders” from my bishop’s response)

I’m still trying to think through things before making a decision. I don’t want to do 1. I don’t think I’m ready to do 2. And, until today, I didn’t think I was ready to do 3.

What are your thoughts? Any counsel you’d offer? Any specific questions I should consider as I weigh my options? Let me know.

On one hand, you have a handful of passages that seem to teach eternal punishment. On the other hand, you have a remarkable number of passages that appear to promise the salvation of all people. And when you examine the Greek words involved, the case for eternal torment becomes even less certain.

David Bentley Hart puts it well in That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (pp. 93-95):

There is a general sense among most Christians that the notion of an eternal hell is explicitly and unremittingly advanced in the New Testament; and yet, when we go looking for it in the actual pages of the text, it proves remarkably elusive. The whole idea is, for instance, entirely absent from the Pauline corpus, as even the thinnest shadow of a hint. Nor is it anywhere patently present in any of the other epistolary texts. There is one verse in the gospels, Matthew 25:46, that—at least, as traditionally understood—offers what seems the strongest evidence for the idea (though even there, as I shall explain below, the wording leaves room for considerable doubt regarding its true significance); and then there are perhaps a couple verses from Revelation (though, as ever when dealing with that particular book, caveat lector). Beyond that, nothing is clear. What in fact the New Testament provides us with are a number of fragmentary and fantastic images that can be taken in any number of ways, arranged according to our prejudices and expectations, and declared literal or figural or hyperbolic as our desires dictate. True, Jesus speaks of a final judgment, and uses many metaphors to describe the unhappy lot of the condemned. Many of these are metaphors of destruction, like the annihilation of chaff or brambles in ovens, or the final death of body and soul in the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna). Others are metaphors of exclusion, like the sealed doors of wedding feasts. A few, a very few, are images of imprisonment and torture; but, even then, in the relevant verses, those punishments are depicted as having only a limited term (Matthew 5:26; 18:34; Luke 12:47-48, 59). Nowhere is there any description of a kingdom of perpetual cruelty presided over by Satan, as though he were a kind of chthonian god.

On the other hand, however, there are a remarkable number of passages in the New Testament, several of them from Paul’s writings, that appear instead to promise a final salvation of all persons and all things, and in the most unqualified terms. I imagine some or most of these latter could be explained away as rhetorical exaggeration; but then, presumably, the same could be said of those verses that appear to presage an everlasting division between the redeemed and the reprobate. To me it is surpassingly strange that, down the centuries, most Christians have come to believe that one class of claims—all of which are allegorical, pictorial, vague, and metaphorical in form—must be regarded as providing the “literal” content of the New Testament’s teaching regarding the world to come, while another class—all of which are invariably straightforward doctrinal statements—must be regarded as mere hyperbole. It is one of the great mysteries of Christian history (or perhaps of a certain kind of religious psychopathology). And it is certainly curious also that so many Christians are able to recognize that the language of scripture is full of metaphor, on just about every page, and yet fail to notice that, when it comes to descriptions of the world to come, there are no non-metaphorical images at all. Why precisely this should be I cannot say. We can see that the ovens are metaphors, and the wheat and the chaff, and the angelic harvest, and the barred doors, and the debtors’ prisons; so why do we not also recognize that the deathless worm and the inextinguishable fire and all other such images (none of which, again, means quite what the infernalist imagines) are themselves mere figural devices within the embrace of an extravagant apocalyptic imagery that, in itself, has no strictly literal elements? How did some images become mere images in the general Christian imagination while others became exact documentary portraits of some final reality? If one can be swayed simply by the brute force of arithmetic, it seems worth noting that, among the apparently most explicit statements on the last things, the universalist statements are by far the more numerous.

Passages That Seem to Teach Universal Salvation

Hart goes on to list passages that appear to promise salvation for all. Here they are in the NASB translation:

Romans 5:18-19

So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

2 Corinthians 5:14

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;

Romans 11:32

For God has shut up all in disobedience, so that He may show mercy to all.

1 Timothy 2:3-6

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and mankind, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Titus 2:11

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people.

2 Corinthians 5:19

Namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their wrongdoings against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Ephesians 1:9-10

He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He set forth in Him, regarding His plan of the fullness of the times, to bring all things together in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.

Colossians 1:27-28

To whom God willed to make known what the wealth of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles is, the mystery that is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim Him, admonishing every person and teaching every person with all wisdom, so that we may present every person complete in Christ.

John 12:32

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself.

Hebrews 2:9

But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of His suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

John 17:2

Just as You gave Him authority over all mankind, so that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.

John 4:42

And they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One truly is the Savior of the world.”

John 12:47

If anyone hears My teachings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

1 John 4:14

We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

Matthew 18:14

So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven for one of these little ones to perish.

Philippians 2:9-11

For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Colossians 1:19-20

For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

1 John 2:2

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

John 3:17

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him.

Luke 16:16

The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John came; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

Hart notes that the Greek word biazetai here could also be translated “is being forced into” the kingdom.

1 Timothy 4:10

For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all mankind, especially of believers.

Hart follows this list with a discussion of what “especially” (malista) could mean in this context. If God is the Savior of all, but “especially” of believers, what does that imply about non-believers?

Passages That Seem to Teach Eternal Punishment

Now for the other side. These are the passages most often cited as teaching eternal conscious torment.

Matthew 25:46 (The Sheep and the Goats)

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Universalist interpretation: This verse hinges on two Greek terms often discussed in universalist readings. First, aiónios (usually translated “eternal”) is the adjectival form of aión (“age”) and can mean “of the age” or “age‑long,” so its force here is contested; some argue it points to the quality of the coming age rather than explicitly to endless duration. Greek also has the word aïdios, often regarded as a stronger term for “everlasting,” which the New Testament uses only twice and never directly for human punishment. Second, kolasis (“punishment”) has roots in the idea of pruning and, in classical writers, can denote corrective discipline; Aristotle distinguishes kolasis from timōria, saying the former is for the benefit of the one punished, while the latter is retributive. On this basis, universalists like David Bentley Hart render the phrase as “the chastening of that Age,” understanding it as serious, age‑long corrective judgment, in contrast to the “life of that Age” enjoyed by the righteous, rather than as a proof of endless retributive torment.

Luke 16:23-26 (The Rich Man and Lazarus)

And in Hades he raised his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his arms. And he cried out and said, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus, so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.” But Abraham said, “Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set, so that those who want to go over from here to you will not be able, nor will any people cross over from there to us.”

Universalist interpretation: Both characters are portrayed in Hades, an intermediate realm of the dead rather than the final state, which fits common Jewish ideas of the time about separate regions for righteous and unrighteous awaiting final judgment. Many universalists see the story as Jesus reworking a familiar Mediterranean reversal‑of‑fortunes folktale (paralleled in Egyptian and rabbinic literature), using stock afterlife imagery to press home a warning about ignoring Moses and the prophets rather than to give a literal map of the hereafter. In the parable, the “great chasm” is fixed and uncrossable for Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man, but some universalists, drawing on texts like Ephesians 4:8–9 about Christ’s descent and his leading captives, argue that what is impossible for humans within the story may be overcome by God’s redemptive action beyond it.

Revelation 14:9-11

Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Universalist interpretation: Revelation uses highly symbolic apocalyptic imagery, so this passage is read as a vivid warning of the severe, consuming consequences of allegiance to the beast rather than a literal blueprint of unending torture for individuals. The “smoke of their torment” echoes Old Testament judgment scenes such as Edom in Isaiah 34, where “smoke going up forever” signals a decisive, remembered destruction, not an eternally burning city. On this reading, the text emphasizes the seriousness and apparent finality of God’s judgment against idolatrous empire, while other passages about God’s ultimate reconciliation and the end of death leave open the possibility that this judgment is not God’s last word for every person.

Revelation 20:10-15

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them; and they were judged, each one of them according to their deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Universalist interpretation: Revelation’s lake of fire scene is read as symbolic, not literal, especially since Death and Hades themselves are thrown into the fire—imagery that points to the final defeat of death rather than the endless existence of a torture chamber. Universalists note that the “nations” and “kings of the earth,” who have been deeply implicated in evil throughout the book, later appear walking by the New Jerusalem’s light and bringing their glory into it (21:24–26), and that its gates are “never shut.” On this reading (articulated, for example, by Robin Parry), the ever‑open gates and the ongoing invitation, “I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost” (21:6), suggest that even after severe, purifying judgment, God’s welcome ultimately remains open to all.

Conclusion

I’m not suggesting these questions are simple. But I am suggesting that the New Testament’s teaching on final judgment is far more complex than I was led to believe growing up. The passages that seem to promise universal salvation are, as Hart notes, “by far the more numerous” and tend to be straightforward doctrinal statements. The passages that seem to teach eternal punishment are few and come wrapped in metaphorical, apocalyptic imagery.

At minimum, this should give us pause before we confidently proclaim that the Bible clearly teaches eternal conscious torment. It should make us ask why we’ve tended to read the metaphorical passages literally and the straightforward passages as hyperbole.

And it might open us to the possibility that God’s patience and love really do extend further than we’ve been taught to imagine.

Anyways, I thought I’d share my current soccer kit — the gear I use when I play soccer.

My Cardio Workout

First, I have to call out the “John Terry Treadmill Workout”, because it’s what’s been most helpful in (slowly) getting me back into soccer shape. It’s brutal, but effective. As this Reddit post clarifies:

• Warm up for around 5 mins or so
• Set your treadmill to a 12% incline
• Turn up the speed. Terry does his at 18 km/h (11.2 mph) but if you’re not used to running at that speed, start lower and work your way up. I’m currently at 8.2 mph!
• Run for 20 seconds, then rest for 40 seconds. I usually leave the treadmill running at the full speed and just step off, either fully or with a leg on each side.
• Repeat for 15 rounds

My Soccer Gear

• Adidas Samba Indoor Soccer Shoes (These are what I wear on the way to the game and when kicking around a soccer ball in my backyard)
• Puma Attacanto Turf Shoes (These are what I wear for our indoor soccer games on turf)
• Mitre ULTIMATCH Soccer Ball
• ETENWOLF P300 Plus Ball Pump
• Adidas Defender 5.0 Duffel Bag
• Festty Glasses Straps (I’m near-sighted, so I wear my regular glasses during the game so I can see down the field. I’ve considered getting sports goggles, but haven’t yet.)
• Northdeer Soccer Shin Guards (Turns out, no one wears shin guard in my current league, but these are nice for if/when I need them! I’ve also got some long Adidas soccer socks to go over them, but I usually end up wearing shorter Adidas socks for our indoor games)
• Open Goaaal 3-in-1 Soccer Training Rebounder & Goal (for solo practice at home, plus my kids love it too)
• Soccer IQ: Things That Smart Players Do, Vol. 1 and Soccer IQ: Things That Smart Players Do, Vol. 2 (great books for learning/refreshing soccer tactics and strategy)

For other things I recommend, see my Recommended Tools and Resources page!

(to the tune of “What Shall We Do With a Drunken Sailor?”)

Verse 1:
What shall we do with a would-be tyrant,
What shall we do with a would-be tyrant,
What shall we do with a would-be tyrant,
Early in the morning!

Answer:
Put him in the court and read the charges,
Put him in the court and read the charges,
Put him in the court and read the charges,
Early in the morning!

Refrain (Optional):
Way, hay, and count the ballots,
Way, hay, and count the ballots,
Way, hay, and count the ballots,
Early in the morning!

Verse 2:
What shall we do with a corrupt Justice,
What shall we do with a corrupt Justice,
What shall we do with a corrupt Justice,
Early in the morning!

Answer:
Strip their robes and take their gavels,
Strip their robes and take their gavels,
Strip their robes and take their gavels,
Early in the morning!

Verse 3:
What shall we do with a spineless Congress,
What shall we do with a spineless Congress,
What shall we do with a spineless Congress,
Early in the morning!

Answer:
Send them home to find their conscience,
Send them home to find their conscience,
Send them home to find their conscience,
Early in the morning!

Verse 4:
What shall we do with the secret police,
What shall we do with the secret police,
What shall we do with the secret police,
Early in the morning!

Answer:
Drop the masks and show their faces,
Drop the masks and show their faces,
Drop the masks and show their faces,
Early in the morning!

Verse 5:
What shall we do with the lying media,
What shall we do with the lying media,
What shall we do with the lying media,
Early in the morning!

Answer:
Hold the press to higher standards,
Hold the press to higher standards,
Hold the press to higher standards,
Early in the morning!

Here’s the original, in case you don’t know it:

Verse 1
Oh, we’d be alright if the people stood as one —
Oh, we’d be alright if the people stood as one —
Oh, we’d be alright if the people stood as one —
And we won’t be ruled by kings!

Chorus
We’ll roll the old Republic along,
We’ll roll the old Republic along,
We’ll roll the old Republic along,
And we won’t be ruled by kings!

Verse 2
Well, another billionaire won’t do us any good —
Well, another billionaire won’t do us any good —
Well, another billionaire won’t do us any good —
And we won’t be ruled by kings!

Verse 3
Oh, we’d be alright if each voice could have its say —
Oh, we’d be alright if each voice could have its say —
Oh, we’d be alright if each voice could have its say —
And we won’t be ruled by kings!

Verse 4
Well, more soldiers in the streets won’t do us any good —
Well, more soldiers in the streets won’t do us any good —
Well, more soldiers in the streets won’t do us any good —
And we won’t be ruled by kings!

Verse 5
Oh, we’d be alright if the cops did what they should —
Oh, we’d be alright if the cops did what they should —
Oh, we’d be alright if the cops did what they should —
And we won’t be ruled by kings!

Verse 6
Oh, we’d be alright if our leaders had a spine —
Oh, we’d be alright if our leaders had a spine —
Oh, we’d be alright if our leaders had a spine —
And we won’t be ruled by kings!

Verse 7
Oh, we’d be alright if the news could tell it straight —
Oh, we’d be alright if the news could tell it straight —
Oh, we’d be alright if the news could tell it straight —
And we won’t be ruled by kings!

Verse 8
Oh, we’d be alright if the strong stood with the weak —
Oh, we’d be alright if the strong stood with the weak —
Oh, we’d be alright if the strong stood with the weak —
And we won’t be ruled by kings!

Verse 9
Well, a crown upon a thief won’t do us any good —
Well, a crown upon a thief won’t do us any good —
Well, a crown upon a thief won’t do us any good —
And we won’t be ruled by kings!

Final Chorus (repeat 2–3×)
We’ll roll the old Republic along,
We’ll roll the old Republic along,
We’ll roll the old Republic along —
And we won’t be ruled by kings!

HT: Josiah Hawthorne on Bluesky for the idea.

[Verse 1]
I heard you whisper on the megaphone
You said the shots were all a hoax
As legend has it, you were nearly gone
But here you are, back in the throat

[Pre-Chorus]
And if the doctors quit on me
We’ll see a nineteenth-century repeat
I swore my loyalty to facts (Facts), the vax (The vax), and I (I)
Right before the truth got quiet

[Chorus]
All that time
We lived in herd immunity
Now we’ve lost opportunity
Now I can see it all (See it all)
Late one night
You crawled up out of the past and
Claimed a world that forgot the
Diphtheria (Diphtheria)

[Post-Chorus]
Keep it one hundred in the labs (Labs), the wards (Wards), the news
Pledge allegiance to your clicks, your grift, your views
Don’t care where the germs have been (Been), ‘cause now (Now), they fly
It’s ‘bout to be the viral night you’ve been dreaming of
The fate of Diphtheria

[Verse 2]
The eldest daughter of the plague and cough
You ruled the air ‘til immunity
But lies are a warm bed full of algorithms
And ignorance breeds insanity

[Pre-Chorus]
And if the funding’s cut from me (Cut from me)
We’ll lose the GAVI cavalry
You spread like wildfire through the feed (The feed), the thread (The thread), the lie (The lie)
All because some man denied it

[Chorus]
All that time
We lived in herd immunity
Now we’ve lost opportunity
I can see it all (See it all)
Late one night
You crawled up out of the past and
Claimed a world that moved past the
Diphtheria (Diphtheria)

[Post-Chorus]
Keep it one hundred in the labs (Labs), the wards (The wards), the news
Pledge allegiance to your clicks (Your clicks), your grift, your views
Don’t care where the truth has been (Has been), ‘cause now (‘Cause now), you lie
It’s ‘bout to be the fever dream you’ve been scheming-up
The fate of Diphtheria

[Bridge]
Locked inside our memory
A cure became conspiracy
We stopped the shots, we set you free
All because of vanity
Locked inside our memory
The science lost its clarity
You came back laughing, mockingly
All because of apathy…

[Chorus]
All that time
We lived in herd immunity
Now we’ve lost opportunity
Now I can see it all (I can see it all)
Late one night
You crawled up out of the past and
Claimed a world that moved past the
Diphtheria (Diphtheria)

[Post-Chorus]
Keep it one hundred in the labs (Labs), the wards (The wards), the news
Pledge allegiance to your clicks (Your clicks), your grift, your views
Don’t care where the germs have been (They’ve been), ‘cause now (‘Cause now), they fly
It’s ‘bout to be the fever dream we’ve been waking from
The fate of Diphtheria

[Outro, softly]
The fate of Diphtheria…
All because they stopped believing…
All because we stopped the healing…
The fate of Diphtheria…

I’ve heard this argument countless times in discussions about immigration policy. Christians who would never dream of treating immigrants with personal cruelty nevertheless defend harsh enforcement policies by appealing to Paul’s command to submit to governing authorities. The logic seems airtight: God established governments, governments make laws, therefore Christians must support strict immigration enforcement. Case closed.

But what if we’re reading Romans 13 in isolation from the rest of Scripture’s witness? What if Paul’s instruction to the Roman Christians needs to be held in tension with Jesus’ own teaching about how we will be judged?

Consider Matthew 25:31-46, where Jesus describes the final judgment. In this passage, the criteria for entering the kingdom has nothing to do with doctrinal precision or religious observance. Instead, Christ identifies himself with “the least of these” and judges the nations based on how they treated the hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, and imprisoned.

And notice what else Jesus includes in his list: strangers.

The Stranger at the Gate

In Matthew 25:35, Jesus says: “I was a stranger and you invited me in.” The Greek word here is xenos, which can mean stranger, foreigner, or alien. It’s the same root we see in “xenophobia.” Jesus is talking about people from outside your community, outside your tribe, outside your nation.

This isn’t a minor detail in the parable. The judgment hinges on it. Those who enter the kingdom are those who welcomed the stranger. Those who are cast out are those who didn’t. Jesus makes the stakes crystal clear: how you treat the foreigner is how you treat Christ himself.

Now, before we go further, let me be clear about what I’m not saying. I’m not claiming that, if you follow Jesus, you must support open borders without any restrictions whatsoever. I’m not suggesting that nations have no right to manage immigration. I’m not pretending that immigration policy is simple or that there are easy answers to complex questions about security, resources, and integration.

But I am saying this: Christians cannot use Romans 13 as a blank check to endorse policies that treat immigrants with cruelty, fear, or contempt. We cannot read Paul’s instruction about governing authorities as permission to ignore Jesus’ identification with the stranger. We cannot claim to follow Jesus while harboring hatred toward immigrants in our hearts.

Reading Romans 13 in Context

The problem with how Romans 13 gets used in immigration debates is that it’s almost always ripped from its context. As I’ve written before, Paul’s instruction to the Roman Christians needs to be understood within its historical situation.

Paul was writing to a church in tension. Jews had been expelled from Rome under Claudius in AD 49, returning only after his death in AD 54. The church was navigating reunification between Jewish and Gentile believers. Political unrest was brewing. Paul needed to prevent the Christians from becoming known as troublemakers or rebels, which would wreck their witness and hinder the gospel mission.

His point in Romans 13:1-7 wasn’t to provide a comprehensive theology of church-state relations for all time. He was addressing a specific pastoral need: keep your heads down, pay your taxes, don’t give the authorities reason to crack down on the church. Paul knew that the early Christian movement would be suspect enough without adding accusations of sedition and rebellion.

But notice what comes immediately before Romans 13. In Romans 12:9-21, Paul commands:

“Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection… Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality to strangers… Bless those who persecute you… Live in harmony with one another… If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all… Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

And notice what comes immediately after Romans 13:1-7. In Romans 13:8-10, Paul writes:

“Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments… are summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

Do you see the pattern? Paul sandwiches his instruction about government between two passages emphasizing love, hospitality, and refusing to do harm. The command to submit to authorities isn’t an excuse to abandon love and compassion. It’s a strategic move to protect the church’s witness while it continues to practice radical love.

Romans 13 doesn’t give us permission to support policies that harm immigrants. It reminds us that even as we navigate complex political realities, our primary calling remains unchanged: love your neighbor, show hospitality to strangers, overcome evil with good.

The Collision Course

Here’s where Romans 13 and Matthew 25 collide in our current immigration debates.

Many Christians invoke Romans 13 to justify supporting strict enforcement: “We must respect the law. These people broke the law. Christians are commanded to submit to government authority.” This sounds pious and biblically grounded.

But then we turn to Matthew 25, and Jesus says the nations will be judged based on whether they welcomed the stranger. Not whether they maintained proper border security. Not whether they enforced immigration statutes. Whether they welcomed the stranger.

So which is it? Do we enforce the law or welcome the stranger? Do we follow Romans 13 or Matthew 25?

The answer is: both. But we need to think more carefully about what each passage is actually saying.

What Romans 13 Doesn’t Say

First, let’s be clear about what Romans 13 is NOT saying:

Romans 13 does not say that all laws are just. Paul himself was imprisoned multiple times for violating Roman law by preaching the gospel. He appealed to Caesar while claiming a higher allegiance to Christ. The apostles in Acts 5:29 famously declared, “We must obey God rather than human authority.”

Romans 13 does not say Christians should never critique or challenge unjust laws. The prophetic tradition throughout Scripture involves calling out injustice, even when it’s legal. Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal. The Holocaust was carried out under the law. Legality does not equal morality.

Romans 13 does not say Christians should have no compassion for those who break laws. We serve a Savior who violated purity codes by touching lepers, violated Sabbath laws by healing on the Sabbath, and was himself executed as a lawbreaker. Jesus consistently elevated human need above legal correctness.

Romans 13 does not say governments have no obligation to justice or that Christians shouldn’t advocate for just policies. Paul’s command to submit to authority is not a command to abandon our prophetic voice or our call to seek justice for the oppressed.

What Romans 13 DOES say is that Christians should not be characterized by rebellion, lawlessness, or social chaos. We should pay our taxes. We should be known as people who contribute to the common good, not as troublemakers seeking to overthrow the social order. We should be strategic about not unnecessarily antagonizing authorities when it would damage our witness.

But obeying this command doesn’t mean we endorse every law or every enforcement priority. It doesn’t mean we stop advocating for the vulnerable. And it certainly doesn’t mean we justify cruelty toward immigrants in the name of “law and order.”

What Matthew 25 Does Say

Now let’s look at what Matthew 25 IS saying.

In this judgment scene, Jesus makes several crucial points:

First, Christ identifies with the vulnerable. “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matt 25:40). When we encounter someone who is hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, imprisoned, or a stranger, we encounter Christ himself. This is not metaphorical. Jesus is making a profound theological claim about his presence with and in the suffering.

Second, the criteria for judgment is concrete action, not doctrinal belief. Notice that Jesus doesn’t ask about the righteous’ theology. He doesn’t ask if they had correct beliefs about justification or the Trinity. He asks what they DID. Did you feed the hungry? Give drink to the thirsty? Welcome the stranger?

Third, both groups are surprised by the verdict. The righteous didn’t realize they were serving Christ. The condemned didn’t realize they were rejecting him. This suggests that our attitudes toward the vulnerable often operate below our conscious awareness. We can have orthodox theology while harboring hearts that turn away from the suffering.

Fourth, this is about nations, not just individuals. Matthew 25:32 says “all the nations will be gathered before him.” This is corporate judgment. Yes, it applies to how we as individuals treat immigrants. But it also applies to how we as a society, through our policies and systems, treat vulnerable populations.

“But Jesus Only Meant Christians, Right?”

Before we go further, I need to address a significant objection to how I’m reading Matthew 25.

Some scholars and commentators argue that when Jesus says “the least of these my brothers” in Matthew 25:40, he’s specifically talking about fellow Christians, not all vulnerable people. According to this reading, the judgment of the nations is based on how they treated Christian missionaries and disciples, not how they treated the poor and strangers in general.

This interpretation has some support. Matthew does use “brothers” elsewhere to refer to Jesus’ disciples (Matt 12:48-50; 28:10). And in a world where Christians faced persecution, it would make sense for Jesus to warn the nations about how they treat his followers.

But I find this narrow reading unconvincing for several reasons.

First, the logic of the passage breaks down. If this is only about how nations treat Christians, then the righteous would need to have encountered Christians to help them. But the passage makes clear that those who are welcomed into the kingdom didn’t know they were serving Christ. They say, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you?” (Matt 25:37). This suggests they weren’t consciously helping Christians—they were simply helping people in need.

If Jesus is only talking about treatment of known Christians, then the surprise makes no sense. But if he’s talking about how we treat any vulnerable person, the surprise makes perfect sense: you were serving me without realizing it, because I am present in all who suffer.

Second, the list is too concrete and universal. Jesus mentions hunger, thirst, being a stranger, nakedness, sickness, and imprisonment. These aren’t specifically “Christian” conditions. They’re universal human experiences of vulnerability. Yes, Christians might experience these things through persecution. But so do millions of people who’ve never heard of Christianity.

Are we really to believe that the nations will be judged solely on their treatment of a relatively small number of Christian missionaries, while their treatment of the vast majority of suffering humanity is irrelevant? That reading makes the criteria for judgment absurdly narrow.

Third, the context is about universal judgment. Matthew 25:32 says “all the nations will be gathered before him.” This is cosmic, comprehensive judgment. If the criteria is just “did you help my missionary followers,” then most nations throughout history would be judged on something they had no opportunity to do. They never encountered Christians at all.

But if the criteria is “did you show compassion to the vulnerable,” then every nation in every era has had the opportunity to respond. This makes the judgment genuinely universal rather than dependent on the historical accident of encountering Christian witnesses.

Fourth, the phrase “least of these” matters more than “my brothers.” Yes, Jesus says “my brothers.” But he also says “the least of these.” This phrase echoes throughout Scripture as a reference to the most vulnerable members of society—the poor, the oppressed, the powerless. It’s not a technical term for “Christian disciples.”

When we read “the least of these my brothers” we should hear: these vulnerable people are my family. Christ is claiming kinship with all who suffer, not establishing an exclusive in-group of Christians who deserve compassion while others don’t.

Fifth, this contradicts Jesus’ other teaching. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), Jesus defines “neighbor” as anyone in need, regardless of ethnic or religious identity. When asked “who is my neighbor?” Jesus tells a story where the hero is a religious outsider who helps a suffering stranger.

If we read Matthew 25 as being only about Christians helping Christians, we directly contradict Jesus’ teaching that our neighbor is anyone in need. We can’t have it both ways.

Sixth, the broader biblical witness is clear. Throughout Scripture, God’s people are judged on their treatment of vulnerable populations: widows, orphans, the poor, and strangers. The prophets consistently condemn Israel for oppressing these groups. The Levitical laws commanded hospitality to foreigners. This isn’t about treatment of fellow Israelites only—it’s about how God’s people relate to all vulnerable people.

Deuteronomy 10:18-19 says: “He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Zechariah 7:9-10 declares: “Thus says the LORD of hosts: Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another; do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the stranger, or the poor.”

These texts aren’t about special treatment for fellow believers. They’re about how God’s people treat all vulnerable people. Matthew 25 stands firmly in this tradition.

Seventh, the New Testament expands rather than narrows moral obligation. One of the central moves of the New Testament is to expand the scope of who counts as “neighbor.” Jesus breaks down barriers between Jew and Gentile, clean and unclean, insider and outsider. Paul declares that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female” (Gal 3:28).

Reading Matthew 25 as narrowing our concern only to fellow Christians moves in exactly the opposite direction. It would be taking the expansive, boundary-breaking message of Jesus and making it exclusive again.

The charitable reading: Now, I can grant that Matthew 25 might have special application to how Christians treat persecuted believers. That’s a legitimate dimension of the text. In a context where Christians faced persecution, Jesus’ warning that nations will be judged on their treatment of his followers would be powerful and relevant.

But that doesn’t exhaust the passage’s meaning. The more natural, more consistent, and more theologically rich reading is that Christ identifies with all who suffer. When we encounter anyone who is hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick, or imprisoned, we encounter Christ.

To limit this only to Christians helping Christians is to miss the radical scandal of the Incarnation. God didn’t just become human—he became a vulnerable human. He was born in a stable, became a refugee fleeing to Egypt, lived as an itinerant preacher without a home, was unjustly arrested and executed. Christ didn’t just identify with powerful Christians spreading the gospel. He identified with all who suffer.

The practical test: Here’s a simple test for which reading makes more sense. Imagine Jesus telling this parable to a group of Christians today. He describes the judgment and says nations will be evaluated based on their treatment of “the least of these my brothers”—the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, and imprisoned.

Now, what would the Christians hearing this naturally understand? Would they think: “Oh, he’s only talking about how we treat fellow Christians”? Or would they understand: “Christ is present in all who suffer, and our treatment of any vulnerable person is our treatment of Christ himself”?

I think most Christians, upon hearing this passage, would instinctively understand the broader reading. They’d recognize Jesus’ radical identification with the suffering. The narrow reading—limiting this only to Christians—feels like a later attempt to soften the passage’s demands by restricting its scope.

Why this matters for immigration: This interpretive debate has huge implications for immigration ethics. If Matthew 25 is only about Christians helping Christians, then it doesn’t really speak to how we treat immigrants in general. We could limit our concern to persecuted Christian refugees while ignoring or even opposing other immigrants.

But if Matthew 25 is about Christ’s identification with all vulnerable people, then it directly confronts how Christians think about immigration. The stranger at the border isn’t just a policy problem to be managed—they’re a person in whom Christ is present. Our response to them is our response to Christ.

This doesn’t mean Christians must support open borders or oppose all immigration enforcement. But it does mean we can’t treat immigrants with contempt, fear, or cruelty. It means our default posture must be compassion and welcome, even as we wrestle with complex policy questions.

The narrow reading of Matthew 25 lets us off the hook. The broader reading confronts us with Christ in the stranger. And I think that broader reading is what Jesus intended.

A Both/And Framework

So how do we hold Romans 13 and Matthew 25 together?

We need a both/and framework that acknowledges both the reality of government authority AND the primacy of Christ’s identification with the stranger.

Here’s what this looks like in practice:

1. We Can Acknowledge That Immigration Law Exists While Questioning Whether It’s Just

Romans 13 reminds us that governments have authority. Fine. Immigration laws exist. People who enter the country without authorization have broken those laws. This is factually true.

But acknowledging reality doesn’t mean endorsing it. Christians should be the first to ask: Are these laws just? Do they reflect God’s heart for the vulnerable? Do they align with biblical principles of compassion and hospitality? Or do they primarily serve fear, economic anxiety, or racial prejudice disguised as concern for “the rule of law”?

We can say “immigration laws exist” while also saying “these particular laws may be unjust and need to be changed.” These aren’t contradictory positions.

2. We Can Support Some Level of Border Management While Opposing Cruel Enforcement

There’s a difference between saying “nations can have borders” and saying “any enforcement tactic is justified.” Even if you believe in the legitimacy of immigration control, you can still oppose family separation. You can still oppose detention camps with inhumane conditions. You can still oppose mass deportations that tear apart communities.

The question isn’t whether we have laws. The question is what kind of laws we have and how we enforce them. A Christian framework would insist on enforcement mechanisms that preserve human dignity, keep families together when possible, and provide due process protections.

3. We Can Distinguish Between Personal Posture and Policy Positions

This is crucial. Your heart toward immigrants should not depend on your policy views. Even if you believe in strict border security, you can still:

• Welcome immigrants in your community with open arms
• Oppose rhetoric that dehumanizes or demonizes immigrants
• Support ministries that serve immigrant populations
• Advocate for humane treatment of those in detention
• Resist the fear and anger that often characterize anti-immigrant sentiment

You can believe in legal immigration while treating every human being you encounter with the dignity befitting someone made in God’s image. The problem isn’t that some Christians support stricter enforcement. The problem is when Christians weaponize Romans 13 to justify hatred, cruelty, or indifference toward immigrants.

4. We Can Prioritize Gospel Witness Over Political Victory

Romans 13 was about protecting the church’s witness. Paul didn’t want Christians known as rebels. He wanted them known as people of love and peace who contributed to society.

Today, when the American church is increasingly known for its harsh stance toward immigrants, we should ask: what kind of witness are we bearing? When Latino immigrants hear Christians invoke the Bible to justify deportations, what gospel are we preaching?

Our political positions may vary, but our witness should be consistent: we are people who welcome the stranger because Christ himself was a stranger who welcomes us.

The Uncomfortable Implications

If we take both Romans 13 and Matthew 25 seriously, we arrive at some uncomfortable implications:

We cannot use “they broke the law” as a conversation-ender. Yes, some immigrants entered without authorization. That’s a legal violation. But it doesn’t absolve Christians of our responsibility to treat them with compassion, to advocate for just policies, and to recognize Christ’s presence in the stranger.

We cannot outsource our Christian ethics to the state. When Christians say “I personally feel bad for immigrants, but the government has to enforce the law,” they’re trying to have it both ways. You can’t wash your hands of responsibility by appealing to government authority. That’s exactly what Romans 13 DOESN’T say.

We have to get comfortable with complexity and tension. There are no easy answers here. Immigration policy involves real tradeoffs between competing goods. But complexity doesn’t excuse us from doing the hard work of thinking biblically about these issues.

We might have to choose between what’s legal and what’s right. I’m not necessarily advocating civil disobedience (though that’s a whole other conversation). But we should at least recognize that there may be times when the government’s immigration priorities conflict with our call to welcome the stranger. In those moments, our allegiance to Christ must take precedence.

Where Do We Go From Here?

So what does Christian immigration ethics look like when we hold Romans 13 and Matthew 25 in tension?

It starts with our hearts. Before we debate policy, we need to examine our posture toward immigrants. When you think about immigration, what emotions arise? Fear? Anger? Resentment? Or compassion? Curiosity? Welcome?

As I wrote in my previous post, you can’t follow Jesus and hate immigrants. Full stop. If your heart harbors contempt for immigrants, no amount of policy sophistication will make that right. Matthew 25 confronts us with Christ present in the stranger, and our response to that presence will be the basis of our judgment.

From there, we can start having more nuanced conversations about policy. We can acknowledge the complexity while insisting on human dignity. We can support some level of immigration enforcement while demanding humane treatment. We can debate the details while maintaining compassion for the people involved.

But we have to start with our hearts. We have to start by recognizing that when we encounter the immigrant, we encounter Christ.

The Biblical Witness Is Clear

The thread running through Scripture is unmistakable. From the Levitical laws commanding hospitality to strangers, to the prophets condemning those who oppress the foreigner, to Jesus identifying with the stranger in Matthew 25, to the apostles calling the church to show hospitality, the biblical witness is clear.

God has a heart for the vulnerable. God identifies with the stranger. God’s people are called to welcome the foreigner.

This doesn’t settle every policy question. It doesn’t tell us exactly how many immigrants should be admitted or how borders should be managed. But it does establish the framework within which Christians should think about these issues.

We can respect government authority (Romans 13) while prioritizing Christ’s identification with the stranger (Matthew 25). We can acknowledge the complexity of immigration policy while insisting on compassion and human dignity. We can have policy disagreements while sharing a common posture of welcome.

What we cannot do is use Romans 13 as a theological escape hatch to avoid the demands of Matthew 25. We cannot appeal to government authority to justify turning away from Christ present in the stranger.

The law may say one thing. But Jesus says another. And when push comes to shove, Christians follow Jesus.

A Final Word

I know this is uncomfortable. I know it complicates the tidy categories many of us use to make sense of immigration debates. I know it challenges some deeply held assumptions about law, order, and national sovereignty.

But the gospel has always been uncomfortable. It has always challenged our assumptions. It has always called us to see the world differently.

Jesus met a Samaritan woman at a well—someone his culture regarded as ethnically and religiously inferior. He healed a Roman centurion’s servant—an enemy occupier. He praised the faith of a Canaanite woman—a pagan outsider. He told a parable where a Samaritan was the hero and the religious professionals were the villains.

Again and again, Jesus crossed boundaries, welcomed outsiders, and identified with the stranger. He didn’t do this by ignoring the law. He did it by fulfilling the law’s deepest purpose: love God, love neighbor.

So when it comes to immigration, let’s stop pretending Romans 13 gives us permission to ignore Matthew 25. Let’s stop using “respect for law” as a shield against the demands of hospitality. Let’s stop outsourcing our Christian ethics to the state.

Instead, let’s ask the harder questions: How do we welcome the stranger while navigating complex political realities? How do we show compassion while respecting legitimate concerns? How do we bear witness to Christ’s kingdom in the midst of difficult policy choices?

These questions don’t have simple answers. But they’re the right questions. They’re the questions that take both Romans 13 and Matthew 25 seriously. They’re the questions that refuse to let us off the hook.

Because at the end of the day, we won’t be judged by whether we maintained proper border security. We’ll be judged by whether we welcomed the stranger.

And the stranger, Jesus says, is Christ himself.

Continue Reading

• You Can’t Follow Jesus and Hate Immigrants
• You’re Reading Romans 13 Wrong! Here’s How to Read It Correctly
• For more resources on Scripture and immigration, see the bibliography in my immigration post

These words of Christ echo with renewed urgency today as American evangelicalism grapples with a dangerous conflation of gospel and nation. Theologian Michael Gorman recently shared ten theological affirmations that cut to the heart of this crisis. His theses aren’t merely academic observations, they’re prophetic warnings against a distortion of Christianity that threatens both the integrity of the gospel and the witness of the church.

The Core Deception: Confusing America with God’s Kingdom

Gorman’s opening salvo strikes at the fundamental error underlying Christian nationalism:

Thesis 1: “The United States is not the kingdom of God that was proclaimed and inaugurated by Jesus; in fact, the kingdom of God is not about the United States.”

When American Christians begin to view their nation as uniquely blessed or divinely appointed, they’ve already stepped onto dangerous ground. The kingdom Jesus proclaimed transcends all national boundaries and political systems. It operates by different rules, pursues different ends, and employs radically different means.

The Myth of Divine Favoritism

Perhaps no belief is more seductive to American evangelicals than the notion that God has a special relationship with America. Gorman demolishes this comfortable assumption:

Thesis 2: “The God of Scripture is no more interested in the United States than in France or Cuba or Ukraine or South Sudan or Gaza or any other geographical entity. God is not on ‘our’ side. Indeed, the more we claim God is on our side, the less it is true.”

That italicized conclusion should haunt us. The more vehemently we claim divine endorsement for our national projects, the further we drift from the God who shows no partiality. This isn’t just bad theology, it’s idolatry dressed in patriotic clothing.

The Great Mission Drift

One of Gorman’s most penetrating insights concerns how Christian nationalism has fundamentally altered the church’s understanding of its mission:

Thesis 3: “Many apocalyptically oriented Christians used to believe that their mission was to save people so that they would go to heaven when they die (or when Jesus returns). Now, however, many apocalyptically oriented Christians believe that their mission is to save people so that they can participate in the great conservative goal of saving America and western civilization. This is allegedly the new Christian mission.”

Notice the shift: from eternal salvation to temporal political power. This represents nothing less than a complete redefinition of the gospel itself. When “making disciples” becomes code for “making conservatives,” we’ve abandoned the Great Commission for a lesser, earthly agenda.

Thesis 4: “But the mission of the church/of Christians is not to save America or western civilization. The mission of the church is to proclaim and participate in God’s reconciliation of the world to himself in his Son Jesus Christ, and thereby the reconciliation of people to one another. And that means the whole world, because ‘God so loved the world.’”

The contrast couldn’t be starker. The true mission is reconciliation, with God and between peoples, not the preservation of any particular political or cultural system.

When Christianity Becomes Blasphemy

Gorman doesn’t mince words about the spiritual danger of Christian nationalism:

Thesis 5: “In extreme forms, which are rampant right now, misguided spiritual and theological perspectives such as the ones named or implied above lead to a christian Nationalism in which certain elements of the Christian faith are co-opted and radically distorted–sometimes to the point of blasphemy and idolatry. These include such basic realities as the kingdom of God and the mission of the church just noted. They also include a radical misunderstanding of the nature of God the Father, the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the activity of the Holy Spirit. As Paul would say, christian Nationalism preaches a different gospel and a different Jesus.”

The language here is deliberately shocking: blasphemy, idolatry, a different gospel, a different Jesus. These aren’t minor theological disagreements, they’re fundamental departures from orthodox Christianity. When we wrap the cross in the flag, we don’t elevate the flag; we desecrate the cross.

The Seduction of Worldly Power

Perhaps nowhere is the contrast between kingdom values and nationalist ideology clearer than in their respective views of power:

Thesis 6: “This comprehensive misunderstanding of the Christian faith also radically distorts the nature of power by turning the power of the gospel into political and even military power. This understanding of power includes the threat of violence to enemies and may condone its use to achieve those political and pseudo-religious ends. Even when couched in religious language as ‘spiritual warfare,’ this is not the sort of spiritual struggle described in the New Testament.”

The gospel’s power is spiritual, not coercive. It conquers through love, not force. When Christians begin to see political dominance as spiritual victory, they’ve fundamentally misunderstood both the nature of spiritual warfare and the way God’s kingdom advances.

Thesis 7: “The christian Nationalist view that equates conservative politics and military power with the will and power of God is completely at odds with the power of the gospel according to Jesus and the New Testament writers. The Christian church does not want or need the power of the American government or military for its protection, flourishing, or growth.”

This is a direct challenge to the fear-based narrative that Christianity needs political protection to survive. The early church flourished under persecution; the gospel spread without state support. Our faith in political power reveals our lack of faith in God’s power.

The Way of the Cross vs. The Way of Control

Thesis 8: “The power of the Christian message and mission is not one of domination or control, but of service and sacrifice. It is, in other words, cross-shaped, or cruciform, power. To the degree that Christians forget this, they are guilty of participating in the perennial sin of confusing the reign of God with some political purpose, party, or body.”

“Cruciform power”, power shaped like the cross, stands in radical opposition to every form of worldly dominance. It wins by losing, conquers by serving, and triumphs through sacrifice. This isn’t just countercultural; it’s counter-intuitive to every human instinct for self-preservation and control.

Beyond Political Binaries

Gorman carefully avoids the trap of simply swinging the pendulum to the opposite political extreme:

Thesis 9: “These theological points are in no way an endorsement of Democrat or liberal policies and perspectives as the will of God. In fact, many of these points are also implicit critiques of all political parties and all places on the political spectrum. The kingdom of God is not about making America great again, or Republican or conservative. Neither is it about making America Democrat or liberal. The kingdom of God is a worldwide reality whose values and practices challenge every ideology. Its values and practices are not the values and practices of any political entity.”

This is crucial: rejecting Christian nationalism doesn’t mean embracing political progressivism (although, consider Phil Christman’s arguments on “Why Christians Should Be Leftists”). The kingdom of God transcends and critiques all human political systems. It’s neither red nor blue, it operates on an entirely different spectrum.

The Call to Discernment

Thesis 10: “Christians must learn to discern how the Scriptures call us to an alternative way of being human in the world. This alternative way of life may at times overlap with so-called conservative values and practices, and it may at other times overlap with so-called liberal concerns and practices. When it does either, it should not be because Christians are trying to be conservative or liberal, or Republican or Democrat, but because they are discerning the will of God in Scripture.”

This final thesis offers a way forward: biblical discernment rather than political alignment. Sometimes this will lead to positions that look “conservative,” sometimes “liberal”, but the motivation must always be faithfulness to Scripture, not partisan loyalty.

The Urgent Need for Theological Clarity

Why do these theses matter so urgently for American evangelicals today? Because Christian nationalism isn’t just a political problem, it’s a theological crisis that strikes at the heart of the gospel itself. When we confuse America’s success with God’s kingdom, we don’t just damage our political witness; we fundamentally distort the message of Jesus.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. As Gorman warns, we risk preaching “a different gospel and a different Jesus.” We risk turning the church into a political action committee rather than a community of reconciliation. We risk replacing the power of the cross with the power of the sword.

A Choice Before Us

American evangelicals stand at a crossroads. We can continue down the path of Christian nationalism, wrapping our faith ever more tightly around political power and national identity. Or we can rediscover the radical, boundary-crossing, power-inverting gospel of Jesus Christ, a gospel that calls us to an alternative way of being human that transcends all earthly kingdoms.

The choice we make will determine not just our political influence but our spiritual integrity. Will we be known as the people who confused Caesar’s throne with Christ’s kingdom? Or will we be known as those who, like our Lord, insisted: “My kingdom is not of this world”?

The original 10 theses were shared by Michael Gorman on Facebook as “a set of starter theological affirmations for an alternative turning point.”

Timothy Snyder, “Hegseth puts us all at risk”:

My historian colleagues might correct me, but I do not think anyone at least in recent history has done what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is about to do: put all of the American generals and admirals from around the world into a single room (next week, in Virginia) just to say something to them. […]

So why might Secretary Hegseth do such an extraordinary thing? Only four solutions to the puzzle come to mind.

1. He has some trivial thing to say and does not understand the risks.

2. He wishes to endanger the lives of the generals and admirals.

3. He will stage a purge, perhaps involving a loyalty oath or something similar that requires personal presence.

4. He will tell the commanders that henceforth their assignment will be to oppress American citizens (“homeland defense”). This could be combined with the third scenario: those who refuse will be fired.

Perhaps others can think of other possibilities, but I am afraid that I cannot.

Kristin Kobes Du Mez, writing about the scary memo released by the White House yesterday, writes:

There are a lot of words here. Squishy words.

“Predicate actions.”

“Anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity.”

“Extremism on migration, race, and gender.”

“…intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”

“Hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”

“…politically motivated terrorist acts such as…civil disorder.”

“…any behaviors, fact patterns, recurrent motivations, or other indicia common to organizations and entities…”

Who would be included in this? Cells plotting political assassinations? Surely. Of course, we already have laws against such things so that doesn’t appear to be the purpose here.

How about political scientists writing on authoritarianism? Sociologists linking White Christian nationalism to anti-democratic commitments? Lawyers defending the Constitution? Historians discussing similarities and differences between Germany in the 1930s, Northern Ireland in the 1960s, and today? Citizens involved in peaceful protests? Democratic politicians? All of the above?

As my birthday approaches, I’ve put together a wishlist of items that I’ve been eyeing. If you’re looking for gift ideas (or if you just want to snag some cool tools for yourself!), here’s what I’m hoping for this year:

Tools

Affordable Tools

• WORKPRO 8-Inch Long Nose Slip Joint Pliers: Really excited to try these affordable pliers. I love my longer slip joint long nose pliers, and I think the 8-inch size will be perfect.
• Fiskars PowerArc Utility Snips, 8-Inch: These scissors look like they can handle anything, and I like that it keeps your hand out of the way in case you’re cutting something with a sharp edge.
• Morakniv Chisel Knife, 3-Inch: Great, affordable chisel knife. I’ve been wanting one of these for a while.
• Milescraft Exactor Multifunction Measuring and Marking Tool: I love how many different features this thing packs into a small package. Will definitely earn a spot in my grab-and-go tool bag.

Also worth mentioning are these two Knipex clones from WORKPRO that I’ve been wanting to try out:

• WORKPRO Mini Water Pump Pliers, 4-Inch
• WORKPRO 7-Inch Pliers Wrench

Some More Expensive Tools

• Milescraft Portable Drilling Guide: Apparently this is supposed to “kind of” replace having a full drill press.
• Knipex Forged Wire Stripper, 8-Inch: Yes, this is an expensive wire stripper, but I love Knipex hand tools, and the fact that this one has a wider head that allows you to twist wires together without using lineman’s pliers is a big plus. Apparently it’s also able to cut screws/bolts like butter.
• Wera Kraftform Kompakt 26 RA-R Screwdriver: Yes, this is an expensive screwdriver, but I absolutely love they’re new ratcheting mechanism, and the fact that this has integrated bit storage makes it perfect.
• Veto ProPac SP-MC Tool Bag: Out of stock right now, but this is my dream tool bag.

Other Stuff

• Harbor Freight Gift Card: I love Harbor Freight, and can always find something to spend money on there. :)
• Something you think I’d like from Cool Tools: I love browsing through this site, and there’s always something interesting.
• Something you think I’d like from JetPens: I love pens, pencils, and other stationery items.

Historical Origins

Fascism first emerged in early 20th century Europe, born from the chaos of World War I and economic upheaval. Benito Mussolini coined the term in Italy around 1919, drawing from the ancient fasces, a bundle of rods symbolizing a ruler’s power. Adolf Hitler later adapted these ideas in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s.

Unlike liberalism, conservatism, or socialism, fascism didn’t spring from philosophical treatises or economic theories. Instead, it arose as a reaction—a violent response to perceived national humiliation, economic crisis, and social fragmentation. This reactive quality helps explain both its appeal and its danger.

Common Features of Fascism

Even if scholars debate precise definitions, most agree that fascist movements share certain recurring characteristics:

Extreme Nationalism: Fascism elevates the nation—often defined in ethnic or racial terms—above individual rights, international law, or universal principles. The nation becomes a mystical entity deserving total devotion.

Authoritarian Leadership: A single leader emerges as the embodiment of the nation’s will. This isn’t mere dictatorship but a cult of personality where the leader claims to represent the “real” people against corrupt elites.

Suppression of Dissent: Free speech, political opposition, independent unions, and autonomous institutions are systematically dismantled. Criticism becomes treason; disagreement becomes betrayal.

Militarism and Glorification of Violence: Violence isn’t just accepted but celebrated as purifying and necessary for national renewal. War and struggle become virtues in themselves.

Scapegoating and Fear of Outsiders: Internal minorities and external enemies are cast as existential threats to national unity. This creates a perpetual state of crisis requiring extreme measures.

Mass Mobilization and Spectacle: Through rallies, parades, propaganda films, and ritual ceremonies, fascism seeks to bind citizens emotionally to the movement and create a sense of collective ecstasy.

Umberto Eco captured this recurring pattern in his concept of “Ur-Fascism” or eternal fascism. In his influential essay, he outlined 14 characteristics that may appear in different combinations across time and place:

1. Cult of Tradition – A syncretic belief in ancient truths, rejecting modern interpretations.
2. Rejection of Modernism – Viewing the Enlightenment and rationalism as the root of moral decline.
3. Cult of Action for Action’s Sake – Valuing action over reflection, leading to anti-intellectualism.
4. Disagreement is Treason – Suppressing dissent and critical thinking as threats to unity.
5. Fear of Difference – Exploiting xenophobia and racism to unify the in-group against outsiders.
6. Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class – Mobilizing those feeling economically or socially displaced.
7. Obsession with a Plot – Promoting conspiracy theories to justify aggression against perceived enemies.
8. Enemies are Both Too Strong and Too Weak – Portraying adversaries as simultaneously formidable and feeble.
9. Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy – Viewing life as perpetual warfare, dismissing peace efforts as betrayal.
10. Contempt for the Weak – Glorifying strength and dismissing compassion as weakness.
11. Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero – Promoting a cult of death and martyrdom.
12. Machismo – Elevating aggressive masculinity and denigrating non-conforming sexual behaviors.
13. Selective Populism – Claiming to represent the unified will of the people, dismissing individual rights.
14. Newspeak – Employing an impoverished vocabulary to limit critical thought.

Why Is Fascism Hard to Define?

These common features help us recognize fascism, but they also reveal why it’s so difficult to pin down definitively. Fascism was never a tidy political doctrine with a single founding manifesto. Instead, it functions as a rather flexible “political style,” a way of doing politics that adapts to local conditions while maintaining core characteristics.

Historian Robert Paxton describes fascism less as a checklist and more as a process that unfolds in stages: movements gain traction by mobilizing mass resentment during times of crisis, form tactical alliances with conservative politicians who think they can control them, seize power by exploiting democratic weaknesses, and ultimately build regimes centered on perpetual conflict and violent exclusion.

This process-oriented understanding explains why some regimes like Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy are considered archetypal fascist states, while others like Franco’s Spain or Salazar’s Portugal spark debate among historians. The line between fascism and other forms of authoritarianism can be blurry, but the underlying dynamics—and dangers—remain recognizable.

How Fascism Differs from Other Authoritarianisms

Understanding fascism requires distinguishing it from other forms of authoritarian rule:

Military Juntas: These regimes (like 1970s Argentina or Chile) are typically led by generals who seize power to “restore order.” While authoritarian and often brutal, they usually lack fascism’s ideological fervor and mass mobilization. They want to rule, not transform society.

Communist Dictatorships: Under leaders like Stalin or Mao, communist regimes centralized power and crushed opposition, but their ideology was internationalist and class-based rather than nationalist and racial. Where fascism glorifies the nation and blood, communism (at least in theory) emphasized global worker solidarity.

Traditional Monarchies or Personal Dictatorships: Some regimes concentrate power in hereditary rulers or strongmen who govern for personal benefit. While repressive, they often lack fascism’s populist appeal, revolutionary energy, and totalitarian ambitions to remake society entirely.

Theocracies: Religious fundamentalist regimes like Iran’s Islamic Republic or the Taliban combine authoritarian control with ideological zeal, but their ultimate authority derives from divine rather than national sources.

The key distinction is this: fascism represents authoritarianism fused with modern mass politics and revolutionary nationalism. It’s not content to rule quietly from above. Instead, it seeks to mobilize ordinary citizens, inflame their passions, glorify perpetual struggle, and fundamentally redefine society around the mythical will of the nation and its leader.

Contemporary Relevance

Studying fascism isn’t merely an academic exercise about the past. While we may not see exact replicas of 1930s movements today, fascism’s building blocks remain disturbingly familiar: economic anxiety exploited by demagogues, conspiracy theories about “globalist” plots, contempt for democratic pluralism, disdain for perceived weakness, and the worship of strongman leaders who promise simple solutions to complex problems.

These elements don’t automatically lead to full fascist regimes, but they create conditions where democratic norms can erode rapidly. Modern technology amplifies these dangers—social media can spread propaganda and coordinate violence more effectively than any 20th-century fascist could have imagined.

The warning signs matter because, as historian Timothy Snyder observes in On Tyranny, democratic institutions don’t defend themselves. They require active citizen participation and vigilance. Recognizing fascistic patterns early, before they fully consolidate, remains essential for protecting democratic societies.

Why This Matters

Fascism’s historical horrors speak for themselves: world war, genocide, the collapse of civilization itself. But beyond the specific atrocities, fascism represents something deeper—the complete subordination of individual dignity and human rights to the supposed needs of the collective, as interpreted by an authoritarian leader.

This makes fascism fundamentally incompatible with the liberal democratic values that underpin modern free societies: individual rights, constitutional limits on power, peaceful transitions of authority, tolerance for dissent, and respect for minority voices. When fascism takes root, these foundations don’t just weaken, they disappear entirely.

Conclusion

So what is fascism? It’s less a fixed ideology than a political style and process—a way of seizing and holding power by appealing to nationalism, authoritarianism, violence, and exclusion. It thrives in moments of crisis when democratic institutions seem weak or unresponsive, offering the false promise that a strong leader and national unity can solve all problems through force.

Definitions may vary among scholars, but history offers an unambiguous lesson: when fascist movements succeed in capturing power, freedom dies. Our task is not just to remember this history, but to remain vigilant against its return in new forms. Democracy survives only when citizens actively defend it.

Want to Go Deeper?

• “14 Characteristics of Fascism: Umberto Eco on Ur-Fascism”
• How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them by Jason Stanley
• On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder
• How to Spot a Fascist by Umberto Eco
• The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton

I’d also draw your attention to my “Citizen’s Manifesto” post, in which I outline some “working principles for democratic renewal.” I’d love to hear your thoughts on it, if you give it a read.

Some things I bought recently that I’d recommend:

• Good Anger: How Rethinking Rage Can Change Our Lives by Sam Parker
• Harbor Freight’s new ICON Magnetic Tool Mat
• Garden of Life’s Raw Organic Fiber
• The Squatty Potty Toilet Stool
• This rotating Pomodoro timer for focus and productivity
• This small but incredibly powerful electric air duster

Here are some other things I came across that I found interesting:

Cal Newport, “On Charlie Kirk and Saving Civil Society”:

We know these [social media] platforms are bad for us, so why are they still so widely used? They tell a compelling story: that all of your frantic tapping and swiping makes you a key part of a political revolution, or a fearless investigator, or a righteous protestor – that when you’re online, you’re someone important, doing important things during an important time.

But this, for the most part, is an illusion. In reality, you’re toiling anonymously in an attention factory, while billionaire overseers mock your efforts and celebrate their growing net worths.

After troubling national events, there’s often a public conversation about the appropriate way to respond. Here’s one option to consider: Quit using these social platforms. Find other ways to keep up with the news, or spread ideas, or be entertained. Be a responsible grown-up who does useful things; someone who serves real people in the real world.

To save civil society, we need to end our decade-long experiment with global social platforms. We tried them. They became dark and awful. It’s time to move on.

Enough is enough.

Quoting Gabor Maté, Sam Parker writes the following in Good Anger: How Rethinking Rage Can Change Our Lives:

‘There are two fatal beliefs,’ he says. ‘One: you’re responsible for how other people feel. Two: you must never disappoint anybody.’

(1) You’re responsible for how other people feel. (2) You must never disappoint anybody.

Do you believe these?

From Isaac Bradshaw via Bluesky:

Ultimately the split in US politics is between those who bear false witness against their neighbors for gain - and those who do not. The end state of this sort of split is what we see now, where there can be no compromise because there is not a common grasp of reality.

It is ultimately impossible to civilly disagree over policy when you are enabled to choose your own reality based on consumer preference.

Richard Haas offers a clarification on why we might not want to require proof of citizenship to vote:

Several readers reached out to me asking why I questioned the desirability of demanding that voters provide proof of citizenship in order to vote. So, let me explain.

It is all about principle versus practice. Of course, only citizens should be able to vote in our elections. But the requirements for proving citizenship could be (and in some instances, have been) sufficiently onerous as to deny many citizens their right to vote. How? By demanding a passport or a certificate of citizenship. It sounds reasonable, but approximately half of adult Americans don’t have a passport. Many don’t have other forms of proof of citizenship, and what people tend to have, such as driver’s licenses or social security cards, are available to non-citizens. It takes money and time to get a passport, and the government is not in a position to issue millions of them any time soon.

Just as important, it is useful to keep in mind that voter fraud – the notion that the integrity of American elections is being undermined by millions of illegal voters – is simply a myth. There is no supporting evidence for what Trump loyalists are claiming. All of which is to say proof of citizenship requirements, unless readily available to those who qualify, could well be a cure far worse than the alleged disease it is meant to cure.

“Eternal God, in whose perfect kingdom no sword is drawn but the sword of righteousness, no strength known but the strength of love: So mightily spread abroad your Spirit, that all peoples may be gathered under the banner of the Prince of Peace, as children of one Father; to whom be dominion and glory, now and for ever. Amen.” (Book of Common Prayer)

“O come, Desire of Nations, bind
in one the hearts of all mankind.
Bid Thou our sad divisions cease
and be Thyself our King of Peace.“​ (O Come, O Come, Emmanuel)

“Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’“​ (Matt. 26.52)
“And the Lord said, ‘What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.’” (Gen. 4.10-11)

“He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.” (Isa. 2.4)

“For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts
is the house of Israel,
and the men of Judah
are his pleasant planting;
and he looked for justice,
but behold, bloodshed;
for righteousness,
but behold, a cry!” (Isa. 5.7)

“For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult
and every garment rolled in blood
will be burned as fuel for the fire.
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government will be upon his shoulder,
and his name will be called
‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’” (Isa. 9.5-6)

“Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.” (Jer. 22.3)

Here’s how to have a theological argument without losing your cool — or your brother or sister in Christ.

1. The Problem: Why Most Theological Arguments Go Sideways

Most bad theological arguments have the same ingredients:

• Overconfidence + under-preparation: reading one book or hearing one sermon doesn’t make you an expert.
• Passion outrunning humility: loving your opinion more than you love the truth.
• Confusing essentials with non-essentials: acting like disagreement over the millennium is a gospel dealbreaker.
• Fighting to win, not to understand: turning the Bible into ammo.

Example: Two Christians on Facebook spend three hours arguing about whether “the days” in Genesis 1 are 24-hour periods. Or maybe it’s about pre-tribulation vs. post-tribulation rapture, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, or Nebuchadnezzar’s blood type. I don’t know. By the end, neither is listening, both are angry, and their friends are quietly unfollowing them. That’s not contending for the faith — that’s contending for ego.

2. The Landscape: What You’re Actually Stepping Into

When you step into any theological debate, you’re not just sparring over one verse. You’re entering a centuries-old conversation involving:

• Biblical studies — the original languages, historical settings, and literary forms.
• Church history — how Christians have interpreted and applied the text before us.
• Systematic theology — connecting doctrines into a coherent whole.
• Practical theology — how belief translates into action.

Reality check: you will never know everything. And that’s OK. The sooner you embrace that, the freer you are to learn.

3. The Tools: Basics of Responsible Interpretation

You don’t need a seminary degree to argue well, but you do need to know the basics.

1. Context is king
A verse only makes sense in light of the chapter, the book, and the historical moment it came from. Philippians 4:13 is about enduring hardship in Christ, not about winning your next tennis match.

2. Genre matters
Poetry, historical narrative, parable, prophecy, apocalypse — each plays by different rules. Treating Psalm 23 like a history textbook is as unhelpful as treating 1 Samuel like a haiku.

3. Original audience first
The Bible wasn’t written to you, though it is written for you. What did the message mean to the first hearers before you apply it to your life? If you think a passage means something that would have made no sense whatsoever to its original audience, you’re probably off track.

4. Scripture interprets Scripture
The Bible is a unified story. Let the whole counsel of God inform how you read each part. That means comparing texts, not isolating them.

A corollary: don’t use obscure verses to overturn clear teaching elsewhere. That weird verse in Revelation doesn’t nullify Jesus’ clear command to love your neighbor.

5. Church history is a resource
You’re not the first to wrestle with Revelation or Romans. The creeds, confessions, and commentaries of past centuries are tools, not shackles.

6. Tradition and reason
The Spirit works through the church’s collective wisdom and through sound thinking. Don’t ignore either.

7. Translation awareness
Every English Bible is already an interpretation. If you don’t know how to do research in the original languages, (1) acknowledge that limitation, and (2) at least compare several English versions when things get tricky.

Want to go deeper? Here are some accessible starting points:

• Gordon Fee & Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth — a classic guide to genre, context, and interpretation basics.
• Michael Bird, Evangelical Theology — a rich, readable introduction to the big-picture framework of Christian doctrine.
• N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God — how the Bible works as God’s Word in the church today.
• Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion — a masterclass in tying biblical interpretation to the center of the gospel.
• The BibleProject - excellent free videos and articles on biblical books, themes, and interpretation principles (bibleproject.com). Check out their video collection on How to Read the Bible.

4. The Skills: How to Argue Without Hating Each Other

Ask clarifying questions before assuming. Too often we respond to what we think someone said instead of what they actually meant. Slow down. Ask, “When you say ‘literal,’ what do you mean?” You might discover you agree on more than you realized.

Summarize their view until they say, “Yes, that’s what I mean.” This is called steel-manning, and it forces you to listen carefully and represent their position fairly before critiquing it. If you can’t explain their argument clearly, you’re not ready to refute it.

Admit what you don’t know without shame. “I haven’t read enough on that to have a strong opinion” is a mark of intellectual honesty, not weakness. This humility models teachability and keeps discussions from devolving into bluffing contests.

Distinguish doctrine tiers so you don’t treat secondary matters like salvation issues. Essentials are the gospel truths all Christians affirm; convictions are important but not dealbreakers; preferences are personal or cultural. Knowing the difference changes the temperature of your debates.

Note: Doing this kind of “theological triage” is itself a skill that takes time to develop. When in doubt, err on the side of charity. It’s all too easy to misjudge what counts as essential via “all or nothing” or “slippery slope” thinking.

Separate people from positions. Disagree with ideas, not identities. A person’s worth isn’t defined by whether they agree with your interpretation of Revelation 20. You might be wrong, and they might be right — or vice versa. And that’s OK. Remember that we’re all on a journey of faith and understanding.

Mind the context every time you engage. In person, watch your tone and body language — they communicate as much as your words. Online, assume tone will be misunderstood and over-clarify. Across age and cultural lines, listen first and respect the other person’s experience before offering your rebuttal.

5. The Pitfalls: Common Fallacies & Biases to Avoid

• Straw man — misrepresenting their view so it’s easier to attack.
  E.g., “So you’re saying Genesis is just a myth?” (when they never said that).
• Ad hominem — attacking the person instead of the argument.
  E.g., “You just believe that because you went to a liberal seminary.”
• Proof-texting — quoting a verse without context.
  E.g., using Jeremiah 29:11 as a personal life guarantee without reading vv. 1–10.
• Confirmation bias — only reading sources that agree with you.
• Slippery slope — “If you affirm women preaching, you’ll deny the resurrection next.”
• False dilemma — “Either you believe in six-day creation or you reject the Bible.”

Naming these doesn’t make you immune, but it does make you more alert.

6. The Better Way: Theological Debate as a Spiritual Discipline

This isn’t just about sharpening your intellect. It’s about deepening your discipleship.

• Love is the foundation (1 Cor. 13). If your words aren’t loving, they’re just noise.
• Seek truth, not points — the goal isn’t to “win” but to walk away wiser.
• Rely on the Spirit — insight is a gift, not a personal conquest.
• Remember your family — the person you’re debating is your sibling in Christ, not your enemy.

Acts 15 shows us disagreement handled well: listening, deliberating, and seeking consensus in the Spirit.

7. The Checklist: Non-Negotiables for Healthy Theological Debate

Be humble — you might be wrong.
Be curious — ask more questions than you answer.
Be charitable — assume the best intentions.
Be informed — do your homework.
Be patient — understanding takes time.
Be loving — if you “win” the argument but lose the person, you’ve lost.

TL;DR: Takeaways
Theology is family talk. Bring your best thinking, your deepest humility, and your fiercest love. Remember: the goal is not to destroy your opponent, but to better understand God and His Word — together.

“orienting our lives by a version of Christian faith that is compassionately realistic about the human condition, reflects the best of human knowledge, and enables all kinds of human beings to truly flourish. It’s humane and for human well-being.”

If this is the case, then the opposite of Christian humanism might be called Christian misanthropy (misanthropy: “a hatred or distrust of humankind”).

Now, the Christian misanthropes themselves would claim that their misanthropy is biblical. Something like: “Humans are totally depraved and in need of redemption, instruction, and, if needed, punishment.” (Though, note that the punishment such humans receive in Hell is, according to the same Christian misanthropes, eternal, conscious, and NOT redemptive/corrective, but purely retributive.)

We see this kind of Christian misanthropy at work in the “Christian” nationalism that has taken hold in the USA. I think it’s what motivates people like Russ Vought (a Wheaton alum) to tear apart the social safety net and undo some of the best work toward human flourishing that’s been done in the past century (consider all the lives saved by USAID, mRNA vaccines, etc. and how little the Christian nationalists care about this).

But I think this is mistaken. I agree with Gushee that Christian humanism “reflects Jesus’ own way of treating people.”

The Way of Jesus

Jesus consistently demonstrated a radical commitment to human dignity and flourishing. He touched lepers, ate with tax collectors, defended an adulteress from mob violence, and elevated the status of women, children, and Samaritans (all groups considered lesser in his society). When religious leaders criticized him for healing on the Sabbath, Jesus responded that “the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.” This prioritization of human need over rigid rule-following exemplifies Christian humanism at its core.

The parable of the Good Samaritan further illustrates this principle. The religious professionals who passed by the wounded man weren’t necessarily cruel. They were likely following purity codes that touching a potentially dead body would violate. But Jesus elevates compassionate action for human welfare above religious correctness. The hero of his story is someone from a despised religious group who demonstrates costly love for a stranger.

“But Jesus Wasn’t Soft on Sin!”

Some will object: “This is liberal nonsense! Jesus wasn’t soft on sin. He called people vipers and whitewashed tombs. He made a whip and drove money-changers from the temple. He warned of hell and judgment. You’re making Jesus into a therapeutic self-help guru!”

This objection misses the crucial pattern in Jesus’ ministry. Yes, Jesus demonstrated righteous anger and called out sin. But look carefully at who received his harshest words and why.

His “brood of vipers” language was reserved for religious leaders who used their power to crush others while maintaining their own righteousness. His temple-cleansing rage targeted those who turned worship into exploitation, making it harder for the poor and Gentiles to access God. His warnings about judgment fell heaviest on those who refused to show mercy while demanding it for themselves.

Meanwhile, to the woman caught in adultery, Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” To Zacchaeus the tax collector, he invited himself to dinner. To the thief on the cross, he promised paradise. To Peter who denied him three times, he offered restoration and mission. The pattern is unmistakable: harsh words for the powerful who harm others, gentle restoration for the broken and repentant.

Christian misanthropes reverse this pattern entirely. They aim their harshest judgment at the vulnerable (the poor, immigrants, LGBTQ individuals, those struggling with addiction or mental illness, etc.) while cozying up to political and economic power. They’ve turned Jesus’ prophetic critique upside down, using his words about judgment as weapons against those Jesus came to save, while ignoring his condemnations of religious hypocrisy and oppression.

When Jesus talked about sin, it was always in service of human flourishing, not in opposition to it. Sin, in Jesus’ teaching, is what destroys human beings and communities. His anger at sin was precisely because he loved people and wanted them to thrive. The misanthropes, by contrast, seem to relish human failure and eagerly anticipate divine wrath. They’ve confused hating sin with hating sinners.

The Problem with Christian Misanthropy

Christian misanthropy often manifests as a preoccupation with human sinfulness that eclipses the equally biblical truth of human beings bearing God’s image. Yes, Christian theology acknowledges human brokenness, but when this becomes the dominant or sole lens through which we view humanity, we end up with policies and practices that harm rather than heal. We get immigration policies that separate families, healthcare systems that abandon the vulnerable, and criminal justice approaches focused purely on retribution rather than restoration.

The irony is that Christian misanthropes often exempt themselves from their harsh anthropology. They trust themselves to wield political power, accumulate wealth, and judge others’ worthiness…all while maintaining that humans are utterly depraved. This selective application reveals that their misanthropy is really about controlling and diminishing others, not honest theological reflection about the human condition.

Holding the Tension

True Christian humanism doesn’t ignore sin or brokenness. Instead, it holds in creative tension the paradox that humans are both fallen and beloved, both broken and bearing God’s image. This tension should produce humility and compassion for our fellow humans, not contempt. It should make us slow to judge and quick to serve, skeptical of our own righteousness while hopeful about human potential for transformation.

Consider how this plays out practically: A Christian humanist approach to poverty doesn’t assume the poor are lazy or deserving of their plight, but recognizes systemic injustices and works for economic structures that enable flourishing. It doesn’t romanticize poverty either, but takes seriously Jesus’ proclamation of good news to the poor and works toward their liberation.

Similarly, Christian humanism approaches criminal justice not with pure retributivism but with an eye toward restoration: of victims, communities, and yes, even offenders. It takes seriously the biblical vision of making all things new rather than simply jailing or executing those who’ve done wrong.

A Theological Crisis

The current alliance between certain forms of Christianity and political movements that actively work against human flourishing represents a profound theological crisis. When Christians champion policies that increase suffering, limit access to healthcare, destroy environmental protections, or perpetuate systemic racism, they’re betraying the One who came that people might have life, and have it abundantly.

Gushee is right that we need to reclaim Christian humanism. Not a naive optimism that ignores evil, but a robust faith that takes seriously both human dignity and human need. This kind of Christianity doesn’t seek power over others but power for others’ flourishing. It measures faithfulness not by doctrinal purity or political dominance but by how well we love our neighbors (all of them!) as ourselves.

The Path Forward

The path forward requires us to resist the false choice between taking sin seriously and taking human dignity seriously. The gospel holds both together: we are more broken than we dare admit and more loved than we dare hope. That paradox should produce not misanthropy but profound compassion, for ourselves and for every human being we encounter.

When we embrace Christian humanism, we join Jesus in his mission to heal, restore, and bring life. We work for systems and structures that honor human dignity. We advocate for the vulnerable. We seek justice that restores rather than merely punishes. And we do all this not in spite of our faith, but because of it.

The choice before us is clear: We can follow a misanthropic distortion of Christianity that views humans primarily as objects of wrath, deserving of suffering and eternal punishment. Or we can follow Jesus, who looked at broken humanity with compassion and gave his life so that all might flourish.

I know which one looks more like Good News to me.

What’s a technology that you think is overhyped?

I’m going to give a sideways answer to this, which is that the venture capital business model needs to be understood as requiring hype. You can go back to the Netscape IPO, and that was the proof point that made venture capital the financial lifeblood of the tech industry.

Venture capital looks at valuations and growth, not necessarily at profit or revenue. So you don’t actually have to invest in technology that works, or that even makes a profit, you simply have to have a narrative that is compelling enough to float those valuations. So you see this repetitive and exhausting hype cycle as a feature in this industry. A couple of years ago, you would have been asking me about the metaverse, then last year, you would have asked me about Web3 and crypto, and for each of these inflection points there’s an Andreessen Horowitz manifesto.

It’s not simply that one piece of technology is overhyped, it’s that hype is a necessary ingredient of the current business ecosystem of the tech industry. We should examine how often the financial incentive for hype is rewarded without any real social returns, without any meaningful progress in technology, without these tools and services and worlds ever actually manifesting. That’s key to understanding the growing chasm between the narrative of techno-optimists and the reality of our tech-encumbered world.

Stop asking “What’s my passion?” Start asking better questions.

Pink suggests that the classic advice to “follow your passion” often leads us nowhere. Instead, he offers seven more practical questions that can actually help you discover your life’s purpose.

The Seven Questions That Matter

1. What made you weird as a kid? Think back to what you did for fun at 7 or 10 years old, even if others thought it was odd. Those childhood quirks often point to authentic interests that society hasn’t yet conditioned out of you.

2. When do you lose track of time? Notice when you naturally enter a flow state. These moments reveal activities that align with your intrinsic motivation.

3. What do people consistently thank you for? Ask friends and colleagues: “What do you appreciate about me? What do you think I’m particularly good at? How do you think I’ll leave a mark on the world?” Their answers reveal your unique strengths.

4. What’s your sentence? As Clare Boothe Luce once told John F. Kennedy: “A great person is a sentence.” Can you summarize your life’s purpose in a single, clear sentence?

5. Where can you make your biggest contribution? Look around at the people, teams, and communities in your life. What do they genuinely need that you’re uniquely positioned to provide?

6. What would you do if money weren’t an object? This classic question strips away practical constraints to reveal what truly motivates you.

7. What will you regret at 90? Most people regret what they didn’t do—not being bolder, not starting that business, not taking their shot. What three things might your 90-year-old self regret not pursuing? Flip it: What will make you proud to have accomplished?

The Bottom Line

Purpose isn’t something you stumble upon—it’s something you actively discover through honest self-reflection. These questions can guide you toward a clearer understanding of what makes your contribution to the world uniquely yours.

Ready to dig deeper? Start with just one question and spend some real time with your answer.

Here’s my situation: I’m in my 30s, married with three young kids, and I work from home in northwest Ohio. On paper, my life is full—and in many ways it is. But I’m also dealing with some significant loneliness and isolation that I can’t seem to shake.

I have a couple of old friends who live in other states, and I’ve built up some online acquaintances over the years, but when it comes to real, local, in-person friendships? I’m coming up short. And it’s affecting me more than I necessarily thought it would.

The Perfect Storm of Friendship Challenges

Looking back, I can see how I ended up here. Most of my meaningful friendships throughout my adult life formed around two main contexts: education and church. I had college friends, seminary friends, and PhD student friends. I connected with fellow parishioners and other ministers. These were natural communities where relationships could develop organically.

But life has shifted a lot. I left my PhD program, resigned from active ministry in my denomination, and switched careers to work as a full-time software engineer. While my family still attends church and I’ve made some acquaintances there, I haven’t developed any close friendships yet.

Add to this the fact that I work from home (which I genuinely love, but it eliminates those casual workplace connections), and I’m dealing with anxiety and depression (currently working with a therapist and on medication). As an introvert with some social anxiety, large or loud social events aren’t particularly appealing to me, which eliminates a lot of the typical “just put yourself out there” advice.

And then there’s the elephant in the room: the current political and social climate. I’m genuinely stressed about the direction our country is heading—the slide toward authoritarianism, the constant barrage of troubling news. Now, I’m not looking for friendships that revolve around politics, but I also don’t want to feel like I have to completely hide my real concerns about what’s happening in the world. The challenge is that when you’re meeting new people, you have no idea where they stand on these issues at first, and discovering a fundamental mismatch in worldview can be… well, awkward, to put it mildly. It adds another layer of complexity (or an excuse to just not try!) to what’s already a difficult process.

What I’m Looking For

I’m not entirely sure what the answer is, but I know what I’m hoping for: genuine, local friendships with people I can actually spend time with in person. I’d love to find people who share some of my interests—books and reading, tools and home repair, auto work, DIY projects, shooting, coffee, craft beer, soccer, running. I’m hoping to get more into woodworking and pickleball too.

I’m primarily thinking about individual friendships, though my family could also use some family friends—other parents dealing with similar life stages and challenges.

Where I’m Asking for Help

So here’s where you come in. If you’ve navigated similar challenges, I’d love to hear your advice:

• How do you make genuine friends as an adult, especially when your previous social contexts have disappeared?
• What’s worked for you as an introvert trying to build meaningful connections?
• Are there specific strategies that work well for parents with young kids?
• How do you balance the need for friendship with the reality of anxiety and limited social energy?
• Any northwest Ohio folks reading this who want to grab coffee and commiserate about how hard adult friendship can be? :)

I’m not looking for surface-level networking or forced social situations. I’m looking for the kind of friendships where you can text someone when you’re having a rough day, or call when you need help with a project, or just hang out without it feeling like work.

Maybe I’m being too idealistic, or maybe I need to adjust my expectations. But I figure there have to be other people out there dealing with similar stuff, right?

If you’ve got thoughts, advice, or even just want to share your own friendship struggles, I’d love to hear from you in the comments or drop me a line. Sometimes just knowing you’re not alone in something makes it a little easier to figure out.

Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance for any wisdom you’re willing to share.

Our constitutional framework in the United States of America was designed to be amended, our institutions to be improved, and our understanding of justice to deepen with experience and wisdom. The greatest threat to democracy is not disagreement about these principles, but the abandonment of our shared commitment to wrestling with them together in good faith.

While these principles require ongoing refinement, I believe the following foundations are essential for our democracy:

Civic Foundations

We the people need to know the truth.

Democracy cannot function without an informed citizenry capable of making reasoned judgments about complex issues. This requires not just access to accurate information, but the development of critical thinking skills that can distinguish fact from fiction, evidence from opinion, and genuine expertise from manufactured authority.

We the people need to want to know the truth, especially when the truth is uncomfortable.

Perhaps more challenging than finding truth is the willingness to accept it when it contradicts our preferences or challenges our assumptions. Democratic citizenship demands intellectual courage—the willingness to follow evidence where it leads, even when it unsettles our worldview or implicates us in problems we would rather ignore.

We the people need to have genuine concern for the welfare of our fellow citizens and our fellow humans, even as we each seek to preserve our own welfare.

Self-interest alone cannot sustain democracy. We must cultivate what the founders called public or civic virtue—a commitment to the common good that transcends narrow personal or tribal interests. This doesn’t require pure selflessness, but it does require enlightened self-interest that recognizes our interdependence.

We need to increase the civic obligations of citizenship.

Rights without responsibilities hollow out democracy from within. Citizens should be expected to serve their communities through jury duty, civic participation, informed voting, and other forms of democratic engagement. A democracy of consumers cannot survive; we need a democracy of active participants.

The media and the public must hold all political parties to the same standards of decency and behavior.

Democratic norms only work when they apply universally. When different standards of conduct are tolerated from different parties or leaders, the norms themselves become meaningless. Words and actions that would end one politician’s career must be equally disqualifying for all politicians, regardless of party affiliation. This requires both media institutions and citizens to apply consistent standards of accountability, refusing to excuse in allies what we would condemn in opponents.

Taxes are the price of admission to a functional society.

While we can debate the proper level and distribution of taxation, we cannot escape the fundamental truth that collective goods require collective funding. Roads, schools, courts, defense, environmental protection, and countless other public necessities exist only through shared investment in our common life.

Leadership Accountability

Political leaders should be chosen based on their demonstrated virtue, wisdom, and genuine concern for their fellow citizens.

Popularity, charisma, and partisan loyalty are insufficient qualifications for democratic leadership. We must demand evidence of moral character, practical wisdom, and a proven commitment to serving the public interest rather than personal ambition.

Political leaders should be required to demonstrate an understanding of civics and law that exceeds the basic requirements for citizenship.

We expect doctors to understand medicine and teachers to understand education, yet we impose no knowledge requirements on those who would govern us. Leaders should demonstrate competency in constitutional law, economics, history, and the practical arts of democratic governance. As the barest of minimums, they should all be able to pass the naturalization test for citizenship.

Political leaders should fear the people more than they fear the President or party leadership.

Representatives who serve at the pleasure of party bosses rather than their constituents have abandoned the fundamental principle of democratic accountability. The chain of authority must run from citizens to representatives to leaders, not the reverse.

No lifetime appointments for any political leadership position.

While judicial independence requires some insulation from political pressure, no office should be held in perpetuity. Term limits, regular elections, and mandatory retirement ages ensure that power circulates and that institutions remain responsive to changing circumstances and evolving public will.

Political leaders should not be allowed to become radically wealthier than the people they represent.

Public service should not be a path to personal enrichment. Leaders who use their positions to accumulate vast wealth inevitably develop interests that diverge from those of ordinary citizens. Reasonable compensation, yes—but extreme wealth accumulation while in office corrupts democratic representation.

Political leaders should be incentivized, with both carrots and sticks, to seek the common welfare above their own personal gain.

We must restructure the incentives of political life to reward public-spirited behavior and punish corruption. This requires not just legal penalties for wrongdoing, but positive incentives for leaders who demonstrably improve the lives of their constituents.

Political leaders, the military, and the police should be legally obligated to protect and serve the people, not just the wealthy.

Equal protection under law means that public servants serve the public—all of it. When institutions of government become the private security forces of economic elites, democracy dies. Our public servants must be accountable to democratic institutions, not to the highest bidder.

Electoral Integrity

It should be as easy as possible for all citizens to vote.

The fundamental act of democratic participation should be accessible to every eligible citizen. Barriers to voting that serve no compelling public interest are barriers to democracy itself. We should be constantly working to expand access, reduce obstacles, and ensure that every voice can be heard.

Voting days should be federal holidays.

Democracy requires participation, and participation requires time. Making election days national holidays removes a significant barrier to voting for working people and demonstrates our society’s commitment to democratic engagement as a fundamental civic duty.

It should only ever be made more difficult to vote to verify citizenship or if there is clear evidence of widespread voter fraud.

While election integrity matters, restrictions on voting require extraordinary justification. The bar for limiting democratic participation must be high, evidence-based, and focused on genuine threats rather than partisan advantage.

We need ranked-choice voting in all elections.

Our current system forces false choices between two candidates and creates incentives for negative campaigning and political polarization. Ranked-choice voting allows citizens to express their true preferences while ensuring that winners have broader support and that third parties can compete without being “spoilers.”

We need to keep money from having an undue or hidden influence on politics.

This includes our information ecosystem—media and news sources that shape public opinion. When wealthy interests can effectively purchase political outcomes through unlimited spending, democracy becomes plutocracy. We must ensure transparency in political funding and limit the ability of concentrated wealth to distort democratic processes.

Economic Justice

While allowing for plenty of variation in wealth and living standards, the wealthy should pay more taxes than the poor.

Progressive taxation reflects both the principle of ability to pay and the recognition that extreme wealth inequality undermines democratic equality. A billionaire and a minimum-wage worker may each have one vote, but if money translates directly into political power, their democratic equality becomes meaningless.

It is dangerous and impossible to enforce equality of outcomes, but we should enforce equality of opportunity and an acceptable range of outcomes.

We should avoid both abject poverty through a robust social safety net and extreme wealth inequality through a graduated tax system with a functional cap on personal wealth.

A society where some live in luxury while others lack basic necessities is not a democracy but an oligarchy. Similarly, when individuals accumulate wealth so vast that they can effectively purchase political systems, democratic equality becomes impossible.

In view of the many clear benefits of immigration and a diverse society, we need to broaden and expedite the legal paths to residency and citizenship.

America’s strength has always come from our ability to integrate diverse peoples into a common democratic project. Immigration policy should reflect both our humanitarian values and our practical need for the energy, skills, and perspectives that newcomers bring.

Legal Equality

No one is above the law.

This principle tolerates no exceptions. Wealth, power, position, or political affiliation cannot justify exemption from legal accountability. When leaders believe themselves immune from consequences, the rule of law becomes the rule of power, and democracy dies.

No one is beneath or outside of the law—due process for all.

Equal justice means that every person, regardless of status, deserves fair treatment under our legal system. This includes not only formal legal protections but also practical access to justice through competent representation and impartial courts.

These principles form a coherent vision of democratic renewal, but they are not the final word. Democracy itself demands that we continue to refine, debate, and improve our understanding of what justice and self-governance require. I offer these thoughts not as settled doctrine but as working principles for citizens who believe that democracy is worth defending, worth improving, and worth the hard work of constant democratic dialogue.

The question before us is not whether we will achieve a perfect democracy—we will not. The question is whether we will do the daily work of making democracy more perfect, more just, and more worthy of the sacrifices made to establish and preserve it. That work belongs to all of us, and it begins with the conversations that these principles are meant to start.

No kings, but He who blessed the poor,
and binds their wounds forevermore.

No kings, except the Crucified,
who, on a tyrant’s cross, died –

No kings! – to save the last, the least,
and bring them to His wedding feast.

No kings, save One, who wore a crown
of bitter thorns upon His brow.

No kings, but He who rose to save,
to lift the outcasts from their grave.

No kings, except the Refugee,
who came to set the captives free.

No kings, no tyrants, on their thrones,
they’ll be cast down by One alone –

No kings! – whose kingdom is not of this age,
whose war is not by violence waged.

No kings, but He who’ll come again
to right the bloodstained wrongs of men.

So, kings, so, despots, bend the knee!
Fear Him who sets your prisoners free.

No, kings, One saves! His freedom rings!
No kings, save One, the King of Kings.

Fascism: “a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition” (Merriam-Webster)

Notoriously difficult to define, Umberto Eco nevertheless highlighted 14 aspects of what he called “Ur-Fascism” (PDF):

1. Cult of Tradition – A syncretic belief in ancient truths, rejecting modern interpretations.
2. Rejection of Modernism – Viewing the Enlightenment and rationalism as the root of moral decline.
3. Cult of Action for Action’s Sake – Valuing action over reflection, leading to anti-intellectualism.
4. Disagreement is Treason – Suppressing dissent and critical thinking as threats to unity.
5. Fear of Difference – Exploiting xenophobia and racism to unify the in-group against outsiders.
6. Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class – Mobilizing those feeling economically or socially displaced.
7. Obsession with a Plot – Promoting conspiracy theories to justify aggression against perceived enemies.
8. Enemies are Both Too Strong and Too Weak – Portraying adversaries as simultaneously formidable and feeble.
9. Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy – Viewing life as perpetual warfare, dismissing peace efforts as betrayal.
10. Contempt for the Weak – Glorifying strength and dismissing compassion as weakness.
11. Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero – Promoting a cult of death and martyrdom.
12. Machismo – Elevating aggressive masculinity and denigrating non-conforming sexual behaviors.
13. Selective Populism – Claiming to represent the unified will of the people, dismissing individual rights.
14. Newspeak – Employing an impoverished vocabulary to limit critical thought.

You can read the full essay via the PDF link above. But note that it was originallty published in the New York Review: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/.

For more on fascism, see:

• How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them by Jason Stanley
• On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder
• How to Spot a Fascist by Umberto Eco (includes the essay above, as well as two other essays by Eco)

Also check out this “The 10 tactics of fascism” video by Big Think and Jason Stanley:

(For more information and resources along these lines, make sure to visit my /resist page.)

The Methods of Nonviolent Protest and Persuasion

Formal Statements

1. Public Speeches
2. Letters of opposition or support
3. Declarations by organizations and institutions
4. Signed public statements
5. Declarations of indictment and intention
6. Group or mass petitions

Communications with a Wider Audience

7. Slogans, caricatures, and symbols
8. Banners, posters, and displayed communications
9. Leaflets, pamphlets, and books
10. Newspapers and journals
11. Records, radio, and television
12. Skywriting and earthwriting

Group Representations

13. Deputations
14. Mock awards
15. Group lobbying
16. Picketing
17. Mock elections

Symbolic Public Acts

18. Displays of flags and symbolic colors
19. Wearing of symbols
20. Prayer and worship
21. Delivering symbolic objects
22. Protest disrobings
23. Destruction of own property
24. Symbolic lights
25. Displays of portraits
26. Paint as protest
27. New signs and names
28. Symbolic sounds
29. Symbolic reclamations
30. Rude gestures

Pressure on Individuals

31. “Haunting” officials
32. Taunting officials
33. Fraternization
34. Vigils

Drama & Music

35. Humorous skits and pranks
36. Performances of plays and music
37. Singing

Processions

38. Marches
39. Parades
40. Religious processions
41. Pilgrimages
42. Motorcades

Honoring the Dead

43. Political mourning
44. Mock funerals
45. Demonstrative funerals
46. Homage at burial places

Public Assemblies

47. Assemblies of protest or support
48. Protest meetings
49. Camouflaged meetings of protest
50. Teach-ins

Withdrawal and Renunciation

51. Walk-outs
52. Silence
53. Renouncing honor
54. Turning one’s back

The Methods of Social Noncooperation

Ostracism of Persons

55. Social boycott
56. Selective social boycott
57. Lysistratic nonaction
58. Excommunication
59. Interdict

Noncooperation with Social Events, Customs & Institutions

60. Suspension of social and sports activities
61. Boycott of social affairs
62. Student strike
63. Social disobedience
64. Withdrawal from social institutions

Withdrawal from the Social System

65. Stay-at-home
66. Total personal noncooperation
67. “Flight” of workers
68. Sanctuary
69. Collective disappearance
70. Protest emigration (hijrat)

The Methods of Economic Noncooperation: Economic Boycotts

Action by Consumers

71. Consumers’ boycott
72. Nonconsumption of boycotted goods
73. Policy of austerity
74. Rent withholding
75. Refusal to rent
76. National consumers’ boycott
77. International consumers’ boycott

Action by Workers & Producers

78. Workmen’s boycott
79. Producers’ boycott

Action by Middlemen

80. Suppliers’ and handlers’ boycott

Action by Owners & Management

81. Traders’ boycott
82. Refusal to let or sell property
83. Lockout
84. Refusal of industrial assistance
85. Merchants’ “general strike”

Action by Holders of Financial Resources

86. Withdrawal of bank deposits
87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments
88. Refusal to pay debts or interest
89. Severance of funds and credit
90. Revenue refusal
91. Refusal of a government’s money

Action by Governments

92. Domestic embargo
93. Blacklisting of traders
94. International sellers’ embargo
95. International buyers’ embargo
96. International trade embargo

The Methods of Economic Noncooperation: The Strike

Symbolic Strikes

97. Protest strike
98. Quickie walkout (lightning strike)

Agricultural Strikes

99. Peasant strike
100. Farm Workers’ strike

Strikes by Special Groups

101. Refusal of impressed labor
102. Prisoners’ strike
103. Craft strike
104. Professional strike

Ordinary Industrial Strikes

105. Establishment strike
106. Industry strike
107. Sympathetic strike

Restricted Strikes

108. Detailed strike
109. Bumper strike
110. Slowdown strike
111. Working-to-rule strike
112. Reporting “sick” (sick-in)
113. Strike by resignation
114. Limited strike
115. Selective strike

Multi-industry Strikes

116. Generalized strike
117. General strike

Combination of Strikes & Economic Closures

118. Hartal
119. Economic shutdown

The Methods of Political Noncooperation

Rejection of Authority

120. Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance
121. Refusal of public support
122. Literature and speeches advocating resistance

Citizens’ Noncooperation with Government

123. Boycott of legislative bodies
124. Boycott of elections
125. Boycott of government employment and positions
126. Boycott of government depts., agencies, and other bodies
127. Withdrawal from government educational institutions
128. Boycott of government-supported organizations
129. Refusal of assistance to enforcement agents

Citizens’ Alternatives to Obedience

130. Removal of own signs and placemarks

131. Refusal to accept appointed officials

132. Refusal to dissolve existing institutions

133. Reluctant and slow compliance

134. Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision

135. Popular nonobedience

136. Disguised disobedience

137. Refusal of an assemblage or meeting to disperse

138. Sitdown

139. Noncooperation with conscription and deportation

140. Hiding, escape, and false identities

141. Civil disobedience of “illegitimate” laws

Action by Government Personnel

142. Selective refusal of assistance by government aides
143. Blocking of lines of command and information
144. Stalling and obstruction
145. General administrative noncooperation
146. Judicial noncooperation
147. Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents
148. Mutiny

Domestic governmental action

149. Quasi-legal evasions and delays
150. Noncooperation by constituent governmental units

International governmental action

151. Changes in diplomatic and other representations
152. Delay and cancellation of diplomatic events
153. Withholding of diplomatic recognition
154. Severance of diplomatic relations
155. Withdrawal from international organizations
156. Refusal of membership in international bodies
157. Expulsion from international organizations

The Methods of Nonviolent Intervention

Psychological Intervention

158. Self-exposure to the elements
159. The fast: a) Fast of moral pressure, b) Hunger strike, c) Satyagrahic fast
160. Reverse trial
161. Nonviolent harassment

Physical Intervention

162. Sit-in
163. Stand-in
164. Ride-in
165. Wade-in
166. Mill-in
167. Pray-in
168. Nonviolent raids
169. Nonviolent air raids
170. Nonviolent invasion
171. Nonviolent interjection
172. Nonviolent obstruction
173. Nonviolent occupation

Social Intervention

174. Establishing new social patterns
175. Overloading of facilities
176. Stall-in
177. Speak-in
178. Guerrilla theater
179. Alternative social institutions
180. Alternative communication system

Economic Intervention

181. Reverse strike
182. Stay-in strike
183. Nonviolent land seizure
184. Defiance of blockades
185. Politically motivated counterfeiting
186. Preclusive purchasing
187. Seizure of assets
188. Dumping
189. Selective patronage
190. Alternative markets
191. Alternative transportation systems
192. Alternative economic institutions

Political Intervention

193. Overloading of administrative systems
194. Disclosing identities of secret agents
195. Seeking imprisonment
196. Civil disobedience of “neutral” laws
197. Work-on without collaboration
198. Dual sovereignty and parallel government

Here’s a video of John Lithgow reading the 20 lessons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXR5HLodsT8.

(For more information and resources along these lines, make sure to visit my /resist page.)

1. Do not obey in advance

Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.

2. Defend institutions

It is institutions that help us preserve decency. They need our help as well. Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you make them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions do not protect themselves. They fall one after the other, unless each is defended from the beginning. So choose an institution you care about—a court, a newspaper, a law, a labor union—and take its side.

3. Beware the one-party state

The parties that remade states and suppressed rivals were not omnipotent from the start. They exploited a historic moment to make political life impossible for their opponents. So support the multi-party sysgtem and defend the rules of democratic elections. Vote in local and state elections while you can. Consider running for office.

4. Take responsibility for the face of the world

The symbols of today enable the reality of tomorrow. Notice the swastikas and the other signs of hate. Do not look away, and do not get used to them. Remove them yourself and set an example for others to do so.

5. Remember professional ethics

When political leaders set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become more important. It is hard to subvert a rule-of-law state without lawyers, or to hold show trials without judges. Authoritarians need obedient civil servants, and concentration camp directors seek businessmen interested in cheap labor.

6. Be wary of paramilitaries

When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching with torches and pictures of a leader, the end is nigh. When the pro-leader paramilitary and the official police and military intermingle, the end has come.

7. Be reflective if you must be armed

If you carry a weapon in public service, may God bless you and keep you. But know that evils of the past involved policemen and soldiers finding themselves, one day, doing irregular things. Be ready to say no.

8. Stand out

Someone has to. It is easy to follow along. It can feel strange to do or say something different. But without that unease, there is no freedom. Remember Rosa Parks. The moment you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken, and others will follow.

9. Be kind to our language

Avoid pronouncing the phrases everyone else does. Think up your own way of speaking, even if only to convey that thing you think everyone is saying. Make an effort to separate yourself from the internet. Read books.

10. Believe in truth

To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.

11. Investigate

Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on the internet is there to harm you. Learn about sites that investigate propaganda campaigns (some of which come from abroad). Take responsibility for what you communicate with others.

12. Make eye contact and small talk

This is not just polite. It is part of being a citizen and a responsible member of society. It is also a way to stay in touch with your surroundings, break down social barriers, and understand whom you should and should not trust. If we enter a culture of denunciation, you will want to know the psychological landscape of your daily life.

13. Practice corporeal politics

Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen. Get outside. Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people. Make new friends and march with them.

14. Establish a private life

Nastier rulers will use what they know about you to push you around. Scrub your computer of malware on a regular basis. Remember that email is skywriting. Consider using alternative forms of the internet, or simply using it less. Have personal exchanges in person. For the same reason, resolve any legal trouble. Tyrants seek the hook on which to hang you. Try not to have hooks.

15. Contribute to good causes

Be active in organizations, political or not, that express your own view of life. Pick a charity or two and set up autopay. Then you will have made a free choice that supports civil society and helps others to do good.

16. Learn from peers in other countries

Keep up your friendships abroad, or make new friends abroad. The present difficulties in the United States are an element of a larger trend. And no country is going to find a solution by itself. Make sure you and your family have passports.

17. Listen for dangerous words

Be alert to the use of the words extremism and terrorism. Be alive to the fatal notions of emergency and exception. Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary.

18. Be calm when the unthinkable arrives

Modern tyranny is terror management. When the terrorist attack comes, remember that authoritarians exploit such events in order to consolidate power. Do not fall for it.

19. Be a patriot

Set a good example of what America means for the generations to come.

20. Be as courageous as you can

If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny.

1. Budget Mechanic
2. ChrisFix
3. Essential Craftsman
4. First Class Amateur
5. Grand Roofing
6. Home RenoVision DIY
7. The Honest Carpenter
8. Practical Engineering
9. Project Farm
10. Silver Cymbal
11. Smarter Every Day
12. Stumpy Nubs
13. This Old House
14. Veritasium

P.S. For more lists, visit my Lists page!

“The Bible is clear…”
“The Bible says…”
“The Bible is for/against…”

How often—especially within American evangelicalism—do these phrases become rhetorical battering rams for partisan talking points?

Let’s be honest: the Bible is not a monolith. It is a library of ancient, inspired texts written across centuries, cultures, and genres. “What the Bible says” on any given topic often depends heavily on who’s reading, how they’re reading, and what they bring to the text.

And yet—amidst the diversity of voices and genres—there is a steady and unmistakable chorus that rises from Scripture, if you’re willing to hear it: God sides with the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized.

This is not peripheral. It’s not a minor subplot. It’s a core theme, echoed by the Torah, the prophets, Jesus, and the early church.

If we read the Bible “from below”—from the perspective of the least, the last, and the lost—we encounter a God who delivers slaves from Egypt, warns kings against injustice, and identifies himself with the hungry, the sick, and the imprisoned.

Consider just a small sampling:

“You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt. You must not exploit a widow or an orphan…”
Exodus 22:21–24

“Don’t rob the poor just because you can, or exploit the needy in court. For the Lord is their defender. He will ruin anyone who ruins them.”
Proverbs 22:22–23

“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
Micah 6:8

“He has brought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.”
Luke 1:52–53 (Mary’s Magnificat)

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me… He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives… to let the oppressed go free.”
Luke 4:18–19 (Jesus quoting Isaiah)

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”
Luke 6:20–21

This isn’t “liberal theology.” It’s just Bible.

So the next time someone claims “the Bible is clear,” it’s worth asking: Clear about what? Because when it comes to God’s concern for the vulnerable, the Bible speaks with thunderous clarity.

And if your version of Christianity conveniently forgets the poor—or worse, vilifies them—then it’s not Jesus you’re following. It’s an idol dressed in Scripture’s clothing.

For Further Reflection:

• When you think of God’s priorities, do they align with the voices Scripture consistently lifts up?
• How might your politics, theology, or way of life change if you centered the poor and marginalized the way Jesus did?
• Where do you see the Spirit at work today—still bringing good news to the poor and setting the oppressed free?

If so, I’d love to learn from your experience.

My Interest

I’m currently working on a centralized authorization system prototype based on OpenFGA. The design is aiming to support fine-grained, relationship-based access control (ReBAC) for multiple business units—each with its own data domain, developer team, and authorization needs.

The documentation and examples for OpenFGA are helpful, but they tend to focus on small-scale setups. What’s much harder to find are real-world case studies or lessons learned from organizations that are actually using it (or something similar like Topaz, SpiceDB, or AuthZed) in production at scale.

My Questions for You

If you’ve deployed OpenFGA—or any Google Zanzibar-style system—in production, would you be willing to share your answers to some of the following questions?

1. How are you managing authorization models?

• How do application teams define and evolve their FGA models?
• Do you use a UI, CLI, or CI/CD pipeline to update model definitions?
• Have you hit any pain points around model versioning, migrations, or validation?

2. How do clients get data into your FGA store?

• Do application teams push tuples directly via API?
• Is there a dedicated “tuple management service” (e.g. fed via CDC pipelines or batch jobs)?
• What safeguards do you have to avoid flooding the system with unnecessary or stale relationships?

3. What does your production environment look like?

• How do you handle tenancy? One store per tenant? One store for all?
• How do you monitor and alert on query latency, error rates, or integrity issues?
• Have you hit any performance bottlenecks under load?

Why I’m Asking

I think Zanzibar-style systems have a ton of potential—especially for complex, multi-tenant, or federated environments—but they also come with their own complexity tax. Getting the model layer and the data ingestion layer right seems critical for long-term success, and I’d rather learn from those who’ve been there.

If you’ve got hard-won wisdom, pain points, patterns, or even horror stories—I’m all ears.

Feel free to drop a comment below, or contact me.

Thanks in advance!

– Josh

Then imagine the government claims they’re a danger—but refuses to show any real evidence. And instead of bringing them to a courtroom, they ship them off to a prison in another country.

That’s not a dystopian movie plot. It’s happening right now. And it should terrify every single one of us.

Because when the government can kidnap without trial, and lock people up without letting them have their day in court, then none of our rights are safe.

What Is Due Process?

Due process is the basic idea that the government can’t take away your life, your freedom, or your property without following fair procedures. It’s what protects the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.

At a minimum, it means:

• You get to know what you’re being accused of.
• You get a chance to respond.
• You have access to a lawyer.
• A neutral judge hears the case.

It’s your right to a fair trial. Without it, everything else collapses.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee due process:

Fifth Amendment: “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Fourteenth Amendment: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Notice the language: “No person.” Not “no citizen.” Not “no American.” Just person. That includes immigrants—documented or undocumented. It includes you. It includes me.

What Is Habeas Corpus?

Habeas corpus is the right that lets you demand your day in court when the government locks you up. It forces the government to explain why you’re being held—and gives you a chance to challenge it.

It’s your protection against being “disappeared” into a jail cell with no explanation, no trial, no accountability.

The Constitution is clear about it:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

There’s no rebellion. And no actual invasion. So why is the government throwing people in foreign prisons without giving them access to a courtroom?

About That “Invasion” Excuse

Lately, politicians and government officials have started calling immigration an “invasion” to justify rounding people up without trials. But this isn’t about armies or enemy combatants—it’s about families, workers, and asylum seekers.

And there’s no real evidence backing up the claim.

• No court has declared an invasion.
• No credible threat to public safety has been proven.
• Many of the people being detained are legal residents with no criminal history.

This is not about protecting national security. It’s about using fear, racism, and political theater to bypass the rule of law.

Calling it an “invasion” doesn’t make it one. But it does give the government an excuse to test how far they can go without resistance.

Why This Should Scare You

You might think: Well, I’m not an immigrant. I’ve done nothing wrong. This doesn’t affect me.

But here’s the truth: if the government can take away someone else’s rights without due process, they can take away yours too.

• If they can imprison someone without trial, they can imprison you.
• If they can call someone a criminal without proving it, they can do the same to you.
• If they can send someone to a foreign prison without a hearing, they can send you there too.

This isn’t just about “those people.” It’s about whether we still believe no one is above the law.

Without due process and habeas corpus, every other right—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to vote, the right to privacy—becomes meaningless. There’s no judge to intervene. No courtroom to make your case. No way to push back.

This Is a Line in the Sand

This isn’t about left or right. It’s about whether we still believe in justice, accountability, and the rule of law.

If the government can toss the Constitution aside when it’s politically convenient—if it can skip trials, ignore evidence, and detain people in secret—then we are all just one accusation away from losing our freedom.

A government that can kidnap without trial is not protecting you. It is testing the limits of its power.

What You Can Do

You don’t need to be a lawyer or an activist to stand up for justice. Here are real steps you can take:

• Talk about it. Share this post with your friends, your family, your community. Most people don’t know this is happening.
• Call your representatives. Use 5calls to find your representatives and ask them: What are you doing to protect due process and the rule of law—for everyone?
• Demand transparency. Pressure lawmakers to investigate the use of offshore prisons, secret detentions, and any denial of basic legal rights.
• Support civil rights organizations. Groups like the ACLU, Human Rights First, and the National Immigrant Justice Center are fighting back in court.
• Vote accordingly. Don’t support politicians who stoke fear and ignore the Constitution. Know where your candidates stand.
• Stay informed. Read trustworthy reporting. Don’t let fear-based headlines erase the humanity and rights of others.

Speak up. Stay loud. Stay human.

Because if we lose due process and habeas corpus, we lose the entire rule of law.

Just curious as I consider replacing my aging 2016 MacBook Pro as my personal laptop (especially since costs might go up soon for electronics, due to tariffs).

For work, I’ve got a 2019 MacBook Pro. More details below:

• Personal machine: 2016 MacBook Pro 
  • 13-inch 
  • 2 Thunderbolt ports
  • 2 GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5 processor
  • 16 GB memory
  • 250 GB storage
• Work machine: 2019 MacBook Pro
  • 16-inch
  • 4 Thunderbolt ports
  • 2.6 GHz 6-Core Intel Core i7 processor
  • 32 GB memory
  • 500 GB storage

Essentially, I’m thinking of a MacBook Air or MacBook Pro. Not quite sure which specs to go with. I don’t need crazy capabilities at this time for personal hacking/development, but I’d like to be able to build and run stuff locally using stuff like LangGraph to build AI tools.

I know you’ve all been waiting for (lol) updates on my vintage 1947 Craftsman 113 table saw.

I’m happy to report that, after disassembling and cleaning the saw, I was able to put it back together and get it running again!

In the process, I installed:

• A new power toggle switch on the motor housing
• A safety ON/OFF switch for the front of the saw (where you stand)
• An 8-inch thin-kerf combination blade
• A 6-inch motor pulley to replace the original 3-inch pulley (this was recommended in the manual since the motor is a 1750 RPM motor, not a 3450 RPM motor)
• An adjustable linked v-belt
• Some larger caster wheels for the base of the saw

The rip fence provided some extra challenges, mainly because I accidentally broke the cam/clamp handle that holds the fence in place. I originally repaired the handle with some J-B Weld “SteelStik” epoxy putty, which seemed strong and promising at first.

However, when screwing the rip fence components back into place, which took some force due to rusted threads, the cam handle fell apart again.

Shout-out to my friend Doug, who suggested cleaning-up the threads with a tap and die kit. I’ve never used one of these before, but I ordered an SAE/Metric tap and die kit from Amazon. With some 3-in-1 oil and some patience, it worked great for cleaning up the threads on the rod that runs along the inside of the rip fence.

Nevertheless, I wasn’t able to put the original handle back together. But after measuring the threads on the rip fence rod, I went out on a limb and tried this 10-32 interior thread cam lever handle from Amazon. It didn’t quite fit into the handle’s original slot, but I was able to extend the rod a bit and it worked great to hold things together!

So, the saw is running pretty well now. I just need to get used to using a table saw (I have a pretty healthy fear of kickback), and figure out what I’m going to make!

Other Saw News

I bought this Milescraft saw safety bundle, which includes a feather board and two different pushers.

Last year, I bought a Hercules Miter Saw from Harbor Freight Tools in order to install some baseboard trim throughout my house. I haven’t used it much since, but it’s still going strong and it’s nice to have a chop saw ready to go for cross cuts.

Since I’m already invested in the Bauer cordless power tool line from Harbor Freight, and they had a “buy a batter and charger and get a tool for free” deal going, I bought a Bauer brushless cordless circular saw. So far, I love it. Way nicer than the $20 Chicago Electric corded circular saw (also from HF!) that I’ve had for years.

Upcoming DIY Projects

• Cutting down the leaning dead oak tree in my backyard
• Repairing or replacing a cracked rectangular gable vent on the side of my house
• Removing old, nasty insulation from my attic space and installing new insulation (fiberglass batts)
• Cleaning the gutters
• Inspecting and, if needed, repairing the roof

What projects are you working on?

To Do List

I’m excited to start using it, but first I want to do the following:

• ✅ Disassemble
• Clean (in progress)
• Remove Rust (in progress)
• Lubricate (in progress)
• Replace faulty power toggle switch (in progress)
• Replace blade
• Reassemble

Manuals

Thanks to the folks over at Vintage Machinery, it was easy enough to find the following manual PDFs for the saw and for the 1/2 HP motor:

• Craftsman 113.1011 and 113.22400 Table Saw Manual
• Craftsman 115.6962 Motor Manual

Here are two diagrams from the manual, illustrating the various parts of the table saw.

And here is a diagram of the motor.

Questions/Problems I’m Researching

Cleaning the rip fence thoroughly

This shouldn’t be too hard, but I need to figure out how to disassemble the rip fence so that I can thoroughly clean the parts and remove rust. I just haven’t been able to find a good YouTube video that covers this specifically, so I’ll need to do a bit of manual-guided experimentation and then use an Evaporust soak and/or a Rustoleum gel spray.

Getting a bigger motor pulley for the 1750 RPM motor

According to the table saw manual,

This saw is designed to be used with a 3450 rpm motor of the repulsion-induction or capacitor type; ½ hp for light duty, ¾ hp for heavy duty. … If a 1750 rpm motor is used it will be necessary to purchase a six-inch pulley and a longer belt.

The motor I have, the Craftsman 115.6962, is a 1750 rpm motor. And its pulley is not a 6-inch pulley, but rather approximately a 3-inch pulley.

So, I need to figure out exactly which 6-inch pulley I need, and where to purchase one.

I’ll either update this blog post or add new posts as I get this saw back in tip-top shape!

On Stupidity (DBWE 8:43-44)

Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed—in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical—and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.

If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is in essence not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of (page 44 begins) the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.

Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what “the people” really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.

But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from peoples’ stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.

Full citation: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Christian Gremmels et al., trans. Isabel Best et al., vol. 8 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010), 43–44.

Clarify Current Requirements

The first thing I did was gather and clarify my org’s current authorization model/requirements. We’re heavily role-and-permission-based when it comes to authorization, with a touch of attribute-based access control mixed-in (to make sure that, for example, a user can only view resources related to their company, and not other companies). So, RBAC (role-based access control) with a bit of ABAC (attribute-based access control).

Which Authorization Paradigm(s) Make the Most Sense?

I then spent some time researching commonly used access control paradigms, in order to determine which approach would, in broad brushstrokes, be the best fit for our company going forward. Like I said, we’re currently RBAC with a touch of ABAC. But we’re already experiencing some role-bloat, and a centralized approach to authorization for our company needs to be more flexible and fine-grained than pure RBAC allows for.

An attribute-and-policy-based approach, such as that offered by Open Policy Agent (OPA), would be fine-grained enough for our current needs. And we’re experimenting with Topaz, which builds upon OPA and its Rego policy language, for one of our prototypes.

However, because my org and others would like to be able to do more with organizational hierarchy when it comes to authorization, a relationship-based approach to access control (ReBAC), such as that offered by OpenFGA, is appealing!

Experimenting with ReBAC in OpenFGA

So, I’ve spent some time modeling my org’s current authorization requirements using OpenFGA. As far as our current needs go, it was relatively easy to put together a fairly abstract authorization model in OpenFGA’s configuration language.

However, it seems like a significant limitation to OpenFGA is that it does not evaluate indirect relationships recursively beyond one level of separation/indirection.

According to OpenFGA’s documentation on “Referencing Relations on Related Objects”:

OpenFGA does not allow the referenced relation (the word after from, also called the tupleset) to reference another relation and does not allow non-concrete types (type bound public access (<object_type>:*) or usersets (<object_type>#<relation>)) in its type restrictions; adding them throws a validation error when calling WriteAuthorizationModel.

Example: Management Chain Authorization

Consider a scenario where permissions should propagate up a management chain:

1. Object A is owned by User B.
2. User B is managed by User C.
3. User C is managed by User D.

✅ What OpenFGA Can Handle

OpenFGA allows referencing relationships one level deep via X from Y.

For example, if an authorization model defines:

allow manager from owner

Then User C can inherit access to Object A because:

“User C manages User B, who owns Object A.”

❌ What OpenFGA Cannot Handle

However, OpenFGA does not support evaluating this deeper chain:

“User D should be able to view Object A, because User D manages User C, who manages User B, who owns Object A.”

This is because OpenFGA does not allow chaining references beyond one level.

Another warning of this limitation is found in OpenFGA’s documentation on modeling parent-child relationships:

When searching tuples that are related to the object (the word after from, also called the tupleset), OpenFGA will not do any evaluation and only considers concrete objects (of the form <object_type>:<object_id>) that were directly assigned. OpenFGA will throw an error if it encounters any rewrites, a *, a type bound public access (<object_type>:*), or a userset (<object_type>:<object_id>#<relation>).

UPDATE: OpenFGA Does Handle Recursive Relationships!

Shout-out to Raghd Hamzeh, who’s a part of the OpenFGA team, for helping me out with a solution to the management chain problem/example.

Raghd writes:

Hey @steele!
Good news! It does! :) Evaluating indirect relationships is one of @openfga ’s strong suites!
Let me know what issue you’re facing or need clarification on and I can see if I can help
You’ll find several examples on this and other use-cases in the OpenFGA sample stores repo: https://github.com/openfga/sample-stores/tree/main/stores

Here’s the workaround/solution: splitting a manager relation into a manager and a can_manage relation!

model
  schema 1.1

type user
  relations
    define manager: [user]
    define can_manage: manager or can_manage from manager

type resource
  relations
    define owner: [user]
    define can_view: owner or can_manage from owner

You can then assign a chain of management relationships via relational tuples:

tuples:
  - user: user:B
    relation: owner
    object: resource:A
  - user: user:C
    relation: manager
    object: user:B
  - user: user:D
    relation: manager
    object: user:B

The following test will pass:

tests:
  - name: Tests
    check:
      - user: user:D
        object: resource:A
        assertions:
          can_view: true

What Now? Experimenting with Permify (and SpiceDB, maybe)

To be clear, it is possible to model multi-level management relationships, as well as intra-organization relationships across a large company, in OpenFGA. It just ends up taking more relational tuples to represent the relationships than I initially expected. (UPDATE: See above! It seems to either take more tuples than anticipated, OR splitting up the recursive relationship to allow for evaluation.)

So, I did some research on ReBAC and recursive relationships, and it sounds like other ReBAC solutions, like Permify and SpiceDB, can evaluate indirect relationships recursively. They avoid infinite loops and undue performance costs in various ways.

I’m currently trying to translate the OpenFGA authorization model I created into Permify’s syntax. (Which, if anyone already has a tool or a script that does this, taking an .fga or an .fga.yaml file as input, please let me know!) I’ll then put in some test data and run some checks to see if there are any noticeable differences between OpenFGA and Permify when it comes to performance, “pain-in-the-ass” of development, etc.

If time allows, I’ll also do some experimenting with SpiceDB. We’ll see!

Are you a software engineer who’s worked with tools like OpenFGA, Permify, and/or SpiceDB? If so, I’d love to make your acquaintance and hear your thoughts about these tools, authorization in general, etc.

Please send me an email (You can use the word “blog,” followed by the “at” symbol, followed by the domain of my website) or reach out to me on Mastodon @joshuapsteele@mastodon.social. Cheers!

Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.

January 6th, 2021, was an insurrection.

Congress, not the President (and much less the President’s unelected adviser), holds the power of the purse.

The Judicial branch, and not the Executive branch, interprets the law and the Constitution.

No one, not even the President, is above the law.

DOGE is not an official, legal government agency.

Elon Musk is not the President of the United States.

Elon Musk has not been elected to any public office.

Elon Musk personally benefits from many government contracts, and should not be making spending decisions for the government.

Executive orders are not laws.

Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine did not start the war with Russia.

The United States of America is a democratic republic, not a dictatorship.

The United States of America is a secular nation, not a theocracy.

The United States of America is a country, not a corporation.

How have you designed and implemented authorization in your applications?

To get into the weeds a bit, have you opted for RBAC (Role-Based Access Control), ABAC (Attribute-Based Access Control), ReBAC (Relationship-Based Access Control), or something else entirely?

What tools or libraries have you found most useful in your work? Have you built everything from scratch, or have you relied on existing frameworks? Open source or commercial solutions?

What are the best practices you’ve discovered? Any industry standards or patterns you follow?

What are the pitfalls to avoid? What are the most common mistakes you’ve seen?

What are the most helpful resources you’ve found on the topic of authorization in software development? I’m looking for books, articles, videos, or anything else that has helped you.

Thanks so much! I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Send me an email (You can use the word “blog,” followed by the “at” symbol, followed by the domain of my website) or reach out to me on Mastodon @joshuapsteele@mastodon.social.

Ephesians 5:11-14 (New Living Translation, NLT)

11 Take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness; instead, expose them.
12 It is shameful even to talk about the things that ungodly people do in secret.
13 But their evil intentions will be exposed when the light shines on them, 14 for the light makes everything visible.
This is why it is said,

“Awake, O sleeper,
rise up from the dead,
and Christ will give you light.”

What are these “worthless deeds of evil”? From the beginning of Ephesians 5:

3 Let there be no sexual immorality, impurity, or greed among you. Such sins have no place among God’s people.
4 Obscene stories, foolish talk, and coarse jokes—these are not for you. Instead, let there be thankfulness to God.
5 You can be sure that no immoral, impure, or greedy person will inherit the Kingdom of Christ and of God.
For a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world.

No doubt those who support the rise of the far-right would claim that they are not guilty of these things, but that they are themselves exposing the “unfruitful works of darkness” committed by those on the godless left!

I’m not so sure.

Of course, left-leaning political parties and movements are not without their own faults. But I think that the far greater danger within the church is that the far-right promise of political power and influence (and retribution against perceived enemies) has caused many to abandon the gospel of Jesus Christ in favor of a false gospel that is more concerned with power than with love, mercy, and justice.

Greed is idolatry.

Let judgment begin with the household of God. And may God have mercy on us all.

Plus, it’s an excuse to buy a bunch of tools!

Speaking of tools, I’ve been thinking about diagnostic tools that would be helpful for a homeowner to own. Here’s a list of the ones I own, organized roughly in order of importance.

• Smoke detectors (I got mine from Home Depot, Kidde brand)
• Carbon monoxide detectors (I got mine from Home Depot, Kidde brand)
• Non-contact voltage tester (this one from Klein Tools)
• Wall scanner / stud finder (like this one)
• Measuring tools
  • measuring tape
  • digital laser measure
  • digital caliper
  • digital angle finder
• OBD code reader (for getting vehicle error codes; I’ve got this cheap one from Autel)
• Combustible gas leak detector (this one)
• Multimeter (I really like this clamp-style one)
• Inspection camera (for getting a close look at hard-to-reach spots; I’ve got this affordable one)
• Moisture detector (this one, from Klein tools)
• Infrared thermometer (I have this one from Harbor Freight)
• Thermal camera (I got the HF96 thermal camera on a good sale)

Anything you would add or change about this list? Let me know!

Whenever I finish one notebook and start another, among other things, I like to write down some key questions and mental models at the front of the new notebook, so that I can easily refer back to them whenever I need to.

Here’s what I’ve written at the start of my current notebook.

Questions to Improve Results

Do I use my body optimally?

• What is the quality of my current diet?
• Do I get enough sleep?
• Am I managing my energy well each day?
• How do I manage daily stress?
• Do I have good posture and poise?
• What can I do to improve my ability to observe the world around me?

Do I know what I want?

• What achievements would make me really excited?
• What “states of being” do I want to experience each day?
• Are my priorities and values clearly defined?
• Am I capable of making decisions quickly and confidently?
• Do I consistently focus my attention on what I want vs. what I don’t want?

What am I afraid of?

• Have I created an honest and complete list of the fears I’m holding on to?
• Have I confronted each fear to imagine how I would handle it if it came to pass?
• Am I capable of recognizing and correcting self-limitation?
• Am I appropriately pushing my own limits?

Is my mind clear and focused?

• Do I systematically externalize (write or record) what I think about?
• Am I making it easy to capture my thoughts quickly, as I have them?
• What has my attention right now?
• Am I regularly asking myself appropriate guiding questions?
• Do I spend most of my time focusing on a single task, or constantly flipping between multiple tasks?
• Do I spend enough time actively reflecting on my goals, projects, and progress?

Am I confident, relaxed, and productive?

• Have I found a planning method that works for me?
• Am I “just organized enough”?
• Do I have an up-to-date list of my projects and active tasks?
• Do I review all of my commitments on a regular basis?
• Do I take regular, genuine breaks from my work?
• Am I consciously creating positive habits?
• Am I working to shed non-productive habits?
• Am I comfortable with telling other people “no”?

How do I perform best?

• What do I particularly enjoy?
• What am I particularly good at doing?
• What environment do I find most conducive to doing good work?
• How do I tend to learn most effectively?
• How do I prefer to work with and communicate with others?
• What is currently holding me back?

What do I really need to be happy and fulfilled?

• How am I currently defining “success”?
• Is there another way of defining “success” that I may find more fulfilling?
• How often do I compare myself to my perceptions of other people?
• Am I currently living below my means?
• If I could only own 100 things, what would they be?
• Am I capable of separating necessity and luxury?
• What do I feel grateful for in my life and work?

(For more great questions, see my “Questions Worth Asking” post.)

Ivy Lee Method

1. Write down the 6 most important things you need to accomplish tomorrow. (No more than 6!)
2. Prioritize those 6 items in order of their true importance.
3. Tomorrow, focus on the first task until it is completed before moving on to the second task, and so on.
4. At the end of the day, move any unfinished items to a new list of 6 tasks for the following day.

Repeat! Do the most important things first.

Impact vs. Effort Matrix

Decisions

Prediction

• What’s the current reality?
• What’s the range of likely future outcomes?
• What do I expect will happen?
• What does the consensus think?
• How do my expectations differ from the consensus?
• What is the worst-case scenario? Am I willing to accept it?
• What is the best-case scenario? How likely is it?

Decision

• What’s my decision?
• What’s the probability that I’m correct?
• If I ignored experience and only considered facts, what choice would I make?
• What am I giving up? By making this decision, what am I not doing?
• How do I feel right now, physically and emotionally?
• How will I feel about this decision when I’m 100 years old?

Review

• What actually happened?
• If good, did I just get lucky? Or was my decision process correct?
• If bad, did I just get unlucky? Or was my decision process incorrect?
• What did I learn?
• How can I improve my decision-making process in the future?

Second-Order Thinking

• If A, then B. And then what?
• What will the consequences be in 10 minutes, 10 months, and 10 years?

Simple Check-In

Notice and write down your objections to this statement: “Everything in my life is exactly the way I want it to be.”

Five-Minute Journal Questions

• Morning
  • What are 3 things I’m grateful for?
  • What would make today great?
  • Daily affirmations: I am…
• Evening
  • What are 3 amazing things that happened today?
  • How could I have made today even better?

Morning Questions

1. What’s one thing I’m grateful for?
2. What’s one thing I’m excited about?
3. What’s one virtue I want to exhibit?
4. What’s one thing I’m avoiding?
5. What’s the one thing I need to do?

Evening Questions

1. What were my biggest wins of the day?
2. Did I have any major realizations?
3. What’s on the agenda for tomorrow?

80/20 Questions

1. Where am I feeling satisfied?
2. Where am I feeling dissatisfied?
3. For each of the above, what are the 20% of places, habits, people, beliefs, etc. that are responsible for 80% of the positive and negative results?

Bottleneck Breaker

1. What’s the biggest bottleneck to achieving my next goal?
2. Why aren’t I working on it today?

Compounding

1. If I repeated every action from today for one year, where would I end up?
2. Is this the place I want to be?

Important vs. Urgent: The Eisenhower Matrix

I’m not a TV expert, but I did a fair bit of research and the consensus seems to be that the Hisense U6 series is a great deal for the money.

Here are some of the online reviews I found helpful:

• https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-4k-tv/
• https://www.tomsguide.com/best-picks/best-budget-tvs
• https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/budget

(Linked from my Questions page, where I keep track of questions I’m asking and answering.)

However, in the past few days, he has started to pray more spontaneously and creatively before dinner. Here are some highlights:

“Give us this day our holy bread”

“Help us worship you even when we are in heaven”

“Help us learn something new this day…the Holy Spirit”

“Give us good feelings in life”

“Praise us our day”

“Help us to be well like you”

“Help us to not fight anymore, and (looks at candles on the table) bless the candles… And light our holy day with the glory of you”

“Thank you for making all of these days and everything”

“Bless our day”

“Please help us to learn lots about you”

“Help us to live with your holy son, Jesus, and go with our presence (presents?)”

“Thank you for making water, and the food that we need. Amen.”

If you read the Bible looking for these themes, they show up almost everywhere. However, in particular, I’ve drawn from Leviticus 25, Psalm 113, Isaiah 58, Amos 5, Luke 1, and Luke 14.

O come, Defender of the weak,
Teach us their welfare first to seek.
May widow, orphan, refugee
Find rest within Thy jubilee!

O come, Avenger of the poor,
And open wide redemption’s door.
Undo the yoke, break every chain,
And with Thee in Thy kingdom let them reign!

O come, Sustainer of the least,
And lift them to Thy heavenly feast.
Cast down the mighty from their seat,
And fill the hungry with good things to eat!

O come, O Voice of Prophets bold,
And bring the Day Thy saints foretold.
Let justice roll like waters down,
And righteousness for all abound!

I’m trying to troubleshoot what’s going on with my current crossposting configuration between my Hugo website, my Micro.blog account, and my accounts on BlueSky, Mastodon, and Threads.

What’s supposed to happen is that this blog post, after I merge it to my GitHub repository, will end up on the JSONfeed at https://joshuapsteele.com/blog/feed.json.

That JSONFeed is supposed to get polled by Micro.blog, which should then add the new post to my Micro.blog timeline, as well as cross-post it to BlueSky, Mastodon, and Threads.

As best I can tell, the JSONFeed at /blog/feed.json is valid. Here’s how I have it configured:

First, here’s my /layouts/_default/list.jsonfeed.json:

{{- $pctx := . -}}
{{- if .IsHome -}}{{ $pctx = site }}{{- end -}}
{{- $pages := slice -}}
{{- if or $.IsHome $.IsSection -}}
{{- $pages = $pctx.RegularPages -}}
{{- else -}}
{{- $pages = $pctx.Pages -}}
{{- end -}}
{{- $limit := site.Config.Services.RSS.Limit -}}
{{- if ge $limit 1 -}}
{{- $pages = $pages | first $limit -}}
{{- end -}}
{{- $title := "" }}
{{- if eq .Title .Site.Title }}
{{- $title = .Site.Title }}
{{- else }}
{{- with .Title }}
{{- $title = print . " on "}}
{{- end }}
{{- $title = print $title .Site.Title }}
{{- end }}
{
    "version": "https://jsonfeed.org/version/1.1",
    "title": {{ $title | jsonify }},
    "home_page_url": {{ .Permalink | jsonify }},
    {{- with  .OutputFormats.Get "jsonfeed" }}
    "feed_url": {{ .Permalink | jsonify  }},
    {{- end }}
    {{- if (or .Site.Params.author .Site.Params.author_url) }}
    "authors": [{
      {{- if .Site.Params.author }}
        "name": {{ .Site.Params.author | jsonify }},
      {{- end }}
      {{- if .Site.Params.author_url }}
        "url": {{ .Site.Params.author_url | jsonify }}
      {{- end }}
    }],
    {{- end }}
    {{- if $pages }}
    "items": [
        {{- range $index, $element := $pages }}
        {{- with $element }}
        {{- if $index }},{{end}} {
            "title": {{ .Title | jsonify }},
            "id": {{ .Permalink | jsonify }},
            "url": {{ .Permalink | jsonify }},
            {{- if .Site.Params.showFullTextinJSONFeed }}
            "summary": {{ with .Description }}{{ . | jsonify }}{{ else }}{{ .Summary | jsonify }}{{ end -}},
            "content_html": {{ .Content | jsonify }},
            {{- else }}
            "content_text": {{ with .Description }}{{ . | jsonify }}{{ else }}{{ .Summary | jsonify }}{{ end -}},
            {{- end }}
            {{- if .Params.cover.image }}
            {{- $cover := (.Resources.ByType "image").GetMatch (printf "*%s*" (.Params.cover.image)) }}
            {{- if $cover }}
            "image": {{ (path.Join .RelPermalink $cover) | absURL | jsonify }},
            {{- end }}
            {{- end }}
            "date_published": {{ .Date.Format "2006-01-02T15:04:05Z07:00" | jsonify }}
        }
        {{- end }}
        {{- end }}
    ]
    {{ end }}
}

Then, here’s the relevant portion of my hugo.yaml file:

mediaTypes:
  application/feed+json:
    suffixes:
      - json
outputs:
  home:
    - HTML
    - RSS
    - JSON
  section:
    - HTML
    - RSS
    - JSONFeed
outputFormats:
  RSS:
    mediaType: application/rss+xml
    baseName: feed
  JSONfeed:
    mediaType: application/feed+json
    baseName: feed
    rel: alternate
    isPlainText: true

Is anything obviously wrong with the way I have things set up?

1. Where in your life or your work are you currently pursuing comfort, when what’s called for is a little discomfort?
2. Are you holding yourself to, and judging yourself by, standards of productivity or performance that are impossible to meet?
3. In what ways have you yet to accept the fact that you are who you are, not the person you think you ought to be?
4. In which areas of life are you still holding back until you feel like you know what you’re doing?
5. How would you spend your days differently if you didn’t care so much about seeing your actions reach fruition?

Want more self-elicitation questions like these? Check out “Questions Worth Asking.”

1. Adopt a “fixed volume” approach to productivity
   • Keep two todo lists, one unbounded and one limited to a certain number of items (max 10); you can’t add a task to the second list until you’ve completed a task
   • Might also need an “On Hold” or “Waiting For” todo list
   • Set predetermined boundaries for your daily work
2. Focus on only one big project at a time
3. Decide in advance what to “fail” at (“strategic underachievement”)
4. Focus on what you’ve already completed, not just on what’s left to complete
5. Consolidate your caring (pick your battles!)
6. Embrace boring, single-purpose technology (like the Kindle)
7. Seek out novelty in the mundane
8. Be a “researcher” in relationships (be curious, on purpose)
9. Cultivate instantaneous generosity (act on the impulse to be generous right away)
10. Practice doing nothing

For this challenge I want to foster writer interaction: write a blog post starting with a question—the AMA—and then answer the question yourself in the blog post. Others will likewise write AMA/question posts, but also answer the AMA/questions from other bloggers, linking to their initial post. I brainstormed a bit on this idea when I first thought about creating WeblogPoMo Challenges.

What question(s) should I answer this month? Please let me know, either by (1) replying to me on the social network you saw this post on or (2) sending an email. You can use the word “blog,” followed by the “at” symbol, followed by the domain of my website.

I’ve previously gone into depth on what the book of Proverbs has to say about poverty and wealth, as well as how Christians should think about wealth.

Here are some more biblical passages relevant to the topic. All quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):

Exodus 22:21–24

You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. You shall not abuse any widow or orphan. If you do abuse them, when they cry out to me, I will surely heed their cry; my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans.

Deuteronomy 24:14–15

You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land in one of your towns. You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the LORD against you, and you would incur guilt.

Deuteronomy 24:17–18

You shall not deprive a resident alien or an orphan of justice; you shall not take a widow’s garment in pledge. Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this.

Deuteronomy 24:19–22

When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all your undertakings. When you beat your olive trees, do not strip what is left; it shall be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow. When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not glean what is left; it shall be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I am commanding you to do this.

Proverbs 22:22–23

Do not rob the poor because they are poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate; for the LORD pleads their cause and despoils of life those who despoil them.

Isaiah 58:6–7

Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?

Amos 8:4–6

Hear this, you that trample on the needy, and bring to ruin the poor of the land, saying, “When will the new moon be over so that we may sell grain; and the sabbath, so that we may offer wheat for sale? We will make the ephah small and the shekel great, and practice deceit with false balances, buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, and selling the sweepings of the wheat.”

Luke 12:15–21

And he said to them, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.” Then he told them a parable: “The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?’ Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God.”

Luke 14:12–14

He said also to the one who had invited him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Luke 18:18–25

A certain ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.’” He replied, “I have kept all these since my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich. Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

James 1:27

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

James 5:1–6

Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you.

Further Reading

• Batey, Richard. Jesus and the Poor. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.
• Blomberg, Craig L. Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
• Boerma, Conrad. The Rich, the Poor—and the Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.
• Chirichigno, Gregory C. Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
• Epsztein, Leon. Social Justice in the Ancient Near East and the People of the Bible. London: SCM, 1986.
• Irani, K. D., and Morris Silver. Social Justice in the Ancient World. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1995.
• Hoppe, Leslie J. There Shall Be No Poor among You: Poverty in the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004.
• Kaiser, Walter C. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.
• Levin, Christopher. “The Poor in the Old Testament: Some Observations.” Religion & Theology 8 (2001): 253–73.
• Lohfink, Norbert, S. J. “Poverty in the Laws of the Ancient Near East and of the Bible.” Theological Studies 52 (1991): 34–50.
• Von Waldow, H. Eberhard. “Social Responsibility and Social Structure in Early Israel.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970): 182–204.
• Weinfeld, Moseh. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
• Wright, Christopher J. H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Bibliography from: A. Chadwick Thornhill, “Poverty,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

Instead, having lost him earlier this year to some serious health complications after a devastating motorcycle accident, we gathered to remember him and celebrate his life.

Another member of our family gone too soon.

Two passages of Scripture came to mind as I thought about Eric today.

First, this one from Ecclesiastes (which I previously wrote a bit about after the untimely death of my Uncle Tim).

It is better to go to the house of mourning
than to go to the house of feasting,
for this is the end of everyone,
and the living will lay it to heart.
Sorrow is better than laughter,
for by sadness of countenance the heart is made glad.
(Ecclesiastes 7:2-3)

I turn 33 next month. Today was the first memorial service I’ve attended for someone younger than me.

Life is short. None of us knows how much time we have left.

Now, there are many lessons to draw from this, but one of them is that we should speak well of people, we should “eulogize” them, before they die. If you’ve got life-giving words for someone, even if they’re hard words, don’t wait! Don’t wait until the funeral to say what should have been said before.

I’m grateful that I got the chance to visit Eric in the hospital before he died. And to tell him that I loved him, and that I was very grateful for his friendship when we were growing up.

Which brings to mind the second Scripture passage, this time from Proverbs.

A friend loves at all times,
and a brother is born for adversity.
(Proverbs 17:17)

As kids, Eric was a brother, a relative, who helped me through some tough times at what I’ll call “the bottom of the cousin food chain.”

My dad was 9th of 10 kids. Eric’s dad was 10th. So, by the time I came around and Eric joined me 11 months later, we were the two youngest boys in a large group of cousins.

Now, I mean no shade to my other older cousins. I think we’ve all reconciled by now!

But, as an overweight little kid, I was often picked-on by my older cousins. And Eric, as a scrawny even littler kid, was right there with me.

I mean, we got ditched by the older cousins more times than I could count. And, even when we were allowed to play tag, hide-and-seek, etc., well, let’s just say we were never coming out on top.

So we developed a special bond. The youngest cousins.

Sure, some of it was due to sheer necessity of birth order, but Eric was always a good friend to me.

I mean, I don’t remember him ever making fun of me for my weight or anything else. Instead, he was always the one I looked for when we had a family gathering. The answer to the question “is Eric going to be there?” always set my expectations for how any given get-together was going to go.

Now, of course, we got on each other’s nerves and had a few fights of our own.

But I mostly remember Eric’s kindness.

He taught me how to cook ramen noodles on the stovetop. He taught me how to play Texas Hold ‘Em. I’m pretty sure he first taught me how BB and Airsoft guns worked, and we shot our fair share of targets (including, with the Airsoft guns, each other) in his backyard.

We rode bikes. Played catch. Did random wannabe outdoorsman stuff in the woods.

Eric was like the younger brother I never had.

I’m sad he’s gone. And, even though I’m glad I got to thank him for his friendship before he died, I wish I would have stayed in better touch with him as we grew older.

Death is terrible. Just really f***ing awful.

My consolation as I mourn yet another death is that I believe, in spite of all the suffering around me, that God hates Death even more than I do. I believe that Christ has defeated Death and that, one day, God’s patient, suffering love will redeem all things.

Meditating on the untimely death of his son (also named Eric), and on the risen Christ’s invitation to St. Thomas to put his hands into his wounds, Nicholas Wolterstorff writes:

To believe in Christ’s rising from the grave is to accept it as a sign of our own rising from our graves. If for each of us it was our destiny to be obliterated, and for all of us together it was our destiny to fade away without a trace, then not Christ’s rising but my dear son’s early dying would be the logo of our fate.

[…] To believe in Christ’s rising and death’s dying is also to live with the power and the challenge to rise up now from all our dark graves of suffering love. If sympathy for the world’s wounds is not enlarged by our anguish, if love for those around us is not expanded, if gratitude for what is good does not flame up, if insight is not deepened, if commitment to what is important is not strengthened, if aching for a new day is not intensified, if hope is weakened and faith diminished, if from the experience of death there comes nothing good, then death has won. Then death, be proud.

So I shall struggle to live the reality of Christ’s dying and death’s dying. In my living, my son’s dying will not be the last word. But as I rise up, I bear the wounds of his death. My rising does not remove them. They mark me. If you want to know who I am, put your hand in.
(Lament for a Son, 92).

Eric’s time of adversity has ended. For the rest of us, the adversities of life continue, including the mourning of those we’ve lost.

But life, laughter, joy, and friendship also endure. Death will not have the final word.

So, put your faith in the risen, wounded Christ. Join Him in the fight against Death.

And, if you’re suffering, then, in memory of my cousin Eric, don’t suffer alone.

Instead, look around and find someone else who needs a friend for tough times. A brother—a cousin, even!—born for adversity.

1. I got to baptize all 3 of them as babies, a poignant reminder that they are beloved children of God.
2. They all love books, which warms my nerdy heart.
3. The way Eleanor (1yo) greets me. It used to be a very excited squeal. Now it’s “Ah! Daddy!”
4. Andrew (4yo) has a great memory for stories, especially Bible stories. I was redoing our fire pit, and spraying it with a hose to cut down on dust as I re-leveled the ground. Andrew: “Elijah put water on the fire, too!” (see 1 Kings 18).
5. Eva (6yo) is smart as a whip. She asks great questions, and I’m looking forward to (re-)learning with her as she gets older.
6. Eleanor’s recently learned how to do an overly-exaggerated “angry eyebrows” face, and I find it absolutely hilarious. She now does it to get a laugh.
7. Andrew loves Spiderman, and he goes back-and-forth on whether or not he thinks superheroes are real. Listening to him as he narrates Spiderman scenarios while running around in his Spiderman costume is always entertaining.
8. Eva will sometimes read books to Andrew and Eleanor. They will then imitate her–Andrew, by reciting stories from memory as he turns through the books, and Eleanor, by babbling to herself as she flips the pages.
9. I can get them all to watch things with me like This Old House, DIY videos, tool reviews, etc. Partially because they’re all curious and enjoy learning about tools. Partially (OK, mostly) because they’re thankful they’re watching *something* on the TV.
10. They’re all still young enough that they frequently want hugs and snuggles.

Pardon the clickbait-y title and opening sentence. But are we parents allowed to say that? Are we allowed to feel both of those things at once?

We’ve got a 6-year-old, a 4-year-old, and an almost-2-year-old. And, no, I don’t actually begrudge them their existence! I want what’s best for their lives and futures. And don’t get me wrong; there are moments of laughter, poignancy, joy, etc.

But they’re also driving me crazy.

The noise, chaos, and overstimulation have me frequently annoyed at my kids before they’ve even finished breakfast. I usually just stare into the middle distance during mealtimes. By the time they’ve all gone (back) to bed (for the final time), I just want to crawl into a dark, quiet hole.

If my wife weren’t such a rockstar, our family’s daily life would probably have fallen apart by now. But it’s wearing her down, too.

We’ve tried gentle parenting and not-so-gentle parenting. We read all the parenting books. We try to learn, good and bad, from our own parents. We try to learn from other parents our age.

We’ve prayed for patience and wisdom, for ourselves and for our children. Like this prayer “For the Care of Children” from the 1979 Book of Common Prayer:

Almighty God, heavenly Father, you have blessed us with the joy and care of children: Give us calm strength and patient wisdom as we bring them up, that we may teach them to love whatever is just and true and good, following the example of our Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

We’ve tried to teach our kids how to deal with their big feelings in a healthy way. We’ve reminded them that, while they’re free to feel their feelings, they still need to make good choices about what they do with those feelings, because choices have consequences.

I know I’m not alone in this. I also know that all of this says more about me than it does about my kids. (“It’s me. Hi! I’m the problem. It’s me.”)

Other parents out there have more children, with worse behavior and fewer resources. Others out there desperately wish they had children, and are probably pretty upset with me right now, if they read this.

And yet, here we are. Are other parents as stressed-out as I am?

When I read the Surgeon General’s “Parents Under Pressure” Advisory, that “parents are at their wits’ end” and there’s an “urgent need to better support parents, caregivers, and families,” I nod in exhausted agreement.

And I say a weary “amen” when I read this insightful opinion piece on how “Parents Should Ignore Their Children More Often.” In it, Darby Saxbe suggests that “one of the best things parents can do — for ourselves as well as for our children — is to go about our own lives and tote our children along. You might call it mindful underparenting.” Saxbe isn’t suggesting parental neglect, though:

“To be sure, when kids are upset, in danger or require guidance, parents can and should swoop in to help. But that is precisely the point: It is only by ignoring our children much of the time that we conserve the energy necessary to give them our full attention when they actually need it.”

Brilliant. Right? But it’s not like we’re actively trying to be helicopter parents.

I’m not sure where I’m going with this, but it’s left me wondering what kind of societal, structural, and personal changes are required to help us parents endure and raise wise humans. You know, without collapsing into abandonment, abuse, alcoholism, or any of the other unhealthy ways of coping with parenting stress.

I’ll close with another quote from Saxbe’s opinion piece:

“In other words, underparenting requires structural change, and not just the obvious changes that we think of as parental stress-relievers, such as family leave and paid child care. It also requires that as a society, we build back our tolerance for children in public spaces, as annoying and distracting as they can be, and create safe environments where lightly supervised kids can roam freely. In a society that treated children as a public good, we would keep a collective eye on all our kids — which would free us of the need to hover over our own.”

Indeed. So let’s give all our kids, and the stressed-out parents we know and love, a big hug today. And think about how we can help raise the next generations — with minimal regrets.

(P.S. It’s not all doom-and-gloom at the Steele-haus. Here are 10 things I love about my kids.)

Actually, scratch that. I know why. It’s the same reason I love buying tools and books, more generally: the illusion of control. I like how having tools (and a great personal library) makes me feel like I’m ready for whatever life throws at me (ha!).

It’s why I liked carrying around a pocketknife as a kid, and it’s why I’m into EDC (everyday carry) and tools as an adult.

OK, but what about these “mini toolkits”?

It all started when I got the Sunex Tools 44-Piece 1/4″ Drive Mini Dual Flex Head Ratchet with Socket & Bit Set (9732). I love the extra SAE/Metric flexibility from the spline sockets. And it’s got basically every bit I’ve needed.

Those spline sockets in the Sunex are actually why I ended up returning the extremely popular Wera Tool-Check Plus kit after giving it a try. Sure, it’s definitely sexier and machined a bit better than the Sunex, but the Sunex sockets saved me at least once when the Wera failed me, so I really couldn’t justify keeping the (fairly expensive) Wera kit around.

Sure, I wish the Sunex kit had a better case, and could fit in my pocket, if needed…

So, enter what the r/HarborFreight subreddit calls the “Meme Tool”: the ICON Locking Flex Head Ratchet and Bit Set, 35-Piece. She’s a beauty. I love that the ratchet is a *locking* flex head. The extension can be used in multiple configurations to get at just about any fastener. And, again, basically every bit I’ve ever needed.

What’s more, it’s got a no-hassle lifetime warranty, so if I happen to break something, I can go to the nearest Harbor Freight and get a new kit!

I carry the Harbor Freight “Meme Tool” kit around with me most places, in addition to the Harbor Freight Leatherman Wave knockoff, the GORDON 20-in-1 Multi-Tool.

The only thing the Harbor Freight meme tool is missing is *sockets*! This is the one thing the Sunex kit wins-out on. I wish there were a way to combine the nice case, better ratchet, and useful extension from the HF Icon kit with he sockets of the Sunex kit.

Turns out, I’m not the only one who feels this way! Someone over at r/HarborFreight has designed a print-it-yourself case that can hold the original items from the Icon set plus sockets (they call it the ICAN’T, lol).

The only reason I haven’t bought one of those modified ICAN’T cases from the absolute genius on Etsy is that, last year at the SEMA 2023 conference, Harbor Freight unveiled a new “Meme Tool + Sockets” and said that it would come out sometime in 2024!

Start at 9:45 to see the Meme Tool w/SocketsSo, here we are. It’s mid-September and I’m checking r/HarborFreight and the Harbor Freight website daily to see if the new Meme Tool w/Sockets is out yet.

And, while I wait for Harbor Freight to come through, I can’t help but notice other ratchet, bit, and socket combinations out there (like this one from P.I.T., or this one from Bosch)!

Yes, I probably have a problem. But does anyone else out there have the same problem? Have you found a mini toolkit that you absolutely love? What about other EDC tools? Please let me know in the comments below!

You can’t follow Jesus and hate immigrants. Of course, this does NOT settle every question of immigration policy! But, if you’re a follower of Jesus, consider your overall posture toward immigrants. If you call yourself a Christian, I want you to think about this seriously.

What comes into your head and your heart when you think of immigrants and refugees? Fear? Anger? Disgust?

What if the immigrants are in your country legally? What if they’re your brothers and sisters in Christ? Does that make any difference in what you think and feel about them? Or are they still primarily “illegals” who are “ruining this country”?

If you think that a given immigration policy or system is a mess and that X, Y, or Z should be done about it, what are your motivations? Are you concerned about the welfare of the immigrants themselves, many of whom are quite poor and powerless? Or are you acting out of fear and self-interest?

Potential Objections

Some may object, saying that while Christians are called to love immigrants, we still need to protect our borders and uphold laws. And it’s true that immigration policy is complex, and nations have a responsibility to maintain order and security.

However, the question here isn’t about the specifics of policy but about the posture of our hearts. As followers of Jesus, our first responsibility is to love others—including immigrants—as those made in God’s image. Upholding laws and protecting our country should never justify fear, hatred, or dehumanization.

Others may argue that showing hospitality to immigrants and refugees could lead to an unsustainable burden on our resources or change our cultural identity. While practical concerns about resources are valid, Scripture repeatedly calls us to care for the vulnerable, trusting that God will provide.

Moreover, the kingdom of God is not confined by national or cultural boundaries! As citizens of this kingdom, our identity should first and foremost be shaped by our faith, not by our nationality, ethnicity, or anything else.

What Does the Bible Say About Immigrants?

The Bible actually has quite a bit to say about immigrants, sojourners, and refugees. In fact, you can even read the entire storyline of Scripture through these lenses. Here’s the tiniest of tastes:

When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
(Leviticus 19:33–34, NIV)

Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.
(Deuteronomy 27:19, NIV)

I was a stranger and you invited me in…
(Matthew 25:35, NIV)

For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.
(Hebrews 13:14, NIV)

Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.
(Hebrews 13:2, NIV)

As M. Daniel Carroll Rodas explains in a helpful article on “Aliens, Immigration, and Refugees” (click that link for a PDF of the article):

• Both the Old and New Testaments offer rich teachings on migration, emphasizing that refugees and immigrants are made in the image of God.
• Many biblical figures, like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus himself, were displaced persons.
• Old Testament laws protected the vulnerable, including immigrants.
• Jesus’s teachings further challenge believers to see the outsider as someone who can lead them to a deeper faith.
• The New Testament epistles also call the church to care for those on the margins, reminding Christians that they, too, are “strangers” in the world.
• Biblical teachings on migration should shape how Christians act toward immigrants today, promoting “human flourishing and the common good” through both personal behavior and societal involvement

(Source: M. Daniel Carroll R., “Aliens, Immigration, and Refugees,” Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011, 58).

Conclusion

You can’t follow Jesus and hate immigrants. Next time you’re reading the Bible, keep an eye out for terms like “alien,” “stranger,” “resident alien,” “foreigner,” and “sojourner.”

The next time you think or speak about immigrants, ask yourself: Do your words reflect the heart of Jesus or the harsh rhetoric of political discourse? Consider how the kingdom of God cuts right across ethnic and national boundaries, reshaping our loyalties to all nations, tribes, etc.

As followers of Jesus, we are called to reflect His love and compassion in every area of our lives, including how we treat immigrants and refugees. Take time to examine your heart and attitudes, and ask how you can embody Christ’s radical hospitality. Engage with Scripture, seek out opportunities to welcome the stranger, and challenge rhetoric that dehumanizes or divides.

Let’s commit to being voices of love, grace, and justice in a world that so desperately needs them.

Resources on Scripture and Immigration

The following bibliography is from M. Daniel Carroll R., “Aliens, Immigration, and Refugees,” Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 58. (Again, the PDF is here)

• Brettell, C., and J. Hollifield. Migration Theory: Talking across Disciplines. 2nd ed. Routledge, 2008.
• Carroll R., M. D. Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. Baker Academic, 2008.
• Groody, D., ed. A Promised Land, a Perilous Journey: Theological Perspectives on Migration. University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.
• Hanciles, J. Beyond Christendom: Globalization, African Migration and the Transformation of the West. Orbis, 2008.
• Hoffmeier, J. The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible. Crossway, 2009.
• Miller, P. “Israel as Host to Strangers.” In Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays, 548–71. JSOTSup 267. Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
• O’Neil, W., and W. Spohn. “Rights of Passage: The Ethics of Immigration and Refugee Policy.” TS 59 (1998): 84–106. (PDF here)
• Pohl, C. “Responding to Strangers: Insights from the Christian Tradition.” SCE 19 (2006): 81–101.
• Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People. The Love of Christ towards Migrants: Instruction. Catholic Truth Society, 2004. (Available online here)
• Ramírez Kidd, J. Alterity and Identity in Israel: The “Ger” in the Old Testament. BZAW 283. De Gruyter, 1999.
• Rivera, L. “Toward a Diaspora Hermeneutics (Hispanic North America).” In Character Ethics and the Old Testament: Moral Dimensions of Scripture, edited by M. D. Carroll R. and J. Lapsley, 169–89. Westminster John Knox, 2007.
• Smith-Christopher, D. A Biblical Theology of Exile. OBT. Fortress, 2002.
• Soerens, M., and J. Hwang. Welcoming the Stranger: Justice, Compassion, and Truth in the Immigration Debate. InterVarsity, 2009.
• Waters, M., and R. Ueda, eds. The New Americans: A Guide to Immigration since 1965. Harvard University Press, 2007.

(For those curious, here’s a quick timeline: In 2012, I was studying biblical studies in college. By 2016, I was a seminarian, and in 2020, I was working on my Ph.D. in theology. Now, in 2024, I’m a software engineer! Yet political theology continues to weigh on my mind.)

As I’ve thought more about these topics, my reading list has grown, and I wanted to share it with you. It’s a mix of books I’ve read and some that are still on my to-read list. The first book that really shaped my thinking is Resident Aliens—a must-read if you’re interested in Christian political theology.

(All the links below are Amazon affiliate links, by the way.)

Christian Political Theology Reading List

• 20 Myths about Religion and Politics in America by Ryan P. Burge
• Anointed with Oil: How Christianity and Crude Made Modern America by Darren Dochuk
• Defending Democracy from Its Christian Enemies by David P. Gushee
• Disarming Leviathan: Loving Your Christian Nationalist Neighbor by Caleb E. Campbell
• Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation by Kristin Kobes Du Mez
• Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies by N.T. Wright and Michael Bird
• The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism by Tim Alberta
• Mortal Goods: Reimagining Christian Political Duty by Ephraim Radner
• Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony by Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon
• Religious Freedom in a Secular Age: A Christian Case for Liberty, Equality, and Secular Government by Michael Bird
• Scandalous Witness: A Little Political Manifest for Christians by Lee C. Camp

Abortion-Specific Reads

When it comes to abortion, I think it’s a tragedy that needs to be reduced, ideally through a consistent pro-life ethic. However, I’m also curious about progressive theological arguments for a pro-choice stance. Here are a few books I’m reading to explore those ideas:

• Abortion and the Christian Tradition: A Pro-Choice Theological Ethic by Margaret D. Kamitsuka
• Pro-Choice and Christian: Reconciling Faith, Politics, and Justice by Kira Schlesinger
• Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice by Rebecca Todd Peters

History Reading List

In addition to Christian political theology, I’ve also been diving into U.S. and world history, trying to get a better sense of where we’ve been and how it informs the present.

• The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History Textbook, Volumes 1 and 2
  • Note: You can read this for FREE online at americanyawp.com! You can also buy the paperbacks of Volume 1 and Volume 2 on Amazon
• A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn
• Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America by Heather Cox Richardson
• It Can’t Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis
• Myth America: Historians Take on the Biggest Legends and Lies about Our Past edited by Kevin M. Kruse and Julian E. Zelizer
• On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder
• The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence edited by Jack N. Rakove
• The Federalist (Annotated Gideon Edition) edited by George W. Carey and James McClellan
• The Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant
• The World: A Brief Introduction by Richard Haass

What do you think of this list? Are there any books that you think I should add? If you’ve read any of these, I’d love to hear your thoughts on them. Let me know in the comments below, and feel free to suggest your own favorite reads when it comes to political theology or U.S./world history!

What are you excited about these days?

Now, some upcoming projects will clearly outstrip my capabilities and I plan to hire professionals:

– Replace roof and gutters
– Replace furnace and central air conditioning

Other projects are probably beyond my capabilities, and I will most likely hire professionals. But, I still spend a fair bit of time thinking about doing them myself:

– Get/build a shed
– Trim and/or take down tall oak trees (they’re quite tall and we’re in a residential neighborhood…if we lived out in the country, I’d totally try to do this myself!)
– Install a handrail with columns on basement stairway (to prevent falling-off the stairs into the basement)

Other things I plan to do myself:

– Install water-powered backup sump pump (in progress!)
– Clean gutters (which have really old and difficult-to-remove sheet metal “leaf guards” on them)
– Fix oddly-wired light switches in bedrooms
– Power-wash house, driveway, and sidewalk
– Re-caulk exterior of house (ugh, really not looking forward to this…lots of scraping old caulk required!)
– Install a new duct and register in main, finished basement room
– Install new PVC drain pipes for kitchen sink and garbage disposal
– Build my own garage workbench

I’ve got a bunch of hand and power tools already, but I’m running into a roadblock when it comes to obtaining and moving larger objects: I don’t have a truck!

This is currently preventing me from doing things like:

– Getting plywood and 2x4s for my workbench
– Getting an extension ladder for cleaning out my gutters, trimming tree branches, etc.
– Purchasing a used refrigerator for our garage
– Purchasing a used table saw for our garage

Instead, we’ve got a 2007 Honda Civic sedan and a 2019 Kia Sedona minivan. Neither of which have roof bars or a towing hookup.

I’m debating installing a roof rack on one or both cars. I’m also considering purchasing a towing hookup for the minivan and getting a trailer from Harbor Freight.

Otherwise, I’m on the lookout for a good deal on a used truck!

Given the truck roadblock, I’m also trying to figure out the best order to tackle these projects in.

I think it makes sense to start with getting a shed, since that would clear out more space in my garage for a work bench.

After that, though, I’m not sure. But “figure out a way to be able to transport large things” is definitely floating around at the top of the mental list.

Any thoughts on how best to tackle some of these home improvement projects? Am I making too big of a deal about not having a truck, and should I just suck it up and either rent one or buy one? Let me know!

CliftonStrengths: Harnessing Core Talents

The CliftonStrengths assessment has been instrumental in identifying my core talents. Here are my top five strengths:

1. Input: I have an insatiable curiosity and a constant desire to collect information. This strength fuels my drive to learn and gather knowledge from diverse sources.
2. Intellection: My love for deep thinking and intellectual discussions is a hallmark of this strength. It allows me to explore complex ideas and engage in thoughtful analysis.
3. Learner: The process of learning excites me. Whether it’s acquiring new skills or understanding new concepts, I thrive in environments that offer continuous growth.
4. Ideation: Creativity and innovation are my playgrounds. I enjoy brainstorming and generating new ideas, which often leads to novel solutions and approaches.
5. Analytical: I have a keen ability to dissect problems and examine them from different angles. This strength helps me make informed decisions based on solid data and evidence.

For more on CliftonStrengths, check out Gallup’s CliftonStrengths.

DISC: The Analyst

In the DISC personality framework, I fall under the ‘C’ category, which stands for Conscientiousness. As an Analyst, I am detail-oriented, systematic, and value accuracy and precision. This aligns well with my Analytical strength from CliftonStrengths, as both emphasize a methodical approach to problem-solving.

Learn more about the DISC personality types at DISC Personality Testing.

MBTI: The INTJ Architect

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) describes me as an INTJ, also known as the Architect or Strategist. This personality type is characterized by a strong sense of independence, strategic thinking, and an ability to see the big picture while planning meticulously. INTJs are known for their rationality and logic, which complements my Analytical and Intellection strengths.

Dive deeper into the INTJ personality at 16 Personalities.

Enneagram: The Idealist

According to the Enneagram of Personality, I am a Type 1, the Idealist. This type is driven by a desire for integrity and a strong sense of purpose. Idealists strive for excellence and often advocate for change to improve systems and processes. This aligns with my Ideation and Learner strengths, as I constantly seek to innovate and improve.

Explore the Enneagram types at The Enneagram Institute.

Integrating Strengths and Personality

Understanding these paradigms helps me navigate my personal and professional life more effectively. Here’s how I integrate these insights:

• Professional Growth: By leveraging my strengths, I can focus on roles and projects that align with my talents. For instance, my Analytical and Intellection strengths are invaluable in complex problem-solving scenarios.
• Collaboration: Understanding my DISC and MBTI types allows me to communicate and collaborate more effectively with others, appreciating diverse perspectives and working styles.
• Continuous Learning: My Learner and Input strengths drive my passion for lifelong learning, ensuring that I stay updated and adaptable in a constantly evolving field.
• Innovation: With Ideation as a core strength, I can contribute creative solutions and foster an environment of innovation within my team.

Helpful Questions to Discover Your Personality Strengths

1. What activities make me feel most energized and engaged?
2. How do I approach problem-solving in both personal and professional contexts?
3. What types of tasks do I naturally excel at and enjoy?
4. How do I prefer to receive and process information?
5. What are my key motivators and values in my work and personal life?
6. How do I handle challenges and setbacks?
7. What feedback have I received from others about my strengths and areas for improvement?

Conclusion

Embracing our strengths and understanding our personality traits is a powerful tool for personal and professional development. By recognizing and nurturing these aspects, we can unlock our full potential and achieve greater success and fulfillment.

For those interested in embarking on their own journey of self-discovery, I highly recommend exploring these personality assessments and reflecting on how their insights can enhance your life and career.

References

• Gallup’s CliftonStrengths
• DISC Personality Testing
• 16 Personalities
• The Enneagram Institute

Feel free to share your own experiences and insights in the comments below!

I’ve narrowed this round down to trying the following hats, in case you’re interested (Amazon affiliate links below):

• TOO SMALL FOR ME Carhartt Men’s Rugged Professional Series Canvas Mesh-Back Cap (Shadow, One Size)
• Carhartt Men’s 100289 Odessa Ball Cap (Carhartt Brown, One Size)
  • I’m a sucker for Carhartt and Carhartt brown!
  • This hat is comfortable
  • I like that it looks different than my other hats, which tend to be black, gray, etc.
• Ankor Ultra Performance Water-Resistant UPF 50 Baseball Hat (Charcoal Gray, One Size)
  • Charcoal gray is my favorite color (not sure what that says about me…)
  • I really like the look and fit of this one
• Flexfit Men’s Delta Seamless Cap (Dark Grey, XX-Large)
  • Love the look and color of this
  • Very comfortable!
  • I wonder if it’s a tad *too* big for my head, though
• Flexfit Mens Cool & Dry Sport (Grey, X-Large-XX-Large)
  • This hat gets here in the mail today! I’m excited to try it out

Prayers for the Sick

For a Sick Person

O Father of mercies and God of all comfort, our only help in time of need: We humbly beseech thee to behold, visit, and relieve thy sick servant N. for whom our prayers are desired. Look upon him with the eyes of thy mercy; comfort him with a sense of thy goodness; preserve him from the temptations of the enemy; and give him patience under his affliction. In thy good time, restore him to health, and enable him to lead the residue of his life in thy fear, and to thy glory; and grant that finally he may dwell with thee in life everlasting; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For Recovery from Sickness

O God, the strength of the weak and the comfort of sufferers: Mercifully accept our prayers, and grant to your servant N. the help of your power, that his sickness may be turned into health, and our sorrow into joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

or this

O God of heavenly powers, by the might of your command you drive away from our bodies all sickness and all infirmity: Be present in your goodness with your servant N., that his weakness may be banished and his strength restored; and that, his health being renewed, he may bless your holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For a Sick Child

Heavenly Father, watch with us over your child N., and grant that he may be restored to that perfect health which it is yours alone to give; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

or this

Lord Jesus Christ, Good Shepherd of the sheep, you gather the lambs in your arms and carry them in your bosom: We commend to your loving care this child N. Relieve his pain, guard him from all danger, restore to him your gifts of gladness and strength, and raise him up to a life of service to you. Hear us, we pray, for you dear Name’s sake. Amen.

Before an Operation

Almighty God our heavenly Father, graciously comfort your servant N. in his suffering, and bless the means made use of for his cure. Fill his heart with confidence that, though at times he may be afraid, he yet may put his trust in you; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

or this

Strengthen your servant N., O God, to do what he has to do and bear what he has to bear; that, accepting your healing gifts through the skill of surgeons and nurses, he may be restored to usefulness in your world with a thankful heart; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For Strength and Confidence

Heavenly Father, giver of life and health: Comfort and relieve your sick servant N., and give your power of healing to those who minister to his needs, that he may be strengthened in his weakness and have confidence in your loving care; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For the Sanctification of Illness

Sanctify, O Lord, the sickness of your servant N., that the sense of his weakness may add strength to his faith and seriousness to his repentance; and grant that he may live with you in everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For Health of Body and Soul

May God the Father bless you, God the Son heal you, God the Holy Spirit give you strength. May God the holy and undivided Trinity guard your body, save your soul, and bring you safely to his heavenly country; where he lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.

For Doctors and Nurses

Sanctify, O Lord, those whom you have called to the study and practice of the arts of healing, and to the prevention of disease and pain. Strengthen them by your life-giving Spirit, that by their ministries the health of the community may be promoted and your creation glorified; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Thanksgiving for a Beginning of Recovery

O Lord, your compassions never fail and your mercies are new every morning: We give you thanks for giving our brother (sister) N. both relief from pain and hope of health renewed. Continue in him, we pray, the good work you have begun; that he, daily increasing in bodily strength, and rejoicing in your goodness, may so order his life and conduct that

he may always think and do those things that please you; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Prayers for use by a Sick Person

For Trust in God

O God, the source of all health: So fill my heart with faith in your love, that with calm expectancy I may make room for your power to possess me, and gracefully accept your healing; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

In Pain

Lord Jesus Christ, by your patience in suffering you hallowed earthly pain and gave us the example of obedience to your Father’s will: Be near me in my time of weakness and pain; sustain me by your grace, that my strength and courage may not fail; heal me according to your will; and help me always to believe that what happens to me here is of little account if you hold me in eternal life, my Lord and my God. Amen.

For Sleep

O heavenly Father, you give your children sleep for the refreshing of soul and body: Grant me this gift, I pray; keep me in that perfect peace which you have promised to those whose minds are fixed on you; and give me such a sense of your presence, that in the hours of silence I may enjoy the blessed assurance of your love; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

In the Morning

This is another day, O Lord. I know not what it will bring forth, but make me ready, Lord, for whatever it may be. If I am to stand up, help me to stand bravely. If I am to sit still, help me to sit quietly. If I am to lie low, help me to do it patiently. And if I am to do nothing, let me do it gallantly. Make these words more than words, and give me the Spirit of Jesus. Amen.

First, I’ve seen many icons of the resurrection (“anastasis,” in Greek) like the one below.

But I don’t think I fully appreciated the image until I realized it was Adam and Eve that Christ is helping up out of their graves. He’s trampled down the doors/gates of Hell and is taking an elderly Adam and an elderly Eve by the hand. Rescuing them from the realm of Death, in order to bring them back to eternal life with God.

(Thanks to Jim Forest for this image via Flickr.)

Second, I’ve long appreciated “Death in His Grave” by John Mark McMillan as a reflection on the crucifixion and resurrection.

“Death in His Grave”

By John Mark McMillan

Though the Earth Cried out for blood
Satisfied her hunger was
Her billows calmed on raging seas
For the souls on men she craved

Sun and moon from balcony
Turned their head in disbelief
Their precious Love would taste the sting
Disfigured and disdained

On Friday a thief
On Sunday a King
Laid down in grief
But awoke with keys
Of Hell on that day
The first born of the slain
The Man Jesus Christ
Laid death in his grave

So three days in darkness slept
The Morning Sun of righteousness
But rose to shame the throes of death
And over turn his rule

Now daughters and the sons of men
Would pay not their dues again
The debt of blood they owed was rent
When the day rolled a new

On Friday a thief
On Sunday a King
Laid down in grief
But awoke holding keys
To Hell on that day
The first born of the slain
The Man Jesus Christ
Laid death in his grave

On Friday a thief
On Sunday a King
Laid down in grief
But awoke with keys
Of Hell on that day
The first born of the slain
The Man Jesus Christ
Laid death in his grave

He has cheated
Hell and seated
Us above the fall
In desperate places
He paid our wages
One time once and for all

What about you?

Do you have any music or artwork that particularly speaks to you during Holy Week and Easter? Please share!

When we lived in a basement apartment, space was very limited, but I was able to fit a Valor Fitness BD-9 squat rack/stands and an Amazon Basics flat bench in, along with a 300-lb Olympic barbell and weight set from Dicks Sporting Goods.

(If you’re similarly pressed for space, I highly recommend those items above!)

We took all this stuff with us when we moved to renting a 100-year old house in Pittsburgh. There was enough space in the basement, but we referred to it as the “murder basement” because it way so creepy, damp, moldy, and dark down there.

Fast forward to now, when we’ve finally got a garage!

My wife’s an avid runner, so we splurged for a nice Sole F-85 treadmill.

And I pulled the trigger on a power rack: Rep Fitness’s PR-1100.

Next on my list, as a part of getting back into the saddle, as it were, is USING this equipment more regularly, as a part of getting back into shape.

Future upgrades to the home gym include:

• Putting together a deadlifting platform/surface (probably with these horse stall mats from Tractor Supply Co.)
• Getting a nicer barbell (I’ve got my eyes on Rep Fitness’s Colorado bar)

If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), ommniscient (all-knowing(, and omnibenevolent (completely good)…

If the Church is God’s main plan for the redemption of humanity and the cosmos (consider the “body of Christ” paradigm in the New Testament)…

If the gospel of Jesus Christ has had ~2K years to percolate in and through the Church…

Whence so much evil, corruption, abuse, etc. in the Church?

Why hasn’t the Church, on the whole, produced better people (myself included)?

Sure, it’s easy to appeal to the Church as a “corpus permixtum” (mixed body) and say that it’s all just tares mixed in with the wheat (see Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43).

But doing so often feels like a “No True Scotsman” fallacy to me. Here’s what that means.

(Also, sidebar: Notice how the “field” is the “world” in Matthew 13:38. Not the “kingdom” or the “church.” So, is the Church a mixed body? Or is the world a mixed body?)

Every time I read On the Incarnation by Athanasius, I’m struck by how much he is willing to stake the truth of the gospel on the actual observed behavior of Christians.

Here are some examples below, but go and read the entire “Answer to the Greeks” / “Refutation of the Gentiles” section (paragraphs 41–55). Note how often Athanasius argues for the truth of Christ by appealing to the changed behaviors of human beings:

When did human beings begin to abandon the worship of idols, except since the true God Word of God came among human beings?

Or when have the oracles amongst the Greeks and everywhere ceased and become empty, except since the Savior revealed himself upon earth?

Or when did those who are called gods and heroes by the poets begin to be condemned as merely mortal humans, except since the Lord erected the trophy over death and preserved incorruptible the body which he took, raising it from the dead?

Or when were the deceit and madness of the demons despised, except when the Power of God, the Word, the Master of all, even of these, condescended, because of the weakness of humans, to appear on earth? When did the craft and teachings of magic begin to be trampled underfoot, except when the divine manifestation of the Word took place among human beings?

And when, in short, did the wisdom of the Greeks become foolish (cf. 1 Cor 1:18–24) except when the true Wisdom of God revealed itself upon earth?

For formerly the whole inhabited world and every place were led astray by the worship of idols, and human beings regarded nothing else but idols as gods.

Now, however, throughout the whole inhabited world, human beings are deserting the superstition of idols, taking refuge in Christ, and worshipping him as God, and through him they know the Father, of whom they had been ignorant.

Athanasius, On the Incarnation, §46

Now these things said by us are not merely words, but have the witness of their truth from experience itself. Let him who wishes come up and behold the proof of virtue in the virgins of Christ and in the youth who live a pure life in chastity, and the belief in immortality in so great a company of martyrs.

Athanasius, On the Incarnation, §48

And who thus delivered human beings from the natural passions, so that adulterers are chaste, murderers no longer take up the sword, and those overcome by cowardice are courageous? Or, in short, what persuaded human beings from the barbarians and the Gentile regions to lay aside their madness, and to mind peace, except the faith of Christ and that sign of the cross?

Athanasius, On the Incarnation, §50

Who then among human beings, after death or even while alive, taught about virginity and did not think that this virtue was impossible among human beings? But our Savior and king of all, Christ, so prevailed in the teaching of this that even children not yet arrived at the lawful age profess the virginity that is above the law.

Athanasius, On the Incarnation, §51

To speak concisely, behold how the teaching of the Savior increases everywhere, while all idolatry and everything opposed to the faith of Christ daily diminish and weaken and fall.

Athanasius, On the Incarnation, §55

I couldn’t make a similar argument in good faith today.

Instead, I believe the good news about Jesus in spite of how his Church has, on the whole, behaved.

Which, even though I know all of the theological pressure-release valves one can use here, bugs me quite a bit.

• I’ve gained at least 50 pounds.
• I had a fun part-time gig as a managing editor come to an end.
• I’ve come to terms with some long-term depression and anxiety.
• I had a job offer ripped out from under me.
• I hit pause on and eventually dropped out of my Ph.D. program.
• I’ve resigned from ordained ministry in the ACNA, my previous denomination.

Sure, some things have gone well. I’ve got a loving wife (who’s a superhero) and three healthy children. I’ve got a new career (as a software developer) that I very much enjoy. We’ve got a roof over our heads. I make more money now than I ever have.

But, overall, I definitely feel less focused and energized than I used to.

Do I have a sure solution or a grand commitment to make? No.

But I decided that I can at least start blogging about turning things around. I can write about my experiences as I try to get back into the personal development saddle.

As a first step, I need to get a better grip of everything I’ve got “in flight” at the moment. I’ve got far too many things bouncing around in my head, and I need to get them down on paper and/or a digital system to manage them.

So I’ve dusted-off my copy of Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity by David Allen. And I’ve started a “brain dump” in my main notebook (a Bullet Journal-like combination of journaling, to-dos, and notes).

Any other crestfallen personal development/productivity junkies out there? Let me know how it’s going!

Note: These are geared toward Christian churches in the USA. Some would obviously also apply to churches elsewhere. But I haven’t nuanced this entire list for all global church contexts.

Many churches in the USA are too “busy.” They are trying to do too many different things and should instead refocus on the church’s proper priorities (Word and Sacraments).

Churches should focus on preaching and teaching the Word of God, administering the Sacraments (Holy Communion and Baptism), and serving the welfare of their local communities.

When you walk into a church sanctuary (or whatever else you want to call the place where the worship service takes place), the setting should (as much as possible) clearly indicate the importance of the Word of God and the Sacraments.

So, if possible, have a cross, pulpit, altar/table (for Holy Communion), etc. front-and-center.

Your country’s flag should not be in the sanctuary.

Concerts and TED talks are both great. But a Christian worship service is not a concert with a TED talk thrown in.

Don’t try to mimic a concert. Don’t put the musicians front-and-center, if possible.

Use a mixture of sacred music (old and new) that is fitting for a Christian worship service. We don’t need covers of Coldplay, Taylor Swift, U2, etc. in a worship service.

The quality of the musicians and vocalists should be as good as possible, given the musical gifts that God has provided your congregation with. Doesn’t have to be world-class. Just don’t be distracting. Simple and good is better than showy or off-key.

Don’t have the same volume levels as a concert. The congregation should be able to hear itself sing (and think).

At least one passage of Scripture should be clearly read aloud during each worship service. Ideally more than one!

A sermon is for the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s not a standup comedy act, a motivational speech, TED talk, etc.

A sermon doesn’t need to be longer than 30 minutes.

“We don’t do Holy Communion that often because we want it to be special” is a bad argument.

Churches should provide Holy Communion as often/regularly as logistically possible. Communion should be treated and taken with reverence, but it is not made special by our attitudes, feelings, etc. It is a work of God, by which He makes himself present to His people.

At minimum, the “Words of Institution” should be a part of every single Communion liturgy:

that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)

Holy Communion should be offered to all baptized followers of Jesus Christ. It should not be restricted to your denomination, congregation, branch of the church, etc.

Positions (and titles) of pastoral leadership should be open to both men and women. As they are gifted, called, and trained to do so, women should be able to preach, teach, pastor, etc.–using the full breadth of their spiritual gifts.

Each church should have clear policies around the prevention of and response to various forms of abuse. A child safety policy, abuse/harassment policy, etc. These policies should be regularly reviewed and enforced.

Accusations of abuse should be taken seriously, treated confidentially, and reported to the local authorities. Clergy should act as mandatory reporters, even if they are not required to do so by local law.

Church leaders who are caught up in abuse, scandal, etc. should be removed (or remove themselves) from office. Sure, there’s forgiveness for everyone at the Cross, but they need to find another line of work. “Abusive pastor” should be an oxymoron. No matter how charismatic or gifted they are, the church doesn’t “need” any one person to be in a position of power and authority, if they have shown they cannot be trusted with power and authority.

Poor people should feel welcomed, loved, and respected at your church.

People from all countries, cultures, etc. should feel welcomed, loved, and respected at your church, regardless of their immigration status..

LGBTQ people should feel welcomed, loved, and respected at your church.

If the church speaks out in the public square, it should be on behalf of “others,” instead of out of self-interest.

Less: “We’re being persecuted! We demand and defend our rights!”

More: “The poor and powerless are being persecuted! We demand and defend their rights, even if it costs us to do so!”

To be continued…possibly.

This also coincides with plans to move closer to family in NW Ohio (where there is not much of an ACNA presence to speak of) and to then pursue church involvement outside of the ACNA.

Therefore, in accordance with Title III, Canon 6, Section 4 of the ACNA Canons (“Concerning Voluntary Resignation from the Ordained Ministry of this Church”), I have tendered my voluntary resignation from the ordained ministry of the Anglican Church in North America, effective on 2023-11-01.

As of 2023-11-07, my bishop and diocese have confirmed that I am a Presbyter in good standing, not under discipline as defined in Title IV of the ACNA Canons, and that my resignation is not occasioned by misconduct or irregularity, but is voluntary and for causes which do not affect my moral character.

My resignation has therefore been accepted. This means that I am released from the obligations of the Ministerial office. I relinquish the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments in the Anglican Church in North America.

Lastly, I’d like to clarify that the ACNA Canons differentiate between (A) resigning from the ordained ministry of the ACNA and (B) renouncing one’s Holy Orders as such.

While I currently have no plans to pursue ordained ministry within another Christian denomination or jurisdiction, I am solely (A) resigning from the ordained ministry in the ACNA, not (B) renouncing my Holy Orders. This distinction leaves the door ajar for potential ordained ministry elsewhere, should the Lord call me back to such in the future.

1. You are not your thoughts. There is a “you” behind and above your inner voice/monologue/dialogue. Pay attention to what you pay attention to. Think about what you think about.
2. We always only have the present moment. Focusing too much on the future leads to anxiety. Focusing too much on the past leads to depression. Wherever you are, be fully there, now! (Read The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle [affiliate link here and throughout] for more on this.)
3. It’s OK not to be OK. Feeling anxious, depressed, angry, etc. is fine. However, avoid the trap of feeling anxious about how anxious you feel, feeling depressed about how depressed you feel, etc. (Learned this from The Happiness Trap by Russ Harris.)
4. If you never make mistakes, you’re not learning/growing as well as you could be. Perfectionism is a deadly prison. Break free with “good enough” and “always learning.”
5. You are stronger than you think you are. You are weaker than you think you are.
6. Ask more questions. Ask better questions.
7. God is not a thing among things. There is an “infinite qualitative difference” between God and everything that is not God, everything that exists.
8. Jesus of Nazareth is the living Lord of all. ___ is not.
9. Beware of overconfidence in what the Bible (or any other sacred text, for that matter) “clearly”does or does not say.
10. God is devoted to the poor and powerless. Those who speak and act on God’s behalf should speak and act for the poor and powerless.
11. To do better with people, ask them questions about themselves. (Read the classic How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie.)
12. You can’t out-exercise your appetite forever. Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much.
13. Get enough sleep. You probably don’t get enough sleep.
14. Lift heavy things.
15. Go outside. Take a walk.
16. Open a Roth IRA. Invest consistently in low-cost mutual funds or lifecycle funds as soon as you can. (Learned this from I Will Teach You to Be Rich by Ramit Sethi.)
17. Reading is a superpower. You can learn from as many other lives and lifetimes as you want. Learn how to read. Then learn how to learn. Then, learn whatever you want!
18. Always read with a pen or pencil in your hand. If you really want to learn from a book, buy a physical copy and annotate the heck out of it.
19. You always have to earn and keep your audience’s attention. Before/while communicating, ask yourself “Why should they care? What’s in it for them?”
20. Humans are incredibly good at misunderstanding each other. Before/while communicating, ask yourself “How might I be misunderstood? How might I be misunderstanding others?”
21. Remember that you and your loved ones are all going to die. What do you want to be known for?
22. Eulogize people BEFORE they die.
23. Everyone should go to therapy for at least a few months.
24. “Slow is smooth. Smooth is fast.” Feeling nervous/stressed/angry/etc.? SLOW DOWN, especially if you’re in front of other people.
25. Courage is a choice, not a feeling. No matter how nervous you are, you can always ACT courageously.
26. Everyone is trying to figure it out as they go along. Do you often feel like an imposter? Join the club!
27. Act like you’ve been here before. Act like you’ve done this before. Act calm, comfortable, and confident, if for no other reason than to help the people around you feel calm, comfortable, and confident.
28. Leadership is service. Leadership is the willingness to make a decision for the good of the group even when it’s awkward or uncomfortable to do so.
29. Focus on what you can control.
30. Journal. What do you really want? What are you afraid of? What’s the most important thing you need to get done today? Get a notebook and write it down!
31. In many domains, 80% of the outcomes/effects come from 20% of the inputs/causes. Find the “vital few” things that have outsized impacts, both positive and negative, on your life. Double-down on what’s helping you. Get rid of what’s hurting you.
32. Use smoked paprika. You’re welcome.

Think AI is only for tech gurus and coding aficionados? Think again. AI is breaking down the ivory tower, becoming an invaluable asset for everyone from marketers and writers to busy parents. If you’re intrigued by the idea of harnessing AI to make your life more productive, more balanced, and yes, even more fun, then you’re in for a treat.

AI Tool Recommendations: ChatGPT, Notion, and DALL-E 2

Let’s start with the AI elephant in the room: ChatGPT! It’s the AI tool I use most often and it’s probably the best place to start for AI beginners.

So, if you haven’t already done so, head over to https://chat.openai.com/ to start using ChatGPT for yourself. It’s as easy as chatting or texting with a friend.

Other AI tools that are good places to start for beginners include:

• Microsoft Bing’s Chat (search and chat): https://www.bing.com/
• Notion (all-in-one notes and productivity): https://www.notion.so/product
• DALL-E 2 (image generation): https://labs.openai.com/

How to Use AI: Mastering the Subtleties of “Prompt Engineering”

You’ve heard the phrase “It’s not what you say; it’s how you say it,” right? In the world of AI, it’s both what you say and how you say it that count. This concept crystallizes into what we call “Prompt Engineering”—the art and science of effectively instructing AI to get the response you’re looking for.

Prompt Engineering is crucial because even sophisticated models like ChatGPT-4 rely on the context and clarity provided by your prompt. A poorly-structured or ambiguous prompt often results in equally confusing or lackluster responses. Therefore, learning to master your prompts can be the difference between a frustrating experience and one that feels like you’re interacting with a truly helpful digital assistant.

Practical Tips for Prompt Engineering

1. Be Specific: If you’re looking for a detailed answer, make sure your prompt outlines this expectation. For example, instead of asking, “Tell me about coffee,” you could say, “Explain the difference between Arabica and Robusta coffee beans in terms of flavor and caffeine content.”
2. Set the Format: If you’re after information in a particular structure, guide the AI by stating that upfront. For example, “List the steps to create a simple Python program to say ‘Hello, World!’”
3. Ask for Revisions: If the AI’s first attempt doesn’t quite hit the mark, use that output as a stepping stone. You can say, “That’s a good start, but can you elaborate on X?” or “That’s close, but can you rephrase that in simpler terms?”
4. Be Interactive: Don’t be afraid to have a back-and-forth with the AI. These tools are designed for interactivity. Feel free to ask follow-up questions or seek clarifications just as you would in a conversation with a human.

By understanding and applying these principles of prompt engineering, you’ll be able to maximize the capabilities of AI tools, making them far more valuable in your personal and professional life. It’s like learning to speak a new digital dialect—one that can unlock doors you didn’t even know existed.

The MOST Important AI Tool Tip: Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

I’m repeating myself and making this its own section because it’s so important. One of the very best things about these new generative AI tools is that you can iterate with them.

That is, you can go back-and-forth with the AI tool, asking for improvements, revisions, clarifications, etc.!

At first, this might not seem like a big deal, but it really is the KEY for getting AI to produce good, helpful content for you.

For example: Ask ChatGPT to write an email to your boss asking for a raise. If you don’t like what it gives you back, then use this opportunity to get specific about what you want. Too formal? Not formal enough? Don’t just ask for more money, but also better hours? List reasons X, Y, and Z why you deserve the raise?

Hell, just the back-and-forth process alone is beneficial, because it forces you to get clear and get specific!

Bottom line: Don’t give up on an AI tool if its first response doesn’t blow you away. Instead, leverage the tool’s capabilities, and take the opportunity to clarify your desires and thoughts, by ITERATING. Go back-and-forth with these tools and you’ll be impressed with where they can take you!

AI Reading Recommendations

Want to learn more about AI tools and how to use them?

I’d like to introduce you to three incredibly insightful articles by Ethan Mollick over at “One Useful Thing.” They’re packed with practical knowledge and will get you started on your AI journey.

How To Use AI to Do Practical Stuff: A New Guide

In “How to Use AI to Do Practical Stuff,” Ethan delivers a comprehensive overview of the major generative AI players on the market today. He doesn’t just stop at naming them; he delves into writing, images, idea generation, video, coding, learning, and other categories, showing how AI tools can assist you in ways you might not have imagined. Start with this article to get ideas flowing.

Onboarding Your AI Intern

Imagine having an intern who never sleeps and is always eager to help. In “Onboarding Your AI Intern,” Ethan walks through the various considerations involved in thinking of new generative AI tools like a digital intern of sorts.

At first glance, you might think an intern is unnecessary for your workflow. But take a moment to reflect on the myriad tasks you perform in a given week. In this era of digital transformation, with an influx of AI tools, I’m confident that there are tasks you can offload to an AI intern, giving you more time to focus on what truly matters.

How to Use AI to Do Stuff: An Opinionated Guide

In “How to Use AI to Do Stuff: An Opinionate Guide,” Ethan gives an updated (summer 2023) overview of recommendations for AI tools in various task categories. It’s a quickly-evolving landscape, but hopefully reading through these pieces will help you come up with a shortlist of new tools to experiment with!

Do you already use AI tools in some capacity? Are certain questions or obstacles holding you back? Please let me know in the comments below!

Online scams can touch anyone’s life. They don’t discriminate based on how tech-savvy you are or how often you use the internet. We’ve all heard stories—maybe from a friend, a family member, or even in the news—of someone getting tricked online, often with distressing consequences. It serves as a stark reminder of the darker side of our digital world.

This is why it’s crucial for every one of us to understand online scams—how they operate, how to identify them, and most importantly, how to avoid becoming a victim.

In this guide, I’ll demystify the most common types of online scams and equip you with practical knowledge to stay safe. Regardless of whether you’re a digital native or just someone who occasionally checks emails or shops online, this guide will offer valuable insights to help protect you and your loved ones.

Let’s begin this important journey to digital safety.

Understanding Online Scams

In the broadest sense, an online scam is a fraudulent scheme performed by a dishonest individual, group, or company in an attempt to obtain money or something else of value from unsuspecting internet users. They can happen virtually anywhere online, from your email inbox to social media platforms, online marketplaces, and even dating sites.

Here are a few common types of online scams that you might encounter:

1. Phishing Scams: Perhaps the most common type of online scam, phishing occurs when a scammer attempts to trick you into giving out your personal information. They might send you an email that appears to be from a legitimate company asking you to login to your account, and when you do, they capture your username and password.
2. Lottery Scams: These scams operate by telling you that you’ve won a huge amount of money in a lottery or sweepstakes that you never even entered. To receive your “winnings,” however, you’ll be asked to pay a fee or provide your banking information.
3. Tech Support Scams: Scammers posing as tech support personnel from a well-known company claim to have detected issues with your computer. They’ll attempt to gain remote access to your machine, potentially stealing data or installing harmful software.

These are just a few examples (for more examples and advice, checkout this piece from Kaspersky). Scams can come in many forms, and scammers are always evolving their tactics. However, understanding these common types of scams is the first step toward protecting yourself.

How to Identify Online Scams

While online scams can take various forms and evolve over time, there are certain red flags you can look out for to help you identify potential scams:

1. Unsolicited Contact: Be wary if you receive unexpected emails, messages, or calls from people or organizations you don’t know, especially if they’re asking for personal or financial information.
2. Too Good To Be True: If an offer seems too good to be true—like a huge lottery win from a contest you never entered—it probably is. Scammers often lure their victims with promises of large financial gains.
3. Pressure Tactics: Many scammers try to create a sense of urgency to pressure you into making quick decisions without giving you time to think or verify the information.
4. Requests for Sensitive Information: Legitimate companies will rarely, if ever, ask for your personal or financial information through email or text message.
5. Grammar and Spelling Mistakes: While not always the case, many scam messages contain poor grammar and spelling. This can be a telltale sign of a scam, as legitimate companies typically proofread their communications carefully.

Here’s an example: Imagine you receive an email that looks like it’s from your bank. The email states there’s been suspicious activity on your account and you need to confirm your details immediately or your account will be closed.

But there’s something off about the email—the bank’s logo looks a bit blurry, there are a couple of typos, and they’ve addressed you as ‘Valued Customer’ instead of your name. All of these signs point to a potential phishing scam.

By recognizing these signs, you can better protect yourself from falling victim to online scams.

(Learn more about how to recognize an online scammer here from McAfee.)

How to Protect Yourself from Online Scams

Knowing how to identify potential scams is only part of the solution. Here are some practical steps to protect yourself from becoming a victim:

1. Secure Your Devices: Ensure that all your devices are protected with the latest security software, web browsers, and operating systems. Regular updates can help protect against the latest threats.
2. Be Cautious with Links and Attachments: Do not click on links or download attachments from unknown sources. They could lead to malicious websites or install malware on your device.
3. Use Strong, Unique Passwords: Use complex passwords and change them regularly. Consider using a password manager to help keep track of your passwords. (I LOVE, use, and highly recommend 1Password. Check them out!)
4. Enable Two-Factor Authentication: Where possible, enable two-factor authentication for your online accounts. This adds an extra layer of security by requiring a second form of identification beyond just your password.
5. Verify Before Sharing: Don’t share personal or financial information unless you’ve verified the person or organization requesting it. If you receive an unexpected request, contact the company directly using a phone number or website you know is legitimate.
6. Stay Informed: Scams evolve constantly. Staying informed about the latest scam tactics can help you stay one step ahead.

Remember, online safety is a continuous process. By adopting these practices, you can browse the internet more confidently and securely.

(Want more advice on how to protect yourself? Read this piece from Microsoft.)

What to Do if You’re a Victim of an Online Scam

If you suspect you’ve become a victim of an online scam, it’s essential to take action promptly to minimize potential damage. Here’s what you should do:

1. Report the Scam: Depending on the nature of the scam, you can report it to your local law enforcement agency, your bank (if money was taken from your account), or an appropriate online platform. In the US, you can also report scams to the Federal Trade Commission through their website.
2. Secure Your Accounts: If the scam involved any of your online accounts, change your passwords immediately. If you used the same password on any other accounts, change those as well.
3. Monitor Your Accounts: Keep an eye on your bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial accounts for any suspicious activity.
4. Contact a Credit Reporting Agency: If the scam involved your personal identity or financial information, contact one of the credit reporting agencies to place a fraud alert on your name.
5. Seek Support: It can be distressing to be a victim of an online scam. Reach out to your friends, family, or professional counselors to help manage any stress or anxiety.

Being a victim of an online scam can feel overwhelming, but by taking these steps, you can work to mitigate the effects and prevent future scams.

(The Federal Trade Commission has some good advice about what to do if you were scammed.)

Conclusion

In the digital age, online scams are an unfortunate reality that we must all be prepared to face. Yet, with understanding and vigilance, you can significantly reduce your risk of becoming a victim.

• Remember to stay skeptical of unsolicited contact, especially if it promises vast rewards or pressures you into fast action.
• Take the time to verify information before acting on it.
• Maintain strong, unique passwords and use two-factor authentication wherever possible.
• Protect your devices with updated security software, and be cautious when clicking on links or downloading attachments.

Being scammed can feel violating and disheartening. It’s important to remember that if you are scammed, it’s not your fault. The individuals perpetrating these scams are the ones to blame. If you’ve been scammed, don’t hesitate to report it and take steps to protect yourself from further harm.

By spreading awareness and sharing information about online scams, we can all contribute to making the internet a safer place. Feel free to share this post with anyone who might benefit from it. Stay safe out there!

However, it’s essential to understand that coding and programming skills, while crucial, are just one part of a broader equation. Equally important is the bigger picture of how software development fits into the wider professional and business environment.

This is where two vital reads, Edmond Lau’s The Effective Engineer: How to Leverage Your Efforts In Software Engineering to Make a Disproportionate and Meaningful Impact and The Missing README: A Guide for the New Software Engineer by Chris Riccomini and Dmitriy Ryaboy, become indispensable.

The Effective Engineer: More than Coding, LEVERAGE!

Edmond Lau’s book is an influential text in the realm of software engineering literature. Rather than merely focusing on technical skills, The Effective Engineer broadens the horizon to include crucial soft skills and professional strategies. It is these ‘big-picture’ elements that often determine the disproportionate impact that a software engineer can make in their role.

Lau emphasizes the concept of ‘leverage’ – the ability to do more with less. He illustrates this with real-life examples from successful software companies, demonstrating how strategic thinking, effective communication, and a results-oriented mindset can create massive positive outcomes.

In the tech industry, where things move rapidly, and you’re always juggling multiple tasks, this book will help you maximize your productivity and make meaningful contributions, even as a newcomer. This isn’t a mere coding manual; it’s a comprehensive guide on how to be an influential software engineer.

The Missing README: A Survival Guide for New Engineers

Equally impactful is The Missing README: A Guide for the New Software Engineer by Chris Riccomini and Dmitriy Ryaboy. This book is designed as the ‘missing manual’ for software engineers who are just starting their journey. It provides the career guidance often overlooked in formal education or bootcamp curriculums.

The authors skillfully guide the reader through the various non-technical aspects of a software engineer’s life. They cover everything from understanding codebase and working with a team, to dealing with managers, navigating office politics, and even planning a long-term career. This book presents a holistic overview of the field, giving newbies a clear roadmap to succeed in their software engineering career.

Wrap Up: A Comprehensive View of Software Engineering

These two books, The Effective Engineer and The Missing README, offer big-picture career guidance that is essential for anyone stepping into the realm of software engineering. Whether you’re a budding developer just starting your journey or a career changer considering the leap, understanding the larger landscape is just as crucial as mastering coding.

As these books illustrate, the field of software engineering is not limited to writing flawless code. It’s also about understanding your role within a team, a company, and the wider tech industry. With these two resources in your arsenal, you’ll be well-equipped to make a meaningful and lasting impact in your software engineering career.

Recommended Follow-Up Reading

Enjoyed the insights and professional strategies in The Effective Engineer and The Missing README? Then you’ll appreciate these two additional resources. Considered foundational texts within the software development community, they will further your understanding of software engineering, bridging the gap between technical skills and the mindset required for mastery.

The Pragmatic Programmer: Your Journey to Mastery by David Thomas and Andrew Hunt

This classic text is often touted as a must-read for software developers. And for good reason! David Thomas and Andrew Hunt weave their decades of programming and consulting experience into a guide that is both practical and philosophical.

The book is designed to instill the mindset of a ‘pragmatic’ programmer, one who combines technical skills with a problem-solving approach that’s adaptable, critical, and creative. Through its exploration of coding principles, software design strategies, and real-world examples, it teaches how to develop robust, high-quality software that is maintainable over the long term.

The Clean Coder: A Code of Conduct for Professional Programmers by Robert C. Martin

Authored by the renowned Robert C. Martin, often known as “Uncle Bob,” this book is less about the code and more about the coder. Martin presents a professional code of conduct for programmers, covering topics from work ethic and time management to collaboration and communication.

“The Clean Coder” delivers an in-depth analysis of the various challenges programmers face daily, beyond writing code. It’s a guide to becoming a professional who’s not only technically proficient but also responsible, collaborative, and effective in their broader role.

To summarise, both The Pragmatic Programmer and The Clean Coder are excellent companions to The Effective Engineer and The Missing README. They’ll help you build on the foundational knowledge and strategies you’ve learned, transforming you from a proficient coder into a truly impactful and professional software engineer.

For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, what will be the end for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

Isaiah 58:1–14

Shout out, do not hold back!
Lift up your voice like a trumpet!
Announce to my people their rebellion,
to the house of Jacob their sins.

Yet day after day they seek me
and delight to know my ways,
as if they were a nation that practiced righteousness
and did not forsake the ordinance of their God;
they ask of me righteous judgments,
they delight to draw near to God.

“Why do we fast, but you do not see?
Why humble ourselves, but you do not notice?”

Look, you serve your own interest on your fast day,
and oppress all your workers.

Look, you fast only to quarrel and to fight
and to strike with a wicked fist.

Such fasting as you do today
will not make your voice heard on high.

Is such the fast that I choose,
a day to humble oneself?

Is it to bow down the head like a bulrush,
and to lie in sackcloth and ashes?

Will you call this a fast,
a day acceptable to the LORD?

Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of injustice,
to undo the thongs of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?

Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover them,
and not to hide yourself from your own kin?

Then your light shall break forth like the dawn,
and your healing shall spring up quickly;
your vindicator shall go before you,
the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.

Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer;
you shall cry for help, and he will say, Here I am.

If you remove the yoke from among you,
the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil,
if you offer your food to the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the afflicted,
then your light shall rise in the darkness
and your gloom be like the noonday.

The LORD will guide you continually,
and satisfy your needs in parched places,
and make your bones strong;
and you shall be like a watered garden,
like a spring of water,
whose waters never fail.

Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt;
you shall raise up the foundations of many generations;
you shall be called the repairer of the breach,
the restorer of streets to live in.

If you refrain from trampling the sabbath,
from pursuing your own interests on my holy day;
if you call the sabbath a delight
and the holy day of the LORD honorable;
if you honor it, not going your own ways,
serving your own interests, or pursuing your own affairs;
then you shall take delight in the LORD,
and I will make you ride upon the heights of the earth;
I will feed you with the heritage of your ancestor Jacob,
for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Ezekiel 34:1–16

The word of the LORD came to me:

Mortal, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel: prophesy, and say to them—to the shepherds:

Thus says the Lord GOD:

Ah, you shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?

You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed the sheep.

You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured, you have not brought back the strayed, you have not sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled them.

So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd; and scattered, they became food for all the wild animals.

My sheep were scattered, they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill; my sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with no one to search or seek for them.

Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD:

As I live, says the Lord GOD, because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild animals, since there was no shepherd; and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep;

therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD:

Thus says the Lord GOD, I am against the shepherds; and I will demand my sheep at their hand, and put a stop to their feeding the sheep; no longer shall the shepherds feed themselves.

I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, so that they may not be food for them.

For thus says the Lord GOD:

I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. As shepherds seek out their flocks when they are among their scattered sheep, so I will seek out my sheep.

I will rescue them from all the places to which they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness.

I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the watercourses, and in all the inhabited parts of the land.

I will feed them with good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel shall be their pasture; there they shall lie down in good grazing land, and they shall feed on rich pasture on the mountains of Israel.

I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I will make them lie down, says the Lord GOD.

I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak,

but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with justice.

In this blog post, I’ll summarize the key points from Carnegie’s work and provide you with a solid foundation to start mastering your own relationships. If you find these ideas helpful and compelling, I highly recommend reading the entire book!

Key Principles from How to Win Friends and Influence People

Be genuinely interested in others

Showing sincere interest in people makes them feel valued and appreciated. Ask questions, listen actively, and show empathy to create meaningful connections.

Smile and be friendly

A warm smile and friendly demeanor create a positive atmosphere and make it easier for people to open up and trust you. Your body language and tone of voice matter just as much as your words.

Remember and use people’s names

Using someone’s name in conversation shows that you respect and value them. It also helps to build rapport and strengthen relationships.

Be a good listener

Active listening is a critical skill for building relationships. Encourage others to talk about themselves and their interests, and listen intently. This helps to create a strong bond and demonstrate that you genuinely care.

Talk in terms of the other person’s interests

Discuss topics that are important and interesting to the other person. This demonstrates that you’re attentive to their needs and helps to create a positive, engaging conversation.

Make others feel important, and do it sincerely

Everyone wants to feel important and appreciated. Offer genuine praise and compliments, acknowledge others’ achievements, and express gratitude for their efforts.

Avoid arguments and criticism

Arguing and criticizing others can damage relationships. Instead, focus on understanding the other person’s perspective and finding common ground.

Admit when you’re wrong

Be humble and open to admitting your mistakes. Apologizing when necessary demonstrates your integrity and earns the respect of others.

Be genuinely interested in other people’s opinions

Show respect for others’ opinions, even if you don’t agree with them. Encourage open dialogue and create an environment where everyone feels comfortable sharing their thoughts.

Encourage others to share their achievements

Celebrate the successes of others and encourage them to share their accomplishments. This fosters a supportive, positive environment and helps to strengthen relationships.

Reading Recommendations

If you found How to Win Friends and Influence People valuable, here are some other books that can further improve your interpersonal skills:

1. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey. This self-help classic focuses on developing habits to achieve personal and professional success, emphasizing the importance of effective communication and empathic listening.
2. Emotional Intelligence 2.0 by Travis Bradberry and Jean Greaves. This book delves into the importance of emotional intelligence and offers strategies to improve self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management.
3. The Charisma Myth by Olivia Fox Cabane. Learn how to develop your charisma and become more influential, persuasive, and inspiring in your personal and professional relationships.
4. Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss. Written by a former FBI negotiator, this book provides valuable insights and techniques for mastering the art of negotiation in any situation.
5. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini. Explore the psychological principles behind persuasion and learn how to ethically influence others to achieve your goals.

Conclusion

Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People provides timeless wisdom and valuable insights into the art of building strong interpersonal relationships. By applying these principles in your daily life, you can enhance your personal and professional connections and create a more positive, supportive environment around you.

I highly recommend reading the entire book to fully grasp the depth and nuances of Carnegie’s teachings. Furthermore, consider exploring the additional reading recommendations listed above to continue developing your communication, emotional intelligence, and persuasion skills. Remember, the key to success in any area of life often lies in the strength of your relationships with others!

Quick and Efficient Learning

Learn X in Y Minutes understands that time is precious, which is why it provides:

• Clear and efficient learning paths
• Concise tutorials that dive straight into coding
• Rapid acquisition of programming language essentials

Say goodbye to endless hours spent on lengthy tutorials and get straight to the point with Learn X in Y Minutes.

Programming Languages and Essential Tools

The website covers a wide range of programming languages, including but not limited to:

• Python
• JavaScript
• Ruby
• C++

In addition to programming languages, Learn X in Y Minutes also covers essential tools and technologies like:

• Git
• Docker
• Vim

This makes the site an excellent resource for acquiring knowledge about popular tools in the tech industry.

Open-Source and Community-Driven

One of the best features of Learn X in Y Minutes is that it’s an open-source project. This means that it’s:

• Continually updated and improved by a community of developers
• Always up-to-date and relevant to the ever-evolving world of programming

Level Up Your Career

Are you looking to switch careers or enhance your skills for your current job? Learn X in Y Minutes is a goldmine for learning new languages or tech quickly, enabling you to:

• Adapt to new technologies
• Stay competitive in the fast-paced world of software development
• Boost your career growth

Start Learning Now!

Head over to learnxinyminutes.com and start learning now! Whether you’re a seasoned developer or just starting your programming journey, this site has something for everyone.

Remember to share your experiences and thoughts about Learn X in Y Minutes in the comments section below. Let’s spread the word about this fantastic resource and help others in the programming community to learn and grow!

In this blog post, we’ll cover the most important Linux commands that every new computer programmer should learn to level up their skills.

(Want to learn even more about Linux? Check out Linux Pocket Guide: Essential Commands and The Linux Command Line: A Complete Introduction.)

pwd (Print Working Directory)

The ‘pwd’ command displays your current location in the filesystem. This helps you stay oriented while navigating directories and understand where your files and folders are located.

cd (Change Directory)

The ‘cd’ command allows you to move between directories with ease. This is particularly useful when managing and organizing projects in the filesystem.

ls (List)

The ‘ls’ command lists the contents of a directory. You can use flags like ‘-l’ to get a more detailed view, including file permissions, ownership, and modification dates.

touch

The ‘touch’ command enables you to create new empty files with a specified name. This is perfect for quickly setting up a new project or creating placeholder files.

nano, vi, vim

These are popular text editors available in most Linux distributions. They allow you to create and edit files directly in the terminal, making it simple to manage your code without leaving the command line.

mkdir (Make Directory)

The ‘mkdir’ command allows you to create new directories easily. This is useful for organizing your projects and files in a structured manner.

rm (Remove)

The ‘rm’ command is used to delete files or directories. However, use this command with caution, as it can permanently remove your data. Flags like ‘-r’ can be added to remove directories and their contents.

grep

The ‘grep’ command enables you to search for specific patterns within files. This is useful for finding specific content in your code or debugging issues.

mv (Move)

The ‘mv’ command helps you move or rename files and directories, streamlining your project organization and making it easier to manage your work.

cat (Concatenate)

The ‘cat’ command allows you to display the contents of a file or concatenate multiple files. This is ideal for quickly reviewing or merging files without opening them in a text editor.

chmod (Change Mode)

The ‘chmod’ command enables you to change file permissions, controlling access and execution. This is essential for ensuring the proper level of security for your files and projects.

man (Manual)

The ‘man’ command provides access to the manual page for any Linux command. This is a valuable resource for learning more about each command’s functionality, options, and usage examples.

Conclusion

By mastering these Linux commands, you’ll be well on your way to becoming a proficient computer programmer. As you continue to practice and refine your skills, you’ll unlock new opportunities for success in the world of coding. Remember that practice makes perfect, so don’t be afraid to dive in and start exploring the power of Linux. Happy coding!

How did you become interested in software engineering?

I wrote a bit about my coding bootcamp journey in a previous post.

Part of my interest in software engineering is/was related to the particular path my journey took. That is, while studying Bible/religion/theology, I always knew that “bi-vocational ministry” (ministering in a church setting while also making money from another profession) was on the table.

Whenever I thought about “careers that might be a good fit for bi-vocational ministry,” software engineering, web development, etc. were on the short-list. You don’t need a specific degree. You can make good money. You can work remotely. It’s not an especially emotionally draining profession (like, say, counseling, therapy, or chaplaincy). The list goes on.

As it turns out, I’m now “just” a full-time software engineer. I’m not having to balance things with working in a church setting. But it’s nice to know that I could have that flexibility in the future, if I wanted to.

And, in addition to all the ministry-related reasons that software engineering was on my radar screen, I really love learning things and solving problems. And that’s what I get to do each day as a software engineer!

I was born in 1991, so computers and the internet have always been a part of my life. I was always curious about how digital tools worked behind the scenes. After years of dabbling and tinkering in the shallow end of the internet, as it were, I was eager to take the plunge into the deep end of computer programming.

What does a typical work day/week look like for you?

Most days, I work from home. My company has an office here in Pittsburgh, but I’m not required to go in.

I’m expected to be available/contactable (via Microsoft Teams) from 8am-5pm Eastern. And there are various meetings I have to attend each day/week:

• daily squad standup at 10am,
• weekly 1:1 with manager,
• weekly “town hall” meeting,
• weekly “tech sync-up” chat with other devs on my squad,
• bi-weekly sprint planning and retrospective meetings, etc.

Outside of the meetings and general availability, however, I’m pretty free to get my work done when/as I wish.

Now, I usually get all my work done between 8am and 5pm anyway! But if I have to step out for a bit for a doctor’s appointment, to drop-off/pick-up kids, to run a few errands, etc., I can always put in the time needed to get my work done outside of business hours.

What do you like most/least about your work specifically or this career in general?

I LOVE how my work requires me to continuously learn things and solve problems.

Sure, my work isn’t as “tangible” as, say, building a house. But, especially when compared with my previous work/studies in religion and theology, building software feels a lot more concrete!

Fixing a bug, getting tests to pass, building a feature and seeing it work for customers…all of these things are very satisfying to me.

However, the main downside is related: software engineering can feel very overwhelming because you’ll never know everything–or even almost everything–about the field. In addition to acquiring basic knowledge of programming, one of the main skills I’ve had to learn is how to keep making progress even when the task at hand feels confusing and overwhelming.

It’s taken some getting used to, going from being one of the well-informed “experts” when it comes to church, Bible, theology, etc., to being a complete n00b at software engineering!

But, even though the feeling of “I have no idea how to do that” is the main source of stress in my work these days, re-framing it as “I get to learn something new” is what keeps the work exciting!

In your opinion, what skills/abilities/personal attributes are essential to success in this field?

You’ve got to be curious. A lifelong learner. Which, importantly, doesn’t just mean “I enjoy knowing a lot of things,” but also “I’m comfortable with the uncomfortable parts of learning something new.”

Are you OK with realizing that you don’t know something? Or does that totally paralyze you?

When you realize that you don’t know something, is your first instinct to go learn more about it and figure things out? Or do you tend to avoid that area of uncertainty?

Furthermore, what about when you don’t know what you don’t know? How do you respond?

Can you tell me about the hiring process you went through? Either for your current job or others you have applied for.

One of the reasons I chose my coding bootcamp, Tech Elevator, was that they included a pretty robust job-search component to the bootcamp. As a part of this, they set us up with a handful (I think I had 5) of brief (15-minute) “matchmaking” interviews.

Tech Elevator develops relationships with tech companies, usually with a focus on companies that have a footprint nearby one of Tech Elevator’s campuses.

So, in my case, one of the matchmaking interviews I was assigned was with Proofpoint.

To be honest, I hadn’t heard of Proofpoint before the bootcamp. And, once I discovered that it’s a large cybersecurity company, I was SUPER intimated. In fact, I straight-up told that to the two developers who did my first interview: “Look, Proofpoint sounds amazing, but I don’t know if I’m cut out to work for a cybersecurity company with just a 14-week bootcamp under my belt!”

Those devs reassured me that, even though Proofpoint’s a cybersecurity company, that I was not applying for a cybersecurity expert role, but for a junior developer role. That calmed my nerves a bit!

After my matchmaking interview, which went quite well (and, unlike my other matchmaking interviews, was quite technically focused…getting a sense of what I had and had not learned at the bootcamp), I made it to a 3-part second interview. 3 back-to-back interviews (Zoom calls, in my case) with 3 different groups of 2 Proofpoint interviewers each. I spoke with a technical product manager, a QA manager, two mid-level devs, and two senior-level devs.

Only the 3rd sub-interview was the dreaded “technical interview.” A mid-level and a senior dev asked me to whiteboard maybe 2 different problems. (As they taught me in the bootcamp, I went into as much detail as possible while solving the technical problem(s), so we didn’t cover all that many different topics.)

The devs were quick to reassure me that I was not being judged on coding syntax, but rather on problem-solving approach. I could either code in the language I was most comfortable with or write pseudocode.

I was quick to say that, in the real world, I would approach a problem by googling to see if a ready-made solution (in this case, for string manipulation) existed. I even mentioned the library/tool that I thought could do what I was being asked to do.

And, looking back on the experience, that’s completely true. The coding problem(s) I was asked to do in the technical interview was NOTHING LIKE what I do each day as a software dev. I would never ever spend so much time trying to put together a string manipulation solution from scratch unless I had already exhausted other options.

But, hey, there are only so many different ways you can test someone’s problem-solving skills. At least my interviewers clearly understood (and told me) that this was obviously a very artificial situation.

Anyway, it didn’t go perfectly (at least not in my opinion), but I was able to come up with a workable solution to the problem and, more importantly, thoroughly talk through my thinking as I went. I felt very well-prepared by the bootcamp for my interviews.

BUT, I will say that, outside of my other matchmaking interviews, it was quite difficult to get my foot in the door for an interview for other positions. There were plenty of jobs I applied for that I either never heard back from or received a pretty quick rejection.

This makes sense to me because, without any industry experience or a Computer Science degree on my resume, why would the average tech company give me a second look? For all I knew, my resume was getting filtered out by an algorithm before a human even looked at it!

Again, that’s one of the reasons why I chose Tech Elevator, and it paid off. They developed a relationship with companies to get students initial interviews. And they trained us, as people who were pivoting into tech from a variety of other backgrounds, how to pitch ourselves and compellingly describe what we brought to the table.

What steps would you recommend I take to prepare to enter the field?

Keep going. Show your work. Steal like an artist (programmer).

Read those books above. Read The Missing README. Read the books recommended in The Missing README. Keep reading! (Need to learn how to read better? Read How to Read a Book. Seriously. It’s golden.)

Keep making friends and making things until someone notices you and you get a job! Then, keep making friends and making things!

Learn how to ask questions the smart way.

Keep learning. Your “to-learn” list should never ever be empty.

Don’t know what to learn next? Let your immediate problems be your guide. If you’ve got a job, learn what you need to learn to close your next ticket. If you don’t have a job (yet), learn what you need to learn to better align with job descriptions.

Need a bigger-picture overview of things to learn and be familiar with? I LOVE the “Developer Roadmaps” over at roadmaps.sh.

Need to get your sh*t together, life-wise? Check out these books below. Start with whichever book piques your interest the most!

• The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
• First Things First
• How to Win Friends and Influence People
• The Happiness Trap
• Getting Things Done
• The Practicing Stoic
• Atomic Habits
• The Personal MBA
• Super Thinking

I hope that helps! Do you have more questions for me? Let me know in the comments! Or use the contact form on my website.

So, throughout undergrad, seminary, and into a Ph.D. program in theology, the notion of “bi-vocational ministry” (serving the church while also making money outside of the church doing something else) was on my radar screen.

In fact, for a few months between finishing seminary and starting my Ph.D. program, I tried to teach myself the basics of web design (HTML, CSS, JavaScript) and Ruby on Rails. (I signed up for an account on Treehouse and on freeCodeCamp and I got to work!)

However, once I got accepted into a Ph.D. program (and realized that I needed to learn how to read in German ASAP in order to pass a translation exam), my programming learning fell by the wayside.

While a full-time Ph.D. student, I got some basic web design experience as the Managing Editor of a website. Most of my time was spent using WordPress, but I knew just enough HTML and CSS to be dangerous (i.e., to fix small problems).

Suffice it to say that the Ph.D. did not go as planned. (More on that some other time.) Neither did that part-time website job. So, after months of searching unsuccessfully for church (or church-adjacent) work, I resurrected the idea of teaching myself how to code. I dove back into freeCodeCamp’s curriculum and started chipping away.

But it was slow going. Getting a tech job seemed like an impossible dream. And, although there’s a TON of information online, I desperately craved having teachers and fellow students I could talk to. (I’m a big fan of asking questions. All the time.) I wanted some personal help in order to put things into context, to see the big picture and the path forward to a job.

When I first started learning how to code again, there were always enough church-related job opportunities to keep me distracted from coding. After all, I had studied the Bible and theology for over a decade. My training was church-focused (just look at my C.V.). So, if there were a church-focused job out there for me, obviously I should focus on finding it. Right?

After a particularly devastating disappointment (I was offered a church-adjacent marketing position that was then rescinded within 48 hours), I decided to go all-in on a coding bootcamp.

I’ll say more about my bootcamp selection process in another post. But I had my eyes on Tech Elevator because (1) they published their job placement numbers (to CIRR), (2) they had a campus in Pittsburgh (where we were moving), and (3) their curriculum contained not just coding information, but also a job-search component.

So, we spent just over $15,000 on the 14-week bootcamp in the Fall of 2021.

It was one of the most intense learning periods in my entire life! But I loved having teachers and fellow students that I could ask questions to. And I thoroughly benefited from the career coaching components of the bootcamp.

Tech Elevator not only taught me the (1) fundamentals of object-oriented programming in Java and (2) the basics of responsive web design. It also helped me revise and re-frame my experience to help me find a tech job. I rewrote my resume. I developed an “elevator pitch.” I prepared for common interview questions, both at the HR and the technical level (the dreaded whiteboarding experience!).

Tech Elevator hooked us students up with a handful of initial “matchmaking interviews,” one of which led me to my current position! This was a HUGE help because, without a computer science degree or industry experience, it can be a pain to get past the initial application phase.

Now that I’ve worked as a software engineer for a year, I can say that doing a coding bootcamp was one of the best investments I’ve ever made.

HOWEVER, it’s not for everyone. I would only recommend a bootcamp if you are a highly motivated learner. There’s a lot of information to find and digest, and you need to have a real hunger for learning (and a willingness to make mistakes and be wrong as you figure things out).

If you’re considering doing a bootcamp, take Tech Elevator’s Coding Aptitude Test for free! And dive into free “learn to code” resources online (like freeCodeCamp or The Odin Project) to see if you like the kind of thinking that’s required to do software development!

That’s all for now, but I plan to keep blogging about my journey into tech. So, if you’ve got any questions you’d like me to answer, please let me know in a comment below! (Or use the contact form to email me.)

UPDATE: On 2023-02-16, I was promoted to Software Engineer II! If you’d like to connect professionally, come find me @joshuapsteele on LinkedIn.

If I could go back in time and chat with Joshua Steele when he was a Bible & Spanish major in college, there are a few things I’d tell my younger self:

1. Quit laughing at How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler and READ the thing.
2. Baba ghanoush is superior to hummus.
3. Study computer science sooner rather than later.
4. Bite the bullet and INVEST IN A LOGOS BIBLE SOFTWARE LIBRARY.

Don’t get me wrong. I love physical books as much as anyone, and I own quite a few (hundred)!

Nevertheless, when I finally became a Logos Bible Software customer in 2018 as a Ph.D. Student, Anglican Deacon, and Anglican website editor, it took my studies to the next level. I purchased a Logos 8 Anglican Silver package, Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics (31 Vols.), and Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works: German-English (34 Vols.), and I haven’t looked back since!

(NOTE: If you’re interested in the best FREE Bible and theology resources out there, then you NEED to check out The Bible Project, The NET Bible, and The St. Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology!)

Logos 10: Worth the Cost?

Has it been a pricey investment over the years? To be sure.

However, even if I just consider the amount of time saved (1) looking things up and (2) citing works (which Logos handles AUTOMATICALLY when you copy and paste quotes!!!), I’ve come out on top

This is not to mention the breadth and depth that Logos Bible Software has added to my essays, sermons, emails (I used to receive a lot of Anglicanism-related questions!), and blog posts.

Now that Logos 10 is out, I can heartily continue to recommend Logos Bible Software. If you haven’t done so already, I strongly encourage you to consider buying (or upgrading to) Logos 10! (Again, you can do so via my exclusive partner link here!)

Top 3 Features of Logos 10

Real quick, here are my 3 favorite things about Logos 10 (compared to Logos 8 and 9).

1. It’s FASTER

Right out of the box, you can tell that they’ve tweaked things under the hood to make Logos 10 run faster (noticeably faster on my 2016 MacBook Pro) than previous versions.

Especially when you’ve got a large library (I’ve got 3,975 items in my Logos library right now) and you’re using multiple resources at a time, running Logos Bible Software is computationally expensive. So I’m glad that the Logos team have made behind-the-scene improvements to the software that have yielded a noticeably superior user experience on my end!

2. With Print Library Catalog, you can add and search your PRINT BOOKS

The new Print Library Catalog feature is a game-changer, especially if you, like me, have quite a few physical biblical and theological books laying around!

If you add those physical books to your Logos Print Library Catalog, then, as long as Logos has digital versions of those books, you can use the power of Logos search to help you find things in your physical books!

This means that Logos Bible Software can now help you take better advantage of the physical books you already own! Genius.

3. Church History Themes

As a student of historical theology, I’m a bit biased here, but I think that most Christians these days have a woefully inadequate understanding of Church history!

Granted, not everyone needs to become Church history experts! But all Christians should know at least the broad contours and the major themes from Church history. Let’s learn the most we can from saints who have gone before us!

Logos 10 makes a big step forward here with the new Church History Themes feature. It’s a fantastic way to get up to speed on some of the most important movements and topics from the history of Christianity.

4. (Bonus) Auto Translation!

OK, we’re into the weeds a bit here, because I realize that not everyone will be interested in this. But, as someone who (attempted) a Ph.D. on two German-speaking theologians, let me just tell you that I REALLY wish this feature had been introduced earlier!

Logos 10’s new Auto Translation feature makes it easier than ever to engage with works written in, say, Latin, French, or German right from Logos. I really hope that this kind of AI-assisted translation continues to improve, because there are so many works out there originally written in other languages. Plenty of these haven’t been translated into English yet. And, even when they have (looking at you, Barth’s Church Dogmatics), there’s really no replacement for engaging with a work in its original language.

Other Helpful Logos 10 Bible Software Reviews

I’ve only scratched the surface of the new and improved features of Logos 10. I’ll say it again, I strongly recommend that you invest in a Logos 10 Bible Software library!

And don’t just take my word for it! Here are some other reviews of Logos 10 Bible Software that you should take a look at as you consider whether or not to purchase/upgrade:

• Logos Bible Software 10 review: Do you REALLY need it? (OverviewBible)
• Logos 10 Bible Software Review (BibleBuyingGuide)
• 10 Noteworthy New Logos 10 Features in Under 10 Minutes (Chris J. Wilson, YouTube)
• Logos 10 Review: The Best Bible App? (ProPreacher)
• Top 3 New Features in Logos 10 Bible Software (ChurchTechToday)

Software Testing, Our Field’s Least-Sexy Superpower

Coming into software development from a background in the humanities, automated software testing struck me as a kind of superpower. Until, that is, I had to write my first software test!

So I now think of software testing as software development’s least-sexy superpower.

Sure, tests aren’t very fun or glamorous to write and maintain. But can you imagine if other industries had similar testing powers?

What if your house could test itself and let you know when it needed repairs? What if your body could test itself? What if, every day, you could live your life in the comfort of knowing that you and your belongings were being checked for errors thousands of times? Wouldn’t that be nice? Imagine the security and freedom that such a life-wide testing suite could provide!

Possibilities of Software Testing

I don’t know how far away we are from automatic home and health testing, but I do know that automated software testing has the potential to make our lives much better as we develop and sell software.

Sure, software development can get incredibly complicated and frustrating. But what if you had a robust testing suite that:

1. Caught bugs
2. Never “cried wolf” (“to cry wolf” = “to give a false alarm”)
3. Was easy to run, understand, and change

Good tests can help us confidently and quickly develop world-class software that improves our customers’ lives.

It’s not just about catching bugs and passing tests. As Vladimir Khorikov notes in Unit Testing: Principles, Practices, and Patterns, the goal of software testing “is to enable to sustainable growth of the software project.” The larger and longer a project is around, the more beneficial a good testing suite becomes.

After all, a robust testing suite functions as its own form of documentation for your project. A developer should be able to read through the tests and quickly get up to speed with how the production code functions. They can then confidently make changes to the codebase, knowing that (1) they have a decent idea of how things work and (2) that the testing suite will alert them to breaking changes.

And, as we’ll discuss below, well-designed code is easy to test! That is, there’s an important connection between software testing and software design. When we run into difficulties writing tests, we should consider improving the design of our production code.

Now, speaking of testing difficulties…

Problems with Software Testing

All too often, the reality of software testing falls far short of its potential.

Thanks to the “test early, test often” perspective of “shift left” testing, most of us software engineers have to write tests. Most of our production code has an ever-increasing quantity of test code associated with it. (More on the different kinds of tests below.)

But the quality of our testing suites is often lacking.

• We still have to put out fires more often than we’d like
• Our brittle tests “cry wolf” whenever we change anything
• Our tests are difficult to configure, understand, and refactor

In other words, we’re not living up to our testing potential! Or, at least, I’m not! Instead, here’s what often happens:

• I make a change to the codebase
• Tests break
• I fix the tests
• My code quality/coverage analysis tool lets me know that I need more code coverage
• I either
• ignore my code coverage tool or
• add some low-quality tests to get the coverage that I need and move my PR forward

This is bad! Don’t be like me! Don’t sacrifice test quality for test quantity.

How Can Josh We Test Better?

What should we keep in mind when we prepare to write code, when tests break, when our code coverage tool gets mad, etc.?

Principles of Software Testing

Lots could and has been said about software testing. But I’d like to do an “80/20 analysis” of software testing and focus on the 20% of principles and mental models that yield 80% of the results.

What is Software Testing?

Simply put, software testing is the process of making sure that your software does what you want it to do.

As we’ll see below, the “process” can be quite complicated and multifaceted. But, before we get there, note that the prerequisite of software testing is knowing (at least partially) what you want your software to do!

This is a crucial point to remember, which brings us to our next principle.

The Absence of Errors Fallacy: Passing Tests Don’t Guarantee Good Software

The absence of “errors” doesn’t mean that our software is useful, that it does the right things for our users!

Mauricio Aniche shares the following two quotes/sayings:

• “Coverage of code is easy to measure; coverage of requirements is another matter.”
• “Verification is about having the system right; validation is about having the right system.”

Throughout the iterative process of software testing, we need to ask ourselves “Do we know what we want our software to do? Should we change the requirements to better meet our users’ needs?” Only then can we make sure that we are testing for the right behavior.

Qualities of a Good Test

Khorikov (2020: 67) notes that a good testing suite “provides maximum value with minimum maintenance costs.” But, to achieve this, you need to be able to (1) “recognize a valuable test (and, by extension, a test of low value)” and (2) “write a valuable test.”

To get better at software testing, then, it’s helpful to know what we’re aiming for! Khorikov (2020: 68) lists four qualities of a good test:

• Protection against regressions

• Resistance to refactoring

• Fast feedback

• Maintainability

Here’s how I would re-phrase that. A good automated software test:

1. Catches bugs (no “false negatives”)
2. Doesn’t “cry wolf” (no “false positives”)
3. Runs quickly
4. Is easy to read and run

OK, so we should just max out each of these four qualities whenever writing tests, right?

Unfortunately, it’s not so simple.

This is because, apart from Maintainability, the other three qualities are in tension with one another. You can only maximize two of the remaining three qualities.

(Image source: Khorikov 2020)

And, even then, you can’t completely forget about the last quality you’ve chosen not to prioritize! After all, no one wants a test that (1) doesn’t catch any bugs, (2) is so tightly coupled to the production code that it’s meaningless, or (3) takes forever to run.

Avoid Brittle Tests: Maximize Resistance to Refactoring

Should we prioritize any particular quality of a good test while we’re building our test suite?

While we need to keep all four qualities in mind throughout the testing process, I agree with Khorikov when he argues for prioritizing resistance to refactoring. We need to take special care to avoid producing “brittle” tests that yield false positives (“cry wolf”) whenever we refactor our production code.

Put simply, we need to test the what, not the how. (More on this in “Observable Behavior vs Implementation Details” below.) Our tests should be as loosely coupled to the implementation details of our production code as possible. Instead, they should focus on testing the observable behavior of our software.

A related concept at this juncture is “black-box testing vs. white-box testing“:

• Black-box testing: testing a system’s observable behavior, its specifications and requirements, as if you had no knowledge of its implementation details or inner workings
• White-box testing: testing a system’s implementation details and inner workings

Black-box testing yields better resistance to refactoring. White-box testing might often uncover more bugs than black-box testing, but it often produces brittle tests that are too tightly coupled to implementation details.

Nevertheless, as Khorikov reminds us,

“even though black-box testing is preferable when writing tests, you can still use the white-box method when analyzing the tests. Use code coverage tools to see which code branches are not exercised, but then turn around and test them as if you know nothing about the code’s internal structure. Such a combination of the white-box and black-box methods works best” (Khorikov 2020).

Why is resistance to refactoring worth prioritizing? Because, as Khorikov notes, unlike protection against regressions and fast feedback, which tend to exist on a spectrum, resistance to refactoring is more of an “all or nothing” aspect of a test.

“The reason resistance to refactoring is non-negotiable is that whether a test possesses this attribute is mostly a binary choice: the test either has resistance to refactoring or it doesn’t. There are almost no intermediate stages in between. Thus you can’t concede just a little resistance to refactoring: you’ll have to lose it all. On the other hand, the metrics of protection against regressions and fast feedback are more malleable” (Khorikov 2020).

A test is either brittle or it isn’t. And, while the cost of brittle tests is relatively low at the beginning of a project (as long as those tests are catching bugs and running relatively quickly), over time, as a project grows in size and complexity, the costs of brittle tests and their false positives drastically increases.

The main tradeoff we’re left with, then, is between “protection against regressions” and “fast feedback.” And this tradeoff plays itself out in the differences between the main kinds of software tests.

Kinds of Tests

Fortunately, even though it’s impossible to write a perfect test that maximizes all the qualities of a good test at once, we can and should use different kinds of tests in our software testing suite.

Keep in mind what’s known as “the pesticide paradox”–if you only use one type of test, or you fail to revise and evolve your testing suite, you’ll only catch certain kinds of bugs. To catch new defects in the system, you need to use different kinds of tests and constantly revise your testing suite.

Unfortunately, there’s plenty of debate around the definition of test types, as well as when and how often to use each kind of test. Nevertheless, the following categories are commonly used:

• Unit tests
• Integration tests
• End-to-end tests (AKA System tests)

This framework differentiates tests based on how much code they execute, how quickly they run, how complex they are, and how closely they mimic the behavior of an end user.

Unit Tests

Khorikov notes the disagreement on the precise definition of a unit test, but he helpfully isolates the following three attributes of a unit test that many definitions share:

“A unit test is an automated test that

1. Verifies a small piece of code (also known as a unit),

2. Does it quickly,

3. And does it in an isolated manner.”

Now, no one really disagrees that unit tests should run fast (#2). However, just what counts as a “unit” is a matter of some debate. Some people think that a “unit” is a single class or even a single method.

However, as we’ll see below, there are advantages to broadening the definition of “unit” a little bit to mean “unit of work” or “unit of behavior.” Doing so helps us to write tests that are loosely coupled to the production code, tightly coupled to business/domain requirements, and therefore resistant to refactoring.

I agree with Khorikov when he advises that

“Tests shouldn’t verify units of code. Rather, they should verify units of behavior: something that is meaningful for the problem domain and, ideally, something that a business person can recognize as useful. The number of classes it takes to implement such a unit of behavior is irrelevant. The unit could span across multiple classes or only one class, or even take up just a tiny method.”

Before moving on, we should also note that people disagree on what it means for a unit test to be “isolated.”

What’s known as the “London School” holds that:

• A unit is a single class
• Each unit should be tested in isolation from all other units
• Test doubles (mocks, stubs, etc.) should be used for everything except immutable dependencies (AKA “values” or “value objects”)

Meanwhile, the “Classical School” (AKA “Detroit School”) maintains that:

• A unit is a unit of behavior, no matter how big/small
• Each unit test should run in isolation from all other unit tests
• Test doubles should only be used for shared dependencies (like a database or file system)

It might already be obvious from my comment above about broadening the definition of “unit” to mean “unit of behavior/work,” but I prefer the Classical School’s perspective on testing. It’s easier to produce tests that are resistant to refactoring by following the Classical School’s paradigm.

Despite all the disagreements about unit tests, it’s safe to say that everyone agrees that unit tests prioritize fast feedback. They’re quick to write, run, and let you know if you broke something.

Integration Tests

Unlike unit tests, integration tests test more than one unit (although not the entire system). This means that they tend to take longer to write (and longer to run) than unit tests.

(Note that, because “unit” is used in this definition as well, the arguments about unit tests bleed over into what counts as an integration test! What the “Classical School” calls unit tests, for example, would often be considered integration tests by the “London School.”)

What integration tests give up in terms of fast feedback, they gain in terms of protection against regressions. That is, they can catch more bugs.

This is because integration tests exercise more of the codebase than unit tests. They also focus on the interactions between system components, which means that they’re looking for regressions/bugs in areas that are outside of the scope of unit tests.

End-to-end or System Tests

Unlike integration tests, end-to-end or system tests test the entire system. They take even longer to write and run than integration tests, but they emulate an end-user’s interactions with your system more than any other kind of test.

System tests maximize protection against regressions by exercising the entire code base.

Using all three different kinds of tests, then, is key to having a test suite that catches bugs and gives fast feedback.

(Image source: Khorikov 2020)

The Test Pyramid

Due to the strengths and weaknesses of the three different kinds of tests, the “test pyramid” model suggests that developers should write many unit tests, fewer integration tests, and even fewer end-to-end tests. The width of the pyramid represents the number of tests at each level.

Here is Mauricio Aniche’s version of the Test Pyramid, which adds exploratory manual testing (vs. automated testing) as a top layer:

(Image source: Aniche 2022)

The main reason to be sparing in our creation and use of integration and system tests is time. Remember, one of the four qualities of a good test is “fast feedback,” and this is definitely a weakness of integration and system tests.

Nevertheless, because they exercise a lot of the codebase (and thereby increase our code coverage), integration and system tests are particularly good at catching bugs. So, if we want our testing suite to be good at “protection against regressions,” we need to include well-thought-out integration and system tests.

Code Coverage: Good Servant, Bad Master

Code coverage is a measurement of how much of your production code gets executed by your test code.

On its own, “code coverage” usually refers to “line coverage,” meaning the number of lines of code executed by your tests divided by the total lines of code. (If you’ve got 100 lines of code and your tests execute 90 of them, you’ve got 90% code coverage.)

However, as Aniche (2022) notes, because the complexity of our production code involves more than just the number of lines of code, there are other forms/aspects of code coverage worth considering.

• Branch coverage takes into account all the true and false branches of the program’s logic (coverage of if(a && b) must test for both a && b == true and a && b == false)
• Condition and branch coverage builds upon branch coverage to consider each condition that’s a part of a true or false branch (coverage of if(a || b) must test for a == true/b == false, a == false/b == true, and a == false/b == false)
• Path coverage is the strictest criteria, considering each and every possible path through the program’s logic (coverage of a program with 10 independent true/false conditions would require 2[^10] = 1024 test cases)

In a perfect world, we might always want to shoot for 100% path coverage. But, realistically, achieving full path coverage for complicated production code is far too time-consuming to be valuable.

Khorikov lists two main problems with code coverage metrics:

• You can’t guarantee that the test verifies all the possible outcomes of the system under test.

• No coverage metric can take into account code paths in external libraries.

Regarding the former problem, the combination of implicit and explicit outcomes of the system under test makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to test for them all. And, regarding the latter, code coverage metrics do not take the use of external libraries into consideration.

Does this, then, mean we should not care about code coverage?

No! But, we should keep in mind that, as Khorikov puts it, “coverage metrics are a good negative indicator, but a bad positive one.”

This is related to the “absence-of-errors fallacy” mentioned above. That is, if you have very low code coverage, it’s a sure sign that your testing suite has problems. But the mere fact of a high code coverage percentage does not mean that you have a robust testing suite.

MC/DC Coverage

Before we move on from code coverage completely, however, I want to mention what’s known as “modified condition / decision coverage” or “MC/DC” as a way to maximize the value of code coverage while minimizing the number of test cases required.

As Aniche (2022) summarizes it, MC/DC

“looks at combinations of conditions, as path coverage does. However, instead of testing all possible combinations, we identify the important combinations that need to be tested. MC/DC exercises each of these conditions so that it can, independently of the other conditions, affect the outcome of the entire decision. Every possible condition of each parameter must influence the outcome at least once.”

To achieve MC/DC, you list all possible test cases (those required if you were going for path coverage), before searching for “independence pairs” of test cases where (1) a single condition change (2) independently changes the outcome of the code in question. After finding these independence pairs for all of the conditions, you can reduce the list of test cases down to at least one independence pair for each condition under test.

If we’re just considering binary true/false conditions, then MC/DC requires N + 1 test cases vs path coverage’s 2N test cases (Aniche 2022, citing Chilenski 2001).

While MC/DC isn’t a silver bullet to solve all code coverage issues, it’s a great example of applying the “test the what, not the how” testing principle to the topic of code coverage. When deciding which test cases to (not) write, we want to make sure that we’re covering the aspects of our software’s logic that influence it’s observable behavior.

Well-Designed Code is Easy to Test

A deep-dive into software design and architecture far exceeds the scope of this overview of software testing principles. Nevertheless, there’s an important connection between software testing and software design.

Code that is well-designed is easy to test. And code that is difficult to test is often poorly designed.

When testing is integrated into the software development process, then any friction encountered when writing tests should raise questions about the way the production code is structured. Granted, certain difficulties cannot be avoided (sometimes requirements demand behavior that is inherently difficult to test). But there are often ways to improve the design of our production code while also making it easier to test.

Keep Domain and Infrastructure Code Separate

This is the main design principle that Aniche emphasizes in his chapter on “Designing for testability” in Effective Software Testing (2022):

The domain is where the core of the system lies: that is, where all the business rules, logic, entities, services, and similar elements reside. … Infrastructure relates to all code that handles an external dependency: for example, pieces of code that handle database queries (in this case, the database is an external dependency) or web service calls or file reads and writes. In our previous examples, all of our data access objects (DAOs) are part of the infrastructure code.

In practice, when domain code and infrastructure code are mixed, the system becomes harder to test. You should separate them as much as possible so the infrastructure does not get in the way of testing.”

Keeping domain code (AKA “business logic”) separate from infrastructure code (AKA “application services layer”) is a key emphasis of the “Hexagonal Architecture” or “Ports and Adapters” pattern.

The business logic at the “center” of your application should only interact with external dependencies by interacting with ports (application services), that interact with adapters, that are themselves coupled to the external dependencies.

(Image source: Aniche 2022)

This “separation of concerns” approach to software design increases the testability of a system because it allows us to focus our testing efforts, especially at the unit-test level, on the most important part of the system—the domain code—without directly relying on any external dependencies (which could slow our tests down, make them unpredictable, etc.).

Keeping domain code separate from infrastructure code also helps us to avoid writing brittle tests by emphasizing a key principle behind “resistance to refactoring”—observable behavior vs implementation details.

Observable Behavior vs Implementation Details

At each level of a system, there is an important distinction between what the system is accomplishing (the observable behavior) and how it accomplishes it (implementation details).

At the highest level, inter-system communications between applications are observable behaviors, while intra-system communication between classes inside an application are implementation details.

(Image source: Khorikov 2020)

Remember that, as we test each level of the system, in order to avoid writing brittle tests that throw false positives, we need to test the observable behavior, and not the implementation details.

At first glance, it might seem like the distinction is between observable behavior and implementation details is the same as between an applications public API (application programming interface) and its private API. In languages like C# and Java, this public/private distinction is usually achieved using access modifiers (public, private, protected, etc.).

However, although a well-designed API has a public API that coincides with its observable behavior and a private API that coincides with its implementation details, it’s very easy and common for an application to “leak” its implementation details into its public API by making those implementation details inappropriately observable.

Khorikov highlights the differences here as follows:

“For a piece of code to be part of the system’s observable behavior, it has to do one of the following things:

• Expose an operation that helps the client achieve one of its goals. An operation is a method that performs a calculation or incurs a side effect or both.

• Expose a state that helps the client achieve on of its goals. State is the current condition of the system.

Any code that does neither of these two things is an implementation detail.”

Whenever an application “leaks” its implementation details into its public API, it makes it easy for developers to write brittle tests. As Khorikov observes, “by making all implementation details private, you leave your tests no choice other than to verify the code’s observable behavior, which automatically improves their resistance to refactoring.”

Four Types of Code: Complexity/Significance vs Number of Dependencies

In addition to the distinction between observable behavior and implementation details, there’s an important framework to keep in mind when determining how to test each part of our software system.

(Image source: Khorikov 2020)

Khorikov lists the following four types of production code:

• Domain model and algorithms (top left)—Complex code is often part of the domain model but not in 100% of all cases. You might have a complex algorithm that’s not directly related to the problem domain.

• Trivial code (bottom left)—Examples of such code in C# are parameter-less constructors and one-line properties: they have few (if any) collaborators and exhibit little complexity or domain significance.

• Controllers (bottom right)—This code doesn’t do complex or business-critical work by itself but coordinates the work of other components like domain classes and external applications.

• Overcomplicated code (top right)—Such code scores highly on both metrics: it has a lot of collaborators, and it’s also complex or important. An example here are fat controllers (controllers that don’t delegate complex work anywhere and do everything themselves).

Although trivial code is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid, well-designed software systems avoid “overcomplicated code” by making sure that code is either complex/significant OR it works with a number of dependencies, but not both at the same time.

Put differently, the more complicated the code, or the more significant for the domain layer, the fewer collaborators it should have.

Why? Because, at least from a testing perspective, collaborators are expensive and time-consuming to test. Restricting interaction with collaborators to “controllers” in the application services / infrastructure layer of our application allows us to be strategic in our use of test doubles and integration tests for the controllers, while spending more of our valuable time writing unit tests for our domain code and complex algorithms.

If the classes in our domain code depend only on each other, they should be relatively easy and quick to unit test. Then, after checking as many edge cases as possible in our unit tests, we can judiciously test the happy paths and all other edge cases in our integration tests of the controllers in the application service layer.

Nevertheless, even if we do all of this properly, we still need to reckon with collaborators and dependencies at some point, ideally without making our testing suite prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to run! This brings us to the important topic of test doubles.

Test Doubles: Mocks vs Stubs

Test doubles (think “stunt doubles”) mimic the behavior of dependencies. There are various kinds of test doubles. Aniche (2022) lists five, for example:

• Dummies: passed to the class under test but never used
• Fakes: use simplified implementations of the classes they mimic
• Stubs: provide hard-coded answers to queries (no simplified implementation like fakes)
• Mocks: provide hard-coded answers to queries, recording the interactions that can then be asserted afterward
• Spies: wrap around a real dependency object (not like a mock), recording the interactions (like a mock)

However, Khorikov (2020) helpfully simplifies this list down to just two kinds of test doubles:

• Mocks (including both mocks and spies)
• Stubs (including dummies, fakes, and stubs)

What’s the difference between the two? Here’s Khorikov again:

• Mocks help to emulate and examine outcoming interactions. These interactions are calls the SUT [System Under Test] makes to its dependencies to change their state.

• Stubs help to emulate incoming interactions. These interactions are calls the SUT makes to its dependencies to get input data

Notice two important things. First, mocks both emulate and examine, while stubs only emulate. Second, mocks mimic interactions that result in side effects or changed state, while stubs mimc interactions that retrieve information. This touches on another important principle: command query separation.

Command Query Separation

According to command query separation (CQS), “every method should be either a command or a query, but not both” (Khorikov 2020).

• Commands: produce side effects, but do not return a value
• Queries: return a value, but do not produce side effects

Another way of summarizing this principle is that “asking a question should not change the answer” (Khorikov 2020).

Note that, in terms of CQS, mocks mimic commands while stubs mimic queries.

(Image source: Khorikov 2020)

When to Use Mocks and Stubs

A corollary of what we’ve just discussed is that we should never assert (verify) interactions with stubs in our tests. Doing so is unnecessary if our tests are correctly focusing on observable behavior, because stubs should only ever emulate steps on the way to our SUT (system under test) producing observable output.

A corollary of what we previously discussed about complexity/significance vs number of collaborators means that we should not have to use test doubles in our unit tests of domain code (and complex algorithms), but should rather save mocks and stubs for our integration tests of controllers and application services code.

Put differently: save test doubles for the outside “edges” of your system, where you need to verify interactions with dependencies that you don’t have control over.

When unit testing domain code classes at the “center” of your system, the only direct dependencies should be upon other domain code classes. And, since we’ve already discussed the benefit of expanding our definition of “unit” beyond “class” to include “unit of behavior/work,” we should use real versions of these “in-process” dependencies in our unit tests, instead of replacing them with mocks or stubs.

And, even when writing integration tests for application service code, when interactions with “out-of-process” dependencies are inescapable, we should only replace unmanaged out-of-process dependencies with test doubles. Whenever possible, we should use real instances of managed out-of-process dependencies (such as a database) in our integration tests, rather than replacing these with mocks or stubs.

Finally, when replacing unmanaged dependencies with test doubles, we should do so by creating (and then mocking or stubbing) an adapter layer that stands between our application and the third-party dependency. In other words, even when mocking a dependency you don’t control, you should “only mock types that you own” (Khorikov 2020). This doesn’t mean that you should mock managed dependencies like your database (see above)! But it does add in a helpful buffer between your application and its unmanaged dependencies.

Conclusion

Much more could be (and has been) said about software testing! If I had more time, I would discuss the following. But I recommend that curious readers do their own research on:

• Parameterized testing, which can help save time and space when you’ve got a bunch of test cases you need to cover for a single method
• Property-based testing, which leverages software to create and handle test cases given pre-defined “properties” or parameters that should be followed when generating possible inputs for your tests
• Mutation testing, which makes dynamic changes (“mutants”!) to your production code, and then sees whether or not those changes cause a test to fail (if, say, changing an if (A) to if (!A) causes a test to fail, then you’ve “killed” the mutant; if changing the logic of your program doesn’t cause any tests to fail, then the mutant has “survived”)

…Not to mention doing your own research on testing libraries and frameworks in your favorite language(s)! (In Java world, that includes JUnit, Mockito, jqwik, AssertJ, Pitest, etc.)

Nevertheless, I hope that this overview of software testing possibilities, problems, and principles helps you to write better tests and develop better software! If you have anything to add or correct, please do leave a comment. Or reach out to me (Twitter @joshuapsteele, GitHub jsteelepfpt, LinkedIn joshuapsteele).

Recommended Resources on Software Testing

• Test Case Checklist in Code Complete, 2nd edition by Steve McConnell (Microsoft 2004:532)
• Effective Software Testing: A Developer’s Guide by Mauricio Aniche (Manning, 2022)
• Full Stack Testing: A Practical Guide for Delivering High Quality Software by Gayathri Mohan (O’Reilly, 2022)
• Unit Testing Principles, Practices, and Patterns by Vladimir Khorikov (Manning, 2020)
• “Topic 41: Test to Code” and “Topic 42: Property-Based Testing” in The Pragmatic Programmer: Your Journey to Mastery by David Thomas and Andrew Hunt (2nd Edition; Addison-Wesley Professional, 2019)
• “Testing Strategies in a Microservice Architecture” by Toby Clemson (Slide Deck)
• “What Is Software Testing? And Why Is It So Hard?” by James A. Whittaker (IEEE Software, January 2000:70–79)

High demand and good pay: Software engineering is a rapidly growing field, with many companies actively seeking qualified candidates. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual wage for software developers was $107,510 in 2020, and employment of software developers is projected to grow 21% from 2020 to 2029, much faster than the average for all occupations.

Opportunities for career advancement: As a software engineer, you’ll have the opportunity to learn new technologies and techniques, which can lead to promotions and advancement within your company or organization. You can also choose to specialize in a particular area, such as machine learning or data science, which can open up even more career opportunities.

Ability to work on interesting and meaningful projects: As a software engineer, you’ll have the chance to work on a wide variety of projects, from building websites and mobile apps to developing software for scientific research or medical devices. You’ll have the opportunity to use your skills and knowledge to solve real-world problems and make a positive impact on people’s lives.

Flexibility to work remotely: Many software engineering jobs allow for remote work, which means you have the flexibility to work from anywhere in the world. This can be especially appealing if you enjoy traveling or want to live in a location that may not have as many job opportunities in other fields.

Continuous learning: The field of software engineering is constantly evolving, with new technologies and techniques being developed all the time. As a software engineer, you’ll have the opportunity to learn and stay up-to-date on these advancements, which can keep your job interesting and rewarding.

Overall, becoming a software engineer is a great career choice for anyone who enjoys problem-solving, has an interest in technology, and wants to work on meaningful and impactful projects. If you’re considering a career in software engineering, don’t hesitate – now is a great time to start learning and building your skills in this exciting field.

• Untools: https://untools.co/
• James Clear: https://jamesclear.com/
• Farnam Street: https://fs.blog/
• Your Logical Fallacy Is: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
• Your Bias Is: https://yourbias.is/

Fitness / Health

• Darebee: https://darebee.com/

Reading / Writing

• QuillBot: https://quillbot.com/
• 12ft Ladder: https://12ft.io/
• Open Library: https://openlibrary.org/

Design

• PDF24 Tools: https://tools.pdf24.org/en/
• Unsplash: https://unsplash.com/
• The Noun Project: https://thenounproject.com/

Software Development

• Stack Overflow: https://stackoverflow.com/
• O’Reilly: https://learning.oreilly.com/
• roadmap.sh: https://roadmap.sh/
• cheat.sh: https://cheat.sh/
• DevHints.io: https://devhints.io/
• Learn X in Y minutes: https://learnxinyminutes.com/
• Baeldung (for Java/Spring): https://www.baeldung.com/

What would you add to this list? Let me know!

Five-Minute Journal Questions

• Morning
  • I am grateful for…
  • What would make today great?
  • Daily affirmations: I am…
• Evening
  • What are 3 amazing things that happened today?
  • How could I have made today even better?

Morning Questions (5 minutes)

1. What’s one thing I’m grateful for?
2. What’s one thing I’m excited about?
3. What’s one virtue I want to exhibit?
4. What’s one thing I’m avoiding?
5. What’s the one thing I need to do?

Evening Questions (5 minutes)

1. What were my biggest wins of the day?
2. Did I have any major realizations?
3. What’s on the agenda for tomorrow?

Bottleneck Breaker

1. What’s the biggest bottleneck to achieving my next goal?
2. Why aren’t I working on it today?

80/20 Analysis

1. Where am I feeling satisfied?
2. Where am I feeling dissatisfied?
3. For each of the above, what are the 20% of places, habits, people, beliefs, etc. that are responsible for 80% of the positive and negative results?

Compounding Projection

1. If I repeated every action from today for one year, where would I end up?
2. Is this the place I want to be?

Course Correction Questions

• What do I need to spend more time doing?
• What do I need to spend less time doing?
• What do I need to schedule?
• What do I need to do?
• What do I need to be more mindful of?
• What unresolved issues am I overlooking?
• What opportunities are in front of me?
• What obstacles are in my way?
• Am I going in the right direction with my commitments?
  • What do I need to add?
  • What do I need to delete?
  • What do I need to expand?
  • What do I need to shrink?
• What have I done well recently?
• Source: The Productivity Project

Forty-Nine Questions to Improve Your Results, by Josh Kaufman

Do I use my body optimally?

• What is the quality of my current diet?
• Do I get enough sleep?
• Am I managing my energy well each day?
• How do I manage daily stress?
• Do I have good posture and poise?
• What can I do to improve my ability to observe the world around me?

Do I know what I want?

• What achievements would make me really excited?
• What “states of being” do I want to experience each day?
• Are my priorities and values clearly defined?
• Am I capable of making decisions quickly and confidently?
• Do I consistently focus my attention on what I want vs. what I don’t want?

What am I afraid of?

• Have I created an honest and complete list of the fears I’m holding on to?
• Have I confronted each fear to imagine how I would handle it if it came to pass?
• Am I capable of recognizing and correcting self-limitation?
• Am I appropriately pushing my own limits?

Is my mind clear and focused?

• Do I systematically externalize (write or record) what I think about?
• Am I making it easy to capture my thoughts quickly, as I have them?
• What has my attention right now?
• Am I regularly asking myself appropriate guiding questions?
• Do I spend most of my time focusing on a single task, or constantly flipping between multiple tasks?
• Do I spend enough time actively reflecting on my goals, projects, and progress?

Am I confident, relaxed, and productive?

• Have I found a planning method that works for me?
• Am I “just organized enough”?
• Do I have an up-to-date list of my projects and active tasks?
• Do I review all of my commitments on a regular basis?
• Do I take regular, genuine breaks from my work?
• Am I consciously creating positive habits?
• Am I working to shed non-productive habits?
• Am I comfortable with telling other people “no”?

How do I perform best?

• What do I particularly enjoy?
• What am I particularly good at doing?
• What environment do I find most conducive to doing good work?
• How do I tend to learn most effectively?
• How do I prefer to work with and communicate with others?
• What is currently holding me back?

What do I really need to be happy and fulfilled?

• How am I currently defining “success”?
• Is there another way of defining “success” that I may find more fulfilling?
• How often do I compare myself to my perceptions of other people?
• Am I currently living below my means?
• If I could only own 100 things, what would they be?
• Am I capable of separating necessity and luxury?
• What do I feel grateful for in my life and work?

Testing the “Impossible”: 17 Questions That Changed My Life, by Tim Ferriss

• What if I did the opposite for 48 hours?
• What do I spend a silly amount of money on? How might I scratch my own itch?
• What would I do/have/be if I had $10 million? What’s my real TMI (Target Monthly Income)?
• What are the worst things that could happen? Could I get back here?
• If I could only work 2 hours per week on my business, what would I do?
• What if I let them make decisions up to $100? $500? $1,000?
• What’s the least crowded channel?
• What if I couldn’t pitch my product directly?
• What if I created my own real-world MBA?
• Do I need to make it back the way I lost it?
• What if I could only subtract to solve problems?
• What might I put in place to allow me to go off the grid for 4 to 8 weeks, with no phone or email?
• Am I hunting antelope or field mice?
• Could it be that everything is fine and complete as is?
• What would this look like if it were easy?
• How can I throw money at this problem? How can I “waste” money to improve the quality of my life?
• No hurry, no pause.

Useful questions for reframing (Derek Sivers, Useful Not True)

When something goes wrong

• What’s great about this?
• How can I use this to my advantage?
• Does this change the goal, or the path, or nothing?
• How can I reduce the downsides?

When changing direction

• When I was at my happiest, what was I doing?
• What have I strongly wanted for the longest time?
• What’s the opposite of what I usually do?
• Which of my old beliefs are not serving me?
• Forget me. What would be most helpful for others?

When stuck

• What is my one top priority now?
• How can I begin without waiting for anything?
• What advice would I love to hear from an all-knowing sage?
• What am I doing that’s actually a distraction?
• Instead of avoiding mistakes, how can I make more to learn faster?
• Who can help?

To make peace with what’s out of your control

• What happens if I ignore it and do nothing?
• Should I learn a lesson from this, or just move on?
• How can I blame no one, and see this as nobody’s fault?
• How can I be OK no matter what happens?

I also really enjoy LEARNING as much as I can from other people. And so, with that in mind, I’d like to “open source” my search for mentors and invite you, dear reader, to answer at least one of the questions below.

Please comment your answers below this post (that way others can benefit from your knowledge as well!). Or, if you’d like, send them to me via email (use my contact form here). Then, go ask these questions to others! Cheers!

1. What is the book (or books) you’ve given most as a gift, and why? Or what are one to three books that have greatly influenced your life?
2. What purchase of $100 or less has most positively impacted your life in the last six months (or in recent memory)?
3. How has a failure, or apparent failure, set you up for later success? Do you have a “favorite failure” of yours?
4. If you could have a gigantic billboard anywhere with anything on it — metaphorically speaking, getting a message out to millions or billions — what would it say and why? It could be a few words or a paragraph. (If helpful, it can be someone else’s quote: Are there any quotes you think of often or live your life by?)
5. What is one of the best or most worthwhile investments you’ve ever made? (Could be an investment of money, time, energy, etc.)
6. What is an unusual habit or an absurd thing that you love?
7. In the last five years, what new belief, behavior, or habit has most improved your life?
8. What advice would you give to a smart, driven college student about to enter the “real world”? What advice should they ignore?
9. What are bad recommendations you hear in your profession or area of expertise?
10. In the last five years, what have you become better at saying no to (distractions, invitations, etc.)? What new realizations and/or approaches helped? Any other tips?
11. When you feel overwhelmed or unfocused, or have lost your focus temporarily, what do you do? (If helpful: What questions do you ask yourself?)

Source for these questions: Tim Ferriss, Tribe of Mentors.

Want more great questions? Check out Curated Questions.

Why we are here

In May 2019, Cherin’s 9-year-old daughter confided in her that she had been repeatedly sexually abused by Mark Rivera, a lay catechist at Christ Our Light Anglican (COLA), the church they attended in Big Rock, Illinois.

Reeling from this discovery, Cherin immediately reported her daughter’s allegations to her priest, Fr. Rand York. However, instead of walking with her through this ordeal, Fr. York and other church leaders at COLA neglected to report the allegations (although they were mandatory reporters by Illinois law) and pressured Cherin against reporting as well.

Resisting this pressure, Cherin reported the alleged abuse and in June 2019 Rivera was arrested and charged with felony child sexual assault and abuse. Cherin and her family were immediately ostracized at Christ Our Light for having gone to the police, which eventually led them to return to Church of the Resurrection (Cherin’s childhood church) where they hoped to recover as the investigation began. But rather than offering the care and support she hoped to receive from leaders she’d known most her life, the cathedral of the Diocese of the Upper Midwest instead supported Rivera financially, helped him find an expert defense lawyer, and accompanied him to his hearings.

Despite Cherin’s daughter’s allegations, Rivera’s nearly 20 year volunteer history at the church, and additional allegations of rape in 2020 by Rivera’s neighbor, Joanna Rudenborg, Bp. Ruch and Church of the Resurrection did not make the diocese aware of the crisis unfolding in their midst. Joanna, Cherin, and other advocates began pleading with leaders in the Upper Midwest to address the abuse and work to make their diocese safe for survivors.

To date,13 individuals have made allegations of abuse against Rivera, including child sexual abuse, indecent exposure, grooming, and rape. It was only in May 2021, two years after Cherin’s daughter first came forward, that the allegations against Rivera were finally made known to the diocese in a letter from Bp. Ruch, which downplayed the scope and seriousness of Rivera’s behavior, omitted the extent of his leadership involvement, and did not provide any direction or resources for additional survivors who wished to come forward.

Despite many months of communication with survivors and advocates, Bp. Ruch and his team dismissed their basic requests and concerns. Instead, they hired an investigative firm whose practices went in direct opposition to the survivor-centric standards for which they had exhaustively advocated.

After advocating with Bp. Ruch and his staff for 7 months, Joanna came forward in a June 26 Twitter thread as a last resort to outline her experience and advocate for accountability and justice, both for her case and for those of the other survivors, at last bringing public awareness to just how much lay beyond what Bp. Ruch’s letter indicated.

What is #ACNAtoo?

As a survivor-centric advocacy group, ACNAtoo’s mission is Advocacy for survivors of abuse in the ACNA, Accountability for key leaders within the ACNA to hold survivor-centered policies, and Education for all those within an Anglican context about the dynamics of spiritual/sexual abuse, and how to best prevent/respond to abuse in the church. ACNAtoo began as an advocacy group for survivors in the Diocese of the Upper Midwest, but we are here to support people in all dioceses of the ACNA.

Our goals are to:

• Be a separate third space for ACNA abuse victims to come, share their story, be believed, find resources, and get directed to professional help.
• Advocate for victims by communicating with church leaders and holding them accountable to best practices of abuse response and prevention.
• Educate Anglican churches on the dynamics of spiritual and sexual abuse, and best practices in preventing and responding to abuse by generating and/or disseminating resources and content.

What does #ACNAtoo hope you hear from their work?

Everyone should be informed

To prevent abuse, we need to recognize what it looks like when it happens in our midst. All adult members of the ACNA need to know what survivors and their advocates are saying about how Bp. Ruch and the Diocese of the Upper Midwest have handled abuse allegations.

Every ACNA rector should address their congregation about what is going on. Statistically speaking, every congregation has survivors sitting in their pews, and how their community responds to this crisis in their own denomination will communicate clearly how that community would respond to them if and when they seek help, advocacy, justice, and healing.

Each ACNA bishop needs to address this clearly with his clergy and diocese to ensure that proper guidelines are in place that empower survivors and maintain transparency. We hope that each diocese in the ACNA takes time in light of these events to reevaluate their policies regarding abuse prevention and reporting, consulting with reputable experts like G.R.A.C.E. to establish survivor-centric policies and procedures for investigating abuse allegations and providing care and protection to survivors and their families beyond initial guidelines for reporting abuse allegations.

The process of justice needs to be survivor sensitive

In any situation of abuse, the voices of survivors and their families need to be heard and their concerns addressed by the ACNA community.

In the current crisis involving the Diocese of the Upper Midwest, the survivors and their families should be provided with the qualified, trauma-informed care of their choice at the expense of the Diocese, which has so far neglected to pay for any survivor care for Cherin, her daughter, or Joanna.

Additionally, any as yet unidentified victims of Mark Rivera should be provided with a safe way of coming forward and assured of adequate care and protection.The process of discovering other victims should be guided by qualified, trauma-informed, and independent professionals, not by the ACNA itself.

To read more of what #ACNAtoo outlines regarding the ongoing investigation into the Diocese of the Upper Midwest, please read the open letter from July 15, 2021.

How can I personally respond?

1. Demand justice for survivors of abuse in the Diocese of the Upper Midwest by writing to your bishop, rector, and vestry.
2. Ask your bishop to take steps to make sure that every ACNA ministry is equipped to follow best practices in abuse prevention and response.
3. Educate yourself about what a survivor-centric response to abuse allegations looks like and learn about best practices in abuse prevention and reporting.

How do I prevent abuse in my own congregation/diocese?

Learning about trauma-informed and survivor-sensitive responses to abuse allegations is a key component to identifying and preventing situations of abuse. #ACNAtoo has compiled a page of resources and recommended materials on their resources page that can help you begin this process.

Another key aspect is to know your own context. Read your diocesan, parish, and ministry policies about abuse prevention and response. Compare what current policies are in place with what you are learning about best practices. Reference the materials provided by organizations like G.R.A.C.E. to discern how your parish/diocesan policies do or do not fall within these best practices. As you learn more about this, open up discussions with your fellow church members and work together to implement safer, more survivor-centric guidelines.

Educate yourself about the warning signs of spiritual and sexual abuse. Learning to identify the red flags in these areas can prevent abuse at the outset, as well as empower you to serve survivors well as they identify their experience and seek healing.

Let us rend our hearts

As shameful as it feels to be confronted with our failures, we believe that exposure is an invitation from God to mature and refine us. We are not passionate about #ACNAtoo because of a lack of hope; rather, it is because we hold on to our hope of Christ’s redeeming work that we have the strength to enter this process with humility and lament. This is an opportunity to become more like Jesus. This is an opportunity to be a denomination in which those who do not yet know Christ are drawn to him because we manifest his character, particularly in our response to this current crisis.

We invite you to join us in our faith that the Jesus the ACNA worships is better than we have imagined. We invite you to ask him to build a new hope in you: that he wants to show you that he sees you and loves you wherever you are. We invite you to ask Jesus to grow your trust in him by opening your eyes to see God moving in ways that do not involve your exhausted striving, but rather an encounter with the living God who is active in the world.

In this moment, let us obey the words of the prophet Joel (2:12-15):

“Yet even now,” says the Lord, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your hearts and not your garments.” Return to the Lord, your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and repents of evil.

If we can acknowledge the truth of what God is saying, and respond with humble repentance, with God’s help we can become people who can receive and give his healing power. He does not wish to bandage over the wound of his daughter lightly (Jer 8.11). He wishes to bring her resurrection.

*Whitney Evans Harrison earned her degree in writing and literature from Wheaton College. She now works in publishing and is a member of the #ACNAtoo Advocacy Team. Whitney and her husband, Fr. Aaron Harrison, currently live in Carol Stream, IL with their son and Lila, their dachshund-beagle mix.

*Conor Hanson is a former Greenhouse Catechist and a current stay-at-home dad. With degrees in Automotive and Philosophy, he likes reading non-fiction (with some fiction sprinkled in) and spending time with his wife and daughter. He currently lives in Minnesota and is learning to love it as a former Wisconsinite.

Ah, but first, my TL;DR: If you’re looking for work, or going to be looking for work soon, do yourself a huge favor and buy the latest edition of What Color Is Your Parachute. Work through the book, especially the Flower Petal Exercise. It’s well-worth your time!

The Flower Petal Exercise

The Flower Petal Exercise is a self-discovery tool designed to help individuals identify their career objectives and life goals. Using a visual analogy of a flower, it engages users in an interactive exploration of their skills, interests, values, and professional aspirations.

The ‘flower’ consists of seven ‘petals’ or components, each representing a different aspect of a person’s work-life:

1. People Environments: Here, you define the type of people you enjoy working with. Consider factors such as company culture, team size, or the sociopolitical views of your colleagues.
2. Working Conditions: This focuses on the conditions under which you perform best. It may include factors like flexible working hours, remote work, office settings, or your preference for a structured versus unstructured work environment.
3. Transferable Skills: These are skills you’ve acquired over time that can be transferred across various roles and industries. For instance, project management, problem-solving, or leadership skills.
4. Fields of Knowledge: This petal captures specific knowledge areas you’re interested in or have a deep understanding of. This could be anything from technology to psychology or even history.
5. Level of Responsibility: This petal evaluates your desire for responsibility. Are you seeking a leadership role, or do you prefer a supportive, team member role?
6. Salary and Level of Lifestyle: Here you outline your financial goals and the lifestyle you aim for. It includes considerations like desired salary, job benefits, and work-life balance.
7. Values and Goals: This final petal is about your personal values and life goals, aligning your career with your moral compass and long-term aspirations.

Each petal is equally important, and the final image should give you a holistic view of your career preferences and strengths. The objective of the Flower Petal Exercise is to help you understand yourself better, providing a clear vision of your career path and enabling you to make more informed decisions in your professional life.

It is important to remember that the exercise is not a one-time thing. Your ‘flower’ is expected to change and evolve as you grow, learn, and experience more in your life and career.

OK, now on to my results!

My Preferred Kinds of People to Work With

1. Reliable and dependable
2. Honest, people of integrity
3. Looking for and open to ways of improving
4. Have a sense of humor
5. Flexible, limited but purposeful supervision

My “Holland Code”: I like to spend time and work with the following kinds of people:

• Investigative
• Enterprising
• Conventional

(My personal Holland combination is Investigative, Artistic, and Social.)

My Favorite Working Conditions

1. Quiet (and cool…not too hot!)
2. My own dedicated workspace with space to store books, writing supplies, etc.
3. Relatively casual, comfortable
4. Has a window, natural light, view of trees/nature—with easy walking nearby
5. Flexible hours

My Favorite Transferable Skills (What I Can Do and Love to Do)

1. Use my brain
2. Solve problems
3. Develop, improve
4. Follow through, get things done
5. Research, examine, inspect, compare, see similarities and differences
6. Study, observe
7. Communicate well, in writing
8. Communicate well, in person
9. Initiate, lead, be a pioneer
10. Instruct; Teach, tutor, or train

My Strongest Traits

1. Competent
2. Knowledgeable
3. Versatile
4. Innovative
5. Resourceful
6. Dependable, Reliable, and Responsible
7. Deliberate
8. Achievement-oriented
9. Self-motivated, driven
10. Effective

My Favorite Knowledges or Fields of Interest

1. Learning, research, thinking
2. Writing and editing
3. Biblical and theological studies
4. Habits and productivity
5. Leadership

Responsibility & Salary

• I’d like to work as the head of a team.

• Salary Range: $60K-90K/year + healthcare, sick leave, vacation, and retirement/401K

• Other rewards hoped for:

  • adventure,
  • leadership,
  • helping others,
  • influence

My Preferred Kinds of Places to Live

1. Cool
2. Quiet, low traffic
3. Nature, walkable
4. Diverse restaurants, coffee shops, craft beer, etc.
5. Good schools
6. Low crime

My Goal, Purpose, or Mission in Life

I want to serve the world by serving the church. I want to help everyone know and love God more so that we join God in making the world a better, more beautiful place.

(Note: To learn more about me, read my story and take a look at my C.V.)

If there are two things I hate, they are waiting and staying awake.

I hate waiting.

Ask anyone who knows me. I am absolutely horrible when it comes to delayed gratification. I’ve been known to open new boxes of cereal on the way home from the store.

And I hate staying awake.

Ask anyone who knows me. I’m convinced that nothing good happens after 10:00 o’clock at night. 9 o’clock, really, if I’m honest.

(Ahem, and my young children have driven this point home!)

Keeping watch all night long sounds like the worst thing in the world. I mean, unless you’re in the middle of a good book or an episode of Bake-Off, why not just go to bed?

• I hate waiting.
• I hate staying awake.
• I am impatient!
• I am tired!

And I’m wondering if Kevin or God assigned me this sermon on purpose!

Maybe it’s appropriate that I can literally see myself on the computer screen that I’m preaching to!

Friends, it’s been a long year. We last gathered in-person for Holy Communion on March 7th. I was the Celebrant. That was 266 days ago, but it feels like it’s been a few years.

I’m sure you’ve all been through a lot. On my end, while the Lord has proven faithful to provide glimpses of joy—including an addition to our family!—this has been one of the most difficult years of my life. I’ve recently decided to step away from my Ph.D. program for a year for the sake of my mental health.

It’s been a long year. And, I don’t know about you, but I am impatient and oh so tired.

As 2020 comes to a close, I’m tired of

• disease,
• depression,
• disruption,
• deception,
• division, and
• death.

And it’s very tempting to begin the new liturgical year today by skipping straight to Christmas and leaving all that unhappy junk behind us!

But Advent gets in our way.

As Fleming Rutledge puts it in her collection of Advent sermons,

“the season [of Advent] is not for the faint of heart.”

Why? Well, to borrow another phrase from her,

“Advent begins in the dark.”

You see, Advent reminds us that, if we’re going to follow Jesus, we need to stay awake and wait for him to return—in the dark.

And yes, I’ll admit that “Stay woke, people, it’s dark outside!” is a hard word for the weary. But I think it’s a good word.

It’s certainly a much better word than “Everything’s fine, folks! Here, have some eggnog and, you know, try not to breathe on anybody!”

Because, here’s the thing: when Jesus tells us to watch and wait for his return to judge the living and the dead, he’s not telling us to sit down, shut up, and keep a stiff upper lip.

No! There are things to do.

And, as our reading from Isaiah reminds us, as we wait for the Lord, it’s OK if we’ve got something to say. A hard word of our own.

Namely: “God, where are you? Why haven’t you torn the sky open yet? Why haven’t you come back to fix things?”

That’s how Isaiah 64 begins. It’s actually the second half of a lament prayer that begins by recalling how God rescued his people from slavery in Egypt. (Just like we just did in our sermon series on Exodus!)

The problem, of course, is that God’s people promptly rebelled against him before they even reached the Promised Land.

Then, once there, they continued to break their covenant commitments to God until they received the promised punishment of exile.

But Isaiah hasn’t forgotten the exodus or the covenant.

God has proven that he can save. And God has promised that he will save.

So, what gives?

• Where are God’s zeal and might?
• Why is he withholding his tenderness and compassion from his people?
• Why have enemies trampled down the sanctuary?
• Why has God hidden his face?
• Why has God given us over to our sins?
• Is God going to keep silent and punish us by refusing to rescue us forever?
• Doesn’t he know his reputation is on the line?

But wait, that’s not quite right. And this is very important.

This is not a lament ABOUT God to a third party. This is a lament TO God.

Hard words, yes. But words spoken within the context of a relationship.

• Where are YOU, God?
• We are YOUR people. Why haven’t YOU rescued us yet?
• Don’t YOU know that YOUR reputation is at stake?

Friends, if you’re feeling far away from God these days, might I suggest that you start praying this way, with brutal honesty? God knows how we really feel. Tell him! He can handle it.

But there’s something else we need to be brutally honest about as we wait for the Lord, and that’s our own sin.

Yes, as Isaiah 64:4-5 notes, God is a God who “who acts on behalf of those who wait for him.” And this means that he’s a God who comes “to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember [God’s] ways” (64:4–5).

Did you catch that? Waiting for God means “gladly doing right” and “remembering God’s ways” by living according to his will! We don’t “wait for God” by sitting around and twiddling our thumbs!

But, I suppose, even thumb-twiddling would be better than what actually takes place! As Isaiah 64 goes on to describe, God’s people keep sinning despite God’s obvious anger. How, then, can we be saved?

Verses 6 and 7 read:

“All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. No one calls on your name or strives to lay hold of you; for you have hidden your face from us and have given us over to our sins.”

Yes, biblical lament gives us the space to air our grievances to God. But we shouldn’t stop there. We should continually confess our sins to God—both individually and communally.

Do you hear how Isaiah is speaking for the people here? There’s a solidarity between the prophet and the people that I think should also characterize the Church.

It’s not enough as Christians to say “not my problem” or “at least I’m not as bad as so-and-so!”

No, instead, as we wait for the Lord, we need to ask ourselves:

• What do I need to confess and repent of?
• What does our church need to confess and repent of?
• What does the church need to confess and repent of?

In other words, we need to consider, in the words of our collect prayer, exactly what it looks like for us to “cast away the works of darkness, and put on the armor of light.”

And this is where the rubber meets the road, I think, when it comes to Jesus’s commands in Mark 13 to “Be on guard! Keep alert!” And “keep watch.”

He’s not talking about being paranoid, constantly checking the news, and what the kids these days are calling “doomscrolling” through Facebook and Twitter.

Yes, on the one hand, we need to make sure that we’re not selfishly ignoring the real suffering around us.

But, on the other hand, there’s a big difference between checking Twitter every hour to find out what we should be angry about and really listening to the heartbeat of the world’s pain.

Friends, our problem isn’t that we’re starved for information and data. No, we’re starved for insight and discernment.

So, if we’re going to read the news, we should first read our Bibles. And if we’re going to read our Bibles, we need to let the Bible read us.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer correctly diagnosed a persistent problem when he said that:

“We no longer read the Bible seriously. We read it no longer against ourselves but only for ourselves” (DBWE 11:377-78).

This particular facet of our sinfulness is called “confirmation bias.” Whether we’re reading the Bible or Facebook, we’re looking for things that confirm what we already think, feel, and do.

(And, in Facebook’s case, it’s showing us things that we tend to agree with!)

As we watch and wait for the Lord, we need to push back against this. We need to let judgment begin with the household of God (1 Pet. 4:17) and lead the way for the world in terms of confession and repentance.

Unfortunately, without the help of the Holy Spirit, we’re going to, at best, lead the way for the world in terms of self-righteousness and self-justification! Filthy rags, indeed.

In order to get out of this mess, we desperately need God’s help.

That’s why Isaiah is so indignant in his lament. Sure, it’s not God’s fault that we sin. But we sure can’t save ourselves!

As Psalm 80 reminds us, we need our Shepherd, the LORD God of Hosts, to “restore us” and “make your face to shine on us, that we may be saved.”

We can do our very best to keep watch, but, as Psalm 127:1 reminds us:

“Unless the Lord watches over the city, the guards stand watch in vain.”

But, of course, for Isaiah, that’s the problem! God has “hidden [his] face from us” and has “given us over to our sins” (64:7)?

“How then can we be saved?” (64:5)

In almost every biblical lament, there is a “turn.” In Isaiah 64, it’s in verses 8-9:

“YET you, Lord, are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.

“Do not be angry beyond measure, Lord; do not remember our sins forever. Oh, look on us, we pray, for we are all your people.”

God is our Father. We are his children.

He may tarry, he may judge, he may allow us to experience consequences for our rebellion, but he will NOT “hold himself back” forever.

He will NOT “keep silent” forever and “punish us beyond measure.”

Why not?

Because, although we’re still awaiting his final return and judgment, God has, in fact, torn open the heavens and come down since Isaiah’s lament.

God has not kept silent.

In fact, as the book of Hebrews reminds us:

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets [like Isaiah!] at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (1:1-2),

…at whose baptism the heavens were torn open and the Spirit descended upon him like a dove (Mark 1:10).

And God has not punished us beyond measure.

In fact, as Isaiah 53:5 reminds us, in Christ, God himself

“was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.”

You see, when Jesus’s body was torn upon the cross, the curtain in the Temple was torn in two, allowing us to enter the Holy of Holies with confidence by the blood of Christ!

Friends, this is what gives us confidence to stay awake and wait for the Lord’s return, even when it’s dark outside.

So, we can be brutally honest with God and we can confess our sins with confidence, even when the sun goes dark, the moon goes dim, and the stars fall from the sky.

We can gladly do right and remember God’s ways, even when the earth gives way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea.

Why?

Because we are God’s children and God is our Father.

And so, we pray to Our Father:

“Do not be angry beyond measure, Lord; do not remember our sins forever. Oh, look on us, we pray, for we are all your people” (Isa. 64:9).

“Restore us, Lord God Almighty; make your face shine on us [in the face of your Son], that we may be saved.” (Ps. 80:19)

Amen.

At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, 2020 has been a particularly difficult year.

Attempting to complete my “Barth, Bonhoeffer, and the Bible” dissertation has taken a toll on my mental health as I ran into some major research and writing roadblocks right before and during the COVID pandemic.

Through therapy, medication, my amazing wife, and other means, the Lord has proven faithful to provide for me and my (growing) family during these difficult days.

Nevertheless, after a lot of prayer and counsel, I’ve decided that stepping away from my dissertation for a year is the wise call right now. It’s the best chance I have to either (1) return and finish my dissertation while retaining my health or (2) discern that getting my Ph.D., at least at this point in my life, is not what the Lord is calling me to do.

At the end of the day, whether I’m “Rev. Dr.” or just “Rev.,” I want to put my time and talents to good use for the sake of Christ’s Church.

To that end, I would appreciate your prayers for the year ahead as I attempt to prioritize healing and ministry. I’m preaching again this weekend as Advent begins, and it’s a good reminder that (1) I love the Church and (2) I need to learn how to “wait for the Lord.”

I’m pretty flexible at this point, but I want to do something that benefits the church. I think I would make a great Assistant Rector! 🙂

Any advice, opportunities, or connections you can offer would be appreciated!

You can view/share my CV here. And here’s my LinkedIn profile.

In my opinion, the use of the sign of the cross in clergy names/signatures—unless it’s done in official ecclesiastical communication or immediately after a blessing or prayer for the recipient—is pretentious. It’s showy. At the very least, it conveys or connotes pretentiousness.

Note that I’m not making a claim about the *people* who use crosses in their signatures, their inner thoughts, or their intentions. For all I know, every single clergyperson out there says a prayer of blessing for their recipients every single time they use the sign of the cross in a signature. I’m also not writing this about any person in particular.

I’m merely observing what I take to be the *connotation* of a particular speech act.

It’s one thing to use a signature with the sign of the cross in, say, a letter to a parishioner that you end with “May the Lord bless you and keep you.” In that case, it’s more obviously functioning like a written replacement for the sign of the cross that one would make with one’s hand if one were giving a priestly blessing in person.

However, apart from the immediate context of a blessing or prayer, I dare say that most people just think it’s a plus sign. Perhaps a typo when one meant to hit backspace? A new subscription service for personal communication? Or maybe the new-and-improved version of so-and-so now that they’ve turned a corner in their life and things are looking up?

I’m not saying that we clerics need to stop using the sign of the cross in our signatures altogether! A poor connotation for something (say, wearing a clergy shirt in public) doesn’t mean we should abandon it. I’m just suggesting that we should be more judicious in its use.

Sure, I’ve still been able to get out of bed in the morning. And I wasn’t having any serious thoughts about hurting myself. But still, I was feeling hopeless and trapped often enough that I decided it was time to seek out help.

I know, I know. That’s pretty personal for a blog post for the whole internet to read!

However, as I see it, I’m writing it out here for two reasons:

1. To commit publicly to seeking out counseling now that I’ve started my first try of medication.
2. In case anyone else out there, currently experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety, etc., needs a nudge to seek out help sooner rather than later.

If #2 above refers to you, please know that you’re not alone! Please don’t let pride or anything else get in the way of receiving the help that you need.

Most loving Father, you will us to give thanks for all things, to dread nothing but the loss of you, and to cast all our care on the One who cares for us. Preserve us from faithless fears and worldly anxieties, and grant that no clouds of this mortal life may hide from us the light of that love which is immortal, and which you have manifested unto us in your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

(Occasional Prayer #80, Book of Common Prayer 2019. From Morning Prayer this morning.)

I think I’ll still keep my micro.blog up and running, but between running Anglican Compass and sprinting for some last-ditch clarity on my increasingly frustrating dissertation, I need all the extra bandwidth I can get!

If you need to get in touch for some reason, please use the contact form on my website. You can also sign up for my very occasional email newsletter here.

One last thing: If you haven’t read Cal Newport’s Deep Work yet, you should do so ASAP!

Perhaps I’ve missed something. Perhaps there’s a passage of Scripture out there that both Barth and Bonhoeffer wrote about that contains a theologically significant exegetical disagreement worth writing home about.

More likely: Barth and Bonhoeffer handled the Bible in different enough ways that comparing them as if they were two modern Bible commentators is a fool’s errand. Sure, it would have been great if, for example, they had a lengthy exegetical disagreement on whether or not Romans 7 describes the current Christian life. But I’ve been searching and searching for things like that, and I simply haven’t found them. Instead, I’ve found a cryptic student note here, a missing sermon manuscript there. This approach is simply not the dissertation that the subject matter requires. And it certainly hasn’t yielded anything constructive enough to meet Wheaton’s Ph.D. requirements!

This is the closest thing I’ve had to a breakthrough since starting the project. And, given that focusing on specific passages of Scripture was going to be the main thing that distinguished my project from other Barth and Bonhoeffer studies, this is a pretty crushing realization.

What’s more, I’ve essentially given up on using the “theological critique of religion” as a theological lens/scaffold, because getting clear on what Barth and Bonhoeffer meant by “religion” (an important step in understanding their relationship, I believe) was not helping me zero-in on particular biblical material. “Religion” is a slippery term in general, and it has many thematic tentacles, as it were, in Barth and Bonhoeffer’s writings. Construed a certain way, anything and everything that they said could be about “religion.”

So, where does that leave me?

Well, I’m convinced that something needs to change. I’m not prepared to continue sacrificing my mental, emotional, physical, and relational health on the altar of this Ph.D. Unfortunately, this isn’t exactly the clear sign that I should quit that I was hoping for. There are still other dissertation options within the realm of “Barth, Bonhoeffer, and the Bible.” They each have their downsides, and I’m not getting my hopes up, but they’re intriguing enough that I feel like I need to at least explore them before I call it quits.

The first step would be to revisit the secondary literature on Barth and the Bible and on Bonhoeffer and the Bible. Originally, I’d planned to briefly summarize this literature, mainly focusing on how what I was doing (examining particular Bible passages and reading them alongside Barth and Bonhoeffer) was different. That didn’t work!

So now it looks like I need to find an organic contribution to the secondary literature. I need to find some way that the particulars of Barth and Bonhoeffer’s theological exegesis goes beyond the portrait of the two theologians that’s been painted in the secondary literature. Hopefully I’ll be able to salvage some of my work on Genesis 1–3 and/or Matthew 5–7 to make an argument that goes beyond the secondary literature.

OR: I’ll realize that I have nothing of substance to contribute to this discussion, that others have done the work better than I could hope to, and I can go my not-so-merry way. In many ways, this “fail fast” option seems preferable. I doubt that either Barth or Bonhoeffer would be happy with me for spending so much time thinking and writing about their writings, instead of thinking and writing about the identity and acts of the Triune God.

This means that, instead of transitioning to full-time work with Anglican Compass ASAP, I’m planning to remain a full-time doctoral student for this fall semester. If, by the end of the year, I don’t have any more clarity on this project, then I think I’ll throw in the towel. Perhaps I’m not supposed to be the Rev. Dr. Steele. At least not yet.

Sorry for the depressing post! Prayers are much appreciated. As I prepare for my fourth year as a Ph.D. student, I’m quickly running out of ideas and motivation.

Upgrading would help me in my preaching, teaching, and writing roles (as a pastor-theologian and as the Managing Editor of AnglicanCompass.com). I’ve already benefited immensely from the Anglican Silver package I bought when I got into the Logos Bible Software ecosystem a couple years ago (mainly to gain easy digital access to Barth and Bonhoeffer’s writings for my dissertation). I plan to stick with Logos—especially for biblical commentaries, systematic theologies, and reference works—because it allows me to quickly research, prepare for sermons, answer questions from readers, etc.

Within a single day, the fundraiser received $341!! That leaves just $241 to reach the $582 Platinum goal!

If you can give a few bucks, I’d be very grateful! And, whether or not you give money to the fundraiser, please always feel free to send me any questions you have about Anglicanism, the Bible, Christian theology, Church history, etc.! I want to put my resources and training to good use!

In case you’re curious, here are some of the resources I’m most excited to own digitally in the Anglican Platinum library. I’d get 447 resources total, but here are the ones I’m most excited about:

• The complete Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (I have the NT now but would gain access to the OT)
• The Ancient Christian Doctrine Series
• The Pillar New Testament Commentary Series
• The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity
• The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
• N.T. Wright’s Christian Origins and the Question of God Series
• The 10-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
• The 8-volume Dictionary of Classical Hebrew
• Thomas Oden’s 3-volume Systematic Theology
• Wolfhart Pannenberg’s 3-volume Systematic Theology
• Braaten and Jenson’s 2-volume Christian Dogmatics
• The Encyclopedia of Christianity
• The Oxford Library of Practical Theology
• The 7-volume Lancelot Andrewes Collection

This makes the ACNA a complicated place to be ordained, especially as a woman. However, I also believe that this diversity of conviction and practice is a strength of our denomination.

Unity in Diversity

Since the inception of the ACNA, the College of Bishops has embraced a “dual integrities” approach to the ordination of women.

• Some bishops ordain women as priests and commission them as church planters.
• Some bishops only ordain women as deacons.
• Some bishops do not ordain women but will license a woman to serve in a particular church that requests it.
• Some bishops do not receive women in Holy Orders at all.

The specifics of which ACNA dioceses do/don’t ordain women can be found here.

As stated on the ACNA website:

“Q. What is the ACNA’s position on women’s ordination?

“A. At the inception of the Anglican Church in North America, the lead Bishops unanimously agreed to work together for the good of the Kingdom. As part of this consensus, it was understood that there were differing understandings regarding the ordination of women to Holy Orders, but there existed a mutual love and respect for one another and a desire to move forward for the good of the Church. This commitment was deeply embedded in the Constitution and Canons overwhelmingly adopted by the Inaugural Assembly (2009).

“In respect of the two integrities concerning Holy Orders, three matters were specifically agreed in Constitution and Canons:

1. The Province shall make no canon abridging the authority of any member dioceses, clusters or networks (whether regional or affinity-based) and those dioceses banded together as jurisdictions with respect to its practice regarding the ordination of women to the diaconate or presbyterate (Constitution, Article VIII)
2. Except as hereinafter provided, the norms for ordination shall be determined by the Bishops having jurisdiction. (Title III Canon 1.4)
3. To be a suitable candidate for the episcopate (bishops), a person must: Be a male Presbyter at least 35 years old. (Title III Canon 8.3.7)”

In other words, our bishops have agreed to disagree, honoring a diversity of convictions about ministry and mission. This is a model of Christian charity for all of us, a unity that does not demand unanimous agreement on every issue.

When my husband and I were first exploring the Anglican tradition, this unity in diversity attracted us. We were weary of the perpetual divisions characterized by theological hairsplitting and defensiveness. It seemed that, in an effort to defend doctrinal purity, many Protestant churches kept getting smaller and smaller by separating from those who disagreed with them on this or that issue.

Anglicanism, on the other hand, describes a willingness to hold together a lot of diversity within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Some Anglicans around the world are extremely charismatic; others more evangelical; others more sacramental. Some are very Reformed in their theology, others more Arminian. This felt like a breath of fresh air to us, and an opportunity to acknowledge that the Church—the global, historic body of Christ—is actually quite large and diverse. The Church includes people who disagree with me, and I am grateful to share Table fellowship with them.

Unity does not have to mean absolute unanimity on secondary issues and practices. I realize that some would consider women’s ordination a primary issue. But since the bishops in the ACNA have agreed to allow differences of opinion on this issue within the Province, it remains a secondary issue in practice.

This is not to say that “anything goes”

As canon theologian Esau McCaulley noted, there are certainly boundaries around what constitutes “tolerable” disagreement in the Church. This is precisely why the historic ecumenical creeds came into being, and this is why our bishops gather to have difficult conversations about questions of orthodoxy today. Therefore we can follow their example by practicing gracious respect for conscience within those parameters.

Bearing with one another in love

The dual integrities model gives us an opportunity to practice this graciousness. It provides the opportunity to “walk…with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” as the apostle Paul encourages us to do (Eph. 4:1–3).

I recently saw this happen at a diocesan gathering where members of a task-force who represented a variety of perspectives on women’s ordination presented together on ways all of our churches can encourage and strengthen the ministry of women in their midst. In addition to a unified presentation, they shared stories of how they had personally grown in respect for each other and become true friends through the process, despite their differences of opinion. As I heard them speak, I felt grateful to be part of a church that creates space for this kind of connection to happen.

This practice of “bearing with one another” is not only good for the Church. It is also good for the world. We live in a society that is characterized by polarization and ultimatums. “If you don’t agree with me,” we are told, “you can’t have fellowship with me.” Often this goes much further: “If you don’t agree with me, you don’t deserve to exist.” In light of this, Christians who can live peaceably together—even with significant disagreements—can be a powerful apologetic to the broader culture.

Laying down our lives

I don’t mean to imply that this is easy to do. With significant disagreement often comes significant pain. I know women who experience real discouragement and frustration, ranging from challenges finding a job (or even a discernment committee) to the inability to exercise their ordained ministry in their diocese. I also know men and women who feel uncomfortable bringing their children to Communion when a woman is celebrating the Eucharist.

And of course, the disagreement does not cleanly fall along gendered lines, or even diocesan or parish lines. The dual integrity approach is not exactly comfortable for anyone. However, my own faith has been strengthened as I’ve witnessed people on both sides steward these challenges with humility and grace.

And for those of us in Holy Orders, this personal discomfort can connect us even more deeply to the meaning of our vows. We promise to “share in the humility and service of our Lord Jesus Christ” who “humbled himself, becoming obedient even to death on a Cross.”

During their ordination service, ordinands traditionally lie prostrate—in the shape of a Cross—before the Bishop. This gesture has layers of meaning and is sometimes exchanged for kneeling (which—full disclosure—I had to do as I was ordained while eight months pregnant!). But the significance is the same: those in Holy Orders make vows of servanthood and self-sacrifice. And in the ACNA, we all get to practice humility and self-sacrifice when it comes to our disagreements over women’s ordination.

Would it be easier if we all agreed? Absolutely. Is agreement a worthy goal to work toward? Sure. But until then—if that day ever comes—there is also great value in learning to live together with differences. Some of my dearest friends are people who love Jesus, preach the gospel, and disagree with my ordination. They have made me a better Christian; and, I hope, a more thoughtful, sensitive priest. Our togetherness is complex, but it is a gift nonetheless.

I am not one of those deacons.

I don’t share this story often, rarely in its fullness, and never in public non-anonymous writing. Be gentle with my soul, O Church. The words which follow are all too raw.

Baby steps.

I first felt called to the priesthood before I claimed the word “priest.” It was a fleeting moment in the middle school mind, and easily abandoned. Children try on shoes, and my wandering attention during a dull class did take a bit of a look at the shoes labeled “minister” but set them aside as having too much to do with funerals. As a college freshman, it was the word “priest” that came and caught me in a lonely hallway, one afternoon. I presented it to friends as a joke, before it settled in on me during the weeks that followed as a very serious reality.

I read everything I could get my hands on. I was not yet confirmed as an Anglican, let alone having a theology of the priesthood, even less as a woman. I read the autobiographies of the Philadelphia Eleven (the eleven women ordained to the priesthood irregularly and as an act of defiance in 1974), and anything else on women priests I could get my hands on. I kept a journal, and I prayed. I took all the right steps, and when the rector of my church “back home” asked me out of the blue what I felt God was leading me to do with my life, I swallowed hard and told him what was on my heart. His response was, “Well the first thing we need to do is get you confirmed.” And yes, I was confirmed, by the Episcopal Bishop of Iowa, and my bishop back home in East Tennessee was very receptive to considering a young woman with a liberal undergraduate background in religion for discernment for ordination.

I look back on that sometimes and think of what could have been. If I had kept my mouth shut, nodded at all the right affirmations, and kept my feet on the path that had been neatly placed before me. It would have been an easy thing to just keep moving forward, to find myself twenty years later as a priest in the Episcopal Church.

Instead of following the path before me, I veered from it. At a friend’s suggestion, I chose a seminary unsanctioned by the bishop of East Tennessee. I had a baby during my first year of seminary and began to question my priorities. I felt pigeon-holed into forms of ministry I never envisioned. In the end, I walked away from the ordination process entirely for a couple of years.

Vocations don’t leave us alone.

Eventually, presented with a strong model of the vocational diaconate in my parish (by then in the Diocese of Pittsburgh) I again swallowed hard and shared my sense of vocation with the woman who would become my “mother in the diaconate.” I knew as soon as I did, it would again be out of my hands. This time, I submitted to the process; I let it unfold as it willed. I was ordained a deacon in June of 2004.

I would like to say that since then my call to the priesthood has gone away, but it has not. Most of the time, it lies dormant, but it has its triggers. Some have been intentionally put in my path by well-intended priests, occasionally even those in authority over me. Some I have simply had to stumble upon by chance, or in a more self-indulgent moment have sought out and examined anew.

So why am I not a priest in a diocese which would happily ordain a woman priest?

In short, the cost is just too high. I simply do not have the right to pursue my individual sense of calling at the cost of the unity of the Church.

Those who might consider themselves my cheerleaders, encouragers who accept the priestly ordination of women have as much as exhorted me, from time to time, that the place of women within the church was hard won, and perhaps I am betraying the sacrifices of others to step away from the path they have blazed. Yet they have blazed that path in rebellion, all the while taking vows of submission to authority and to the Tradition of the Church. Somehow, in the span of my lifetime, we have come, unwittingly, to rest significant aspects of our theology of Holy Orders, as they relate to women, on a secular idea of equal rights. To be clear, no one has a right to ordination, whether a man or a woman; ordination is quite the opposite, a setting aside of one’s personal rights for the sake of the whole Church. We follow a Lord who did not consider his own equality with God a thing to be grasped, but humbled himself to death on a Cross. And yet, we are conditioned to grasp and cling to our rights. It is the modern, Western way.

In practical terms, as a woman deacon I can go anywhere (or close to it) from women clergy gatherings to fellowship with bishops whose conscience would never allow them to ordain a woman. I can serve among Anglo-Catholics (the branch of the Church which holds my heart) but also among the Evangelicals, whom I hold dear. The whole Church is my people.

This is essential to me. In this mobile society, we should know now more than ever that our clergy are ordained for the whole Church, and it is the whole Church that bears responsibility for the actions of a few. Each diocese is responsible not only to its neighbors, but to our ecumenical partners and also to those whom we set apart as ordained leaders, as well. Many of our women priests, when transitioning from one diocese to another find themselves orphaned in a diocese that does not ordain women priests. Many of our “traditionalist” clergy are as easily orphaned when transitioning to a diocese that joyfully ordains women priests. The two so-called extremes are not as different from one another as they may seem.

But Christ did not establish a divided Church. We were made for more than this.

Women priests, many of whom are my friends, I honor your ministry.

I see the pain you’ve experienced and the sacrifices you’ve made. Yet I cannot see a way in which there can be a priesthood that emerges from an act of rebellion and division, as took place with the Philadelphia Eleven, that can be good or healthy for the whole Church. I do not see a women’s priesthood in Anglicanism today that is focused on unity over rights, on ordination as self-emptying rather than claiming our equality.

Perhaps it is a failure of imagination on my part, but I do not see a path forward, on our current trajectory, for ordaining women to the priesthood that does not sacrifice our unity for the sake of our individual sense of vocation. Any viable and unified path will require deep sacrifice, and it will be women in leadership who will be required to make those sacrifices. We will all lay our vocations on the altar.

I do not believe the church has been kind to women priests. Many are simply trying to love Jesus and serve him the best way they know how. Yet the Church has systematically abandoned them to their ministries with no assurance of their place within the whole Church, shuttled them out of the public eye as if they represented a momentary indiscretion, and even subjected them to verbal abuse in our public discourse. This is not the tradition we inherited. It is not who we are to be in Christ. The early Church was a haven for women in part because of the intentionality of the Church’s empowerment of those whom secular society disenfranchised, quite notably women. Jesus himself surrounded himself with women. Paul called them fellow workers and greeted them prominently in his letters. Whether or not they were ordained to the priesthood, the early Church’s women were empowered for ministry. While some served as hospitality co-ordinators and nursery workers (or some ancient equivalents thereof), others served as missionaries, evangelists and martyrs, and yes, deacons. The modern Church has failed, in some places quite miserably, in this task of empowering women to serve in ways that fulfill our less traditionally feminine gifts and vocations.

Those who oppose the ordination of women, I hope you will understand the sacrifice required, specifically of women, to lay our vocations on the altar knowing that it cannot be expected to be received by the whole Church.

This is a uniquely feminine sacrifice, to be called and never empowered, to be shuttled off to birthing and raising babies (and being told that the painful and messy “miracle of life” should be enough for us), and to the ministry of hospitality and children’s ministry in some branches of the Church, when our gifts and our calling are to proclaim the gospel and make our Lord known in the breaking of bread. The women of the Church are often the walking wounded, caught in the crossfire of other Christians’ battles. Unless you look at women’s ministries through the lens of sacrifice, you will never truly see.

There are some, I understand, who are vocal in our Church’s public discourse, whose social media personae seem to be that of card carrying misogynists, but I know firsthand that they are no majority voice. In fact, rarely have I felt as empowered in my diaconal vocation nor as valued as a woman than I have when in the company of my friends from Forward in Faith, the REC, and dioceses that do not ordain women (some not even ordaining women deacons). Our conversations are often open and honest, affectionate and theological. We value one another. It grieves me that the tone for the whole church is not being set by these individual bishops and faithful believers.

In my own journal, I recorded a quote from Archbishop Beach shortly after his election to serve as our archbishop. When asked what he thought about the Church’s women priests he replied, “For the people on the other side of that issue, for me I feel we need to honor them and respect them and treat them royally” (personal journal, July 6, 2014). Many in the Church have done just that. Nonetheless, when the official statements come down—the sort which carefully balances itself not to offend either side nor to make progress in either direction—we continually fail to acknowledge that our women priests are sisters in Christ, our women deacons are caught in a perpetual crossfire, and our dioceses which do not ordain women at all are often missing any visible and healthy vision of women in ministry other than the stereotypically feminine roles. Many of us are just not cut from that cloth.

Vocational deacons, my own heart, this does not diminish the wild abandon of joy I have for our order.

My love for the order defines my diaconate, and I see your own sacrifices and self-emptying defining yours. Each of us has had to lay lives upon Christ’s altar and acknowledge that it is not about us. Even our own vocation is not ours. It is about our Lord and his Church and the profound beauty of his creation, of which we are part.

I have been blessed to work with deacons (men and women) from coast to coast, in Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic dioceses. I have never encountered one who would not lay down their life for the unity of the Church and the gospel of our Lord. Every single deacon has a complex call to walk in an in-between world, fully in orders and yet limited, under authority, even at times wholly defined by what deacons can’t do. Every single deacon has a vocation of sacrifice. This small story is simply a portion of mine.

In short, it is from the diaconate, this foundational order, that I find the most encouragement for the future. While women’s ordination to the priesthood has, quite frankly, gutted the modern diaconate in the global north, the order has continued to hold fast, examine its heart, and increasingly take up its historical identity in connection with the deacons who have gone before. What is perhaps overlooked here is that the diaconate continues to need encouragement and development, despite being somewhat outside the fray.

I do not share this story to gain your sympathy.

I would rather not share it at all, most especially not in a church that sees every mention of the ordination of women as an opportunity to demonize one another and fragment further along party lines. I would rather hoard it to myself, and not risk becoming the next target of ecclesiastical angst and ire. I do share it, however, in order to remind the whole Church what is truly at stake here. I share this story because I see the Church as the only institution on earth which is literally called to hand-feed its members from baptism to the last moments of life, and I see that the Church of the Internet Age has traded that call for a culture that devours one another instead.

Our gifts and our identities are received from God; we do not make them ourselves. We have a responsibility to one another to hold those offerings gently and to lift one another up, to be merciful to one another, to sacrifice our own wills for the sake of the gospel. This is the diaconal identity, the self-humbling ministry of Christ, and it is therefore the foundation of all our Holy Orders. It is also the only way we have to move forward.

St. Paul struggled with such painful factions and divisions in Corinth, and wrote to the church in Philippi on the value of placing our Christian identity, as a community, ahead of our individual goals, however well-intended: “So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:1–4, ESV).

What follows this passage is the great “Christ hymn” in which we are reminded that our Lord himself did not consider his rightful nature of the godhead as a prize to be grasped, but emptied himself to the point of death on a Cross.

There is no healthy priesthood that is sourced in an act of rebellion. It does not matter that the rebellion took place a generation ago. Neither does healthy discernment depend on our individual ambitions and personal liberties. Holy Orders must come as an act of radical obedience. There is no fulfillment of a diaconal vow that comes at the cost of the universal Church, for which we are to be servants.

I am humbled and gratified daily that our Lord saw fit to make me a deacon and has (mostly) given me the grace to be satisfied in this gift which he has given me.

I am hopeful that we may someday be able to set aside our conceits and agendas and truly seek God’s will as one Body. I am convinced that my continued experience of a call to the priesthood is part of the Lord’s call to me to set aside what I may think even of my own self and let him fashion me instead after his own likeness. That is, after all, every Christian’s hope, sacrifice, and joy. I am also convinced that our Lord’s call to all of us is to a unity that loves one another, even as Christ has loved us, even to death on a Cross, no matter which side of our divisions we claim as our own.

Disagreeing Without Being Disagreeable

• While I understand the impulse to A, my own view is B.
• While I agree with X that Y, I cannot accept her overall conclusion that Z.
• While X argues Y, and I argue Z, in a way we’re both right.

The Template Of Templates

In recent discussions of A, a controversial issue has been whether B. On the one hand, some argue that C. From this perspective, D. On the other hand, however, others argue that E. In the words of F, one of this view’s main proponents, “G.” According to this view, H. In sum, then, the issue is whether I or J.

My own view is that K. Though I concede that L, I still maintain that M. For example, N. Although some might object that O, I would reply that P. The issue is important because Q.

Introducing What “They Say”

• A number of have recently suggested that X.
• It has become common today to dismiss X.
• In their recent work, A and B have offered harsh critiques of C for D.

Introducing “Standard Views”

• Americans today tend to believe that X.
• Conventional wisdom has it that X.
• Common sense seems to dictate that X.
• The standard way of thinking about topic X has it that Y.
• It is often said that X.
• My whole life I have heard it said that X.
• You would think that X.
• Many people assume that X.

Making What “They Say” Something You Say

• I’ve always believed that X.
• When I was a child, I used to think that X.
• Although I should know better by now, I cannot help thinking that X.
• At the same time that I believe X, I also believe Y.

Introducing Something Implied Or Assumed

• Although none of them have ever said so directly, my teachers have often given me the impression that X.
• One implication of X’s treatment of Y is that Z.
• Although X does not say so directly, she apparently assumes that Y.
• While they rarely admit as much, X often take for granted that Y.

Introducing An Ongoing Debate

• In discussions of X, one controversial issue has been A. On the one hand, B argues C. On the other hand, D contends E. Others even maintain F. My own view is G.
• When it comes to the topic of X, most of us will readily agree that A. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of B. Whereas some are convinced that C, others maintain that D.
• In conclusion, then, as I suggested earlier, defenders of X can’t have it both ways. Their assertion that Y is contradicted by their claim that Z.

Capturing Authorial Action

• X acknowledges that .
• X agrees that .
• X argues that .
• X believes that .
• X celebrates the fact that .
• X claims that .
• X complains that .
• X concedes that .
• X demonstrates that .
• X denies/does not deny that .
• X deplores the tendency to .
• X emphasizes that .
• X insists that .
• X observes that .
• X questions whether .
• X refutes the claim that .
• X reminds us that .
• X reports that .
• X suggests that .
• X urges us to .

Introducing Quotations

• X states, “ .”
• As the prominent philosopher X puts it, “ .”
• According to X, “ .”
• X himself writes, “ .”
• In her book, , X maintains that “ ”
• Writing in the journal , X complains that “ .”
• In X’s view, “ .”
• X agrees when she writes, “ .”
• X disagrees when he writes, “ .”
• X complicates matters further when he writes, “ .”

Explaining Quotations

• Basically, X is saying .
• In other words, X believes .
• In making this comment, X urges us to .
• X is corroborating the age-old adage that .
• X’s point is that .
• The essence of X’s argument is that .

Disagreeing, With Reasons

• I think X is mistaken because she overlooks .
• X’s claim that rests upon the questionable assumption that .
• I disagree with X’s view that because, as recent research has shown, .
• X contradicts herself / can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, she argues . On the other hand, she also says .
• By focusing on , X overlooks the deeper problem of .

Agreeing—With A Difference

• I agree that because my experience confirms it.
• X surely is right about because, as she may not be aware, recent studies have shown that .
• X’s theory of is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of .
• Those unfamiliar with this school of thought may be interested to know that it basically boils down to .
• I agree that , a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe .
• If group X is right that , as I think they are, then we need to reassess the popular assumption that .

Agreeing And Disagreeing Simultaneously

• Although I agree with X up to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that .
• Although I disagree with much that X says, I fully endorse his final conclusion that .
• Though I concede that , I still insist that .
• Whereas X provides ample evidence that , Y and Z’s research on and convinces me that instead.
• X is right that , but she seems on more dubious ground when she claims that .
• While X is probably wrong when she claims that , she is right that .
• I’m of two minds about X’s claim that . On the one hand, I agree that . On the other hand, I’m not sure if .
• My feelings on the issue are mixed. I do support X’s position that , but I find Y’s argument about and Z’s research on to be equally persuasive.

Signaling Who Is Saying What

• X argues .
• According to both X and Y, .
• Politicians , X argues, should .
• Most athletes will tell you that .
• My own view, however, is that .
• I agree, as X may not realize, that .
• But are real and, arguably, the most significant factor in .
• But X is wrong that .
• However, it is simply not true that .
• Indeed, it is highly likely that .
• X’s assertion that does not fit the facts.
• X is right that .
• X is wrong that .
• X is both right and wrong that .
• Yet a sober analysis of the matter reveals .
• Nevertheless, new research shows .
• Anyone familiar with should agree that .

Embedding Voice Markers

• X overlooks what I consider an important point about .
• My own view is that what X insists is a is in fact a .
• I wholeheartedly endorse what X calls .
• These conclusions, which X discusses in , add weight to the argument that .

Entertaining Objections

• At this point I would like to raise some objections that have been inspired by the skeptic in me. She feels that I have been ignoring . “ ,” she says to me, “ .”
• Yet some readers may challenge the view that .
• Of course, many will probably disagree with this assertion that .

Naming Your Naysayers

• Here many would probably object that .
• But would certainly take issue with the argument that .
• , of course, may want to question whether .
• Nevertheless, both followers and critics of will probably argue that .
• Although not all think alike, some of them will probably dispute my claim that .
• are so diverse in their views that it’s hard to generalize about them, but some are likely to object on the grounds that .

Introducing Objections Informally

• But is my proposal realistic? What are the chances of its actually being adopted?
• Yet is it always true that ? Is it always the case, as I have been suggesting, that ?
• However, does the evidence I’ve cited prove conclusively that ?
• “Impossible,” some will say. “You must be reading the research selectively.”

Making Concessions While Still Standing Your Ground

• Although I grant that , I still maintain that .
• Proponents of X are right to argue that . But they exaggerate when they claim that .
• While it is true that , it does not necessarily follow that .
• On the one hand, I agree with X that . But on the other hand, I still insist that .

Indicating Who Cares

• used to think . But recently [or within the past few decades] suggests that .
• These findings challenge the work of earlier researchers, who tended to assume that .
• Recent studies like these shed new light on , which previous studies had not addressed.
• Researchers have long assumed that . For instance, one eminent scholar of cell biology, , assumed in , her seminal work on cell structures and functions, that fat cells . As herself put it, “ ” (2012). Another leading scientist, , argued that fat cells “ ” (2011). Ultimately, when it came to the nature of fat, the basic assumption was that .
• But a new body of research shows that fat cells are far more complex and that .
• If sports enthusiasts stopped to think about it, many of them might simply assume that the most successful athletes . However, new research shows .
• These findings challenge neoliberals’ common assumptions that .
• At first glance, teenagers appear to . But on closer inspection .

Establishing Why Your Claims Matter

• X matters / is important because .
• Although X may seem trivial, it is in fact crucial in terms of today’s concern over .
• Ultimately, what is at stake here is .
• These findings have important consequences for the broader domain of .
• My discussion of X is in fact addressing the larger matter of .
• These conclusions / This discovery will have significant applications in as well as in .
• Although X may seem of concern to only a small group of , it should in fact concern anyone who cares about .

Commonly Used Transitions

Addition

• also
• and
• besides
• furthermore
• in addition
• in fact
• indeed
• moreover
• so too

Elaboration

• actually
• by extension
• in other words
• in short
• that is
• to put it another way
• to put it bluntly
• to put it succinctly
• ultimately

Example

• after all
• as an illustration
• consider
• for example
• for instance
• specifically
• to take a case in point

Cause and Effect

• accordingly
• as a result
• consequently
• hence
• it follows, then
• since
• so
• then
• therefore
• thus

Comparison

• along the same lines
• in the same way
• likewise
• similarly

Contrast

• although
• but
• by contrast
• conversely
• despite
• even though
• however
• in contrast
• nevertheless
• nonetheless
• on the contrary
• on the other hand
• regardless
• whereas
• while
• yet

Concession

• admittedly
• although it is true that
• granted
• I concede that
• naturally
• of course
• to be sure

Conclusion

• as a result
• consequently
• hence
• in conclusion, then
• in short
• in sum, then
• it follows, then
• so
• the upshot of all this is that
• therefore
• thus
• to sum up
• to summarize

Translation Recipes

• Scholar X argues, “ .” In other words, .
• Essentially, X argues .
• X’s point, succinctly put, is that .
• Plainly put, .

Adding Metacommentary

• In other words, .
• What really means by this is .
• Ultimately, my goal is to demonstrate that .
• My point is not , but .
• To put it another way, .
• In sum, then, .
• My conclusion, then, is that, .
• In short, .
• What is more important, .
• Incidentally, .
• By the way, .
• Chapter 2 explores , while Chapter 3 examines .
• Having just argued that , let us now turn our attention to .
• Although some readers may object that , I would answer that .

Linking To What “They Say”

• As X mentions in this article, “ .”
• In making this comment, X warns that .
• Economists often assume ; however, new research by X suggests .

Introducing Gaps In The Existing Research

• Studies of X have indicated . It is not clear, however, that this conclusion applies to .
• often take for granted that . Few have investigated this assumption, however.
• X’s work tells us a great deal about . Can this work be generalized to ?
• Our understanding of remains incomplete because previous work has not examined .

1. the biblical and theological reasons for caring about social justice and systemic racism,
2. the unfair ways in which some have used accusations of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Cultural Marxism to sideline legitimate Christian concerns about social justice and systemic racism, and
3. the legitimate Christian critiques of CRT and Marxism.

Now, I know that there are plenty of resources out there that address each of the three items above!

I’m specifically looking for the resources that are the easiest to understand for someone who has little (or no) biblical, theological, or philosophical training. I’m thinking something that you could easily share with friends and relatives who have legitimate questions.

I’m also specifically looking for resources that address 2 or 3 of the items above, not just 1.

Do such resources already exist?

If not, should we start a Kickstarter to create a “Crash Course”-style YouTube video that addresses all three points above??

My current shortlist of helpful resources

To provide some grist for the mill, the following resources don’t address all three of my points above, but they are really good and they’re on my current short list of recommended resources for family and friends:

1. Phil Vischer’s video on “Race in America” (he’s the creator of VeggieTales and the voice of Bob the Tomato)
2. N.T. Wright’s talk on “Undermining Racism” (scroll to the bottom for a video of the talk)
3. Kelly Hamren’s “Reflections from a Christian scholar on Social Justice, Critical Race Theory, Marxism, and Biblical Ethics” (Facebook essay)

The short form of prayer, constructed (with many varieties of detail) from (1) an invocation, (2) a petition, and (3) a pleading of Christ’s name or an ascription of glory to God; and one of the most characteristic items in the W[estern] liturgy.

Source: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

For more on Juneteenth, see “The Historical Legacy of Juneteenth” (National Museum of African American History and Culture).

Here’s the prayer. Please feel free to use and share!

Almighty God, you rescued your people from slavery in Egypt, and throughout the ages you have never failed to hear the cries of the captives; We remember before you our sisters and brothers in Galveston, Texas who on this day received the glad tidings of their emancipation; Forgive us for the many grave sins that delayed that liberating word; Anoint us with your Spirit to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim the year of your favor; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Christians believe that there is one God in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Or, as my daughter Eva put it recently after seeing a picture in her book, “Father, Son, and Bird.” We’re working on that…

We Christians have been taught that the Trinity is important. No one wants to be a heretic. Trinity, good. Modalism, bad.

But, quite frankly, who cares about the Trinity right now in 2020?

What difference does divine mathematics make when the world is on fire? When Black people are dying?

Don’t we Christians have more important things to worry about?

I’m tempted to just sit in silence and then skip to the creed. It sure wouldn’t be the worst Trinity sermon!

But friends, though I readily confess

• my inadequacy,
• my anger, and
• the inadequacy of my anger,

it falls to me, a young white priest, to preach the gospel on Trinity Saturday 2020.

So, preach I will.

The Trinity and the Bible

But please, bear with me! My sermon has changed a lot in recent days.

Originally, the whole thing was going to be about how the Trinity is not an abstract list of thoughts be thunk about God.

Instead, the Trinity is how the Church reads the Bible.

And let me just say a little bit more about that, because I think it’s really important.

The Church developed the doctrine of the Trinity in order to make sense of the Bible as the single story of how the one true God

• creates the world,
• refuses to let it fall into nothingness due to sin,
• redeems it through Jesus Christ and
• brings it to perfection through the Holy Spirit.

Without the Doctrine of the Trinity…

Without the doctrine of the Trinity, the Bible falls apart into fragments.

What do we do with YHWH?

With God’s Spirit?

With God’s Son, Jesus Christ?

Are these three different gods?

Is just one of them god?

Are none of them god, but just masks that God wears?

Without the doctrine of the Trinity, at best, we’re either

• polytheists, who worship more than one god
• idolaters, who worship things that God made
• or we’re completely unsure of who the true God really is.

With the doctrine of the Trinity…

With the doctrine of the Trinity, however, we can trust that God is who he has revealed himself to be in Scripture and in the life of the Church—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This is God’s proper name.

With the doctrine of the Trinity, we can trust, especially in difficult times, that we worship the same God who called the world into existence and order out of nothing.

We worship the same God

• who rescued his people from slavery in Egypt.
• who brought his people back from exile by going into exile for them at the cross.
• who raised Jesus Christ from the grave.
• who exalted Jesus to his right hand, where he now sits enthroned over the universe.
• who poured out his Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and like that, can break down linguistic, social, and racial barriers.

The doctrine of the Trinity reminds us that we worship the same God who, since Pentecost, has equipped and empowered his Church in every generation—through persecutions, plagues, and prejudices— to

“go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything” that Jesus commanded.

So, yes, I think we should care about the doctrine of the Trinity, especially in 2020.

Because some Christians, especially some white Christians, seem to have forgotten that all human beings are created in the image of the Triune God.

All human beings are therefore worthy of dignity, respect, and self-sacrifice for their well-being.

We’re supposed to extend God’s rule and reign throughout the world as good stewards, instead of exploiting creation and other human beings for our own gain.

We should care about the Trinity in 2020, because some of us seem to have forgotten that the Triune God is always and everywhere in control, so we don’t need to be driven by fear.

Some of us seem to have forgotten that Jesus has “all authority in heaven and on earth,” so we don’t need to curry favor with tyrants or Trumps in order to accomplish our Great Commission.

We Christians should care about the Trinity in 2020 because we are image-bearers of the Triune God, commissioned to make disciples of Jesus Christ in all the diverse people groups of the world.

Now, let’s just take a moment and ask ourselves: How is that going?

Let judgment begin with the household of God!

How much of the chaos around us is due to a failure of the Church to make obedient disciples of Jesus Christ?

After all, Jesus didn’t commission us to make disciples of Fox News, or MSNBC, or even NPR!

Jesus didn’t command us to baptize our greed, our nationalism, or our racism in the unholy water of civil religion.

Jesus didn’t tell us that we only had to obey certain things that he said.

• He didn’t say it was OK for liberals to ignore his sexual ethic.
• And he didn’t say it was OK for conservatives to ignore his social ethic.

Instead, speaking with the full authority of the Triune God, Jesus told us to

“go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

Now, obviously, I don’t think the church has ever completely failed to live out her mission, or else there wouldn’t be a church today to preach to!

But, brothers and sisters, as we rightly lament the current state of things, I think we need to ask ourselves if the church has failed to make disciples.

Disciples of Jesus are people who

• look,
• think, and
• act like Jesus.

Do we look, think, and act like Jesus?

Or do we think that Jesus looks, thinks, and acts like us?

Now, let me take a deep breath here and say that I’ve been preaching at a much broader target in this sermon than just Church of the Savior in Wheaton, IL!

I thank God for how he has blessed our church with godly leaders and laypeople who are willing to consider the gospel’s implications for all of life.

I wouldn’t call our local church a nationalist church or a racist church, and I thank God for that.

Nevertheless, it’s not enough to congratulate ourselves that we’re not as bad as other churches.

There is always room for growth!

How, then, should we live?

Well, SO MUCH could be said, but here’s what I think we need to focus on.

As image-bearers of the Triune God in 2020, we need to ask ourselves what it would look like to be and make disciples of Jesus who take a stand for biblical justice against the systemic sin of racism.

I don’t have all the answers, but I do have 3 suggestions.

First, we need to read the Bible.

We need to be so thoroughly familiar with the Bible that we can explain our biblical and theological reasons for taking a stand against the systemic sin of racism.

Let it be known that, as Christians, we are not against racism because we’re trying to impress our liberal friends!

We are against racism because we’ve read our Bibles and recognized that the Triune God is against racism!

At minimum, the doctrine of the Trinity reminds us that God’s oneness has never meant sameness.

When we read the narrative of Scripture, it becomes clear that God is not colorblind, and neither should we be as we make disciples of all the ethne, all the people groups of the world.

We have an opportunity to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to a world that desperately needs hope! Let’s not waste that opportunity.

Second, we Christians, ESPECIALLY we white Anglican Christians, need to familiarize ourselves with the history of racism the United States of America.

We can’t understand the current state of things if we are ignorant of America’s racist history and white Anglican Christians’ complicity in it.

Frankly, I do not know enough about this myself, so, in addition to reading our Bibles, I invite you to join me in reading books like Jemar Tisby’s The Color of Compromise and Ibram X. Kendi’s Stamped from the Beginning.

We also all need to read Esau McCaulley’s Reading While Black when it comes out in a few months!

Third, we need to take action.

Reading our Bibles and learning more about the history of racism in America are good starts. But they’re not enough.

• We need to listen and learn from the example of the Black Church about what it looks like to take a biblical stand against injustice.
• We need to develop diverse relationships.
• We white Christians need to listen to people of color, without expecting them to solve all of our problems for us.
• We need to raise up leaders of color within the church.
• We need to give money to leaders of color and the ministries that they lead.
• We need to let our bishops know that we want the Anglican Church in North America to look more like the North America we’re called to serve.
• We need to speak up and call out racism even when it’s costly to do so and especially when it’s coming from an elected or an ordained leader.

Now, is anyone else feeling overwhelmed?

I mean, does our church, does the church, have the strength to fulfill the Great Commission when things have gone so horribly wrong?

No, she doesn’t. And she never has.

But perhaps you’ve noticed that I’ve not yet quoted the last part of the Great Commission.

We need to hear it, though, because it’s the most important part.

Jesus said: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Without that promise, the Great Commission is an unbearable burden, an impossible command.

But with that promise, the Great Commission is good news, even in 2020.

It might not feel like it some days, but the end of the age has not yet arrived.

Jesus didn’t promise to be with us

• until COVID-19 forced us to meet online,
• until George Floyd and countless others were murdered, or
• until the President profaned the Word of God for a photo op.

No, Jesus promised to be with us until the END.

Until “God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people”—his people from every tribe and tongue and nation!—“and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear”—every tear-gassed tear!—from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

Friends, this is why we should care about the Trinity!

If Christ is with us, then the Triune God is with us.

And if the Triune God is with us, then we can make disciples and not be afraid, no matter how bad things get!

For no one, nothing, not even the gates of Hell will prevail against Christ’s Church.

Amen. Amen. Amen.

However, I’m worried that, especially for people who are not used to working their way through lengthy reading lists, getting so many recommendations at once will lead to nothing due to the paradox of choice. I’d much rather recommend a single book that someone will actually read than 100 books they won’t!

With that in mind, here is the reading, viewing, and listening shortlist that I am starting with. I’ve been biblically and theologically opposed to racism for awhile now, but I was convicted by the Rev. Canon Dr. Esau McCaulley recently when he said, like a good professor, that “we can tell when you haven’t done the reading.” I’ve done a bit of the reading (mainly The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race by Willie James Jennings, A Black Theology of Liberation by James Cone, and How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi), but not nearly enough.

So, if you’re looking for a place to start, I recommend the following as a beginning. Within each category, take a brief look at all 3 and then start with the 1 that interests you the most.

Books

1. The Color of Compromise: The Truth about the American Church’s Complicity in Racism by Jemar Tisby (Also, if you have Amazon Prime, there’s a free “Color of Compromise” video teaching series by Jemar Tisby)
2. White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism by Robin DiAngelo
3. How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi (I’ve listened to this on Audible, but I need to revisit it, along with Kendi’s Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America)

Movies

1. Just Mercy (Amazon)
2. I Am Not Your Negro (Amazon)
3. 13th (Netflix)

Podcasts

1. Seeing White
2. Code Switch
3. Truth’s Table

[Ed Stetzer] We both agree: Protests are good. Riots are not. Unpack that for us from your context.

Esau: There is a cycle of what happens. There’s a racial incident. African Americans protest. Some of those protests from people inside and outside the community turn violent. People say, “Hey, look at this. Why aren’t the Christians who are speaking out against the racial injustice equally strong speaking about the riots?”

There are couple of things that I want to say about that. First, there is no real question as to where Christians stand on riots. There isn’t a kind of evangelical pro-riot, black riot faction. Therefore, on one level there is not a need to condemn rioting as a form of social protest, because everybody’s clear about this.

The problem is that the very people who are mad at us for not being strong enough against riots are the same people who say systemic racism isn’t a problem. This only manifests the contradiction.

There is no question we are all opposed to riots. There seems to be a question as to whether or not Christians should speak out against systemic oppression.

There needs to be a public and robust statement that the followers of Jesus are on the side of those who are being unjustly treated.

The second thing that I want to say about that is that if you want to talk to someone who is behaving in a way that is counterproductive, the first thing you need to do is actually show some empathy. If the first thing you do is you come in and say, “Law and order, law and order, law and order,” you’re not understanding the deep sense of frustration.

A riot is the manifestation of hopelessness.

The first thing that I try to do, and you’ve seen many African American leaders do this, is to say, “I get it. You’re frustrated. It seems like these videos will never stop, and this has been going on for years.” Then, once you’ve established that you care, you can begin to push back on the riot themselves.

You can’t come to a community that you hate and then rebuke them for behaving in a way that you don’t find is appropriate. You didn’t care about them anyway.

The only people who have the social and moral standing to speak to a community of unrest is people who at least can begin to understand the cause of that unrest.

As a Christian, I believe that the means and the ends must be one. You can’t have a good end with an improper means. If the end is justice, for the Christian the means themselves have to be just. The Christians who are protesting against systemic oppression, at least those who are biblically faithful, are the ones who are saying, “Ultimately, even if I understand some of the frustration that is going on, these riots are not a Christian means of advocating for social change.”

And, more importantly, (2) the Bible also has a lot to say about structural sin and the communal nature of human life. For example, I’ve been reading through Ezekiel in the Daily Office, and he paints in some really broad brushstrokes when prophetically denouncing people. What about all the “good apples” that he and other prophets overlook? Sure, some of that is down to figures of speech that substitute the part for the whole and vice versa, but some of it is also the biblical truth that our actions have ripple effects in the various communities of which we are a part.

I’ll confess that, when I hear certain critiques of “systemic,” and especially “systemic racism,” those critiques sound like they’re based more upon Enlightenment individualism than they’re based upon the Bible. Now, of course, that doesn’t mean that everyone who speaks of “systemic” issues is speaking biblically!

But why shouldn’t Christians speak about “systemic” issues? It strikes me as unfair to assume that, once the word “systemic” is used, that we’ve abandoned the gospel. After all, “our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12). That’s one of the passages that come to mind when I speak against systemic racism.

Another passage that comes to mind is from earlier in the same epistle:

11 So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called “the uncircumcision” by those who are called “the circumcision”—a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. 17 So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18 for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. 21 In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God. (Eph. 2:11–22)

If these verses from Paul don’t at least have systemic implications (implications that, to be sure, involve human individuals!), then I don’t know what they’re about.

Following the lead of bishops Jim Hobby, Todd Hunter, Stewart Ruch III, and Steve Wood, who recently wrote in response to the death of George Floyd, which gained support from a number of other bishops, we offer this open letter to our fellow ACNA clergy and to the churches under our care. Whether you’re ACNA clergy, a layperson, or a Christian leader outside the ACNA, we invite your consideration of the following and your signature in support.

Our Context

Our province, The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), was born as part of a global movement that features diverse leadership and reflects the churches and people of global Anglicanism. It is a manifestation of the universal power and eschatological telos of the Gospel of Jesus: “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb” (Rev. 7:9).

Currently, the American population is about 38% non-white. By many projections, over the next 20 years, it will be increasingly composed of ethnic minorities. Our province, however, is far from representative of this emerging reality. The mission on our doorstep is clear: to reach North America, in all of its ethnic diversity, “with the transforming love of Jesus Christ.” We have the opportunity to proclaim the Gospel “to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15) and to be Jesus’ witnesses “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). We are called to reflect the ethnic diversity of the global movement of which we are a part, as well as the diverse locales in which we are present.

In order to more fully embody our Gospel witness, we must support, encourage, and empower the leadership of brothers and sisters of color in the ACNA to create more hospitable and welcoming spaces for people of color. This includes Black, Latino/a, Native, Asian, and other people groups. We must listen and respond to these voices in our midst and collectively seek to understand and address the historic and ongoing ways in which people of color continue to struggle under various expressions of injustice.

We see and grieve the racism and discrimination that exists and has a deep cultural and structural influence in our society, in our communities, and in our churches. The recent tragedies of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd are simply the latest in a long line of harrowing examples of these deeply embedded systemic realities. We see and grieve that our brothers and sisters of color, including many in our own dioceses and parishes, have been and continue to be profoundly affected by these realities.

Against this backdrop, we offer the following confessions and make the following commitments.

Confessions

We confess that we have failed to see, understand, and address the expressions of racism, both personal and systemic, that plague our society, communities, and churches.

We confess our slowness to listen to the dismay and discouragement of our brothers and sisters of color, especially those in our own province, and have neglected to cultivate hospitable spaces for them to flourish.

We confess that our ignorance, complacency, and silence have undermined our fidelity to the Great Commandment to love God and love our neighbor (Matt. 22:36-40), which fundamentally calls us into disciplines of anti-racism.

Commitments

We commit to listening to, learning from, and supporting leaders of color in their witness to our province.

We commit to partnering with these friends, and with organizations like

• the Anglican Multiethnic Network (AMEN),
• Caminemos Juntos,
• Asian & Multicultural Ministries in Canada, and
• the Every Tribe and Nation Network

that are working to promote, support, and invest in a more diverse and just Anglicanism.

And, in all of our different capacities and platforms, in our churches and in the world, we commit ourselves to investing in the work of anti-racism—in our catechesis, discipleship, preaching, ministry, advocacy, and reform.

(Editor’s note: You should also check out the work being done by The Matthew 25 Initiative.)

The Road Ahead

We are encouraged by the leaders, including the Archbishop, who have spoken out about the recent injustices, and we know that there are places within the province where there is movement toward realizing this vision of a multi-ethnic church, one that is unhindered by racism in all its forms, that can reach the entirety of North America.

However, there is significant work yet to be done. We hope that others will join us in our intentional commitment to partnering with leaders of color and the provincial organizations listed above in order to cultivate a diverse and just Anglicanism in North America.

We are a group of clergy committed to the ACNA and its mission. If you would like either to join us in these confessions and commitments or signal your affirmation of such work, we invite you to add your name to this letter.

Our ultimate goal, however, is not just signatures, but a collective public commitment towards diversity and justice for the sake of the gospel and our Kingdom witness.

Almighty God, you created us in your own image: Grant us grace to contend fearlessly against evil and to make no peace with oppression; and help us to use our freedom rightly in the establishment of justice in our communities and among the nations, to the glory of your holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Sincerely in Christ,

Authors

Rev. Ryan Boettcher
Associate Clergy, Resurrection Anglican South Austin

Rev. Dr. Shawn McCain
Rector, Resurrection Anglican South Austin

Rev. Seth Richardson
The Telos Collective

Rev. Dr. J.R. Rozko
National Director, Missio Alliance & Co-Lead Pastor, First Church of the Resurrection

Rev. Ben Sternke
Co-Rector, The Table Indianapolis & Co-Founder, Gravity Leadership

Rev. Matt Tebbe
Co-Rector, The Table Indianapolis & Co-Founder, Gravity Leadership

Rev. Erik Willits
Host of The Intersection Podcast Special Projects, Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others

Initial Signatories (Click Here or Scroll Down to Sign)

Rev. Canon Dr. Dan Alger
Provincial Canon for Church Planting, Anglican Church in North America
Director, Always Forward Church Planting Initiative

Rev. Gary Ball
Rector, Redeemer Asheville, NC

Rev. Canon Taylor Bodoh
Rector, Incarnation, Tallahassee
Canon for Church Planting, Gulf Atlantic Diocese
Leader in the Anglican Multiethnic Network (AMEN)

Rev. Seth Cain
Rector, The Village Anglican, Greenville

Rev. Dan Claire
Rector, The Church of the Resurrection, Washington, D.C.

Rev. Canon Greg Goebel
Editor-in-chief, Anglican Compass

Rev. David Martin Hanke
Rector, Restoration Anglican, Arlington

Rev. Canon Alan Hawkins
Chief Operating Officer, Anglican Church in North America

Rev. Thomas Hinson
Rector, Advent Anglican, Washington, D.C.

Rev. Hannah King
Associate Rector, The Village Anglican, Greenville

Rev. Michael King
Associate Rector, The Village Anglican, Greenville

Very Rev. Canon Dr. Kris McDaniel
Senior Pastor, Trinity Anglican, Atlanta Canon for Church Development (Planting and Adoptions), Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others

Rev. Canon Dr. Emily McGowin
Associate Lecturer of Theology, Wheaton College
Canon, The Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others

Rev. Ron McGowin
Interim Rector, Holy Cross Anglican Church, Lake Villa, IL

Rev. Lee Nelson
Rector, Christ Church, Waco

Very Rev. Rob Patterson
Rector, Redeemer Anglican, Santa Cruz Regional Dean, Northern California, Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others

Rev. Marty Reardon
Westside Worship Pastor, Trinity Anglican, Atlanta

Rev. Erik Rogers
Assisting Clergy, Resurrection Anglican South Austin

Rev. Canon David Roseberry
Publisher, Anglican Compass

Rev. Joshua Steele
Managing Editor, Anglican Compass

Very Rev. Cliff Warner
Rector, Christ Church, Austin

Christine Warner
Director, Matthew 25 Initiative

Rev. Tish Harrison Warren
Author, Liturgy of the Ordinary
Writer-in-Residence, Church of the Ascension, Pittsburgh

Rev. Dr. Jonathan Warren Pagán
Associate Rector, Church of the Ascension, Pittsburgh

Rev. Janna Ziegler
Co-Rector, Church of the Resurrection, Los Angeles

Rev. Jon Ziegler
Co-Rector, Church of the Resurrection, Los Angeles

Sign the Letter

If you’re ACNA clergy, please use the first form. We’d also love for laypeople and Christian leaders outside of the ACNA to indicate their support. If you’re not ACNA clergy, please use the second form (scroll down).

(NOTE: Don’t worry if you don’t see your name appear below right away. There might be a bit of a lag. No need to submit twice.)

[emailpetition id=”2″]

All Other Supporters

[emailpetition id=”3″]

Signatures

ACNA Clergy

ACNA-Clergy-Sign-the-Anti-Racism-Letter_2022-08-15 (CSV)

[signaturelist id=“2″]

All Other Supporters

Not-ACNA-Clergy-Sign-the-Anti-Racism-Letter-Here_2022-08-15 (CSV)

[signaturelist id=“3″]

(Note: This post is not a subtweet of anyone in particular. It’s just me thinking out loud about a phenomenon that keeps occurring.)

Almost every time we post something about women’s ordination, a controversial issue has been whether or not doing so needlessly “stirs the pot,” as in “causes trouble, unrest, dissent.”

On the one hand, some argue that this issue has already been debated to death. From this perspective, continuing to post about women’s ordination simply exacerbates a condition that would be better off left alone—the “dual integrities” diocesan-level division on women’s ordination that currently characterizes the ACNA.. On the other hand, however, others argue that, since this issue is not settled, it’s perfectly appropriate to blog about this.

The issue, then, is whether or not women’s ordination is worth talking about, at least among Anglicans in public.

My own personal view is that it is worth talking about the Anglican debate over women’s ordination in public. Though I concede that needless provocation (“stirring the pot”) is vicious, I still maintain that there is an important difference between causing or exacerbating a division and describing one.

For example, it would be vicious to take pot shots across the divide and try to get everyone to think either that (1) all egalitarians/mutualists completely ignore Scripture and tradition and choose to follow cultural trends instead, or that (2) all complementarians/hierarchicalists/patriarchalists hate women and want to keep them out of positions of power and influence. This would be stirring the pot and exacerbating our divisions.

However, I think it is an importantly different endeavor to try to help people on both sides of the debate see where the others stand. To remind the egalitarians that it’s unfair to say that all complementarians hate women. To remind the complementarians that it’s unfair to say that all egalitarians prioritize cultural trends over Scripture and tradition.

Some might object that giving both sides of the debate airtime means that we’ve abandoned the truth in one direction or the other. But given that this is an important and ongoing division within the ACNA, between conservative and orthodox Christians, this seems like necessary work. It strikes me as unduly tribalistic to either pretend like the other side doesn’t exist, or to condemn anyone who would listen to arguments from the other side as a dangerous traitor.

Furthermore, some might object that this work has already been done. By and large, I would agree. But just because almost every facet of the debate has already been covered in various settings—books, articles, etc.—doesn’t mean that we don’t have room to grow in understanding of our differences. There may be nothing new under the sun, and yet we still keep writing and talking about other things. Why not women’s ordination as well?

On the issue of women’s ordination, we obviously disagree with one another—both within the ACNA and within the Anglican Communion. And yet I’m not quite sure that we fully understand one another. From my limited perspective, it’s worth “stirring the pot” until we at least reach full, respectful understanding—even if we never reach full agreement on this side of eternity.

Over the past several months, readers of Anglican Compass have engaged with many opinions on the topic of women’s ordination. One wonders, given the state of dual integrities within the ACNA and the ever-churning blog debates between our public intellectuals, what is the point of another take on this issue?

But stay with me, friends. At the risk of debate fatigue, I want to stir these waters once more because after reading these pieces, I believe we are missing several key points in the conversation. In fact, I believe we need to engage in a fundamentally different conversation—one that centers the debate in its proper theological home: baptism and the Person of Christ.

Proponents of the male-only priesthood have argued that a literal reading of scripture shows women clearly cannot have priestly authority in the church. They also propound that women’s orders would go against a natural order of male headship, established by God in creation, and perhaps even reflected within God’s trinitarian being. But these arguments redirect the issue away from its true theological foundation and veer into less than orthodox weeds. These are not christological positions and they don’t say much about our identity in Jesus Christ through baptism.

In what follows, I want to discuss how Anglicans have misused both baptism and the literal interpretation of scripture to uphold hierarchical social orders, a pattern of thought that closely mirrors ancient Gnostic exegesis, of which male headship is a prime example.

To counter that, I want to explore the biblical relationship between baptism and priesthood, as outlined in the book of Hebrews. Because Christ is two natures, his priesthood—his mediation—is his person, which has a direct bearing on how we conceive of our own priesthood. We see this clearly evidenced in the martyrdoms of Ignatius of Antioch and Blandina of Lyons, a woman who, as she dies, is depicted in persona Christi.

In their eagerness to support their understanding of tradition, Anglicans have sometimes compromised the Kingdom with cultural values, veering away from a biblical theology of human ordination and missing the reality of baptism. If we are to have a good faith conversation around these issues, this must be addressed. So come, let’s wade in the waters one more time.

Claiming Baptism Against the Bishop

In 1723, Edmund Gibson, the Bishop of London and ecclesial authority over England’s colonies, was faced with a crisis. What happens when slaves want to be baptized and taught the faith? The slaveholders, he knew, were adamantly against baptism or education of any kind, fearing it would lead to the slaves’ agitation against their social position. In fact, they were so desperate to prevent this that slaves who learned to read or who taught others to do so were brutally punished and killed.

Nevertheless, a group of slaves came together and wrote an urgent entreaty to the Bishop of London:

“We your humble and poor parishioners do beg Sir your aid and assistance in this one thing which lies as I do understand in your lordship’s brest which is that your honor will by the help of our suffering lord King George…release us out of this curel bondege and this we beg for Jesus Christ’s sake who has commanded us to seek first the kingdom of God and all things shall be added unto us. And here it is to be noted that one brother is a slave to another and one sister to another…and we are commanded to keep holy the sabbath day and we do hardly know when it comes for our task masters are as hard with us as the Egyptians were with the Children of Israel, God be merciful to us.”

Several things are at play here. First, in an act of cultural rebellion, they learned to read scripture and, more importantly, to read themselves into it theologically. They saw themselves in the enslaved children of Israel and understood that scripture laid out their freedom on the basis of baptism.

Second, they understood that the act of baptism made them parishioners of the church, members of a body which fundamentally changed their previous social relations. The cry of the slaves was that they were under the Bishop’s care and both he and they worshiped the same Lord Jesus Christ. It is a cry of hope and a desire to live in a new relationship of belonging in Christ, to throw off the oppression of evil. One could almost read this as a colonial-era Philemon, if Onesimus had penned the letter instead of Paul.

In that era, Christians could not own other Christians as slaves. Slaves therefore were always defined as idolators, heathens, fundamentally ‘other’. So when these slaves wrote to him as Christians, Bp. Gibson had a pastoral crisis on his hands. It isn’t known whether the Bishop saw this letter, although it was found at Lambeth Palace. But we do have his response in a letter circulated to plantation owners where he argues, based on 1 Cor. 7:20, that baptism in no way changes social relationships, but rather will make slaves better slaves because that’s what the New Testament commands—literally (Col. 3:22-23).

The Bishop, torn between his desire to uphold social order and his duty to increase the flock, took hold of his literal reading of St. Paul and attempted a classic Anglican via media: baptism would save the soul of the slave, but leave their body in its pre-established position in the social hierarchy. They would be “saved” in faith, but remain property in body. Slavery, the Bishop and his contemporaries (theologians like Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards) argued, is a cosmic structure, natural and God-ordained (Divided by Faith, Emerson and Smith, pg. 22-26). Salvation was open to all because all were made in God’s image, but it would in no way violate that “natural” created order.

Which of these, do you think, was a better reader of scripture? The one who showed us Christ. The slaves interpreted their lives according to the scriptures, reading after the model of Peter and Paul. God’s word was for them, pro nobis, a Christological reading practice. They read scripture against their culture, against the “natural state of things” and their “place” within it and by doing so understood the logic of baptism. They saw that it was creation anew, that the Old Adam passes away as we are born of Christ, not returning to Eden, but discovering the New Jerusalem, as something neither gnostic nor dualist, but with a claim on real social relations and a claim on those with whom they were baptized: the Bishop, priests, and even their Christian slave owners. They knew that they should be free because they were free together in Christ.

Male Headship as Gnostic Anthropology

What we saw in Bp. Gibson’s response is sadly not a historical outlier. Christianity’s social imagination has often been hijacked to support less than biblical mythologies, especially in how it imagines bodies arranged within hierarchies of power.

As we look back at Bp. Gibson’s verdict, we can see the Gnostic worldview hardly concealed. Gnosticism taught that there were three human essences, each in a role of hierarchy over the next. Of these, it was only the top tier, the ‘spiritual’ humans, who were truly saved. Their redemption narrative grounded this belief in a pre-fall hierarchy of essences and they worked toward a return to that state by ordering and controlling humanity in the present. In Bp. Gibson’s response to the plantation owners, he inhabited this worldview (slavery is a cosmic structure), even while attempting a literal reading and application of the scriptures. Instead of preaching Christ crucified, he unwittingly inhabited Gnostic myth by differentiating African slave essence from European Christian essence and keeping them hierarchically aligned.

In our contemporary moment, I see this same interpretive tendency within the discourse on gender roles. Certain theologians have promoted a concept of male headship that reduces the complex notion of ‘head’ in the ancient world (see Lucy Peppiatt’s Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women) to an authority/submission structure (a meaning taken from ancient military culture, not found in the New Testament). This concept is then grounded univocally in both the Trinity and creation, establishing a hierarchy of essentialized roles between the Father and the Son, and locating this structure for social order in a pre-creation, pre-fall world. Men and women are described as possessing “gifts” or “charisms” that correlate to an essential masculinity or femininity, existing always in a hierarchical relation. Salvation in this worldview means not just putting on Christ, but also putting on your essence as a male or female and accepting your place within the hierarchy God established before the fall.

The end result of this is that the worldview of male headship misappropriates the story of salvation to elevate a particular kind of male essence—one that sees itself as a universal principle, requiring the submission of other essences, whether those be non-white, female, or even land.

Perhaps it would better be named a principality or power.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons refuted this kind of gnostic thinking when he criticized the myth of hierarchies by showing how God’s whole economy of Creation and Redemption centered on the flesh of Christ, who is God’s Image and the true Human Being.

Christ, he reminded the Christians of his day, is the beginning, middle, and goal of creation. In creation, the adam was a type of the one to come, Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:14). Salvation’s goal is not Christ returning us to a pre-fall state, whatever idyllic mythology we project back onto the garden. Salvation is eschatological, the end and the goal, that has appeared in Jesus Christ in the present. We tend to think of salvation as moving from Adam to Christ, who restores what Adam was.

No.

St. Irenaeus, St. Paul, and the Gospel of John all have it differently: Humanity is re-founded, re-created in Christ. The old (Adam) is passing away, the new (Christ) has come (Col. 1:15-20). To read the Genesis narrative as a description of male/female hierarchy in nature and role is to read it through the lense of our own cultural assumptions. In other words, if we’re not reading Genesis christologically, we’re likely to be reading it Gnostically. You need to know the end, Christ, to understand the beginning, the adam.

It is the person of Christ that stands against any gnostic mythology, any dualism, as the sole essence of creation.

The Difference Baptism Makes—In Christ, Out of adam

Not only do we fall into Gnostic mythology, but we also miss something fundamental about the incarnation itself if we think first of nature and look to Christ second. His person is two natures, uncreated and created.

He is the God-human.

I say human here purposely. In the New Testament the Greek word ‘anthropos’ is used of Christ, not the male ‘arsen’ which pairs with ‘gune/thelys’ female, which can signal gender or wife. This is important because in Christ’s anthropos there is no arsen/thelys (Gal. 3:28). The enmity between male/female in Adam has been reconciled in Christ, which is why Paul says in 2 Cor. 5 that we do not regard anyone according to the flesh, not even Christ. Christ shows us what it means to be human eschatologically, from the completion of creation back into history. Humanity isn’t going back to Eden. And that’s a good thing.

So, then, if we insist that Christians must conform to the pattern of some “natural” state—i.e., the roles of headship/submission—in order to to be fully human, what we’re really doing is rebirthing them into the Old Adam and interposing another mediator between ourselves and Christ. We’re choosing a baptism not into Christ, but into a social order of death.

There is only one head, one source for Christians: the divine-anthropos Jesus Christ. When, as St. Paul says, we were baptized into Christ’s death, our former source in the adam (male/female) of death was ended—thanks be to God—and our new life is only and exclusively the life of the divine-anthropos, Jesus Christ.

To state it bluntly, asserting an Adamic male headship is to adhere to Gnostic mythology and to insist on the continuation of male/female as idealized identities based in headship is to get Christ’s work precisely backwards, leaving unreconciled something Christ has fundamentally put to death by his death. He doesn’t perfect the Adamic archetype. He brings it to death and raises himself as the new eschatological Human Being. He has, by the blood of his cross, put to death all divisions caused by the fall, whether male/female, master/slave, Jew/Gentile, and has raised instead the Human Being, who is known and justified by faith. Because Christ is two natures, our baptism into him transfers us out of what we are by nature into what he is in his person: infinite God united to flesh, a new mode of being.

A New Priesthood—Hebrews and the Priesthood of Christ

With the acknowledgment of a new mode of being human, we must also ask some fundamental questions about the priesthood itself. Christ’s priesthood, Hebrews tells us, is of the order of Melchizedek. Why then has the church often implemented a version of the Levitical priesthood, when Christ’s priesthood is of a completely different order?

The Levitical priesthood was a caste, males of a specific tribe set apart for Israel’s rituals, whereas the priesthood of Melchizedek was not based on any natural qualities that would group him within a holy caste. “No father, no mother, no genealogy” (Heb 7:3). He is a priest of God not because of his nature, but because of God’s calling.

That is Christ’s priesthood also, not according to any natural qualities (male, female, Jew, Gentile), but by the will of God. This is the priesthood Christ shares with us through baptism and his personal calling, one in which we belong not by nature but by faith in him who called us. Priesthood under the new covenant has also been re-founded, re-created in Christ. Just as there is now one Human Being (anthropos), Jesus Christ, so also there is now only one priest, one mediator, and his priesthood is based in his Person, not in the natural qualities of his divinity or his humanity (although it does not exclude them). It arbitrarily privileges certain human particulars to say the priesthood after Christ is a caste of Christian males, whether ethnically Jewish or Gentile. More seriously, it disregards the reality of the new covenant and mars the priesthood with supersessionism.

If we imagine that Christ’s body, composed of the baptized, must still uphold the regulations of the old covenant, have we really understood baptism in the first place? Or is there an aspect of our Adamic identity we want to preserve from the death of baptism, a toe or heel of maleness kept out of the water, through which we try to be justified by nature? The very thing we withhold from the death of baptism is that which will cause us to stumble, a place where death is still at work.

If we are justified to be priests by our maleness, then we might as well bring back the lambs for slaughter. St. Paul said as much about circumcision. Why is this any different?

“She is the Form of Christ”

So what does it mean to be in persona Christi–as–anthropos? What is the Human Being and how do we, as the body of Christ, embody that through baptism?

It is Pilate, ironically, who lifts the curtain for us as he presents the robed and thorn-crowned Jesus to the crowd.“Look at the Human Being,” he declares, or in the Greek “ ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος” (John 19:5). Here is the anthropos, a martyr, in passion and death—which in Christ is life. This is the Imago Dei, the goal into which the male/female adam is called to be recreated.

Christ is the Human Being in the Holy of Holies of his Temple—his body—from which streams of living water flow and of which the church, the new humanity, is born.

It is in the lives of the martyrs that we can see the revealed anthropos most clearly. In his Ecclesial Histories, Eusebius chronicles the story of Blandina, a slave girl from Lyons, France, who is brought to the arena for torture and death. Eusebius recounts the testimonies of several martyrs, but it is that of Blandina that strengthens everyone.

“Blandina, through whom Christ showed that things which appear mean and obscure and despicable to men are with God of great glory … [She]was filled with such power as to be delivered and raised above those who were torturing her by turns from morning till evening in every manner, so that they acknowledged that they were conquered, and could do nothing more to her. And they were astonished at her endurance, as her entire body was mangled and broken; and they testified that one of these forms of torture was sufficient to destroy life, not to speak of so many and so great sufferings.

But the blessed woman, like a noble athlete, renewed her strength in her confession; and her comfort and recreation and relief from the pain of her sufferings was in exclaiming, ‘I am a Christian, and there is nothing vile done by us.’ … [Then she] was suspended on a stake, and exposed to be devoured by the wild beasts who should attack her. And because she appeared as if hanging on a cross, and because of her earnest prayers, she inspired the combatants with great zeal. For they looked on her in her conflict, and beheld with their outward eyes, in the form of their sister, him who was crucified for them, that he might persuade those who believe in him, that every one who suffers for the glory of Christ has fellowship always with the living God.” (emphasis mine).

Blandina was a slave. Not only that, she was a female slave, the lowest position in the cultural hierarchy. Her social status bordered on the non-human. And yet, as Eusebius recounts it, truly this woman was in persona Christi.

Her baptized body transgresses every boundary the hierarchy has erected. She is in persona Christi because Christ shares his life with her and co-suffers with her, “not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life” (Heb. 7:16). His indestructible life is her life, her cross is his cross, his communion is the communion she offers by the testimony of her body and blood, which is also the Church’s seed.

Have we grasped the truly sacramental nature of martyrdom, of being the anthropos? Ignatius of Antioch described his imminent death as becoming “the pure bread” of Christ, explaining that he would become the eucharist as the lions ground his body to pieces. “When I shall have arrived [at martyrdom],” Ignatius wrote, “ I will be the Human Being.” Are we able to embrace testimony like that? Like Blandina’s? Or have we lost a vision of the eucharist as a martyric event in which all the baptized share?

If instead our sacramental worldview reduces in persona Christi to necessitating “the male form of Christ,” we are utilizing a docetic form of persona: he seems like Christ, approximates Christ’s form only in maleness. This use of persona is more pagan than its meaning rooted in trinitarian and christological discourse. To be in the person of Christ, to understand the anthropos, look instead to the martyrs. Look to the bodies broken, the blood spilled, the life in death.

It is not Adam (or Eve) at the altar or hanging before the wild animals in the arena. It is Christ the Human Being in the body of Ignatius, in the blood of Blandina.

If women are in persona Christi in the arena, they are in persona Christi at the altar.

“What He Cannot By Nature Have”

So where does this leave us, then? In the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the preface to Holy Baptism says:

“Forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Savior Christ saith, none can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and of the Holy Ghost: I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this Child that thing which by nature he cannot have; that he may be baptized with Water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ’s holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same.”

That thing which by nature he cannot have.

We cannot have the life of Christ, much less be priests in Christ’s church, by nature. Stipulating a certain nature to qualify for the priesthood is anti-baptismal. Our calling to be priests exists always within our primary calling to martyrdom, to be the Human Being. As many as have put on Christ in baptism, who are thus becoming the eschatological anthropos, they also can be called to ordination.

Any disagreement among Christians is an opportunity to discern the mind of Christ (Phil 4:1-5). As the debate on ordination continues in our communion, I hope that we will not be satisfied with anything less than the whole Christ. Sadly, Anglicans have a history of adapting to cultural hierarchies, whether that be slavery, gnostic mythologies of gender, or even subordinating the Trinity to a cultural idol of social order. A literal reading of Scripture won’t save us from that theological misdirection.

For that, we need a christological reasoning that re-centers this debate in the life and death of Jesus Christ, the God-human, and the priesthood of his body and blood.

If you are baptized into Christ, you are a new creation and are justified by faith to be a priest following Christ’s priesthood. To quote Dr. McGowin’s first piece on Anglican Compass, “by becoming one with Christ in our baptism, all become partakers of his Royal Priesthood.” Because both men and women are called to be Christ’s witnesses, to be the anthropos, they are both called to be in persona Christi, to embody the life of martyrdom, whether in the arena or at the altar.

Thankfully, I’ve come across some helpful advice on overcoming writer’s block in Andrew T. Le Peau’s Writer Better: A Lifelong Editor on Craft, Art, and Spirituality (affiliate link).

The book is filled with helpful and practical advice on writing, rewriting, publishing, etc. To whet your appetite, I’d like to share some of Le Peau’s tips for conquering writer’s block. These all come from chapter 7, pages. 72–80.

1. Read lots of stuff. Fill up the tank!
2. Keep an idea file. Gather tidbits whenever and wherever you can.
3. Take notes on anything and everything.
4. Copy the greats. Literally. Take out a classic passage and start copying it down verbatim.
5. Get some rest. Do something different than you normally do.
6. Play Balderdash. It’s good practice for coming up with words on the spot without overthinking.
7. Don’t judge yourself just yet. First, write as a “Madman.” Anything goes! Then, go over what you’ve written as an “Architect.” Then, as a “Carpenter.” Finally, as a “Judge.”
8. Hit pause, especially if writer’s block is due to a life event.
9. If you are an extrovert, try talking things out with a friend. Then, if the friend is willing to stick around, try writing while they’re still there! (This might have to be adapted via Zoom these days.)
10. If you’re a detail person, then research the crap out of your topic. Just set a deadline for yourself so you don’t research forever!
11. If you can’t land the plane, find an accountability partner (“who is not a peer,” Le Peau specifies. “It needs to be someone you respect and will listen to, who has some authority in your life” pg. 79) and set a deadline.
12. Remember that writing is difficult! You shouldn’t expect good writing to come easy.

Again, I really need to take Le Peau’s advice when I get back to working on my dissertation after the stay-at-home order is lifted in Illinois! If you find any of these suggestions helpful, or if you work with words in any way, I highly recommend that you read Le Peau’s Write Better! You should also check out his blog at https://andyunedited.com/.

I’m hoping that this new arrangement works well for us! Although, to be honest, it’s still an open question in my mind whether or not managed WordPress hosting with WPEngine would be a better fit. I just can’t quite tell whether or not it would be worth the extra cost, given our current traffic and budget.

What I would really love is for someone to sit down with me and give me a consultation on whether or not we’ve got things set up well for the following 3 websites on Bluehost:

• https://anglicancompass.com/ (this is our most important website right now, it gets the most traffic)
• http://www.leaderworks.org/
• https://theevergreenproject.org/

Until now, I’ve only been involved with the backend of Anglican Compass, so I’m not really sure of the ins and outs of how the other 2 websites are set up on the backend. But these three projects are going to be associated going forward, and I’d like to make sure that we’re set up for future success as our numbers increase!

1. Why are Anglicans so angry?
2. How do I use the Book of Common Prayer?
3. How can I become an Anglican?
4. What do Anglicans believe?
5. Why “Clarity & Charity” is the best way forward for the Church in a pluralistic age
6. Announcing an ancient way to reclaim your days and years for God
7. Don’t become an Anglican!
8. You can now do the Daily Office with just this booklet and a Bible
9. The 5 Anglican books you should own NOW
10. Using the BCP—Once difficult, now easy
11. A feast for the senses: The richness of Anglican worship
12. “I was about to give up on the Church when I was introduced to the Anglican tradition”
13. FREE booklet helps you pray
14. How to avoid the biggest mistakes you can make when visiting an Anglican church
15. The WORST Article in the Thirty-Nine Articles. Hint: It’s NOT what you think!
16. Anglican clergy’s best-kept secret
17. We’re looking for people who want to leave Anglicanism better than they found it
18. It’s never too late to start doing the Daily Office
19. Sick of iChurch and McChurch? Give Anglicanism a try
20. Will your church pass the Word & Sacrament test?
21. 3 reasons why you should NOT become an Anglican Christian
22. Why most people leave the Church—and what you can do about it
23. Crazy as it sounds, the Daily Office could save your marriage
24. 5 reasons why written prayers are better than extemporaneous prayers
25. 7 questions to ask when you visit an Anglican church
26. Now you can create a personalized discipleship plan—for FREE

Where’s #27? Read the title for this piece.

I’m writing my dissertation on Barth, Bonhoeffer, the Bible, and “religion.” However, getting clear on just what Barth and Bonhoeffer meant by “religion” is a huge challenge. It’s what I devoted my entire writing sample to examining, and I plan to devote an entire chapter of my dissertation to the topic.

Neither Barth nor Bonhoeffer used the word “religion” in the way that we’re prone to use the word in everyday speech today. According to Merriam-Webster, “religion” means:

• the state of a religious (example: a nun in her 20th year of religion)
• the service and worship of God or the supernatural
• commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
• a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
• (archaic) : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
• a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

According to Donald McKim’s The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, “religion” is

A term with a variety of definitions. Religion includes ritual, social, and ethical elements combined with belief in an unseen world and often a deity. Beliefs may be expressed through myths or doctrines.

For Barth? Religion is idolatrous “unbelief” or “faithlessness” (Unglaube in German). For Bonhoeffer? Well, as Ralf Wüstenberg has noted, Bonhoeffer’s description of “religion” changed over time, but in his Letters and Papers from Prison, he described religion in the following ways:

1. Religion emphasizes inwardness.

2. Religion emphasizes conscience.

3. Religion is a temporary phenomenon.

4. Religion is manipulative and exploitative.

5. Religion minimizes human strength/knowledge/autonomy and instead focuses on human weakness, ignorance, and boundaries/limits/limitations.

6. Religion is metaphysical, otherworldly, and escapist.

7. Religion is privileged.

8. Religion is, like circumcision, no longer a condition for salvation.

9. Religion posits a false “God” (a “deus ex machina,” “working hypothesis,” and “stopgap”) on the other side of human boundaries (a shrinking area, as humanity matures) in order to solve human problems.

10. Religion is driven by anxiety.

11. Religion is individualistic.

12. Religious language has lost its power.

13. Religion is a particular posture towards life, capable of being exemplified, not only by pastors, but also by existential philosophers and psychotherapists.

14. Religion is a partial and segmented posture towards life.

15. Religion ignores the world’s increasing godlessness.

1.28 DIETRICH BONHOEFFER ON GOD IN A SECULAR WORLD

Now, to get a taste of what I’m working with, I think that the following two passages from Alister McGrath’s The Christian Theology Reader (5th edition) are helpful.

McGrath gives the following prefatory remarks to the Bonhoeffer excerpt:

In this letter from Tegel prison, in which he was imprisoned during the final stages of the Second World War, the German theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–45) spoke of the new challenge to Christianity in a world in which the existence of God is not taken for granted. He identified a central theme of Christianity, which distinguishes it from all other religions, in its focus in the sufferings of God in Christ. Bonhoeffer was one of the most vigorous critics of the idea that human “religiosity” is a point of contact for the gospel. The theme of a suffering God was of major importance to Bonhoeffer, as this passage makes clear. Bonhoeffer was executed at Flossenbürg concentration camp in April 1945. (McGrath, 45)

Here’s the excerpt from Bonhoeffer: McGrath_2017_Bonhoeffer-on-God-in-a-secular-world (PDF)

I’ve drawn the text below from my Logos edition of Bonhoeffer’s works. This is from Bonhoeffer’s letter to Eberhard Bethge on July 16, 1944.

Now for a few more thoughts on our topic. I’m just working gradually toward the nonreligious interpretation of biblical concepts. I am more able to see what needs to be done than how I can actually do it. Historically there is just one major development leading to the world’s autonomy. In theology it was Lord Herbert of Cherbury who first asserted that reason is sufficient for religious understanding. In moral philosophy Montaigne p 476 and Bodin substitute rules for life for the commandments. In political philosophy Macchiavelli separates politics from general morality and founds the doctrine of reason of state. Later H. Grotius, very different from Macchiavelli in content, but following the same trend toward the autonomy of human society, sets up his natural law as an international law, which is valid etsi deus non daretur, “as if there were no God.” Finally, p 477 the philosophical closing line: on one hand, the deism of Descartes: the world is a mechanism that keeps running by itself without God’s intervention; on the other hand, Spinoza’s pantheism: God is nature. Kant is basically a deist; Fichte and Hegel are pantheists. In every case the autonomy of human beings and the world is the goal of thought. (In the natural sciences this obviously begins with Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno and their—“heretical”—doctrine of the infinity of the universe [der Welt]. The cosmos of antiquity is finite, as is the created world of medieval thought. An infinite universe—however it is conceived—is self-subsisting, “etsi deus non daretur.” However, modern physics now doubts that the universe is infinite, yet without falling back to the earlier notions p 478 of its finitude.) As a working hypothesis for morality, politics, and the natural sciences, God has been overcome and done away with, but also as a working hypothesis for philosophy and religion (Feuerbach!). It is a matter of intellectual integrity to drop this working hypothesis, or eliminate it as far as possible. An edifying scientist, physician, and so forth is a hybrid. So where is any room left for God? Ask those who are anxious, and since they don’t have an answer, they condemn the entire development that has brought them to this impasse. I have already written to you about the various escape routes out of this space that has become too narrow. What could be added to that is the salto mortale back to the Middle Ages. But the medieval principle is heteronomy, in the form of clericalism. The return to that is only a counsel of despair, a sacrifice made only at the cost of intellectual integrity. It’s a dream, to the tune of “Oh, if only I knew the road back, the long road to childhood’s land!” There is no such way—at least not by willfully throwing away one’s inner integrity, but only in the sense of Matt. 18:3, that is, through repentance, through ultimate honesty! And we cannot be honest unless we recognize that we have to live in the world—“etsi deus non daretur.” And this is precisely what we do recognize—before God! God himself compels us to recognize it. Thus our coming of age leads us to a truer recognition of our situation before God. God would have us know that we must live as those who manage their lives without God. The p 479 same God who is with us is the God who forsakes us (Mark 15:34!). The same God who makes us to live in the world without the working hypothesis of God is the God before whom we stand continually. Before God, and with God, we live without God. God consents to be pushed out of the world and onto the cross; God is weak and powerless in the world and in precisely this way, and only so, is at our side and helps us. Matt. 8:17 makes it quite clear that Christ helps us not by virtue of his omnipotence but rather by virtue of his weakness and suffering! This is the crucial distinction between Christianity and all religions. Human religiosity directs people in need to the power of God in the world, God as deus ex machina. The Bible directs people toward the powerlessness and the suffering of God; only the suffering God can help. To this extent, one may say that the previously described development toward the world’s coming of age, which has cleared the way by eliminating a false notion of God, frees us to see the God of the p 480 Bible, who gains ground and power in the world by being powerless. This will probably be the starting point for our “worldly interpretation.” (DBWE 8:475–80)

McGrath then adds the following “comment” to the reading:

Bonhoeffer wrote this letter from prison shortly before his execution. The letter deals with the vulnerability of approaches to religion and theology which proceed on the assumption that humanity is intrinsically religious. For Bonhoeffer, the Nazi experience had called that presupposition into question.

The letter deals extensively with the issue of the autonomy of the world, and the apparent powerlessness of God, which Bonhoeffer regarded as exhibited on the cross. Bonhoeffer’s brief account of intellectual history since the Middle Ages is concerned to bring out how the world has come of age and lives as if there were no God.

Note that the German song title referred to in the text is to be translated as “If only I knew the way back, the long way to the land of childhood.” The Latin slogan etsi Deus non daretur (“as if God is not given”) was used by the Dutch writer Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) and is widely seen as marking a recognition of the growing importance of secular trends in the west.

9.4 KARL BARTH ON CHRISTIANITY AND RELIGION

Here’s McGrath’s prefatory remarks for the Barth passage:

The Swiss Protestant theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) developed a distinction between “religion” and “revelation,” arguing that the former is a human attempt at self-justification and the latter is God’s contradiction of human preconceptions about God through divine grace. Barth argues that Christianity loses sight of its distinctive identity if it allows itself to become a “religion,” which Barth interprets as a human construction. (McGrath, 496)

Here’s the excerpt(s) from Barth: McGrath_2017_Barth-on-Religion (PDF)

I’ve drawn the text below from my Logos edition of Barth’s Church Dogmatics. These passages come from §17, “The Revelation of God as the Aufhebung (traditionally translated “abolition”) of Religion.” It might be helpful to note that the Leitsatz (the thesis statement, if you will) for this section reads: “The revelation of God in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the judging but also reconciling presence of God in the world of human religion, that is, in the realm of man’s attempts to justify and to sanctify himself before a capricious and arbitrary picture of God. The Church is the locus of true religion, so far as through grace it lives by grace.”

OK, here’s Barth:

A theological evaluation of religion and religions must be characterised primarily by the great cautiousness and charity of its assessment and judgments. It will observe and understand and take man in all seriousness as the subject of religion. But it will not be man apart from God, in a human per se. It will be man for whom (whether he knows it or not) Jesus Christ was born, died and rose again. It will be man who (whether he has already heard it or not) is intended in the Word of God. It will be man who (whether he is aware of it or not) has in Christ his Lord. It will always understand religion as a vital utterance and activity of this man. It will not ascribe to this p 298 life-utterance and activity of his a unique “nature,” the so-called “nature of religion,” (CD I/2, 297–98)

Revelation singles out the Church as the locus of true religion. But this does not mean that the Christian religion as such is the fulfilled nature of human religion. It does not mean that the Christian religion is the true religion, fundamentally superior to all other religions. We can never stress too much the connexion between the truth of the Christian religion and the grace of revelation. We have to give particular emphasis to the fact that through grace the Church lives by grace, and to that extent it is the locus of true religion. And if this is so, the Church will as little boast of its “nature,” i.e., the perfection in which it fulfils the “nature” of religion, as it can attribute that nature to other religions. We cannot differentiate and separate the Church from other religions on the basis of a general concept of the nature of religion. (CD I/2, 298)

We begin by stating that religion is unbelief. It is a concern, p 300 indeed, we must say that it is the one great concern, of godless man. (CD I/2, 299–300)

Where we want what is wanted in religion, i.e., justification and sanctification as our own work, we do not find ourselves—and it does not matter whether the thought and representation of God has a primary or only a secondary importance—on the direct way to God, who can then bring us to our goal at some higher stage on the way. On the contrary, we lock the door against God, we alienate ourselves from Him, we come into direct opposition to Him. God in His revelation will not allow man to try to come to terms with life, to justify and sanctify himself. God in His revelation, God in Jesus Christ, is the One who takes on Himself the sin of the world, who wills that all our care should be cast upon Him, because He careth for us. (CD I/2, 309)

Religion is never true in itself and as such. The revelation of God denies that any religion is true, i.e., that it is in truth the knowledge and worship of God and the reconciliation of man with God. For as the self-offering and self-manifestation of God, as the work of peace which God Himself has concluded between Himself and man, revelation is the truth beside which there is no other truth, over against which there is only lying and wrong. If by the concept of a “true religion” we mean truth which belongs to religion in itself and as such, it is just as unattainable as a “good man,” if by goodness we mean something which man can achieve on his own initiative. No religion is true. It can only become true, i.e., according to that which it purports to be and for which it is upheld. And it can become true only in the way in which man is justified, from without; i.e., not of its own nature and being, but only in virtue of a reckoning and adopting and separating which are foreign to its own nature and being, p 326 which are quite inconceivable from its own standpoint, which come to it quite apart from any qualifications or merits. Like justified man, religion is a creature of grace. But grace is the revelation of God. No religion can stand before it as true religion. No man is righteous in its presence. It subjects us all to the judgment of death. But it can also call dead men to life and sinners to repentance. And similarly in the wider sphere where it shows all religion to be false it can also create true religion. The abolishing of religion by revelation need not mean only its negation: the judgment that religion is unbelief. Religion can just as well be exalted in revelation, even though the judgment still stands. It can be upheld by it and concealed in it. It can be justified by it, and—we must at once add—sanctified. Revelation can adopt religion and mark it off as true religion. And it not only can. How do we come to assert that it can, if it has not already done so? There is a true religion: just as there are justified sinners. If we abide strictly by that analogy—and we are dealing not merely with an analogy, but in a comprehensive sense with the thing itself—we need have no hesitation in saying that the Christian religion is the true religion. (CD I/2, 325–26)

And here’s McGrath’s “comment”:

Barth here takes a principled stand against the notion of “religion” as a human construction, rather than a datum of divine revelation. He insists that “religion” will continue until the end of time, as a necessary prop or support to faith. Barth’s concern here is to emphasize that, by the grace of God, this “religion” is transcended and surpassed by God. It is something neutral, not negative. Barth uses the German word Aufhebung, here translated as “abolition.” Yet this German term has a deeper sense, and could be understood to mean the “transformation” or even “sublimation” of religion. Religion, seen as a human construction and contrasted with divine revelation, certainly needs to be critiqued – yet Barth insists that it serves a useful role. (McGrath, 498)

As I put it in the “elevator pitch” for my dissertation proposal:

Why does Bonhoeffer in prison, after adopting Barth’s theological critique of religion as idolatrous unbelief…

Why does Bonhoeffer, after claiming that the critique of religion was Barth’s greatest merit and original contribution as a theologian…

Why does Bonhoeffer say that Barth left us with nothing more than a “positivism of revelation” — a flattening of doctrines to the same relative importance, as a result of which the world is left to its own devices — whatever that means!

Why does Bonhoeffer then speak approvingly of a “religionless Christianity,” something that Barth explicitly refused to support?

In order to answer these questions (or at least move toward an answer), I’ve spent a considerable amount of time looking for specific biblical passages that (1) both Barth and Bonhoeffer discussed (2) at least thematically in relation to their theological critiques of religion. Genesis 1–3 and Matthew 5–7 (the Sermon on the Mount) have emerged as the most relevant passages in this regard.

However, there’s also the question of method and how Barth and Bonhoeffer “dogmatically located” Scripture. Consider what John Webster had to say about Barth, Bonhoeffer, the Bible, and the Barth-Bonhoeffer relationship:

My suggestion here, however, is that rather than pursuing questions about positivism of revelation or about the worldly and ethical, light can be shed on the relation of Bonhoeffer and Barth by looking at the place of the interpretation of Scripture in their respective theologies. Both give a thoroughly theological depiction of reading Scripture, that is, a depiction in which language about God is direct and operative; both, therefore, define the human act of interpretation as radical attentiveness and self-relinquishment to God’s saving self-communication through the instrumentality of Holy Scripture. This, I suggest, is one of the points at which these two church theologians come very close to each other, and offer much food for thought to church and theology now. (Webster, Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics, 88–89).

Now, although Jameson Ross (in his 2019 Durham PhD dissertation, “Bonhoeffer’s Ecclesial Hermeneutic: The Practice of Biblical Interpretation in 1930s Germany”) has demonstrated much more continuity in Bonhoeffer’s biblical interpretation (specifically, between Bonhoeffer’s 1925 student paper on “The Historical and Pneumatological Interpretation of Scripture” and his 1935 “Contemporizing New Testament Texts”) than Webster saw, I believe that Webster was right to emphasize the following about Bonhoeffer’s biblical work:

The direct, homiletical rhetoric, the deliberate avoidance of technicality or complexity, the prose stripped to the basics, are all tokens of the fact that Bonhoeffer has come round to an understanding of the task of interpreting Scripture which is governed by two convictions: that Holy Scripture is the viva vox Dei, and that this living voice demands an attitude of ready submission and active compliance. These two convictions are remarkably similar to what Barth himself discovered in the heritage of Reformed Christianity, and they can now be traced in Bonhoeffer (Webster, Word and Church, 101).

Webster applies this to Bonhoeffer’s post-Creation and Fall biblical work, but I would, following Jameson Ross’s dissertation, apply it to Creation and Fall as well.

This directness—or “exegetical immediacy,” as I’ve taken to calling it—is, I believe, a distinguishing feature of Bonhoeffer’s exegesis. Sure, he may have gotten some of it from Barth’s trailblazing work in the area of theological exegesis. But I think that Bonhoeffer is even more comfortable with exegetical immediacy than Barth.

For example, when it comes to Creation and Fall, Bonhoeffer is comfortable with making direct moves from Eden to today. Barth, on the other hand, only wants to move from Eden to Israel to Jesus to the Church to today. Barth is, in other words, more attentive to the contours of salvation history, as it were, than Bonhoeffer is—at least when it comes to the passages regarding Genesis 1–3 and Matthew 5–7 that I’ve looked at.

For this reason, I’m not sure I agree with the assessment of Michael Mawson in his essay on “Scripture” in The Oxford Handbook of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Commenting on Bonhoeffer’s 1925 student paper on scriptural interpretation, Mawson writes that “Bonhoeffer’s early essay is perhaps best read as an enthusiastic endorsement of and expansion on this key Barthian claim” (that the Bible tells us what God says to us, not what humans have said about God, pg. 125). However, Mawson then stresses the influence of Luther:

On the other hand, while Barth may have provided the proximate impetus for Bonhoeffer’s way of approaching Scripture, this early essay also displays the formative influence of Luther. Even more so than Barth, references to Luther abound in Bonhoeffer’s scriptural engagements and theology, here and elsewhere (cf. Krötke, 2008: 57–60). Luther’s influence is especially evident in Bonhoeffer’s deep insistence on the historicity (Geschichtlichkeit) of the Bible and the hiddenness of God’s word in these human words and texts (cf. DBWE 9: 293–4). (Pg. 125)

I don’t doubt or quibble with Luther’s influence on Bonhoeffer, but I wonder if this is the best way of stating the Luther-vs-Barth difference. It seems to me that Barth only becomes more and more concerned with the historicity of the Bible, at least when it comes to the contours of the covenant between God and humanity in Christ. On the other hand, Bonhoeffer appears to become less concerned with the historical contours within Scripture, and more concerned with present day history and what the Word of God has to say.

Another way that I’m thinking about this is as follows. At least one part of Bonhoeffer’s accusation of Barth’s Offenbarungspositivismus (in the prison letters) is that Barth flattens various doctrines to the same level of significance. Bonhoeffer writes:

Barth was the first theologian—to his great and lasting credit—to begin the critique of religion, but he then put in its place a positivist doctrine of revelation that says, in effect, “like it or lump it.” Whether it’s the virgin birth, the Trinity, or anything else, all are equally significant and necessary parts of the whole, which must be swallowed whole or not at all. That’s not biblical. There are degrees of cognition and degrees of significance. That means an “arcane discipline” must be reestablished, through which the mysteries of the Christian faith are sheltered against profanation. (DBWE 8:373, my emphasis).

If Bonhoeffer accuses Barth of flattening out the contours of various levels of doctrinal significance, I wonder if Barth could charge Bonhoeffer with flattening out the contours of salvation history and moving from texts to the present day too quickly, without taking the intervening history of Israel and/or the Church into account.

To be sure, Bonhoeffer does not do this on the basis of extrapolating universal principles from Scripture in order to move from the historical text to the present. In his 1935 lecture on “con temporizing New Testament texts,” Bonhoeffer writes:

Contemporizing comes about not through the selection of certain texts but by making the whole of Holy Scripture audible as a witness to the word of God. The only method of contemporization is thus the substantive textual exposition [of the Holy Scriptures] as the witness of Christ, and such exegesis has the promise of Christ’s presence. (DBWE 14:421–422).

Bonhoeffer takes a Lutheran “was Christum treibet” approach to the Bible. This is not to say that Barth’s handling of Scripture isn’t also Christological! But it does seem to me that, when commenting upon a passage of Scripture, especially one in the Old Testament, Bonhoeffer wants to get to Christ more quickly and directly than Barth.

My normal reading/writing workflow has ground to a halt because (1) we are temporarily without childcare and (2) my wife, a Family Nurse Practitioner is still working full-time from the office. That leaves me home alone with our 1.5-year-old during the week and, while she is a wonderful child, she’s not really jazzed about dad sitting quietly in a corner getting some reading and writing done during the day.

Right before the pandemic hit, I was able to quickly work my way through the rest of Barth’s as-yet-unpublished 1933–34 lectures on the Sermon on the Mount (Erklärung der Bergpredigt, over 100 pages of type-script lectures that I was able to obtain via PDF from the Karl Barth Archiv in Basel). I was really hoping to find some kind of smoking gun that would (1) clearly display an exegetical difference between Barth and Bonhoeffer and (2) help to explain the ostensible differences between Barth’s and Bonhoeffer’s theological critiques of religion.

However, unless I missed something (which, let’s be honest, is possible—I need to work my way through these lectures again because they’re so important), there’s no smoking gun in the 1933–34 lectures. Barth and Bonhoeffer are definitely in the same camp of interpreters of the Sermon on the Mount. There might be slight differences, especially of emphasis, between them—but I didn’t encounter anything major in Barth’s lectures.

This was a serious blow to my motivation and morale. I was considering quitting the project, daydreaming about Wheaton having to shut down the program due to the pandemic, etc. Although I’ve decided to stick with it, I still am getting tired of searching for a “smoking gun” discussion of a biblical passage in Barth’s and Bonhoeffer’s writings. And I honestly think that both Barth and Bonhoeffer would find my dissertation—at least in its more historical sections, which have taken up almost all of my time for the past 3 years—a colossal waste of time. I’m quite sure that both of them would prefer that I spend my time reading the Bible closely instead of reading them so closely.

Nevertheless, although I’m still down in the dumps about this whole process, I’ve got some things on my mind that I will keep chipping away at.

First, I’m convinced that, because they meant different things by the word “religion” (at least when you compare Barth with Bonhoeffer’s prison letters), Barth’s and Bonhoeffer’s theological critiques of religion are complementary. Ralf Wüstenberg has shown that Bonhoeffer’s definition/description of “religion” shifted at least twice in his life, and what Bonhoeffer calls “religion” in prison is something different than what he called “religion” earlier (and what Barth called “religion” across his career).

Second, I’m convinced that there are important links between (1) Barth’s and Bonhoeffer’s theological critiques of religions and (2) their theological interpretations of Genesis 1–3. Furthermore, Barth’s and Bonhoeffer’s interpretation of “the knowledge of good and evil” differ in the same ways that their theological critiques of religion differ. Now, because Bonhoeffer doesn’t cite/discuss Genesis 1–3 in his theological critique of religion in Letters and Papers from Prison, it strikes me as impossible to prove that Barth and Bonhoeffer’s differences on the knowledge of good and evil in Genesis 1–3 caused their divergences on “religion.” Nevertheless, both Barth and Bonhoeffer critique the knowledge of good and evil in the same kinds of different-yet-complementary ways that they critique “religion,” and I think that’s significant.

Third, given how both Barth and Bonhoeffer use the knowledge of good and evil to critique general and even Christian approaches to ethics, there’s something going on between their theological critiques of religion and their theological critiques of ethics. Exactly what is going on is what I’m currently trying to figure out! I’ve been taking a closer look at their theological interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount and, while I haven’t been able to find a super significant exegetical difference between the two theologians when it comes to Matthew 5–7, I think that Barth is more nervous than Bonhoeffer about (1) ignoring the contours of the history of the covenant between God and humans and (2) implying that humans have the knowledge of good and evil such that they can answer the question “what should we do?” with the text of the Sermon apart from a fresh revelatory work of the Holy Spirit.

Both Barth and Bonhoeffer are against doing ethics on the basis of universal ethical principles. They are both intensely skeptical about the ability of humans to know and do the good apart from divine revelation. But Bonhoeffer seems more comfortable (than Barth) with saying that we can read the Sermon on the Mount today and move immediately from what Jesus says in Matthew 5–7 to what we should do. He displays a similar “exegetical immediacy” with regards to Genesis 1–3. Bonhoeffer is comfortable moving directly from Eden to the Church today. Barth, on the other hand, emphasizes that the correct movement is from Genesis 1–3 to Israel, to Jesus, to the Church today.

What do Barth and Bonhoeffer’s differences on (1) the knowledge of good and evil and (2) “exegetical immediacy” (that’s the best descriptor I’ve been able to come up with for now) have to do with their ostensible differences when it comes to (3) the theological critique of religion? That’s what I’m trying to think through in order to tie this project together and take advantage of the reading and research I’ve done so far.

So, in addition to focusing on the Genesis 1–3 texts and the Sermon on the Mount texts in Barth and Bonhoeffer, I’m going to revisit their theological critique of religion texts to see if I can figure out how to tie the various pieces of this project together even if I haven’t been able to find the “smoking gun” passage(s) I was hoping for. It’s been awhile since I started this project with a detailed analysis of texts like chapter 7 of Barth’s Romans commentary, §17 of Barth’s Church Dogmatics, and the “theological letters” in Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison. I’m hoping that, after spending so much time slogging through stuff about Genesis 1–3 and Matthew 5–7, revisiting Barth’s and Bonhoeffer’s theological critique of religion texts will help to advance my thinking.

The following prayers come from the Anglican Church in North America’s 2019 Book of Common Prayer. You can view the text of the 2019 BCP here. And you can download a Word document containing all of the Occasional Prayers here.

58. FOR A PERSON IN TROUBLE OR BEREAVEMENT

O merciful Father, you have taught us in your holy Word that you do not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men: Look with pity on the sorrows of your servant N. Remember him, O Lord, in mercy; nourish his soul with patience; comfort him with a sense of your goodness; lift up your countenance upon him; and give him peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

59. FOR THE DISCOURAGED AND DOWNCAST

O God, almighty and merciful, you heal the broken-hearted, and turn the sadness of the sorrowful to joy, Let your fatherly goodness be upon all whom you have made. Remember in pity all those who are this day destitute, homeless, elderly, infirm, or forgotten. Bless the multitude of your poor. Lift up those who are cast down. Mightily befriend innocent sufferers, and sanctify to them the endurance of their wrongs. Cheer with hope all who are discouraged and downcast, and by your heavenly grace preserve from falling those whose poverty tempts them to sin. Though they be troubled on every side, suffer them not to be distressed; though they are perplexed, save them from despair. Grant this, O Lord, for the love of him who for our sakes became poor, your Son our Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

61. FOR THE RECOVERY OF A SICK PERSON

Almighty and immortal God, giver of life and health: We implore your mercy for your servant N., that by your blessing upon him and upon those who minister to him with your healing gifts, he may be restored to health of body and mind, according to your gracious will, and may give thanks to you in your holy Church; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

62. FOR THOSE AFFLICTED WITH MENTAL SUFFERING

Almighty God, whose Son took upon himself the afflictions of your people: Regard with your tender compassion those suffering from anxiety, depression, or mental illness [especially _______]; bear their sorrows and their cares; supply all their needs; help them to put their whole trust and confidence in you; and restore them to strength of mind and cheerfulness of spirit; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

77. FOR GUIDANCE

O God, by whom the meek are guided in judgment, and light rises up in darkness for the godly: Grant us, in all our doubts and uncertainties, the grace to ask what you would have us do, that the Spirit of wisdom may save us from all false choices; that in your light we may see light, and in your straight path we may not stumble; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

79. FOR MERCY

Almighty God, you have not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities; grant that we, who for our evil deeds deserve to be punished, by the might of your grace may mercifully be relieved; through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

80. FOR TRUSTFULNESS IN TIMES OF WORRY AND ANXIETY

Most loving Father, you will us to give thanks for all things, to dread nothing but the loss of you, and to cast all our care on the One who cares for us. Preserve us from faithless fears and worldly anxieties, and grant that no clouds of this mortal life may hide from us the light of that love which is immortal, and which you have manifested unto us in your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

82. FOR QUIET CONFIDENCE

O God of peace, who hast taught us that in returning and rest we shall be saved, in quietness and in confidence shall be our strength: By the might of thy Spirit lift us, we pray thee, to thy presence, where we may be still and know that thou art God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

86. FOR SLEEP

Father, in your mercy dispel the darkness of this night, and let your servant sleep in peace, that at the dawn of a new day I may wake with joy in your Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

95. IN TIMES OF SUFFERING OR WEAKNESS

Dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: I hold up all my weakness to your strength, my failure to your faithfulness, my sinfulness to your perfection, my loneliness to your compassion, my little pains to your great agony on the Cross. I pray that you will cleanse me, strengthen me, guide me, so that in all ways my life may be lived as you would have it lived, without cowardice and for you alone. Show me how to live in true humility, true contrition, and true love. Amen.

97. PREPARATION FOR PERSONAL PRAYER

Holy Spirit, breath of God and fire of love, I cannot pray without your aid: Kindle in me the fire of your love, and illumine me with your light; that with a steadfast will and holy thoughts I may approach the Father in spirit and in truth; through Jesus Christ my Lord, who reigns with you and the Father in eternal union. Amen.

115. FOR THE COMING OF GOD’S KINGDOM

Hasten, O Father, the coming of your kingdom; and grant that we your servants, who now live by faith, may with joy behold your Son at his coming in glorious majesty; even Jesus Christ, our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.

Given the importance of the Sermon on Mount for Bonhoeffer’s life and work, I’m persuaded that there’s something important to be found here—something that will hopefully shed some light on the Barth-Bonhoeffer relationship re:their theological critiques of religion.

Additionally, there are at least two other tidbits that have me interested in how Barth and Bonhoeffer read the Sermon on the Mount.

On October 17, 1934, Bonhoeffer wrote to Gandhi, inquiring about the possibility of going to India in order to learn how to develop “a truly spiritual living Christian peace movement.” In that letter, Bonhoeffer writes:

We are having great theologians in Germany—the greatest of them being in my opinion Karl Barth, whose disciple and friend I am happy to be—they are teaching us the great theological thoughts of the Reformation anew, but there is no-one to show us the way towards a new Christian life in uncompromising accordance with the Sermon on the Mount. It is in this respect that I am looking up to you for help.

Bonhoeffer to Gandhi, October 17, 1934

On September 19, 1936, Bonhoeffer wrote the following to Karl Barth. He is commenting on their lack of communication since the fall of 1933.

There are all sorts of reasons that I have not written since then. I always thought that if I were to write you, I would have to have something reasonable to say, but something reasonable in that sense was precisely what I never had, at least not such that I thought I might take up your time. And I still do not have that today. Besides, I also wanted to arrive at a certain point on my own with regard to the particular questions that emerged for me from Scripture and which constantly occupied me at the time; in the process I quite frankly repeatedly discovered that in several points I was probably moving away from what you yourself think about these questions. Basically the entire period was an ongoing, silent dispute with you, which is why I had to remain silent for a while. Primarily it involved questions concerning the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount and the Pauline doctrine of justification and sanctification. I am currently working on this material and would very much have liked to ask you and hear your views on so many things.

Bonhoeffer to Barth, September 19, 1936 (DBWE 14:252-253), emphasis added.

Now, what’s really intriguing to me is *why* Bonhoeffer would think, in 1934–36, that Barth’s interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount was insufficient. Was this just a general sense, based upon familiarity with Barth’s theology? Or did Bonhoeffer have some particular Barthian exegesis in mind?

• “theological triage,”
• “doctrinal taxonomy,” or
• “dogmatic rank.”

I’m referring to the process of distinguishing between various levels of importance when it comes to theological statements/positions.

So, for example, the Trinity would usually be considered a “first-order” or “primary” doctrine—a “dogma,” if you will. But a specific view of the end times would usually be considered a “second-order,” “secondary,” or “tertiary” doctrine—AKA “adiaphora.”

But how should we go about making these doctrinal distinctions?

What’s the reasoning that goes into the triage?

That’s what I’m really interested in.

Here’s what I’ve found so far. If you can think of anything else, please let me know!

John Calvin, Institutes, 3.19.7

Freedom in “things indifferent” with proofs from Romans, 7–9

7. The third part of Christian freedom lies in this: regarding outward things that are of themselves “indifferent,” we are not bound before God by any religious obligation preventing us from sometimes using them and other times not using them, indifferently. And the knowledge of this freedom is very necessary for us, for if it is lacking, our consciences will have no repose and there will be no end to superstitions. Today we seem to many to be unreasonable because we stir up discussion over the unrestricted eating of meat, use of holidays and of vestments, and such things, which seem to them vain frivolities.

But these matters are more important than is commonly believed. For when consciences once ensnare themselves, they enter a long and inextricable maze, not easy to get out of. . . . (Calvin illustrates the downward spiral of conscience that can occur.)

Here begins a weighty controversy, for what is in debate is whether God, whose will ought to precede all our plans and actions, wishes us to use these things or those. As a consequence, some, in despair, are of necessity cast into a pit of confusion; others, despising God and abandoning fear of him, must make their own way in destruction, where they have none ready-made. For all those entangled in such doubts, wherever they turn, see offense of conscience everywhere present.

D.A. Carson, “On Disputable Matters.” Themelios 40, no. 3 (December 2015): 383–88.

• Notes 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Rom. 14:5–6 as scriptural support for every generation’s need “to decide just what beliefs and behavior are morally mandated of all believers, and what beliefs and behavior may be left to the individual believer’s conscience” (383).
• “The matters where Christians may safely agree to disagree have traditionally been labeled adiaphora, ‘indifferent things’” (383). Yet, because adiaphora are not unimportant, Carson prefers “disputable matters” to “indifferent matters.”
• Some decisions, like the resurrection of Jesus Christ being essential, are easy. Other decisions are more complicated. Carson notes “that some things that were thought theologically indisputable in the past have become disputable” (383). Culture and history can/do play a role.
• Carson notes the contemporary debate over homosexuality as an example of the adiaphora question’s relevance.

He provides “ten reflections on what does and does not constitute a theologically disputable matter” (384).

1. “That something is disputed does not make it theologically disputable, i.e., part of the adiaphora.” (384).
2. “What places something in the indisputable column, then, is not whether or not it is disputed by some people, or has ever been disputed, but what the Scriptures consistently say about the topic, and how the Scriptures tie it to other matters. At the end of the day that turns on sober, even-handed, reverent exegesis—as Athanasius understood in his day on a different topic.” (384).
3. “My third, fourth, and fifth observations about disputable matters arise from a close reading of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul does not assert that Christians should not eat meat that has been offered to idols. . . . Nevertheless, Christians with a “weak” conscience . . . must not eat such meat, lest they do damage to their conscience. Eating the meat that has been offered to idols is not intrinsically wrong, but violating one’s own conscience is wrong.” (385).
4. “an action belonging in the disputable column is not necessarily one that Christians are free to take up. Rather, Christians may rule the action out of bounds either because they admit they have weak consciences, or, knowing their consciences are strong, because they voluntarily put the action aside out of love for weaker believers.” (385).
5. “actions that may belong to the adiaphora, i.e., that are rightly judged disputable, may in certain cultural contexts become absolutely condemned, thus now belonging in the indisputable column. More briefly: in the right context, what belongs in the disputable column gets shifted to the indisputably bad column.” (386). Illustrates this with the odd apparent contrast between what Paul has to say in 1 Cor. 8 and 1 Cor. 10:14–22.
6. “Sometimes the theological associations of an action, in a particular context, establish whether an action is right or wrong. In one context, it may be absolutely right or wrong, and thus belong in the indisputable column; in another context, the action may belong to the adiaphora.” (386). Illustrates this with Titus (Gal. 2:1-5) and Timothy (Acts 16:3) re: circumcision.
7. “Under the new covenant, there is a deep suspicion of those who, for the sake of greater spirituality or deeper purity, elevate celibacy or who prohibit certain foods or who inject merely human (i.e., biblically unwarranted) commands, or who scrap over minor points (e.g., Mark 7:19; 1 Tim 4:3-4; 1:6; 2 Tim 2:14, 16-17; Tit 1:10-16; cf. Rom 14). Such people try to elevate matters that should never be placed in the indisputable column to a high place in the hierarchy of virtues.” (387).
8. Has moral law been relativized into the disputable column? Carson notes that some make argument from Rom. 14:5–6 relativizing observance of days → Sabbath → Decalogue → moral law. Carson admits that the issues are complicated here, but he provides a few ways of salvaging Sabbath, Decalogue, and moral law from Rom. 14:5–6. He also thinks that homosexuality is different, since “in the Bible there is no text whatsoever that hints that homosexual marriage might in some cases be acceptable.” (387).
9. Re: William Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals and the redemptive movement hermeneutic, Carson points out that Webb himself clarifies why it doesn’t apply to homosexuality. But Carson agrees with Grudem’s critique of Webb. We must follow the trajectories within the Scriptures, “but that does not justify treating the trajectories beyond the Scriptures as normative, the more so when such trajectories undermine what the Scriptures actually say” (388).
10. Instead of asking questions in the sense of “What are we allowed to do? What can we get away with?,” we should be asking “What will bring glory to God?” (388).

Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) Spiritual Heritage Committee, “The Bible, Dogmatic Rank, and a Statement of Faith: Part 1.”

Regarding “Dogmatic Rank”:

Reformation and post-Reformation scholars, theologians, and pastors delineated dogmatic rank in three ways, in order of importance. The first, the fundamental articles of faith or doctrine,[2] focused on “the basic doctrines necessary to the Christian faith [which] are distinguished from secondary or logically derivative doctrines.” These are the “doctrines without which Christianity cannot exist and the integrity of which is necessary to the preservation of the faith.”

The second, the secondary fundamental articles, recognizes that some of the fundamental articles “such as those concerned with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, might be lacking in a person’s faith, or at least lacking in correct definition, and that person still be saved in the promises of the gospel, since forgiveness of sins rests on faith in Christ, as witnessed in the Word, and not on acceptance of the doctrines of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.” Despite these differences and divides, the conclusion was that adherents of the other view were “Christian and participated in the promise of salvation in Christ because of their acceptance of the primary fundamental doctrines of the person and work of Christ,” even though they voiced concern that the other person’s doctrinal system was considered endangered.

The third, the nonfundamental articles, focuses on “articles the denial of which does not endanger salvation since they are not fundamental to the maintenance of Christian truth and are not concerned with the objects of faith,” e.g., identity of the Antichrist and the nature of angels. “Such doctrines, nonetheless, are scriptural and, therefore, if rightly stated, edifying.”[3]

https://www.efca.org/sites/default/files/resources/docs/2019/05/the_bible_dogmatic_rank_and_a_statement_of_faith_-_introduction_0.pdf

Here, the EFCA document has a couple of helpful footnotes:

FN2:

“The Protestant Scholastic Reformers referred to these three levels of dogmatic rank in the following way: articuli fundamentals, the fundamental articles of faith or doctrine, the articuli fundamentals secundarii, the secondary fundamental articles, and the articuli non-fundamentales, the nonfundamental articles.”

FN3:

“Cf. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 40-41.

Furthermore, in FN4, they list some examples of doctrinal taxonomy:

“For a few examples of others who have provided helpful means of determining dogmatic rank, cf. R. Albert Mohler Jr., “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity.” See also the excellent treatment by Erik Thoennes, Life’s Biggest Questions: What the Bible Says About the Things That Matter Most (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), “Essential vs. Peripheral Doctrine,” 35-37. Mohler’s “theological triage” is probably the most widely known, but Thoennes’ taxonomy is likely the most helpful. Finally, Gavin Ortlund has written an exceptional book, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage (forthcoming).”

Regarding the EFCA:

With the Bible and the gospel foundational to our doctrine and life (1 Tim. 4:16), we have identified four categories of dogmatic rank, which is the notion that not all doctrinal claims stand on the same level:

1. Of First Importance
2. Of Second Importance
3. Of Third Importance
4. Disputable Matters

[…]

We have also developed a taxonomy/grid by which we determine this rank, the category in which a certain doctrinal issue most appropriately fits.

1. Relevance to our understanding of the nature and character of God: To what extent does this doctrine or practice reveal the person and nature of God?
2. Connection to the gospel and the overarching narrative of the Bible: How directly is this doctrine or practice connected to the gospel and to the storyline of the whole Bible?
3. Exegetical clarity: To what extent does Scripture unambiguously affirm this doctrine or practice?
4. Biblical prominence: How prominent is this doctrine or practice in Scripture?
5. Historical consensus: How widespread is the consensus on this doctrine or practice in the Church of both the past and present
6. Application to the church and the believer: How relevant is this doctrine or practice to us today?

https://www.efca.org/sites/default/files/resources/docs/2019/05/the_bible_dogmatic_rank_and_a_statement_of_faith_-_introduction_0.pdf

Finally, note that this EFCA document references an earlier one and a later one:

• “For an earlier version of dogmatic rank in the EFCA, cf. Michael P. Andrus, ‘Drawing Doctrinal Lines: Where? And How?: How do we distinguish between the Essentials and the Non-essentials of the Faith?‘ (January 2007)
• “As an exercise, see how this is applied to the doctrine of election: The Bible, Dogmatic Rank, and a Statement of Faith: How do we determine what is a major doctrine?“