Chris Pratt, Colin Kaepernick, and the Christic Image of the American Soldier

I really like Chris Pratt. I liked his ‘9 rules,’ which used a platform given by MTV (of all places) to deliver a few simple Christian messages—a person is of more than material value, embarrassment is nothing to be afraid of, kindness matters, and we are beloved of God.

Right at the end, though, there was a moment that my ears prick up: “grace is a gift. Like the freedom that we enjoy in this country, that grace was paid for with somebody else’s blood. Do not forget that. Don’t take that for granted.” The idea that American freedom was paid for in military blood is, of course, ubiquitous—throughout the controversy over Colin Kaepernick’s anthem protests, no-one in mainstream discourse has questioned the idea that the freedom to protest is enjoyed because of military sacrifice. But before Pratt’s speech, I’d never realized this was an atonement theology.

Abiding in Love and the Price of Glory: Building Community in Light of Charlottesville

Shancia and me, being entirely reverent during the liturgy.

Last week, my beloved friend (and fellow former Hildan) Shancia Jarrett and I had the opportunity to preach a sermon together as part of the orientation for this year’s incoming YDS class. I cannot say how joyful an experience it was to compose and preach a sermon with another voice—to know that I was preaching words which weren’t just my own, and to experience preaching with company. Here’s the text.

If We Want the Episcopal Church to Engage in Effective Political Advocacy, then We Must Evangelize

Awakening the Spirit in Missouri (Source: ENS)

Edit: I don’t take things down, but I want to flag that I no longer stand by this post. Specifically, it is less obvious to me now that anyone should care what the Episcopal Church has to say on issues of justice. This isn’t to say I’m utterly sure they shouldn’t—just that it’s taken for granted here that this would be an overall good thing, and as of 2020 I no longer believe that to be the case.

A substantial number of Episcopal Bishops recently wrapped up a conference in Chicago. Titled “Unholy Trinity: the Intersection of Racism, Poverty, and Gun Violence,” it was organized by Bishops United Against Gun Violence and it dealt with how to broach these three social sins in scriptural and theological frameworks. It was probably a very powerful event, especially given the panel it put together. I can also easily imagine that the work done will inspire new forms of advocacy and activism within various Episcopal Dioceses.

A Third Party Argument Against Voting for A Third Party Candidate

The Makeup of State Legislatures

[N.b. The argument in this post presumes voting for a third party in an effort to work against the current two party hegemony, not as an act of political dissent. That is a different kind of case, requiring a different kind of argument.]

I just watched the first presidential debate. It was terrifying for many reasons. If I could vote, I’d vote for Hilary—but with that said, I know enough people of principle who have good reasons to vote for a third party candidate, both on the left and the right. This post is an attempt to try and argue that this is a bad idea.

What Does it Mean to ‘Vote Your Conscience’?

Source: LA Times Politics Twitter

I don’t typically write about politics.  I would, however, like to dedicate a post to a phrase which I’ve heard quite a few times over the past month.

As we approach a presidential election featuring two historically unpopular candidates, a common refrain has emerged: ‘vote your conscience.’ It has been used by those who identify as true conservatives and those who identify as true progressives.  It has been used by those who are tired of a two-party hegemony to explain why they’re thinking of voting for a third or fourth party candidate. It’s been used by those supporting both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump to justify a vote for their candidates: ‘can your conscience allow four years of Clinton/Trump?’