christianity

Strategic Coherence: Aligning Global Religious and Political Interests

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

In Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus outlines a process for addressing scriptural disagreements with a fellow Christian: First, you should address the issue privately with the individual; if they do not listen, you can bring one or two others to help resolve the matter, and if necessary, involve the church community.

Marco Rubio’s meeting with the Pope and the Political Responsibility of Catholics underscores the interrelationship between Christianity and Citizenship. The disconnects can be explained by an unconscious awareness and understanding of variation that can be developed through the application of the quality improvement principles, methods, and some tools.

Rubio’s broader objective in achieving a more ideal outcome, as identified by Bepi Pezzulli | in his article, Marco Rubio In Rome: Vatican Symbolism And Strategic Friction, “is domestic as much as diplomatic: reunifying the Christian electorate—evangelicals and Catholics alike—around the civilizational language of the West, order, and religious continuity. If the Church is to retain a political role at all, in his view, it should be as custodian of Western civilization rather than as chaplain to militant third-worldism disguised as moral universalism.“

Alignment: Christianity, Citizenship, Quality Management

Christianity. God is Love. Love is an action – willing the good of others in thoughts, words, and actions. Perfection is described as all needs being met, thereby reducing the harm caused to people by unmet needs. Consequently, continuous improvement is a moral imperative.

  • In a commercial sense, any product or service provided to a customer is intended to meet a need. Needs include the physical, mental, psychological, and spiritual aspects that contribute to well-being. (See also Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs). Indirectly, every business and every employee can be in support of God’s plan to improve the lives of others.

Citizenship. The U.S. Constitution was designed to enable We the People (top management) through checks and balances on power, to work together in working towards “a more perfect Union.

Quality Management. The aim of quality management is to reduce variation – the gap between the ideal (more perfect) and the actual situation. The Taguchi Loss Function reinforces that the closer any product or service gets to the ideal or target, the higher the quality and profitability, and the lower the cost to the customer and society.

Marco Rubio In Rome: Vatican Symbolism And Strategic Friction

Rubio’s Rome message was not conciliatory, but disciplinary.= by Bepi Pezzulli | May 12, 2026, The American Thinker

  • The meeting was not about reconciliation, but for realignment. It reflected the Secretary of State’s understanding of a broader ecclesiastical and political transition inside the Catholic Church.
  • Rubio, himself a practicing Catholic, approaches the issue with conceptual clarity. When the Pope speaks as spiritual shepherd, he commands respect as a religious authority. When he speaks as a temporal sovereign advancing geopolitical preferences, he enters ordinary political debate and weakens the universal nature of his office.
  • Rubio’s broader objective is domestic as much as diplomatic: reunifying the Christian electorate—evangelicals and Catholics alike—around the civilizational language of the West, order, and religious continuity. If the Church is to retain a political role at all, in his view, it should be as custodian of Western civilization rather than as chaplain to militant third-worldism disguised as moral universalism. 
  • Rubio’s Rome message was therefore not conciliatory but disciplinary. The United States was not asking Italy for symbolic solidarity. It was asking for strategic coherence. In both the Vatican and Palazzo Chigi, the point was the same: one may enjoy the language of sovereignty in Rome, but the umbrella still opens in Washington.

Political Responsibility of Catholics

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB): Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

The Catholic bishops of the United States are pleased to offer once again to the Catholic faithful Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (en Español), our teaching document on the political responsibility of Catholics. This statement represents our guidance for Catholics in the exercise of their rights and duties as participants in our democracy. We urge our pastors, lay and religious faithful, and all people of good will to use this statement to help form their consciences; to teach those entrusted to their care; to contribute to civil and respectful public dialogue; and to shape political choices in the coming election in light of Catholic teaching. The statement lifts up our dual heritage as both faithful Catholics and American citizens with rights and duties as participants in the civil order.

Learn More

Read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States (en Español), which provides a framework for Catholics in the United States. (English PDF | PDF en Español)

As a complement to Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the bishops also approved six new bulletin inserts (en Español) to help the Catholic faithful put their faith into action.  

Marco Rubio: the Catholic Roots of America

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivers virtual address at CIT’s Conference, Endowed by Their Creator: Catholicism, the Declaration of Independence, and the American Experiment at 250

On Thursday, April 9th, Catholic Law’s Center for the Constitution and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, together with Notre Dame’s Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government and Catholic University’s Carroll Forum for Citizenship and Public Life, co-hosted a symposium celebrating the nation’s semiquincentennial. The day brought together leading scholars and public intellectuals from across the country to explore the relationship between the Catholic intellectual tradition and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and to reflect on how both Catholicism and the Declaration continue to shape America’s experiment in constitutional self-government, 250 years after its founding.

Marco Rubio on Catholicism:

In 1895, Pope Leo XIII penned an encyclical to the Catholic Church in the United States. 

“All intelligent men are agreed,” he wrote, “that America seems destined for greater things. Now, it is our wish that the Catholic Church should not only share in, but help to bring about this prospective greatness.” 

But, as the Holy Father noted, the Church had already been here from the start. Four centuries prior, one Catholic explorer ventured out into the great unknown and returned home with the story, as he wrote in one letter, “of a land more richly endowed than I know or am able to say.” 

Few moments in history have carried more consequence. Christopher Columbus renewed the West’s confidence in itself and launched that great age of discovery, exploration, and expansion from which America was born. 

Some have claimed that the Catholic faith is a foreign import to our country. Only one of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence was Catholic—Charles Carroll of Maryland, for whom one of this conference’s hosts is named. Just two Catholic names appear on our Constitution itself. 

But the Catholic faith has always been part of the American story. The first Christian service on our soil was a Catholic Mass. The oldest permanent settlement in the United States is the town of St. Augustine, planted by Spanish Catholics on the coastal sands of my home state of Florida. 

Catholic saints were martyred on American soil well over a century before the Revolution began. In missions and settlements, wilderness forts, and trading posts stretching from the first colonies to the distant frontier, Catholic explorers, soldiers, priests, and pioneers consecrated this new world to their ancient faith and christened its land with Catholic names—Maryland, St. Louis, San Francisco, Santa Fe. Almost every region of what is now the United States was first explored and mapped by Catholics. 

This is no coincidence. Christianity taught the West to think in continents and centuries, rather than villages and seasons. The Church calls us, as Christ told St. Peter, “to duc in altum,” to put out into the deep. Catholics across time have answered the call—from the forests of pagan Europe to the wilderness of North America—to bring new worlds to Christ. 

This is the inheritance which has shaped our pioneer nation: the spirit of expansion and discovery which would conquer continents, unlock the mysteries of the universe, and eventually transcend the limits of Earth itself. It is the same spirit that led 56 Americans to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to each other in the cause of independence two and a half centuries ago. 

Catholics in the colonies flocked to join them, enlisting to fight for the patriots at a rate far exceeding their share of the population. In 1790, George Washington wrote to the Roman Catholics of America to thank them personally “for the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishments of the revolution.” 

It is popular today to claim the founding was merely a brainchild of the Enlightenment, but the Revolution was not a radical rupture with the past. It was a renewal of an older inheritance fitted to the unique experience of a free, Christian people in the new world. 

That inheritance draws upon the ancient liberties of the English Constitution and common law, but it roots these traditions upon a fixed and unchanging moral order governed by the laws of nature and nature’s God. This fundamental truth endows man with not just rights, but with duties. It conceives of freedom and virtue as inseparably linked. 

We see this in the structure of our political order itself, built not to sanction license, but to restrain passion, check ambition with ambition, and secure the common good. 

It is true, of course, that most of the men who wrote our founding documents were not Catholics themselves, but the system they gave us belongs to the same civilizational tradition that produced the towering cathedrals of Rome and the philosophy of Augustine and Aquinas. 

America was a gift where the Church and the civilization it made was reborn, discovering itself anew in the wilderness. It is at once modern and ancient. The men who settled and founded our country were the architects of a great rebirth, renewing the deferred dreams of the old world and the possibilities of a virgin continent. 

It has been 250 years since a new people declared themselves to the world. At the time, less than 2% were Catholic, but the nation they built would come to serve as one of the proudest and most enduring testaments to the eternal truth of our faith. 

To look upon the history of this golden land is to see the face of God. 

Variability within the Christian Faith Community

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

One of the differences (variation) between the Catholics and Protestants is Sola Scriptura.

  • Sola Scriptura is a Latin term meaning “Scripture alone,” which asserts that the Bible is the sole infallible authority for Christian faith and practice. This doctrine was a key principle of the Protestant Reformation, emphasizing that all necessary truth for salvation is found in Scripture. Wikipedia

Catholic Evangelization

GEMINI: What is “Apostolicam Actuositatem”?

Apostolicam Actuositatem (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity) is a significant document from the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965.

It serves as the definitive guide on the role of laypeople (non-clergy) within the Catholic Church’s mission. While earlier church focus was often centered on the hierarchy, this decree emphasizes that the laity have a direct and necessary role in the “apostolate”—the work of spreading the Gospel and sanctifying the world.

Key Themes and Principles

  • The Lay Vocation: It teaches that the call to be an apostle does not come from a special appointment by a bishop, but from Baptism itself. Every Catholic is called to participate in the Church’s mission.

  • Sanctifying the Secular World: A unique aspect of the lay apostolate is its focus on the “temporal order.” This means laypeople are specifically called to bring Christian values into politics, family life, professional work, and social structures.

  • The Role of the Family: The document highlights the family as the “domestic church” and the primary place where the faith is lived and transmitted.

  • Collaboration: While asserting the independence of lay initiatives, it also stresses the importance of working in communion with the Church’s hierarchy.

Why It Matters Today

As seen on the Epistles about page, the document continues to inspire personal apostolates and digital ministries. It provides the theological foundation for “lay movements” and encourages individuals to take personal responsibility for the moral and spiritual health of their communities, rather than viewing the clergy as the sole actors in the Church.

Why It Was Revolutionary

Before Vatican II, the Church was often viewed through a “top-down” lens where the clergy were the primary actors. Apostolicam Actuositatem shifted this perspective, describing the Church as the whole People of God. It empowered laypeople to take personal responsibility for the moral and spiritual health of their communities rather than being passive recipients of the faith.

To understand how Apostolicam Actuositatem (AA) changed the landscape for laypeople, it is helpful to compare it to the “Pre-Vatican II” model of the Church. For centuries, the Church was often viewed through a strictly hierarchical lens—sometimes jokingly referred to as the “pray, pay, and obey” era for the laity.

Here is a breakdown of the fundamental shifts introduced by the decree:

1. From “Assistants” to “Apostles”

  • Before: The laity were often seen as “helpers” to the clergy. Their role was to assist the priest in his mission if he asked for it (a concept known as “Catholic Action”).

  • After (AA): The decree clarifies that the lay apostolate is a right and duty that comes from Baptism, not from a mandate by a bishop. Laypeople don’t just “help” the Church; they are the Church in the world.

2. The “Secular” as a Sacred Space

  • Before: Holiness was often associated with retreating from the world (monasticism or priesthood). The secular world (politics, business, labor) was seen as a distraction or a “lesser” sphere of spiritual importance.

  • After (AA): The decree argues that the “temporal order”—the everyday world of family and work—is the specific domain of the laity. It is their job to “infuse the Christian spirit” into these areas. A politician or a parent isn’t just living a secular life; they are performing a religious mission by seeking justice and love in those roles.

3. The Source of Authority

  • Before: Authority and mission flowed strictly from the top down. The Pope told the Bishops, who told the Priests, who told the Laity what to do.

  • After (AA): While maintaining respect for the hierarchy, AA emphasizes the “Charisms” (spiritual gifts) given to individuals by the Holy Spirit. It encourages laypeople to take the initiative and act on their own “right and duty” to spread the Gospel, rather than waiting for a specific command for every action.

4. The Church as “People of God”

  • Before: The Church was often defined by its structure—the institution and its laws.

  • After (AA): The document views the Church as a communion or the “People of God.” This shift in language suggests that every member, regardless of their rank, shares in the three-fold mission of Christ: as priest, prophet, and king.

Comparison Summary

Feature Pre-Vatican II View Apostolicam Actuositatem View
Primary Role To receive the sacraments and obey. To act as a primary witness to Christ.
Mission Field Supporting the local parish. Transforming the world (politics, work, etc.).
Identity “Non-clergy” (defined by what they are not). “Apostles” (defined by their Baptismal call).
Involvement Passive/Reactive. Active/Initiative-taking.

A breakdown of how this decree differs from the Church’s earlier views on the laity.

Conscience and Truth: The Reality of Goodness

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

Conscience is a Window to Truth, More on Pope Benedict’s work and its reception by Gen Z by D. W. Pasulka

  • My Non-Denominational Christian, Catholic Experience.  Is Christian Life Based on Belief in Things Unseen and only Hoped For? Actually, No. by D. W. Pasulka
    • “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1 NRSV
    • Spe Salvi (In Hope We are Saved), BENEDICT XVI
      • “Benedict says that faith is not merely subjective conviction, but the real presence of what is hoped for. And not just that, but more precisely, through faith, what is hoped for is already present “in embryo”… as substance within us. “
      • He reveals how Martin Luther’s translation shifted the meaning in a way that was not authentic to the early Church. Benedict’s translation is from the original Greek: “Faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen.

Excerpts

Ratzinger describes conscience as a window, an opening through which the human person encounters a truth that is not self-generated. Conscience is a “window through which one can see outward to that common truth which founds and sustains us all, and so makes possible through the common recognition of truth, the community of needs and responsibilities.” It thus establishes one’s obligations and duties.

Ratzinger taps into the tradition that holds that conscience is not something we invent; it is something we discover. He retrieves Socratic anamnesis—that there is in the human being a memory of the good and an orientation toward truth that precedes conscious reasoning. We recognize truth, he suggests, not because we create it, but because something in us resonates with it. This is why conscience can accuse us, disturb us, even wound us. Ratzinger says that the feeling of guilt is not a defect but a sign of health—the signal that we are still in contact with reality. When that signal disappears, when a person no longer feels guilt, this is not moral maturity but a kind of spiritual deadness.

This portion of Ratzinger’s essay reminds me of the work of philosopher Hannah Arendt, especially her book The Life of the Mind. Arendt was Jewish and had escaped Nazi occupied France in 1940 and eventually became a professor of philosophy in the United States. In The Life of the Mind, published posthumously (she was working on it when she died), her central question is: why do some people choose to do evil? One of the answers (there are a few) she arrives at is based on her observation that good people have regrets. Evil people do not. “The most dangerous people are not those who choose evil with anguish, but those who do not think, and therefore are not disturbed by what they do.” Evil people sleep well at night, she writes, and they do not have what good people have, which is an inner conversation about their actions in the world.

Guilt, or, having a guilty conscience, is a step toward the recognition of, and what Ratzinger calls us to see—the reality of goodness. Goodness calls us to align ourselves with it.

Moralistic therapeutic deism (MTD)

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

The ‘Me Generation’, Fifty Years On, And: Dreading Sundown; Trump & Civil War; UK Submission; Clergy Family, Rod Dreher, Mar 23, 2026

We now know that religious belief and practice peaked in America in 1991, and has been declining ever since. In 2004, sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton published their findings about the de facto religious and spiritual beliefs of the first generation raised after the Third Great Awakening had become cultural orthodoxy. They found that Christianity had been replaced by what they called Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, a badly watered down form of Christianity perfectly suited for the Me Generation and its progeny. In 2011, after further studies, Smith glumly concluded that for the Millennials, “all that society is, apparently, is a collection of autonomous individuals out to enjoy life.”

Wikipedia

Moralistic therapeutic deism (MTD) is a term that was first introduced in the 2005 book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers by the sociologist Christian Smith[1] with Melinda Lundquist Denton.[2] The term is used to describe the generalized monotheistic beliefs they consider to be common among young people in the United States.[3][4][5] The book is the result of the research project the National Study of Youth and Religion.[6]

Definition

The authors’ study found that many young people believe in several moral statutes not exclusive to any of the major world religions. It is not a new religion or theology as such, but identified as a set of commonly held spiritual beliefs. It is this combination of beliefs that they label moralistic therapeutic deism:

  1. A God exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
  2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
  3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
  4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
  5. Good people go to heaven when they die.[7]

These points of belief were compiled from interviews with approximately 3,000 teenagers.[8]

Indiana Governor Braun order establishes Indiana faith-based institutions initiative, spearheaded by Beckwith’s office

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

Feb 26, 2026. INDIANAPOLIS — A new executive order from Indiana Gov. Mike Braun established the Indiana Faith-Based Institutions Initiative, a program that Braun stated in the order will be run by the office of Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith.

The initiative aims at encouraging and fostering faith-based institutions to better serve individual Hoosiers, families and communities, according to Executive Order 26-06.

Through this initiative, Beckwith and the lieutenant governor’s office will be able to consult with experts and leaders of faith-based institutions that operate programs in specific areas to help identify areas to “reduce barriers to effective participation of faith-based institutions in addressing societal ills.”

The specific areas outlined in the order include:

  • Increasing civic engagement
  • Promoting recovery from substance use disorder
  • Facilitating prisoner reentry into society
  • Cultivating resilience through work and self-sufficiency
  • Strengthening the family unit
  • Mentoring the next generation
  • Promoting principled morals and character
  • Supporting foster parenting and adoption

The order stands that Braun’s administration believes that the state of Indiana’s “diverse and welcoming faith community” can help bring “unique skills, services and resources to assist with the struggles” that Hoosiers face.

Officials said they believe that these institutions have the capacity to serve in ways different from what government can provide, as well as with effectiveness that “often exceeds that of government.”

In a post on social media from Beckwith, he thanked Braun for moving forward with this program, stating that he is “humbled by his confidence” for his office to spearhead the initiative. Beckwith said he believes that Hoosiers will “benefit from this effort for years to come.”

“By promoting collaboration between state government and faith-based partners, the initiative aims to expand the reach of programs that help Hoosiers overcome addiction, reenter society after incarceration, strengthen their families, develop resilience through work and build meaningful lives rooted in purpose and service,” Beckwith said in the post. “These community-rooted institutions frequently provide forms of support that government alone cannot, and ensuring they are able to participate fully and freely is vital to the well-being of our state.

The order’s emphasis on safeguarding religious liberty and creating a fair, welcoming environment for all qualified service providers reaffirms Indiana’s long-standing commitment to both constitutional principles and community partnership,” Beckwith’s post continued. “Empowering organizations that uplift Hoosiers in times of need strengthens families, enhances civic engagement and broadens pathways to opportunity across our state.”

Liberty Dies Quietly: Why Self-Government Is a Spiritual Issue

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

By David Joy, Chairman & CEO, This We Defend

Follow David on LinkedIn here

Liberty does not die in a dramatic explosion.  It dies in subtle erosion.

It dies when citizens become consumers.  It dies when comfort replaces conviction.  It dies when the Church confuses silence with wisdom.

America will not collapse because of one election cycle, one Supreme Court ruling, or one cultural trend. Nations rarely fall because of a single blow. They fall because the moral and intellectual infrastructure that sustains freedom decays from within.

And here is the uncomfortable truth: self-government is not first a political issue. It is a spiritual one.

Freedom Requires Formation

A free nation requires self-governing citizens.

Self-governing citizens require discipline.  Discipline requires truth.  Truth requires moral clarity.

Remove moral clarity and liberty cannot survive.

We speak often about “freedom” as though it is a default setting. It is not. Freedom is a disciplined state sustained by people capable of restraining themselves without external force. If citizens cannot govern their appetites, their impulses, their anger, and their greed, then government will step in to do it for them.

Scripture makes this plain: “Like a city whose walls are broken through is a person who lacks self-control.” — Proverbs 25:28

Ancient cities with broken walls were defenseless. They were not conquered because they were unlucky. They were conquered because they were exposed.

The same is true of nations.  The same is true of individuals.

Self-control is not merely a personal virtue. It is a national safeguard.

Indoctrination Is the Enemy of Liberty

Liberty depends on critical thinking. Critical thinking depends on the ability to examine ideas without fear of punishment.

When education shifts from inquiry to ideology, freedom weakens. When students are trained what to think rather than how to think, liberty decays.

This is not hyperbole. It is historical fact.

Totalitarian regimes do not begin with tanks. They begin with classrooms. They begin with the slow reshaping of language, the redefining of terms, the emotional conditioning of young minds to accept ideas without scrutiny.

The Apostle Paul warned about this long ago:

“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” — Colossians 2:8

Notice the word: captive.

Captivity is not always physical. It is often intellectual. A mind captured by hollow philosophy will defend its own chains.

When civil discourse is replaced with outrage, when disagreement is labeled hate, when dissent is silenced rather than debated, that is not progress. That is fragility masquerading as virtue.

A society that cannot tolerate open discourse cannot sustain liberty.

Dependency Weakens the Republic

A free people must be productive people.

Entrepreneurship, innovation, small business ownership: these are not merely economic activities. They are expressions of self-governance. They cultivate responsibility, risk tolerance, creativity, and accountability.

A dependency culture, by contrast, erodes initiative. It conditions citizens to look upward for provision rather than outward for opportunity.

Scripture affirms the dignity of work and responsibility:

“The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” — 2 Thessalonians 3:10

This is not cruelty. It is clarity.

Work forms character.  Responsibility strengthens resolve.  Ownership cultivates maturity.

When citizens lose these habits, they lose the muscles required to sustain freedom.

Moral Confusion Is National Suicide

No nation has ever sustained liberty without moral cohesion.

National strength is not first economic. It is not first military. It is not first technological.

It is moral.

When moral categories blur, when right and wrong become subjective, when truth becomes negotiable, when virtue becomes relative, the foundation fractures.

Isaiah warned of this inversion:

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.” — Isaiah 5:20

That is not poetic exaggeration. That is a civilizational warning.

A culture that loses moral clarity does not drift into neutrality. It drifts into chaos. And chaos invites control.

Liberty cannot survive where sin is celebrated and righteousness is mocked.

“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people.” — Proverbs 14:34

This is not partisan rhetoric. It is biblical reality.

The Church Cannot Remain Passive

Here is where this becomes controversial.

The Church often retreats when conversations become political. But when the issue is liberty, self-governance, moral clarity, and truth, we are not talking about party platforms. We are talking about discipleship.

Self-government is fruit of the Spirit territory.

“For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline.” — 2 Timothy 1:7

Power.  Love.  Self-discipline.

These are the traits of a free people.

If the Church does not model courage, moral clarity, intellectual rigor, and disciplined living, then who will?

Silence is not neutrality. It is surrender.

This We Defend

This We Defend exists because liberty does not defend itself.

The core conviction is unapologetic:  If we do not intentionally form citizens capable of sustaining liberty, we will lose it, not to foreign invasion, but to apathy, indoctrination, and moral confusion.

Liberty is not preserved by nostalgia.  It is preserved by formation.

Formation of minds.  Formation of character.  Formation of communities grounded in truth.

A culture that cannot think clearly cannot remain free.  A people unwilling to defend truth will eventually serve lies.

And once liberty is redefined, it rarely returns in its original form.

The Final Question

The question is not whether liberty is under pressure. It is.

The question is whether we are willing to do the disciplined, often unpopular work required to sustain it.

Will we raise children who can think critically?  Will we build businesses that cultivate responsibility?  Will we defend moral truth when it is inconvenient?  Will we model self-government in our own lives?

Because if we cannot govern ourselves, we will be governed.

And history is clear: governments rarely shrink once citizens surrender their strength.

A Call to Action

If you believe liberty is worth defending…

If you understand that freedom requires formation…

If you recognize that self-government is a spiritual responsibility, not merely a political preference…

Stand with This We Defend.

Support the work.  Engage in the mission.  Help build citizens capable of sustaining real liberty.

Because liberty does not die in a day.

It dies in silence.

And silence is a luxury we can no longer afford.

You can reach David at David.Joy@thiswedefend.org.

For more bold and unapologetically Christ-centric content like this, please subscribe to the C-Suite for Christ YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/@csuiteforchrist

Interested in joining the C-Suite for Christ movement?

Then, visit our website to learn how you can help us cover the world in Christ.

Please check us out at https://csuiteforchrist.com/

Special thanks to Custom Service Hardware – Home of Putnam Rolling Ladders for their support.

Custom Service Hardware has proudly served kitchen creators, woodworking professionals, and DIY enthusiasts for over 45 years.

Founded in 1977 in Wisconsin, they’re rooted in faith, craftsmanship, and quality.

From custom cabinetry to iconic Putnam Rolling Ladders, they provide custom-made products, specialty hardware, tools, and support to bring your vision to life.

To learn more, please visit: https://cshardware.com/

Progressive Christian Theology

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

Progressive Christian Theology by Tyson Zahner 

My last post about James Talarico’s progressive Christian theology generated hundreds of conversations. The most interesting ones were with progressive Christians themselves… sincere, thoughtful people who love Jesus and genuinely believe they’re following Him more faithfully than the traditional church has.
After engaging in several of these conversations, I noticed a pattern underneath every progressive argument… a shared worldview that produces them. And I think understanding that worldview is more important than debating any single issue, because until you see the operating system, you’ll keep getting lost in the apps.
So this isn’t an attack on progressive Christians. It’s an honest attempt to describe what I think their worldview gets wrong.
I’ll start with their core move…
Every conversation came back to some version of this: “Jesus summarized everything as love God and love your neighbor, and that overrides the harder moral teachings.”
But I see two problems here.
One is simply a breakdown in what we mean by “love”.
Progressive Christians tend to hear that word and translate it into merely compassion, empathy, and understanding… which then becomes affirmation, tolerance, and acceptance. By that definition, any moral boundary starts to feel unloving.
But that’s not the biblical definition. Thomas Aquinas defined love (agape) not as mere emotion, but as a conscious decision to “will the good of the other” which sometimes means saying the hard thing, not the comfortable thing.
For example, no one would look at an 80-pound anorexic girl who believes she’s overweight and say the loving thing is to affirm her. We all understand that sometimes the most loving thing you can do is refuse to affirm what someone genuinely believes about themselves because affirming it might destroy them.
Even Jesus in His most intimate, final moment demonstrated this while hanging next to two thieves in agony.
Jesus didn’t remove their suffering or tell them their choices didn’t matter. He offered truth. And one of the thieves accepted it, but only after saying, “we are receiving the due reward of our deeds” (Luke 23:41). Repentance came before redemption. That’s what love looked like from Jesus when it mattered most.
The other problem is that this worldview ignores where Jesus said all the Law and the Prophets “hang” on these two commandments (Matthew 22:40). That word “hang” matters.
The law hangs on love the way a picture hangs on a nail. The nail holds up the picture, but it doesn’t replace it. Remove the nail and the picture falls. But remove the picture and you just have a nail in the wall.
In other words, love and obedience aren’t in tension. They’re inseparable. Jesus Himself said: “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).
And then there’s the question no one could answer…
Several people told me their faith is grounded in experiencing Jesus in their hearts… that a personal relationship with God supersedes strict adherence to a text.
I don’t dismiss that the Holy Spirit works in believers’ hearts.
But here’s the question I kept asking, and no one could answer: (well, they tried, but every answer relied on the same circular reasoning the question was designed to expose)
If what you feel in your heart can override what the text says, doesn’t that make Christianity infinitely malleable? In other words, how do you ever know when you’re wrong?
For example, slaveholders in the antebellum South believed God ordained their way of life. They felt it in their hearts. They were wrong even though they were sincere.
The text was the corrective that eventually dismantled their position. Abolitionists didn’t win by saying “I feel in my heart that slavery is wrong.” They won by showing, from Scripture, that the trajectory of the biblical narrative demanded liberation. They appealed to the text, not away from it.
If feelings had been the final authority, slavery might never have been abolished… because the slaveholders’ hearts told them they were right, too.
And here’s why it’s so hard to argue with progressive Christianity…
In my previous post I mentioned Jonathan Haidt (a social psychologist who is not religious, not conservative, and has described his own political leanings as liberal).
Haidt wrote The Righteous Mind about why good people are divided by politics. His research isn’t about theology. But it explains why progressive Christianity is so effective and so persuasive to so many.
His core finding was this: conservatives draw from a broader moral palette including care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. Progressives weight care and fairness far above the others.
In chapter 12, Haidt himself wrote: “When I speak to liberal audiences about the three ‘binding’ foundations — Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity — I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia.”
Progressive Christianity does the same thing theologically. It elevates the care and fairness dimensions of Jesus’s teaching above everything else… then treats anyone who draws from the other moral foundations as a Pharisee.
The result sounds like pure love. But it’s a narrowed moral vision that has quietly set aside half the palette and declared the remaining half to be the whole gospel.
In one of my conversations, a self-described progressive Christian told me plainly: “The vast majority of progressive Christians aren’t against border enforcement, traditional marriage, or institutional order. The difference is we don’t see those as moral issues.”
That’s not underweighting those foundations. That’s removing them from the moral category entirely which is exactly the pattern Haidt describes.
Ultimately, I don’t doubt the sincerity of the progressive Christians I spoke with this week. But sincerity isn’t the same as accuracy.
A worldview that makes your own heart the final authority (above the text, above 2,000 years of consistent teaching) is a worldview that can never be corrected. Every hard teaching gets replaced by “but love.” Every moral boundary gets reframed as legalism. But that’s not freedom.
Anyone who’s loved an addict knows that removing every boundary doesn’t set someone free. It just removes the only things that might have saved them. It’s a prison with no walls… a place where you can wander anywhere, but no one can ever tell you you’ve gone the wrong way.
The deep end of Christianity isn’t the version that tells you what you want to hear. It’s the one that loves you enough to tell you what you need to hear.

Reach More Mission Training – PDSA Cycle

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

Context: Catholic Evangelization – Indianapolis Catholic Archdiocese  
 

Here is a practical example of a Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycle applied to the Reach More™ Mission Training program from The Evangelical Catholic.

Reach More is a 12-week evangelization and discipleship training program designed for Catholic parishes, campus ministries, and faith communities. It equips lay Catholics to grow in missionary discipleship through:

  • Weekly group sessions (90–120 minutes) for learning tools and wisdom.
  • One-on-one discipleship conversations (every two weeks).
  • Daily personal prayer (15 minutes via the Reach More Prayer Companion).
  • Take-home Mission Prompts (under 30 minutes).

The program focuses on relational evangelization — building friendships, being curious about others, sharing faith naturally (not pushy), and forming habits like seeking intimacy with Jesus, investing in relationships, and facilitating discipleship environments (small groups where “two or three gather”).

Common implementation challenges in parishes include:

  • Variable attendance/engagement in the weekly group sessions.
  • Inconsistent follow-through on one-on-one conversations or daily prayer.
  • Post-training sustainability (e.g., participants starting their own small groups or continuing mission habits).

This PDSA example targets a frequent area for improvement: increasing consistent participation in the one-on-one discipleship conversations (a key element for personal growth and confidence in sharing faith).

PDSA Example: Improving One-on-One Discipleship Conversation Completion in Reach More

Group/Parish Context: A mid-sized parish running Reach More with 12–15 participants in one cohort. Baseline: Only ~50% of scheduled one-on-one sessions (one hour every two weeks) are completed during the 12-week program due to scheduling conflicts, forgetfulness, or low perceived value.

Aim (What are we trying to accomplish?): Increase completion rate of one-on-one discipleship conversations from ~50% to ≥85% over the next 12-week cohort, so participants experience deeper personal transformation, increased courage/confidence in sharing faith, and stronger relational evangelization skills.

Cycle #: 1 Dates of this cycle: Next Reach More cohort (e.g., Fall 2026)

1. PLAN

What change are we testing? Add a simple “accountability nudge” system:

  • Facilitator sends a personalized text reminder 48 hours before each scheduled one-on-one.
  • Include a short encouragement quote from the Reach More materials (e.g., “Evangelization is not just another project. It is the mission of the parish and of the Church.”).
  • Offer flexible rescheduling via a shared calendar link (e.g., Calendly) in the reminder.
  • At the end of each group session, participants publicly share one quick takeaway they hope to discuss in their upcoming one-on-one (builds anticipation).

Why do we think this will help? (Prediction & rationale) Current drop-off is often logistical (forgetting/scheduling) rather than disinterest. Reminders + encouragement reduce friction and reinforce the value of one-on-ones for building confidence in mission habits (e.g., sharing good news, investing in relationships). Public sharing in group creates gentle peer accountability and ties into the program’s relational focus.

What will success look like? (Measures / data to collect)

  • Primary: % of scheduled one-on-one sessions completed (target: ≥85%).
  • Secondary: Participant feedback (1–5 scale) on “The one-on-one felt valuable and helped my growth” (target: average ≥4.0).
  • Qualitative notes: Any reported increase in courage/confidence or mission actions (e.g., inviting someone to a small group).

Who will be involved?

  • Facilitator/leader (sends reminders, tracks completions).
  • All Reach More participants (12–15 people).
  • One co-facilitator to help with scheduling and note observations.

How long will we test it? Full 12-week program (6 one-on-one cycles per participant).

Action steps & responsibilities:

  • Week 0 (pre-launch): Facilitator sets up shared calendar link and reminder template.
  • Ongoing: Send reminders 48 hours prior; note completions and any reschedules.
  • After each group session: 2-minute share-out of anticipated one-on-one topics.
  • End of program: Quick survey and debrief.

Resources needed:

  • Text messaging (or parish app like Flocknote).
  • Shared calendar tool (free Calendly or Google Calendar).
  • No additional cost.

2. DO

Carry out the test. Implement the nudge system for the full cohort. Document:

  • Dates/times scheduled vs. completed.
  • Any reasons for no-shows/reschedules.
  • Quick notes from group share-outs and end-of-program feedback.

Example what actually occurred (hypothetical results for illustration):

  • 6 one-on-ones scheduled per person → 78 out of 90 total completed (87%).
  • Reminders praised: “The text made me prioritize it.”
  • One reschedule due to illness; one due to work conflict (both rescheduled successfully).
  • Feedback: Average “valuable” rating 4.4/5; several noted deeper discussions led to inviting a friend to church.

3. STUDY

Analyze what happened.

  • Achievement: Yes — exceeded target (87% completion vs. baseline ~50%).
  • What worked: Personalized texts + encouragement quote reduced no-shows; calendar link eased rescheduling; group share-outs built excitement.
  • What didn’t: A few still forgot despite reminders (suggest adding a 24-hour follow-up).
  • Learnings: Logistical nudges + relational reinforcement (public sharing) align with Reach More’s emphasis on community and habits. Participants reported more confidence in mission actions (e.g., starting conversations about faith).

Was the change successful? Yes.

4. ACT

Decide next steps:

  • Adopt — Make the accountability nudge system standard for future Reach More cohorts in the parish.
  • Adapt — Add a 24-hour backup reminder and include a quick “prayer intention” in the text to tie it spiritually.
  • Next cycle: Test the adapted version in the next cohort (e.g., Spring 2027), while also monitoring long-term outcomes (e.g., do completers start their own small groups more often?).

Overall reflections / spiritual insights: This small change reduced barriers to deeper discipleship, echoing Reach More’s focus on “facilitating discipleship environments” and “establishing disciples.” It supports the program’s joy-filled relational evangelization by helping participants grow in habits like seeking intimacy with Jesus and investing in relationships — ultimately helping them “reach more” people for Christ in everyday life (Matthew 28:19–20).

You can copy this template into a document, adapt it for your parish’s specific cohort, and run it iteratively. If you’d like another example (e.g., improving weekly group attendance, post-training small group starts, or daily prayer consistency), a filled-in version for a different focus, or variations for youth/campus Reach More, let me know!

Immigration, Borders, Empathy, Christianity

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,
Speaker -U.S. House of Representatives, Mike Johnson – Facebook Post
In the press gaggle following today’s vote, I was asked to defend the Biblical case for border security and immigration enforcement. I did so, and then promised to post a longer explanation that I drafted during the Biden Administration. Here it is, and I hope it’s helpful:
Despite the insistence of the progressive Left, people of all religious faiths should support a strong national border—and Christians CERTAINLY should. Critics are fond of citing particular Bible verses out of context to claim that Christians and Jews are being “unfaithful” if we oppose their radical open borders agenda. It has become increasingly important for us to set this record straight.
Perhaps the verse most often cited by the Left is Leviticus 19:34. Whether they know it or not, that passage happens to be from the instructions Moses delivered to the Israelites when they were on their journey through the wilderness in Sinai, before they reached their own Promised Land. The verse reads as follows: “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” (KJV)
CONTEXT IS CRITICAL
It is, of course, a central premise of Judeo-Christian teaching that strangers should be treated with kindness and hospitality. We are each called to love God first and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Deut. 6:5, Lev. 19:18, Matt. 22:36-40, KJV). However, that “Greatest Commandment” was never directed to the government, but to INDIVIDUAL believers.
The Bible teaches that God ordained and created four distinct spheres of authority:
(1) the individual,
(2) the family,
(3) the church, and
(4) civil government
Each of these spheres is given different responsibilities.
For example, while each INDIVIDUAL is accountable for his or her own behavior (e.g., Exodus 20), the FAMILY is commanded to “bring up children in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4) and “provide for their relatives” (1 Tim. 5:8).
The CHURCH is commanded to make disciples and equip people for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:11-13), and the CIVIL GOVERNMENT is established to faithfully uphold and enforce the law so that order can be maintained in this fallen world, crime can be kept at bay, and people can live peacefully (Rom. 13, 1 Tim. 2:1-2).
To be properly understood, anytime a command is given in Scripture, one must first determine to WHOM that command is directed. For example, when Jesus taught us as His followers to practice mercy and forgiveness and to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:38-40, KJV), He was not giving that command to the government. To the contrary, when government officials ignore crime, they are directly VIOLATING their responsibilities before God.
Indeed, the civil authorities are specifically charged to do justice, to ”bear the sword,” and to serve as “the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:1-4, KJV). As the Bible warns: “When a crime is not punished quickly, people feel it is safe to do wrong.” (Ecc. 8:11, TLB)
Read in its context, the passage in Leviticus 19 makes perfect sense. Showing love and kindness to a stranger was not a command given to civil government, but instead to individual believers. That same principle is emphasized in the New Testament. When Jesus spoke of embracing, caring, and providing for “the least of these” (E.g., Matt. 25:31-40), His instruction was given to His disciples, and not the local authorities.
The Bible is clear that Christians should practice personal charity—but also insist upon the enforcement of laws (like our federal immigration statutes) so that “every person is subject to the governing authorities” and “those who resist incur judgment” (Rom. 13:1-2).
BORDERS ARE BIBLICAL
Many on the Left today, and even some at the highest levels of our government, consider themselves “globalists” who envision a utopian world order where there are no borders between countries at all. Their fantasy will simply never be realized, and their basic premise (that man is inherently good and perfectible on his own) is the opposite of the Biblical truth that man is fallen and in need of redemption that is available only through salvation in Jesus Christ.
The Bible speaks favorably and consistently about distinct nations of people (see, e.g., Gen. 18:18, Num. 32:17, Psalm 67:2, Matt. 28:19, Rev. 5:9, 7:9, NIV), and about borders and walls that are built to guard and secure people, property, and jurisdictions (see, e.g., Deut. 19:14, 27:17, 32:8, Acts 17:26, NIV). When Nehemiah heroically led the Jewish remnant to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem after their enemies had destroyed those walls, he was doing the noble work of God (Neh. 1-6, NIV).
Maintaining a secure border is not an offensive measure, but a wise, defensive one to prevent chaos and safeguard innocent life. As Rev. Franklin Graham once summarized, “Why do you lock your doors at night? Not because you hate the people on the outside, but because you love the people on the inside so much.”
THE CURRENT CATASTROPHE
Right now, because of 64 deliberate policy choices and executive orders of the Biden Administration, America is facing an unprecedented humanitarian and national security catastrophe at our open southern border. More than 10 million illegal aliens from around the world have entered the U.S. since Joe Biden became President, the majority of whom are single, military-aged men. Among them are countless violent criminals and more than 300 suspects on the terrorist watchlist. Cartels are making billions trafficking young women and unaccompanied minors, and many are suffering unspeakable abuses along the way. The Fentanyl that China and the cartels have pushed into the U.S. has become the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18-45.
As the peril increases and communities across our country become more and more overwhelmed with the crushing financial burdens of managing the influx of illegals, American citizens (and even a few Democratic governors and mayors) are finally demanding a return to sanity. America has always been a haven for people legitimately seeking asylum from danger in their home country, but we must insist they pursue a course of legal immigration and not simply ignore our laws.
Of course, the President of the United States must be the first to uphold our laws. Every citizen should insist that President Biden immediately use the eight broad statutory authorities he has right now to secure our borders and stop incentivizing illegal immigration. Among his most important executive authorities is 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), which empowers a President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” if he “finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
AN AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
Due in large part to our Judeo-Christian foundations and the deep religious heritage we enjoy in this country, America is the most benevolent nation in the world—by far. However, we cannot maintain that strength and generosity if we surrender our own safety and sovereignty. Preserving law and order and securing our borders should not be partisan issues, but matters of common sense. These are certainly responsibilities fully authorized by the Bible—and expected of us by God.
Any time liberals attempt to bolster their “open borders” agenda by citing Scripture out of context, they should be kindly corrected with the facts (2 Tim. 2:24-25). Christians are called to love unconditionally, serve selflessly, and defend the defenseless. We are also called to stand for, and work to ensure, just government. Justice and mercy are not mutually exclusive pursuits. To the contrary, God specifically requires His people to practice both (Micah 6:8). Despite the unfounded claims of the Left, supporting a strong national border is a very Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us so.

Gary Varvel: Open Borders, Closed Gates: The Left’s Immigration Hypocrisy

During the Biden administration, America was effectively invaded by as many as 20 million foreigners who entered the country illegally. Many have gone on to commit heinous crimes.

Christians are commanded to treat immigrants with kindness, always with the hope of leading them to our Savior, Jesus Christ. However, the law requires government to deport those who entered unlawfully. Once deported, they may apply to re-enter legally.

Immigration must also include assimilation. If people want to live in America, they must transfer their loyalty to America. That means leaving behind allegiance to their former nation, adopting American culture, and—for heaven’s sake—learning to speak English.

Finally, there are eight billion people on earth. They cannot all live here. If America does not limit legal immigration, our way of life will not survive.

Allie Beth Stuckey – Immigration and Empathy

I’ll be honest: If I had made a list of predictions for 2026, being the target of a piece by Hillary Clinton in The Atlantic would not have made the cut.

But that’s exactly what happened.

In her essay last week titled “MAGA’s War on Empathy,” Clinton lambasted the Trump administration for the recent killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis. Their deaths, she said, encapsulate “a deeper moral rot at the heart of Trump’s MAGA movement. Whatever you think about immigration policy, how can a person of conscience justify the lack of compassion and empathy for the victims in Minnesota, and for the families torn apart or hiding in fear, for the children separated from their parents or afraid to go to school?”

Post on LinkedIn