Tag Archives: jesus

These Hands Have Carried a Life

I’m getting older, and lately I’ve been noticing my hands. I don’t know exactly when they changed.

For most of my life, they were simply my hands. I rarely thought about them unless I needed them to do something. They typed and cooked and drove and carried and reached. They turned pages, signed papers, washed dishes, packed suitcases, wiped tears, and held other hands.

But sometime recently, I began looking at them differently.

The skin is thinner now, and the veins that I don’t remember noticing when I was younger are much more visible. There are lines and small changes that seem to have appeared gradually enough that I cannot say when they arrived. In certain light, there is even a delicacy to my hands that I don’t remember being there before.

Every once in a while, I look down at them and am startled by how much they have changed. They look like the hands of an older woman, which is, of course, exactly what they are. I am older. I know this. And yet there is something strange about seeing the passage of time made visible on a part of my body that has always seemed so familiar to me.

Perhaps that is why I have begun paying more attention to them. I find myself looking at these hands that now bear the years so visibly and thinking about all the earlier versions of them that I can no longer see.

There was a time when these hands held my babies. There was a time when tiny heads fit into the curve of my arm and little fingers wrapped themselves around one of mine. These hands changed diapers and buttoned clothes and fixed meals and buckled children into cars. They touched foreheads to check for fever and rubbed backs and held frightened children close.

They have reached for people I loved, sometimes finding another hand reaching back and sometimes discovering the particular sadness of reaching toward someone who was no longer willing or able to meet me there. There have been people I wanted to hold onto and could not, and others I eventually had to learn to release even when some part of me would have preferred to keep reaching.

My hands have done a great deal of ordinary work, too. They have typed thousands upon thousands of words over the years, writing books and lessons and training materials, preparing classes, turning pages of Scripture, and trying to put into language things I hoped might help someone understand themselves or another person a little differently.

But some of the work I remember most clearly involved very few words at all.

For many years, these hands have rested on tables across from people telling me things they had sometimes never told another human being. I have watched someone’s hands twist a tissue or grip the arms of a chair while they tried to find words for something they had spent years trying not to remember. I have watched people cover their faces when shame made being seen feel almost unbearable, and I have seen a hand reach tentatively across the space between us when what someone needed in that moment was not another question or explanation but the reassurance that they were not alone.

There are moments in this work when words are simply inadequate. Someone tells you what happened to them, and nothing you say can make what happened less terrible. Years of education and experience do not produce a therapeutic insight capable of undoing what another human being has endured. Sometimes there is nothing to explain and nothing that should be made more palatable by finding the right clinical language for it.

Sometimes what remains is simply the willingness to stay. I think my hands have learned that alongside the rest of me. They have reached across the space between another person and me and held a hand trembling with grief. They have passed tissues, wiped tears, and sometimes simply rested quietly when adding another question or another attempt to help would have asked too much of someone already carrying more than enough.

I learned much of that sitting in counseling rooms, but in recent years I have found myself carrying the same lesson much farther from home. These hands that spent so many years turning pages and typing words have also packed and unpacked suitcases, carried passports through airports, opened classroom doors in another country, and held papers covered in a language I am still slowly learning to read.

And they have reached for Ukrainian hands.

I have sat with people whose hands carry stories very different from mine: people who have buried someone they loved, people waiting for someone serving at the front, people whose ordinary lives have been interrupted again and again by alarms and uncertainty, and young counselors learning how to sit with suffering for which no textbook could possibly have prepared them. I have watched them take notes while we talked about trauma and grief and the nervous system, knowing that for many of them these were not simply subjects to be studied. The things we were discussing belonged to the world waiting outside the classroom door.

There have been many moments in Ukraine when I have wondered what I could possibly offer in the presence of suffering on that scale. I arrive with years of training and experience, with books and presentations and carefully prepared material, and all of those things have value. I believe deeply in the work I go there to do. But being there has also reminded me of something I first learned sitting across from people in therapy: knowledge has limits, and there are places in human suffering where our expertise cannot reach.

In those places, perhaps what remains is much simpler. We can sit beside one another. We can listen. We can allow another person’s grief to be as terrible as it is without rushing to make it more bearable for ourselves. And sometimes we can reach across whatever space remains between us and offer a hand.

Again and again, I have found that what I can offer is much simpler than I imagine it ought to be. I can show up. I can listen. I can remain when someone’s suffering cannot be changed by anything I know how to do. I can offer whatever knowledge and experience I have, certainly, but I can also offer my attention, my presence, and sometimes quite literally the hand that is mine to extend.

I have been thinking about how often hands appear in Scripture and how frequently God seems to begin with what someone is already holding.

When Moses stood before God uncertain about what he was being asked to do and understandably doubtful about his ability to do it, God asked him a curious question: What is that in your hand?

It was a staff.

There was nothing particularly remarkable about it. It was an ordinary object belonging to an ordinary part of Moses’ life, something he presumably carried without giving it much thought. Yet that was where God began. Not with something Moses still needed to acquire or with some future version of himself who would finally be courageous or qualified enough, but with what was already in his hand.

I find myself thinking about the boy with the loaves and fish in much the same way. What he had was plainly inadequate to the need in front of him. Five loaves and two fish do not become sufficient for thousands of hungry people simply because they are offered sincerely. The inadequacy was real.

And yet Jesus did not seem troubled by that.

Perhaps that is the part of these stories that speaks to me differently now than it might have when I was younger. I have spent a great deal of my life wondering whether I had enough for whatever was being asked of me: enough strength to survive something, enough wisdom to make the right decision, enough knowledge to help someone, enough courage to go where I believed I was supposed to go, enough faith to trust God when I could not see what He was doing.

There have certainly been times when the answer was no. I did not have enough. I think I used to experience that primarily as a problem to solve, something that required me to become stronger, learn more, work harder, prepare better, or somehow find whatever I believed was missing in me.

I wonder now whether I misunderstood the question.

Perhaps God was never asking whether what I held was sufficient for everything in front of me. Perhaps He was asking whether I was willing to place what I had into His hands.

When I look back now, I can see how often God has allowed me to use them in ways I could not have anticipated. Perhaps that is part of what has changed about the way I see them. The veins and lines I notice now are evidence of aging, certainly, but they are also evidence that I have been here for a while, long enough for these hands to have participated in nearly every part of the life I have lived.

They have not always been gentle or peaceful hands. They have clenched when I was frightened and gripped steering wheels when I was angry. They have covered my face when grief became more than I wanted anyone else to see. They have folded themselves in prayer when I knew exactly what I wanted to ask God for and when I could barely find language for what I needed. There have been confident prayers over the years and desperate ones, along with prayers that probably amounted to little more than God, please.

There have also been seasons when these hands lifted easily in worship and others when doing so would have felt almost dishonest. There were times when I could not reconcile what I believed about the goodness of God with what was happening in my life, and I did not always know what faithfulness was supposed to look like when God seemed absent from circumstances in which I desperately wanted Him to intervene.

I understand some of that differently now, although I am cautious about saying that as though the passage of time has given me answers to questions I once could not answer. Many of those questions remain. What has changed is that I can look across a much longer stretch of my life than I could then, and from here I can see a faithfulness that was often impossible for me to recognize while I was living inside particular moments.

There is an image in Isaiah that has become more beautiful to me as I have grown older: “I the LORD your God hold your right hand; I am the one who says to you, ‘Fear not, I am the one who helps you.’”

I think for much of my life I imagined faith partly in terms of my ability to hold on to God. Perhaps that made sense for someone who learned very early that strength meant holding on, enduring, and finding a way through whatever came next. Even my language about faith tended to carry some of that assumption. I needed to trust more deeply, believe more firmly, remain faithful, and somehow maintain my grip through whatever circumstances came.

But that is not actually the image Isaiah gives us. God is not standing at a distance waiting to see whether I can manage to keep hold of Him. He is holding my right hand.

I find myself lingering over that distinction now.

There were times when I held tightly to God and times when I did not know how. There were times when I trusted Him and times when I questioned Him, times when I felt courageous and others when I was deeply frightened. There were seasons when I believed I understood where He was leading me and others when I could see very little beyond whatever I needed to do next. Yet if Isaiah’s image is true, the constancy of God’s presence was never dependent upon the steadiness of my grip.

Perhaps these hands have been able to carry what they have carried, at least in part, because they were themselves being held.

And then, of course, there are the hands of Jesus.

Christianity makes the remarkable claim that the God who holds our hands chose to have human hands Himself. I wonder sometimes about the ordinariness of those hands for most of Jesus’ earthly life. They were the hands of a child and then of a carpenter, hands that worked with wood, shared meals with friends, touched people others were unwilling to touch, gathered children close, broke bread, washed His disciples’ feet, and reached toward people who had spent much of their lives being avoided.

Eventually, they were wounded.

What strikes me increasingly about the resurrection accounts is that those wounds were still visible afterward. Jesus showed His disciples His hands. Whatever resurrection means about the defeat of death and the restoration of what sin has broken, it apparently did not require erasing every visible indication of what had happened.

I find that enormously comforting.

There are forms of Christian language about healing that can sometimes make us feel that redemption ought to leave us looking untouched, as though sufficient faith or sufficient healing should eventually remove the evidence that anything terrible ever happened. But the resurrected body of Christ still bore scars. They were no longer open wounds, and they no longer represented the victory His executioners believed they had achieved, but neither had they been removed from His body.

I am careful about comparing my wounds to His, but I do wonder whether there is something here I need to understand about my own life. Healing may not require the disappearance of every scar. Perhaps some of what has happened to us can remain part of our story without remaining in control of it.

My hands have their own history of things they could not hold, too. There have been people I could not protect, relationships I could not repair by myself, losses I could not prevent, and outcomes I could not control. I have known the terrible helplessness of loving someone and realizing that there was no way for me to reach into that person’s life and make a different choice for them or create an ending I desperately wanted for both of us.

I still find that difficult.

Maybe one of the harder things I have had to learn about love is that our hands can do a great deal, but they are not sovereign. We can reach toward another person, offer what we have, comfort and serve and bless and sometimes hold someone through something unimaginably painful. But there are places our hands simply cannot reach, no matter how much we love someone.

There are places our hands simply cannot reach, no matter how much we love someone, and things that ultimately belong to God rather than to us. I suspect I have understood that theologically for most of my life. Living as though I believe it has been considerably more difficult.

For much of my life, strength had something to do with holding tightly. I held together what needed to be held together, protected what I could protect, worked harder when something was difficult, and tried not to drop whatever had been entrusted to me. There was something admirable in much of that, and I do not want to dismiss the strength it required. But gripping is not the only thing hands were made to do.

An open hand can receive something it could not take for itself. It can give without controlling what happens to the gift afterward. It can bless someone without requiring them to remain. It can release what it has no power to keep. And perhaps most importantly for me, an open hand can allow itself to be held.

I think I want to live more like that in whatever years remain to me. I don’t mean that I want to become passive about things that matter or stop fighting for people and purposes I love. I suspect there will always be some fierceness and intensity in me, and I am grateful for it. But I would like to become less convinced that loving something requires me to keep it within my grasp.

There are people and circumstances I have had to place into God’s hands because mine simply were not large enough to hold them. Sometimes I have done that willingly, and sometimes I have opened my fingers one at a time. I wish I could say surrender has always felt peaceful. More often, some of the things I have surrendered to God have been surrendered because I finally understood that holding them more tightly would not give me the power to change them.

And yet my experience of hands has not been only about releasing people. It has also been about discovering what it means for someone to remain.

For eighteen years, these hands have known what it is to reach for Macon’s hand and find it there.

That sounds like such a small thing when I write it, and perhaps that is precisely why it matters to me. So much of love is expressed through gestures too ordinary to seem significant while they are happening. A hand beside mine in the car, a hand reached for as we walk somewhere together, a hand found almost without thinking in the darkness and none of these would look particularly remarkable to anyone watching.

But I have lived long enough to understand that there is something sacred about ordinary faithfulness.

Perhaps that is another thing these hands have taught me. Love is often much less dramatic than we imagine when we are young. It makes dinner and carries bags and drives someone to the airport. It reaches across a bed in the middle of the night. It sits in waiting rooms. It wipes tears and sometimes knows enough not to wipe them because the person needs to cry. It remains beside suffering it cannot fix.

And over enough years, all of those ordinary gestures become a life.

When I look at my hands now, I see some of that life written into them. They are unmistakably the hands of a sixty-five-year-old woman, and I know that if I am fortunate enough to live many more years, they will continue to change. The skin will become thinner still. They may eventually lose some of the strength and dexterity I take for granted now. There may come a time when they cannot type as quickly, carry as much, travel as far, or do many of the things I still expect them to do without much thought.

I don’t know exactly how I will feel about that when the time comes. I am not sure I need to decide that in advance. But I do think I am beginning to understand that the value of these hands has never depended entirely upon what they could accomplish. They have been useful, certainly, and I am grateful for all they have allowed me to do. But they have also received. They have reached and been reached for. They have held and been held. They have sometimes clung too tightly and, eventually, learned to release.

Perhaps that is why I am less startled now when I look down and see the years in them. I still see the thinner skin and the veins and the small changes that tell me unmistakably that time has passed. But increasingly I also see children held and pages turned, words written and hands reached for across counseling rooms and classrooms and oceans. I see prayers offered with confidence and prayers offered with almost none. I see things I tried desperately to hold and things I eventually had to entrust to God. I see the hand of the man I love reaching back toward mine.

And somewhere beneath all of those memories is the image from Isaiah that I keep returning to: God holding my right hand.

Perhaps when I first began noticing my aging hands, I thought they were showing me primarily what time had taken from them. I am beginning to wonder whether they are showing me something else. For all the things these hands have held across sixty-five years, they have never been the hands responsible for holding my life together. I can see that more clearly now than I could when I was younger and still trying so hard to be strong enough for whatever came next.

There have been years when I held tightly to God and years when I barely knew how to reach for Him. There have been things I carried well and things I dropped, people I could help and people I could not, prayers answered in ways I recognize and others whose answers I still do not understand.

When I look at my hands now, all of that seems somehow present in them. I can see the years and some of what they have carried, but I am also beginning to see more clearly what I could not always see while I was living them.

Perhaps the most important thing about these hands was never how tightly they managed to hold on. The image I keep returning to is the one from Isaiah: my hand, with all its limits and all its history, held in the hand of God. And increasingly, I think that may have been true even during the years when I could not feel His hand there.

When We Begin Watching One Another More Than We Watch Our Own Hearts

There seems to be something in all of us that is drawn toward certainty. Perhaps it is because certainty feels safer than mystery. If faith can be reduced to a collection of clearly defined behaviors, then we know what to look for. We know how to measure progress. We know where the lines are, who appears to be flourishing, and who seems to be drifting. There is comfort in believing that what matters most can be seen from the outside. It gives us a sense that the spiritual life is understandable, even manageable, if only we pay close enough attention.

Yet as I read through the Gospels, I find Jesus continually drawing people’s attention somewhere else. Again and again, conversations that begin with outward behavior somehow find their way back to the heart. Someone asks about washing hands, and He speaks about what comes out of a person’s heart. Someone wants to debate the law, and He begins talking about love. Someone is caught in obvious sin, and rather than joining the argument, He quietly turns everyone’s attention inward before saying a word to the woman standing before Him. It is difficult to read those encounters without noticing how consistently Jesus refuses to let visible behavior become separated from the deeper realities from which it grows.

Behavior clearly mattered to Him. The choices we make shape us, influence others, and often reveal what is happening beneath the surface. But He seemed remarkably interested in what lay beneath those choices. Healthy fruit matters, but no gardener spends all of his time polishing apples while ignoring the condition of the tree itself. The health of the roots determines far more than the appearance of a single season’s harvest, and Jesus seemed content to spend much of His time tending places that no one else could see.

Perhaps that is why I find myself wondering how easily our attention drifts toward fruit, especially someone else’s. We notice the clothing people wear, the music they enjoy, the books they read, the church they attend, the way they worship, the words they choose, the decisions they make, the opinions they hold, and the things they celebrate or decline to celebrate. None of those observations are necessarily wrong. Wisdom often requires discernment, and love is never indifferent to truth. Yet there is a quiet difference between discerning what we see and allowing our attention to become occupied by it. Over time, we can become so practiced at noticing what appears unfinished in someone else’s life that we slowly lose the habit of asking God to search our own hearts. The prayer, “Search me, O God,” becomes quieter than the ongoing conversation in our minds about everyone else, and because the shift happens gradually, we may not recognize how much of our attention has migrated outward until our own hearts begin to feel strangely restless.

By contrast, there is a certain lightness that often accompanies people who know they live by grace. They carry conviction without appearing anxious about it. They speak honestly while leaving room for patience. They seem genuinely grateful whenever they see even the smallest evidence of God at work because they remember how quietly and imperfectly that work unfolded in their own lives. Their confidence does not seem to rest in having reached some higher place than everyone around them but in knowing they themselves continue to be met by mercy every single day. There is a humility that grows naturally in people who remember that everything they have become has also been received.

Legalism often redirects our attention in a different way. Rather than asking how the Spirit might be inviting us into deeper love today, we begin wondering why everyone else does not seem to be changing more quickly. Our conversations slowly become evaluations. Our relationships become opportunities to assess, measure, or correct. We become increasingly skilled at identifying weaknesses while gradually losing our sensitivity to thirst, loneliness, fear, or grief. It is difficult to delight in people when our first instinct is to evaluate them, and it becomes equally difficult to notice the quiet, patient work of grace because transformation rarely unfolds at the pace our judgments expect.

Perhaps this is one reason Jesus appeared so remarkably comfortable with unfinished people. The disciples were hardly models of maturity. Peter remained impulsive. Thomas continued asking difficult questions. James and John still wrestled with ambition. Together they misunderstood Jesus, argued among themselves, interrupted Him, corrected Him, and eventually scattered when fear overtook them. Yet nothing in the Gospels suggests that Jesus was surprised by the slow, uneven nature of their growth. He taught them, corrected them, challenged them, and continually called them into deeper obedience, but He also walked with them through their incompleteness. He seemed to understand that genuine transformation was not produced by urgency but cultivated through relationship over time.

I sometimes wonder whether we expect from strangers what Jesus patiently cultivated over years with His closest friends. We often meet people in the middle of stories we know almost nothing about. We do not see the prayers that have already been prayed, the fears they are quietly carrying, the losses they have endured, or the ways God may already be at work beneath the surface. We encounter a single moment and can be tempted to imagine that we understand the whole story, while God, who sees every hidden chapter, continues His patient work with a wisdom that rarely appears hurried.

When I think about the people who seemed most drawn to Jesus, I notice that they were rarely those who believed they had everything together. Again and again, they were people carrying shame, grief, questions, confusion, regret, or years of believing they no longer belonged anywhere. Somehow they kept finding their way toward Him. There must have been something about His presence that made wounded people believe they could draw near before every question had been answered and before every broken place had been repaired. They encountered Someone whose holiness never diminished His compassion, whose truth never competed with His kindness, and who could fully see what required healing without making healing a prerequisite for being loved.

That picture stays with me because it quietly reshapes the questions I ask about my own life. What do people experience when they encounter me? Does my presence make it a little easier to imagine the patience of Christ, or do people leave carrying a greater awareness of my opinions than of His welcome? Those are not questions meant to produce guilt. They simply invite me back to the place where Jesus so consistently began, not with someone else’s heart, but with my own.

Perhaps every follower of Christ eventually discovers how easy it is to become preoccupied with guarding the edges of the faith while slowly drifting from its center. Yet the center has never been our ability to identify every error or settle every disagreement. The center has always been Christ Himself. As we remain close to Him, something in us seems to soften. We become less occupied with standing between Him and other people and more willing to walk beside them. We learn that faith often grows at the pace of relationship, that grace rarely appears rushed, and that the people around us are usually carrying far more than we can see. In that kind of presence, our hands become a little less inclined to point and a little more ready to steady someone who is simply trying to take the next step toward home.

Running with Patience: Loving Trauma Survivors Well

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight…and let us run with patience the race that is set before us.” — Hebrews 12:1

One of the hardest truths trauma survivors carry is that the greatest pain often does not come from the abuse itself. It comes from what happens when they finally find the courage to tell someone.

For many survivors of sexual abuse, disclosure is not a single event. It is the culmination of months, years, or even decades of wrestling with fear, shame, confusion, self-doubt, and grief. Before speaking, survivors often rehearse every possible outcome. They wonder whether anyone will believe them. They wonder whether they will be blamed. They wonder whether telling the truth will cost them relationships, community, or even their faith.

Sadly, those fears are not unfounded.

Research cited by Anna C. Salter Valliere in Unmasking the Sexual Offender found that approximately 85% of people continued to believe or support the offender—even when the offender had confessed or had been caught in the act. Think about what that means from the perspective of a survivor. They are not merely risking embarrassment or misunderstanding. They are risking isolation. They are risking being viewed as the problem while the person who harmed them continues to receive trust, sympathy, and protection.

Survivors know this long before they ever tell their story.

Many remain silent because they have watched what happens when others speak. Others disclose only after the emotional burden of carrying the secret becomes heavier than the fear of not being believed. Even then, they often tell just one trusted person, hoping against hope that someone will simply listen.

When that trust is met with disbelief, minimization, or spiritual clichés, the injury often deepens. Trauma experts sometimes refer to this as a “second wound.” The original abuse communicated, You are not safe. A dismissive response communicates, You are still not safe.

As believers, we must recognize that safety is not merely a psychological concept. It is a profoundly biblical one.

Throughout Scripture, God consistently reveals Himself as a refuge, a fortress, a shelter, and a strong tower. Again and again, He identifies with the oppressed, the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and those who have been exploited by people with greater power. His people are repeatedly commanded to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

Notice the pattern. God does not first ask whether the vulnerable have forgiven. He first commands His people to protect them.

Safety is one of God’s earliest gifts. Before healing comes safety. Before trust comes safety. Before vulnerability comes safety.

This is not simply emotional comfort. For trauma survivors, safety is the environment in which the nervous system begins to settle enough for healing to become possible. A survivor whose body remains on constant alert cannot simply choose peace by an act of will. God wonderfully designed our brains to detect danger. When danger has been experienced repeatedly, especially at the hands of someone trusted, that alarm system remains highly sensitive.

This is why protecting safety is one of the most loving things the church can do.

Safety means believing that someone’s story deserves careful attention. Safety means taking allegations seriously. Safety means refusing to pressure survivors into interactions they are not prepared for. Safety means establishing wise boundaries that protect the vulnerable rather than the influential. Safety means understanding that trust is earned, not demanded. And safety sometimes means allowing consequences that are both just and necessary.

Unfortunately, churches sometimes unintentionally reverse these priorities. In an effort to restore relationships quickly, we ask survivors to carry responsibilities that Scripture places elsewhere. We ask them to meet with the offender. We ask them to reassure others they have forgiven. We ask them not to “cause division.” We ask them to move on for the sake of unity.

Yet nowhere does Scripture define unity as pretending evil did not occur. Biblical peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the presence of truth, righteousness, and justice.

When Jesus spoke of caring for “the least of these,” He was describing more than acts of kindness. He was revealing the heart of God’s kingdom. Throughout His ministry, Jesus consistently moved toward those society overlooked, dismissed, or blamed. He listened before He instructed. He restored dignity before He restored reputation. He never sacrificed the vulnerable to preserve the comfort of the powerful.

This should shape the culture of every church.

When someone discloses abuse, our first responsibility is not to explain forgiveness. Our first responsibility is to listen. Instead of asking, “How do we preserve everyone’s comfort?” we should be asking, “How do we protect the person who has already been harmed?”

Instead of wondering how quickly relationships can be restored, we should be asking what wisdom, accountability, and boundaries are needed for genuine repentance to be demonstrated over time.

Forgiveness is central to the Christian faith. But forgiveness is not denial. Forgiveness is not forgetting. Forgiveness does not erase consequences. Forgiveness does not require immediate reconciliation. Forgiveness does not eliminate the need for accountability. And forgiveness should never be used to silence someone who has been wounded.

In fact, genuine forgiveness becomes meaningful only when truth has been acknowledged. Grace never asks us to pretend darkness is light. Rather, grace shines light into darkness so that healing can begin.

Imagine how different our churches would become if every survivor knew they would be met first with compassion rather than suspicion.

Imagine if every child, every woman, every man, every vulnerable adult knew that their church would choose protection over reputation, truth over appearances, and faithful presence over easy answers.

Imagine if our first words were:

“Thank you for trusting me.”

“I’m so sorry this happened.”

“What happened to you was wrong.”

“I believe you.”

“You are safe here.”

Those five words, You are safe here, may communicate more of the heart of God than a hundred theological explanations.

The gospel calls us to something better than simply knowing the right answers. It calls us to become safe people. People who protect rather than pressure. People who listen rather than lecture. People who patiently bear another’s burden instead of rushing them toward resolution.

The race described in Hebrews is one of endurance. Walking beside trauma survivors requires that same patient endurance. Healing rarely follows a straight line. Trust grows slowly. Safety is built consistently. Hope often returns one small step at a time.

May we become the kind of believers whose presence reflects the refuge of God Himself.

May survivors encounter in us what they so desperately need, not perfect people with perfect answers, but faithful people whose lives quietly proclaim:

“You are seen. You are believed. You are valued. And by God’s grace, you do not have to walk this road alone.”

What We Keep Talking About Reveals What We Fear

The Southern Baptist Convention meets this week, and once again, much of the conversation centers on women.

Not evangelism.

Not poverty.

Not loneliness.

Not foster care.

Not addiction.

Not mental health.

Not abuse survivors.

Not the millions of people who have never heard a credible presentation of the Gospel.

Women.

Again.

For the fourth consecutive year, messengers debated measures designed to further define and restrict the role of women within the church. Whether one supports or opposes those efforts is almost beside the point. The deeper question is why this continues to command such extraordinary attention.

Institutions reveal their priorities not merely through their statements but through their repetition. What we return to over and over again reveals what we believe is most urgent.

And increasingly, I find myself asking: What does it say about us when women remain one of the church’s primary concerns? Especially when it’s already been made clear enough in the Faith and Message to ban certain churches who don’t comply?

This year’s convention also revealed another tension.

Both presidential candidates reportedly minimized the denomination’s abuse crisis. The new SBC president even characterized ongoing concerns about abuse as a “snipe hunt.”

That phrase has lingered with me, not because abuse should be the only issue the church discusses, but because thousands of survivors are still carrying wounds that were often inflicted, ignored, minimized, or mishandled within Christian communities.

For many survivors, the abuse itself was devastating. Being dismissed afterward was often worse.

When leaders speak as though concerns about abuse are exaggerated or overblown, survivors hear something very different than what may have been intended.

They hear: “We are tired of talking about your pain.”

The convention also devoted significant attention to immigration policy, emphasizing enforcement and border security while debating the proper Christian response to those seeking refuge and opportunity.

Again, faithful Christians may disagree about policy but I cannot help noticing a pattern.

Women.

Immigrants.

Survivors.

Again and again, the people being discussed are not those holding power. They are the people most likely to experience exclusion from it.

And that observation raises a question that feels deeply biblical. Why do so many of the church’s debates focus on drawing boundaries around people Jesus consistently moved toward? Because when I read the Gospels, I encounter a Savior whose attention flowed in a very different direction.

Jesus spent remarkably little time worrying about preserving institutional control. He spent His time with those who had been pushed to the edges.

Women.

Foreigners.

The poor.

The sick.

The outcasts.

The overlooked.

The wounded.

The people respectable religion often preferred to keep at arm’s length.

When I read the Gospels, I find a Savior whose attention flowed in a very different direction. The people who seemed to trouble the religious establishment rarely seemed to trouble Jesus. The women whose voices were dismissed, the foreigners viewed with suspicion, the people carrying shame, sickness, grief, or failure were the people He consistently moved toward rather than away from.

What strikes me is not simply whom Jesus welcomed. It is whom He challenged. His strongest rebukes were not directed at the broken. They were directed at religious leaders who had become so focused on guarding the boundaries of the faith that they no longer recognized the heart of it.

In Matthew 23, Jesus described leaders who were meticulous about religious correctness while neglecting what He called the “weightier matters of the law”: justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

That warning feels uncomfortably relevant because it is possible to win theological arguments while losing sight of the people those arguments affect. It is possible to defend an institution while failing to reflect the character of Christ. And it is possible to become so consumed with determining who belongs on the inside that we forget why the Church exists in the first place.

That passage feels especially relevant today because every generation of Christians faces the same temptation. We can become so focused on guarding the institution that we forget the mission. So focused on defining who belongs that we forget to love people. So concerned with authority that we neglect compassion. So invested in being right that we stop asking whether we are becoming like Christ.

The question before the SBC is not whether it can pass amendments. It obviously can.

The question is what those amendments, debates, and priorities communicate to the watching world.

What do women hear?

What do immigrants hear?

What do abuse survivors hear?

What do younger Christians hear?

Because institutions are always teaching.

Even when they are not trying to.

Every agenda teaches.

Every vote teaches.

Every repeated conversation teaches.

And increasingly, I fear that many people are learning a lesson the church never intended to teach, not because anyone stood at a podium and said it, but because institutions teach through attention.

They teach through what receives urgency, what receives energy, and what receives repeated concern.

Over time, people begin to draw conclusions. They notice what alarms us, what moves us, what we are willing to fight for, and they notice what seems to remain at the margins.

The result is that many women, immigrants, abuse survivors, and younger Christians are left wondering whether they are primarily seen as people to be loved or problems to be managed.

I do not believe that is the heart of Jesus.

When Jesus described His mission, He spoke of good news for the poor, freedom for the oppressed, sight for the blind, and hope for those living under burdens too heavy to carry alone. He consistently moved toward suffering rather than away from it.

The Church was never meant to become known for the efficiency of its gatekeeping. It was meant to become known for the presence of Christ. The question is not whether we still affirm compassion, mercy, justice, and love. Most churches sincerely do. The question is whether those commitments are visible enough that the people around us can actually see them.

Because our priorities eventually become our witness.

What we repeatedly defend reveals what we fear losing.

What we repeatedly protect reveals what we truly value.

And over time, those choices shape not only how the world sees the Church, but who the Church itself becomes.

My prayer is that we become known less for the boundaries we maintain and more for the courage with which we reflect the heart of Christ, especially toward those who are wounded, vulnerable, and easy to overlook.

When Power Becomes the Point

A reflection on the Southern Baptist Convention, theology, psychology, and the temptation of control

Over the past several weeks, I have followed the conversations surrounding Dr. Albert Mohler’s proposed constitutional amendment for the Southern Baptist Convention. As expected, much of the discussion has focused on biblical interpretation, denominational identity, church governance, and the role of women in ministry. Those conversations matter, and sincere Christians have arrived at different conclusions regarding these questions for many years.

As I have listened to the debate unfold, however, I have found myself thinking less about the amendment itself and more about the broader themes that seem to surface whenever conversations about authority emerge within religious communities.

Perhaps that is partly the result of my own background. As both a clinician and someone who has spent decades in church and ministry settings, I have become increasingly interested in the ways individuals and institutions relate to power. I have seen authority used to protect, heal, guide, and serve. I have also seen authority used in ways that create fear, exclusion, and harm. More often than not, the difference has little to do with the stated purpose of the authority and much more to do with the posture of the people holding it.

For that reason, this is not intended to be a point-by-point argument for or against Dr. Mohler’s proposal. Many thoughtful people whom I respect hold differing views on the amendment itself. Rather, I find myself drawn to a different set of questions.

Why do conversations about authority so often capture our attention?

Why do they generate such strong emotions?

Why do human beings seem so consistently drawn toward questions of who may lead, who may decide, who belongs, and who does not?

And what might theology, psychology, and the example of Christ teach us about those tendencies?

Those are the questions I have been wrestling with as the SBC prepares to gather this year.

The Strange Attraction of Power

When conversations about authority arise, we often assume they are primarily about power. In some cases they are. Yet from a psychological perspective, power is rarely experienced as power by the people seeking it.

Most people do not wake up in the morning thinking about how to control others. They are thinking about creating order, preserving stability, protecting what they value, or remaining faithful to their convictions. In their minds, the pursuit of authority is often connected to something they perceive as good and necessary.

This is one reason power can be so difficult to examine honestly.

Power rarely introduces itself as a desire for control. More often it appears in the language of certainty, responsibility, protection, righteousness, or faithfulness. We become convinced that if people would simply adopt the correct beliefs, follow the correct practices, support the correct leaders, or embrace the correct values, many of our problems would be resolved. The desire itself may begin with good intentions, but it can gradually shift from persuasion to control without us fully realizing it.

Psychologists have long observed that human beings are not particularly comfortable with uncertainty. Ambiguity creates anxiety. Complexity can feel overwhelming. As a result, we naturally look for ways to make the world more understandable and predictable.

One of the ways we accomplish this is by creating categories.

Categories are not inherently harmful. In fact, they help us organize information and navigate a complex world. Problems arise when our categories become increasingly rigid and begin carrying moral weight. Instead of simply describing differences, they start dividing people into groups that feel fundamentally distinct from one another.

Over time, we may begin to sort people into categories such as faithful or unfaithful, trustworthy or suspect, orthodox or compromised, insider or outsider. These distinctions often provide a sense of clarity and emotional security. They make a complicated world feel more manageable.

Yet there is also a cost.

The more invested we become in maintaining these categories, the easier it becomes to overlook the complexity of the people within them. Individuals become representatives of a position rather than unique human beings. Nuance becomes difficult to tolerate. Curiosity gives way to certainty. Understanding becomes less important than classification.

This dynamic is not limited to any particular theological, political, or cultural perspective. It is a deeply human tendency. Whenever anxiety rises, the temptation to create increasingly rigid boundaries often rises with it.

The challenge is that while those boundaries may provide a temporary sense of safety, they can also create distance. They can foster suspicion. And, over time, they can contribute to the process psychologists describe as othering which is the tendency to view people primarily through categories rather than through their shared humanity and God-given dignity.

That process is often subtle. It rarely begins with hostility. More often, it begins with the understandable desire to create order in a complicated world. Yet if left unexamined, it can gradually shape the way individuals, institutions, and even churches relate to those who are different from them.

The Psychology of Othering

One of the more concerning tendencies in both individuals and institutions is the process psychologists often refer to as “othering.” At its core, othering occurs when we begin to view people primarily through a category rather than through the fullness of their humanity. We stop encountering them as individuals with stories, experiences, strengths, wounds, and dignity, and instead begin relating to them as representatives of a group, position, belief, or identity.

This is not simply a religious problem. It is a human problem.

We see it throughout history whenever societies divide people into those who belong and those who do not. We see it in politics when opponents become caricatures rather than neighbors. We see it in organizations when loyalty to a system becomes more important than listening to the people within it. We see it in families when one person is assigned the role of “the difficult one,” “the problem,” or “the disappointment,” and every interaction is filtered through that lens.

Religious communities are not immune to these dynamics. In fact, because faith communities often hold deep convictions about truth, morality, and identity, they can be especially vulnerable to them.

What begins as a desire to preserve doctrine or protect tradition can slowly shift into something else. Instead of asking, “How do we faithfully care for people while holding our convictions?” the conversation can become focused on determining who is acceptable, who is suspect, who belongs, and who does not. Over time, the category begins to overshadow the person.

From a psychological perspective, this tendency often emerges when people experience uncertainty or threat. Human beings naturally seek clarity, predictability, and a sense of order. One way we create that sense of order is by sorting people into increasingly rigid categories. Doing so can temporarily reduce anxiety because it simplifies a complex world. The problem is that people are rarely simple.

When we reduce people to categories, it becomes easier to dismiss their experiences, ignore their perspectives, or overlook the impact of our actions on them. Most of the time this does not happen because people are intentionally cruel. Rather, it happens because they become convinced that they are protecting something important such as a doctrine, a tradition, a culture, a denomination, or an institution and in the process lose sight of the people affected by those decisions.

Theologically, this should concern us because Christianity begins with the belief that every person bears the image of God. Before someone is a conservative or a progressive, male or female, pastor or congregant, insider or outsider, they are an image bearer. When our categories become more important than the people themselves, we risk losing sight of one of the most fundamental truths of our faith.

Jesus and Power

One of the things I find most striking about Jesus is the way He related to power. This may sound like an odd observation given that Christians believe Jesus possessed all authority, but that is precisely what makes it so noteworthy. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus consistently demonstrates authority while showing remarkably little interest in controlling people.

He certainly confronted people when necessary. He challenged religious leaders, corrected His disciples, and spoke hard truths that often made people uncomfortable. Yet His ministry rarely seemed focused on securing influence, protecting status, or consolidating power. In fact, many of the tensions between Jesus and those around Him emerged because others expected Him to pursue power in ways that He simply did not.

His disciples frequently viewed the kingdom through the lens of status and position. They argued about who would be greatest. They sought places of honor. At times they appeared eager to establish clear hierarchies and determine who belonged and who did not. Yet Jesus repeatedly redirected their attention elsewhere. Rather than emphasizing rank, He emphasized service. Rather than teaching them how to exercise authority over others, He taught them how to love, serve, forgive, and sacrifice.

This theme appears throughout the Gospels. While many expected a political Messiah who would establish power through force and authority, Jesus consistently moved in a different direction. He spent time with those who held little social power. He welcomed people who were often marginalized by religious systems. He challenged assumptions about who was worthy of attention, dignity, and belonging. Even at the height of His public ministry, He seemed remarkably unconcerned with preserving His position.

From both a theological and psychological perspective, this is significant. Human beings often assume that influence is best maintained through control. We tend to believe that if something is important, it must be protected through increasingly rigid structures of authority. Yet Jesus frequently demonstrated a different kind of leadership rooted not in coercion but in invitation, not in domination but in service.

Of course, this does not mean that boundaries are unnecessary or that doctrine lacks importance. The New Testament clearly shows that truth matters. The early church wrestled with theological questions, ethical concerns, and questions of community identity. But there is a meaningful difference between clarifying what a community believes and becoming preoccupied with regulating who may hold power within it.

As I read the Gospels, I am repeatedly drawn back to the observation that Jesus seemed far more concerned with the condition of people’s hearts than with securing His own authority. The kingdom He described was not built through control but through transformation. It did not advance through dominance but through sacrificial love. And that distinction feels especially important whenever the church finds itself investing significant energy in questions of power, status, and control.

Trauma, Power, and Religious Systems

My work in trauma care has profoundly shaped the way I think about power. Over the years, I have sat with individuals, families, organizations, churches, and leaders who have experienced both the healing and the harmful effects of authority. What I have learned is that power itself is not inherently good or bad. Power is simply the ability to influence outcomes, establish priorities, make decisions, and affect the lives of others.

Used wisely, power can create safety. It can protect vulnerable people, establish healthy boundaries, provide structure, and help communities flourish. Healthy leadership requires some degree of authority. Parents exercise authority. Teachers exercise authority. Pastors exercise authority. Organizational leaders exercise authority. The question is rarely whether power exists. The more important question is how it is being used and whether those who hold it remain accountable to the people they serve.

One of the more challenging realities I have encountered in trauma work is that harm is not always the result of malicious intent. In fact, some of the deepest wounds people carry were inflicted by individuals who genuinely believed they were doing the right thing. They believed they were protecting their family, defending their church, preserving an institution, or standing for truth. Their intentions may have been sincere. Yet sincerity alone does not prevent harm.

What often concerns me more than bad intentions is unexamined certainty.

When individuals or institutions become deeply convinced that their position is unquestionably correct, curiosity tends to disappear. Listening becomes less important. Feedback becomes easier to dismiss. Questions are interpreted as threats rather than opportunities for understanding. Gradually, attention shifts away from the experiences of people and toward the preservation of the system itself.

This dynamic is not unique to religious organizations. It can occur in corporations, schools, nonprofits, political movements, and families. However, religious systems face a unique challenge because they often operate with moral and spiritual authority. Decisions are not merely framed as practical or organizational; they are frequently presented as matters of faithfulness, obedience, and divine conviction.

That reality can make self-examination more difficult.

If leaders believe they are protecting God’s truth, it can become tempting to view disagreement as rebellion, concern as criticism, or questions as threats to the mission. Over time, preserving the institution may begin to feel synonymous with protecting the faith itself. Yet those two things are not always the same.

Trauma-informed care encourages us to pay attention not only to our intentions but also to our impact. It invites us to ask difficult questions: Who benefits from a particular decision? Who bears the cost? Who has a voice in the conversation? Who feels safe enough to express disagreement? What happens to those who find themselves on the margins of the system?

These questions are not signs of weakness. They are signs of humility.

In my experience, healthy leaders and healthy organizations remain willing to ask them, even when the answers are uncomfortable. They understand that authority is best exercised in the context of accountability, curiosity, and care for the people entrusted to them.

For churches, this may be especially important. If we believe that every person bears the image of God, then our systems should never become so important that we stop paying attention to the people those systems affect. Faithfulness requires conviction, but it also requires humility. It requires the willingness to ask not only whether we are defending what we believe is true, but also whether we are reflecting the character of Christ in the way we exercise authority.

What Are We Focusing On?

As I have reflected on the proposed amendment and the broader conversations surrounding it, I find myself returning to a question that extends beyond this particular issue.

What are we choosing to focus our collective attention on?

Every organization has limited resources. There is limited time, limited energy, limited emotional capacity, and limited institutional attention. Because of that, the issues that repeatedly rise to the surface often tell us something important about what we perceive to be most urgent.

This is where I find myself wrestling.

Over the past several decades, both as a clinician and as someone actively involved in church life, I have watched the challenges facing individuals, families, and congregations grow increasingly complex. Many pastors are exhausted. Many churches are struggling to navigate cultural polarization. Anxiety, loneliness, depression, trauma, addiction, and relational disconnection affect people in nearly every congregation. Survivors of abuse continue to seek places where they can be heard, believed, and supported. Younger generations often express deep spiritual questions while simultaneously feeling disconnected from institutional religion.

These are not hypothetical concerns. They are realities I encounter regularly in my office, in churches, in training events, and in conversations with ministry leaders.

For that reason, I find myself wondering what it communicates when questions about authority structures repeatedly emerge as matters of denominational urgency.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that questions of church governance or theological conviction are unimportant. Every denomination must wrestle with questions of doctrine, identity, and practice. Those conversations are part of organizational life and theological stewardship.

At the same time, priorities inevitably communicate values.

When significant amounts of time, attention, and energy are devoted to determining who may hold authority, I think it is reasonable to ask what other conversations might be receiving less attention as a result.

What would it look like if we brought the same level of passion and intentionality to helping churches become places of healing for those carrying trauma?

What would happen if we invested similar energy in equipping pastors to lead in ways that are emotionally healthy and sustainable?

How might our communities change if we focused more deeply on addressing loneliness, strengthening relationships, supporting families, and helping people develop genuine spiritual maturity?

What if the church became known not primarily for its internal debates about authority, but for its capacity to reflect the compassion, wisdom, humility, and healing presence of Christ?

These are not competing concerns. Churches can and should care about both doctrine and discipleship, both theological clarity and human flourishing. Yet I believe it is worth asking whether our public priorities accurately reflect the needs of the people we have been called to serve.

The questions we return to again and again often reveal what we fear, what we value, and what we believe is most important. As I observe the conversations taking place within the SBC, I cannot help but wonder what our priorities are communicating, not only to those inside our churches, but also to those watching from the outside.

Are we known primarily for protecting positions and structures, or are we known for helping people encounter the transforming love of Christ?

That question seems increasingly important to me.

The Witness of Humility

As I have reflected on these issues, one thought continues to return to me: power is often easiest to recognize when it belongs to someone else.

Most of us can readily identify the ways authority can be misused by people with whom we disagree. We can see the blind spots in other movements, other organizations, other leaders, and other theological camps. What is much more difficult is recognizing our own relationship with power and examining the ways we may become attached to influence, certainty, status, or control.

This is one reason humility occupies such a central place in the Christian life.

Humility is not the absence of conviction. It is not indecisiveness, passivity, or a reluctance to speak clearly. Rather, humility is the recognition that our understanding is always incomplete, our motives are often mixed, and our need for God’s grace remains constant. Humility allows us to hold our convictions sincerely while remaining open to self-examination.

From both a theological and psychological perspective, this matters more than we often realize.

One of the recurring patterns I have observed in individuals and institutions is the tendency to evaluate ourselves according to our intentions while evaluating others according to their impact. We know the reasons behind our own decisions. We understand our motives. We are aware of the fears, concerns, and convictions that shape our actions. Others, however, often see only the outcome.

As a result, it becomes easy to assume that our use of influence is justified while viewing the influence of others with suspicion. We may sincerely believe that we are protecting truth, preserving faithfulness, or defending what matters. Sometimes we may be. Yet humility invites us to ask an additional question: How are our actions affecting the people around us?

I find this particularly compelling when I consider the example of Christ.

Jesus possessed an authority unlike any other, yet He consistently used that authority in ways that drew people toward restoration rather than domination. He confronted injustice, challenged hypocrisy, and spoke truth with remarkable clarity. Yet His life was marked by service, sacrifice, compassion, and a willingness to lay down privilege rather than grasp for it.

For Christians, that example should shape not only what we believe but also how we hold those beliefs.

The credibility of the church has never rested solely on the accuracy of its doctrinal statements. Doctrine matters deeply, but throughout history the church’s witness has been most compelling when truth has been accompanied by humility, compassion, integrity, and love. People are often drawn to Christ not merely because Christians articulate theological positions clearly, but because they see something of Christ’s character reflected in the way those convictions are lived out.

As Southern Baptists gather this year, I find myself praying less about the outcome of a particular amendment and more about the posture of our hearts. That prayer includes my own heart as much as anyone else’s.

I pray that we would be people who hold conviction without contempt, authority without domination, and confidence without arrogance. I pray that we would remain willing to listen, willing to learn, and willing to examine ourselves honestly before asking others to do the same.

Most of all, I pray that we would remember that the central question facing the church is not ultimately how authority should be distributed, but how faithfully we are reflecting the character of Christ.

In a culture increasingly defined by conflict, certainty, and the pursuit of influence, a humble church may be one of the most powerful witnesses we have to offer.

What the Church Protects Reveals What It Fears

There’s something I’ve been sitting with lately that feels difficult to name out loud, though I suspect many women inside the Church have felt it in their bodies for years.

Sometimes the same systems that struggle to protect women are also the systems most invested in silencing them, not always intentionally and not always maliciously, but structurally, culturally, and theologically.

And I think that distinction matters.

Over the years, I’ve watched many churches ask extraordinary things of women. Women disciple children, organize ministries, hold communities together emotionally, show up when people are grieving, teach Bible studies, coordinate meals, visit the hurting, lead behind the scenes and carry relational labor that often goes unseen and unnamed.

Women are often expected to pour themselves out endlessly in service to the Body of Christ.

But when conversations begin about authority, leadership, accountability, abuse, or institutional power, the tone can shift quickly. Then the language becomes about “biblical order,” and about submission, not causing division, and protecting the church.

And somewhere inside that shift, many women begin to recognize a painful reality: sometimes what is being protected is not humility, faithfulness, or even Scripture itself, but hierarchy.

That realization can feel deeply disorienting for people who genuinely love the Church, especially because many of us were raised to believe the Church would be the safest place to tell the truth.

The recent debates within the Southern Baptist Convention have brought some of these tensions painfully back into view. The conversations around restricting women from leadership roles are happening against a larger backdrop that many people cannot ignore: decades of struggling to address abuse, institutional protectionism, and the silencing of survivors.

For years, appeals to “church autonomy” were often used to resist centralized accountability around abuse and predatory leadership. But now, some of those same structures appear willing to exercise denominational authority when the issue becomes whether women may lead, teach, or serve in visible ways.

That contradiction is difficult not to notice and, for many women, it lands not merely as a theological disagreement, but as something far more personal.

Because when people repeatedly experience being dismissed, overexplained to, interrupted, spiritually scrutinized, or mistrusted, those experiences do not remain merely intellectual. They become embodied. Over time, people begin learning what parts of themselves feel safe to express and what parts do not.

Trauma always shapes voice. People learn when speaking honestly creates danger. They learn when asking questions creates relational rupture. They learn when visibility carries punishment. And eventually many stop speaking not because they have nothing to say, but because silence begins to feel safer than honesty.

This is part of why these conversations matter far beyond denominational politics. They shape nervous systems. They shape identity. They shape people’s capacity to remain spiritually connected without abandoning themselves.

I keep thinking about Jesus and the way He consistently interacted with women in the Gospels, not performatively or symbolically, but relationally.

He spoke to women publicly in cultures that often did not.
He listened to them.
He allowed women to travel with Him and support His ministry.
Women remained near Him at the cross.
Women were entrusted with the first witness of the resurrection itself.

Again and again, Jesus seemed remarkably unconcerned with protecting male religious status. The people most threatened by women in Scripture were often religious systems themselves and I think that’s important to sit with honestly because it’s possible to defend a structure so fiercely that we stop noticing what kind of fruit it is producing.

Jesus said we would know things by their fruit.

So it is fair to ask:
Does our theology produce humility?
Safety?
Honesty?
Mutuality?
Compassion?
Freedom?
Christlikeness?

Or does it sometimes produce fear, silence, image management, and the protection of institutional power?

Those are uncomfortable questions. But I don’t believe they are unfaithful ones.

I also think many of these conversations flatten Scripture into something far smaller and more rigid than it actually is. The New Testament presents women praying, prophesying, teaching alongside husbands, funding ministry, leading house churches, serving as deacons, laboring alongside apostles, and participating actively in the life of the early Church.

And perhaps one of the most striking realities is this: spiritual gifts in the New Testament are never categorized according to gender. The Spirit gives gifts according to grace, not hierarchy.

That does not erase distinction nor does it erase embodiment or difference, but the Gospel repeatedly dismantles systems of spiritual status and superiority.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Paul’s words in Galatians were radically disruptive because the Gospel was radically disruptive.

The Kingdom of God consistently moves toward shared dignity rather than protected status and honestly, I think part of what makes these conversations so emotionally charged is that they are rarely just about theology. They are about power, belonging, fear, identity, and whose voices are considered trustworthy.

Sometimes institutions become so afraid of losing control that they confuse control with faithfulness but the Spirit of Christ has never seemed particularly dependent on coercion.

Jesus did not build His Kingdom through dominance. He built it through servanthood, truth-telling, humility, and love and perhaps the Church is healthiest not when certain people are protected from sharing power, but when every believer is invited to participate fully, responsibly, and humbly in the life of the Body of Christ, not because hierarchy disappeared, or because discernment no longer matters, or because every role is identical, but because the Gospel was always meant to move us toward deeper mutuality, deeper humility, and deeper recognition of the image of God in one another.

Honestly, I don’t think most women are asking for status. I think many are simply asking to exist fully in the Body of Christ without having to shrink in order to belong.

The Slow Return of Hope

There are seasons when the soul does not sing easily. Seasons where faith feels less like soaring and more like sitting quietly in the dark, trying to remember what light once felt like.

I think that’s why I keep returning to Book of Lamentations, not because it resolves suffering neatly nor because it offers quick comfort, but because it refuses to lie about pain.

The older I get, the more I realize how rare that is.

We live in a culture deeply uncomfortable with grief. We rush people through heartbreak. We hand out silver linings while wounds are still open. Even in faith spaces, we sometimes move too quickly toward redemption language because suffering itself makes us uneasy. We want resurrection without sitting at the tomb. We want healing without fully acknowledging what was lost.

But Book of Lamentations lingers in the ruins. It lets the smoke rise, the silence ache, and grief breathe.

And strangely, that honesty feels sacred to me.

Because there are losses in life that cannot be reduced to inspirational lessons. Some grief changes the architecture of a person. Some suffering rearranges the nervous system, the body, the assumptions you once held about safety, love, God, or the world itself.

Sometimes you survive something, but you do not emerge untouched.

I think Scripture knows this better than we often allow ourselves to admit.

The writer of Book of Lamentations does not sanitize devastation. He writes from the middle of collective trauma and from the collapse of what once felt stable, holy, and secure. The language is visceral. Raw. Almost disorienting at times. Hunger. Abandonment. Exhaustion. Despair.

And yet the very existence of lament tells us something important:

God would rather receive our honest grief than our polished pretending.

That matters deeply to me.

Because I think many of us learned to perform wellness long before we actually experienced healing. We learned how to sound faithful while silently unraveling inside. We learned how to quote Scripture while dissociating from our own pain. We learned how to smile while carrying grief our bodies never fully got permission to release.

But lament interrupts performance. Lament tells the truth.

It says:

This shattered me.
This mattered.
I do not know what to do with this pain.
I do not understand where God is in this moment.
I am angry.
I am weary.
I am grieving.

There is something profoundly courageous about that kind of honesty.

And maybe that is part of why lament is not faithlessness. Maybe lament is actually a form of relational trust. After all, we only cry out toward someone we still hope might hear us.

I think about this often when I consider trauma and grief work. People sometimes assume healing begins when pain disappears. But many times healing actually begins the moment someone finally feels safe enough to acknowledge what hurt.

That is true spiritually too. Sometimes the holiest thing we can do is stop minimizing our sorrow and to sit quietly before God without trying to edit ourselves into acceptability.

To admit:
I am disappointed.
I am exhausted.
I am lonely.
I do not understand why this happened.
I miss who I was before this loss.
I miss who I thought would stay.
I miss the version of the future I once believed in.

There are griefs we carry not only for people, but for innocence, safety, belonging, certainty, trust, health, relationships, communities, and dreams.

And some grief does not resolve cleanly. Some grief becomes something we learn to carry with tenderness instead of something we “get over.”

I think Book of Lamentations gives us permission for that too.

And then, in the middle of the sorrow, comes that quiet turning:

“Yet this I call to mind and therefore I have hope…”

Not because circumstances suddenly changed.
Not because the suffering vanished.
Not because the writer forced himself into toxic positivity.

Hope emerges almost like a trembling act of resistance. A remembering. A choice to keep turning one’s face toward mercy even while standing in the ashes.

Honestly, I think we misunderstand hope sometimes. We imagine hope as certainty or confidence or emotional brightness. But biblical hope often feels much more fragile and stubborn than that.

Hope is the widow planting flowers anyway.
The grieving father making coffee the next morning.
The trauma survivor learning to breathe deeply again.
The person praying with tears instead of eloquence.
The exhausted soul whispering, “I still want to believe love is real.”

Hope is not always triumphant. Sometimes hope barely whispers. Sometimes hope is simply refusing to abandon yourself completely. And maybe that is why lament matters so much. Because real hope cannot exist where truth is forbidden.

When we suppress grief, numb pain, spiritualize suffering too quickly, or shame ourselves for hurting, we do not actually create hope. We create disconnection. From ourselves. From others. Sometimes even from God.

But lament keeps the relationship open, keeps speaking, keeps reaching, and keeps breathing. Even through tears. Especially through tears.

I think that is what moves me most about Book of Lamentations now. It reminds me that despair is not proof of spiritual failure. Grief is not weakness. Questions are not rebellion. And sorrow does not make us less faithful.

Sometimes lament is simply what love sounds like when the heart is breaking.

And perhaps hope is not found by avoiding grief, but by allowing grief to soften us without destroying our capacity for connection, compassion, or wonder.

Perhaps hope grows slowly there in the honest telling, in the staying, in the remembering, or in the quiet decision to believe that mercy still exists, even if we cannot fully feel it yet.

Maybe that is the invitation of lament, not to remain forever in despair or to glorify suffering, but to stop abandoning ourselves inside our pain.

To let grief speak.
To let God meet us there.
And then, slowly, sometimes very slowly, to practice turning our faces toward hope again.

Not All Easters Come at Once

And what that might teach us about faith, time, and belonging

Every year, somewhere between March and April, Easter arrives. Except it doesn’t arrive the same way for everyone.

Some years, Western churches celebrate the resurrection weeks before Eastern churches do. Other years, more rare and somehow more beautiful, they fall on the same day, like a quiet moment of global agreement.

If you’ve ever wondered why this happens, the answer is part astronomy, part history, and part the long story of a divided Church still holding the same hope.

But maybe more than anything, it reveals something about how faith lives in time.


The Calendar Beneath the Resurrection

Easter is what’s called a “movable feast,” meaning it doesn’t have a fixed date like Christmas. Instead, it’s tied to creation itself:

Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the spring equinox.

It’s poetic, really, light overcoming darkness, life emerging again, and the rhythm of resurrection written into the sky but here’s where things begin to diverge.

Western churches like the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations use the Gregorian calendar, which was introduced in 1582 to correct inaccuracies in the older system. Eastern churches like the Eastern Orthodox Church still calculate Easter using the older Julian calendar and additional traditional rules.

Same resurrection.
Different calendars.


More Than a Date Difference

At first glance, it can feel like a logistical quirk and just a matter of math but underneath it is something more tender. The split traces back, in part, to the Great Schism which was a fracture in the Church that was as much about culture, language, and power as it was about theology.

And yet, even across that divide, both traditions have held onto the same sacred center:

Christ is risen.

The dates may not align, but the hope does.


Faith That Isn’t Bound by Synchronization

There’s something quietly humbling about this. We like things to line up. We like clarity, agreement, shared rhythm.

But Easter reminds us that resurrection doesn’t depend on our synchronization. It isn’t less true because it’s celebrated on a different Sunday. It isn’t diminished because the world marks it in different ways.

If anything, it expands the witness.

Across continents, across traditions, and across languages, over the course of several weeks, the same story is told again and again:

Death does not get the final word. Love does not stay buried. Hope rises.


A Trauma-Informed Lens on Time and Resurrection

If we step into this through a trauma-informed lens, there’s something even more meaningful here. Healing doesn’t happen on a fixed timeline. Resurrection, in our own lives, doesn’t come on a scheduled Sunday.

Some people experience renewal early like an early Easter. Others are still in the long stretch of Holy Saturday, waiting, aching, wondering if anything will rise again. Different timelines. Same possibility of life.

The Church, in its varied calendars, quietly reflects this truth: God is not confined to a single moment in time. Resurrection meets us where we are.


When Our Presence Becomes Easter

And maybe this is where it turns personal because if Easter is not just a date but a reality, then it’s something we can carry.

We can become people who hold resurrection space for others.

People whose presence says:
There is still life here.
There is still hope, even if you can’t feel it yet.
You are not too late.

In that way, we become a kind of living Easter, not tied to a calendar, but rooted in a Person.


A Gentle Invitation

This year, whether your Easter comes early or late and whether it feels full of joy or still marked by waiting, you are not outside the story.

Resurrection is not a single day.

It is a promise that keeps finding us in different seasons, on different timelines, and in ways we don’t always expect.

And somehow, across all our differences, the Church still whispers the same truth:

Christ is risen.
He is risen indeed.

We Were Never Meant to Carry It Alone

There is a quiet lie many of us learn early:
Be strong. Don’t need too much. Figure it out yourself.

It can sound responsible. Mature. Faithful, even. But it is not the story Scripture tells. From the very beginning, God looks at a world still untouched by sin and says something is not good:

“It is not good for the human to be alone.”

Before failure. Before fracture. Before fear. Loneliness was already named as a burden too heavy to carry solo.

Community is not a bonus feature of faith. It is part of God’s design for how we survive, heal, and remain human.

The Myth of Self-Sufficiency

Somewhere along the way, many of us were taught, explicitly or subtly, that needing others is a weakness. That mature faith looks like quiet endurance. That prayer replaces people.

But even Jesus did not live that way.

He gathered friends.
He ate with them.
He wept in front of them.
And on the night of His deepest anguish, He asked them to stay awake with Him.

Jesus did not say, “I’ve got this. Go home.” He said, “Remain with me.”

If the Son of God did not choose isolation, why do we believe holiness requires it?

Why Community Heals What Faith Alone Cannot

God absolutely meets us in solitude. But healing often requires witnesses.

There are places inside us that only soften when they are seen. Grief that loosens when it is named out loud. Shame that shrinks when it is met with compassion. Fear that quiets when someone steady stays near.

Community does not fix us. It holds us.

Scripture reminds us: “Carry one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.”

Notice the word carry, not advise, correct, or rush through. Carry implies weight. Time. Shared effort.

Some burdens are simply too heavy for one nervous system, one heart, one body to hold.

The Risk and the Gift of Letting Others In

Community is beautiful. And it is risky. People disappoint us. Misunderstand us. Leave. Some of us learned early that connection comes with cost.

So we adapt. We manage alone. We spiritualize our isolation and call it strength. But avoidance is not the same as safety.

True community does not mean constant closeness or forced vulnerability. It means chosen connection. Safe people. Honest pacing. Mutual care.

It might look like:

  • One friend who knows the real story
  • A small group where you don’t have to perform
  • A counselor, pastor, or spiritual director who can hold what feels too heavy
  • A table where laughter and lament are both welcome

Community grows slowly. Gently. With consent.

And it often begins with a quiet, brave prayer: “God, show me who is safe.”

You Are Not a Burden

If you’ve ever held back because you didn’t want to be “too much,” hear this clearly:

Your need does not disqualify you from belonging.
Your weariness does not make you a burden.
Your longing for connection is not a failure of faith.

It is evidence that you are human.

And God, again and again, chooses to meet human need through human presence.

The early church understood this instinctively. They shared meals. Resources. Tears. Hope.
Not because life was easy but because it was hard.

Community was how they endured.

A Gentle Invitation

You don’t have to build community all at once.
You don’t have to trust everyone.
You don’t have to tell your whole story today.

But you might consider this small step:

Who is one person you could let a little closer?
One place you could show up as you are, not as who you think you should be?

God often answers prayers for strength by offering companionship.

May you notice the hands reaching toward you.
May you have the courage to reach back.
And may you remember on the days it feels hardest: You were never meant to carry it alone.

Melanin Is Not a Moral Category

There are moments when faith calls us to slow down and return to what is most essential.

At the heart of Christian belief is a simple, sacred truth: every human being is created in the image of God. This is not a metaphor. It is a theological claim about worth, dignity, and belonging. Before we hold opinions, assumptions, or fears, we are first image-bearers who are made, known, and loved by God.

“So God created humankind in his image; in the image of God he created them.”
—Genesis 1:27

To see another person as an image-bearer is to recognize that their life carries inherent value, independent of how familiar they feel to us or how easily we understand their story. It invites us to look beyond the surface and trust that God’s handiwork is present in every face we encounter.

When Fear Distorts Our Vision

Scripture is honest about how easily fear can shape our perceptions. Fear narrows our vision. It tempts us to rely on appearances rather than truth, on assumptions rather than relationship. Over time, fear can harden into prejudice and a quiet distancing of the heart that keeps us from seeing others clearly.

But God consistently calls us away from that way of seeing.

“People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
—1 Samuel 16:7

God’s gaze is deeper, more patient, more discerning. And as people formed by faith, we are invited to let our vision be reshaped by God’s own way of seeing leads not to suspicion, but to compassion.

Love That Refuses Partiality

The New Testament speaks plainly about favoritism and fear-based judgments:

“My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism.”
—James 2:1

This is not a call to ignore difference, but to honor humanity within it. Difference was never meant to divide us into categories of worth. Instead, it reflects the breadth of God’s creativity and the richness of God’s world.

When we reject prejudice, we are not losing anything—we are recovering something precious: the ability to love our neighbor as ourselves.

A Gentle Turning of the Heart

Faith does not demand perfection from us, but it does invite reflection. It asks us to notice where fear has taken root, where assumptions have gone unchallenged, and where love may have grown cautious or selective.

Repentance, in its truest sense, is not about shame. It is about turning toward love again—toward truth, humility, and grace.

“Perfect love casts out fear.”
—1 John 4:18

As we move through a world marked by difference and division, may we be people who pause, who look again, and who choose to see one another as God does: with mercy, dignity, and deep respect.

Because when we honor the image of God in others, we also honor the God who made us all.