Wednesday, July 1, 2026

Supergirl

Kara Zor-El is an orphan, sent away as a child from the last city of Krypton to live on Earth like her cousin, Kal-El. She visits occasionally but spends more time on other worlds, trying to drown her pain in drink as she lives out a lonely existence in her spaceship with her dog, Krypto. One day, she encounters Ruthye, a girl bent on vengeance for her family, all of whom were murdered by the Brigands. Those same criminals will soon tranquilize Krypto, giving Kara just days to find them and the antidote. Kara and Ruthye both battle their inner demons as they wrestle with what it means to live in a broken world. Can Krypto be saved? What about their souls?

This film, the second entry in the DC Universe (DCU) after Superman, was darker than its predecessor (beware lots of violence and some language) but still wrestled with good questions and themes. Kara drowns her pain in addiction; Ruthye thirsts for vengeance. Both are wrong, both recognize that in the other, and both help each other find a better way. Ultimately, this film is about the reality of pain in our lives, helping each other through it, and doing good regardless of the pain done to you. Worthy themes indeed. I share more analysis (with spoilers) below.

Rating: B
----
Brief analysis (with spoilers)

Kara and Ruthye both have deep pain . . . and deep problems.
  • Kara doesn't really have a home . . . for her, home is wherever her dog Krypto is. Having left Krypton at a much older age than Superman, her heart is heavy. Her dying parents send her to Earth, where they know she will survive and have great power (drawn from any world with a yellow sun). Their message to her: "you must be good" and "protect the powerless." She does these things . . . sometimes. She carries her grief with her and would rather forget her cares in the bottom of a glass; when Ruthye asks her "When did you stop feeling angry?" Kara replies "any day now." She knows drinking won't solve it, but she keeps on.
  • Ruthye is consumed with anger and a desire for vengeance. Kara recognizes it immediately and tells her "revenge is overrated," reminding her several times that "revenge won't get you where you want to go" and "if you kill him [the one who murdered her family], it won't take your pain away." Ruthye retorts that drowning in drink isn't the right way, either.
As the two women travel together, they both learn to confront their own weaknesses through the rebukes of the other (which leads to a temporary falling out). They later recognize reality: "I wish it never happened . . . I wish it could go back to the way it was before . . ." but know they cannot. So how do they deal with things as they are? They walk with each other through the pain, and help each other see the light. 
  • Ruthye recognizes both the flaws and beauty in Kara, saying "you're not always perfect but you're good. Thank you for taking me with you." 
  • Kara helps Ruthye walk away from an opportunity for vengeance, arguing that "your family is with you. Your life will be your revenge." As Kara's parents encouraged earlier in the film to live and do good for the sake of her family, so now she exhorts Ruthye to do the same. 
Intriguingly, after Kara helps Ruthye walk away, she returns to the antagonist and stabs him twice. "This one is for my dog . . . and this one is for what you did to that girl's family." This seems to fly in the face of the 'don't take vengeance' message she just presented to Ruthye. Is that hypocrisy? Potentially; on the one hand, it sure seems like it. On the other, the bad guy makes it clear he is going to keep on doing terrible things, so Kara may be doing it as a form of justice. She could also be taking the vengeance on herself so Ruthye isn't burdened by it. It's an intriguing ending that makes you think.

At the end, Kara returns to Earth and meets her cousin. She decides it is time to stay on Earth for a while . . . she will no longer run from her pain.

Kara is an interesting character. Several times she has the opportunity to get the antidote, but saving others always comes first. She consistently displays both good and selfishness. Watching her wrestle with that is the focus (and highlight) of the film. 

Tuesday, June 30, 2026

Midterm Report

image from here
Reflecting is important (more on that here). We're halfway through 2026. Each year, I set and present my goals for the year in January. Today, I remind myself of the goals and look at how it's going.

Spiritual
- Meditate more.
- Love self-forgetfully.
- Be thankful.


I don't meditate nearly enough. Loving self-forgetfully varies by the day (or hour, honestly), but I am doing a better job keeping it in my mind. And same goes for thankfulness; better than it was, but not where it should be.

Nutritional/Fitness
- Keep weight under 180 lbs.
- Develop underused muscles.


Meh. I stand at 185 lbs this morning, the point around which I have been hovering all year. I have put some muscle back on (after last year's shoulder surgery), but I still believe 180 lbs is my ideal. Need to bear down and be more disciplined. For underused muscles, I am making some effort there but not enough.

Reading
- Read 40 books.

This one is going well; over halfway there and enjoying the hobby.

Household Management
- Minimize/declutter the home.

We've made some minor strides here, but much remains to be done. It is hard getting the kids on-board.

Overall
Things are going okay, but could be better. The trends are positive but work remains.

Grade: B-

Saturday, June 27, 2026

The Art of Asking Better Questions (J.R. Briggs)

"We live in a world that has conditioned us toward answers . . . asking good questions is a lost art." So begins J.R. Briggs in his book The Art of Asking Better Questions. An outline follows.

"Asking better questions is a mindset. It is a posture. A way of life." And when we ask more (and better) questions with genuine interest in, and love for, others, everyone wins. "Asking great questions has the power and potential to improve the quality of every single area of life—your relationships, your career, your faith, and your future." And so this book is "about questioning-asking, where we wseek to ask questions that emphasize honor, care, discovery, and growth."

Why do we ask questions? For clarity and engagement. To cultivate connection and intimacy. To "scrutinize our presuppositions and help to dismantle assumptions." The questions we ask reveal our values and shape our thoughts. Asking genuine questions means giving others attention, which is a gift and form of generosity; questions "make conversations go deeper and last longer."

The author's four essentials to asking great questions:
- Curiosity. "Curiosity shines a spotlight, brings awreness to our assumptions and blind spots, and opens doors."
- Wisdom. We must ask questions wisely. "The questions we ask, how we ask them, and why we ask them at all reveal a great deal about who we are at our very core."
- Humility. "Great question-askers are fully aware of and quite comfortable with their ignorance."
- Courage. We have "to be confident in our lack of knowing, to willfully admit we are ignorant about a particular topic."

And he provides the Four Levels of Good Questions:
- Level One: Questions for information (simple facts).
- Level Two: Questions for interaction (thoughts and emotions).
- Level Three: Questions for understanding (feelings and desires).
- Level Four: Questions for transformation (vulnerability and intimacy).

He then looks at various things, including:
- The questions we ask ourselves. What does that reveal? Do we assume others are asking the same questions?
- Why does God ask questions? What does that reveal about His heart? 
- Why does Jesus ask questions? Here, he looks at the centrality of questions in Jesus' life, the six reasons He asked lots of questions, the types of questions he asked, and more.
- What questions do we ask God? How does question-asking help spiritual formation?

He concludes with practical ways to ask better questions: nine ways to prepare, 20 practices you can do while asking questions, and how to look back and reflect.

He offers several resources in the back of the book, including a discussion guide, lists of questions to ask yourself, discussion questions for faith communities, and fascinating facts about the questions Jesus asked.
--------------
I liked a lot of things in this book. I need to ask better/higher-level questions, and this gave me the tools to help. It reminded me of the importance of good questions and how they cultivate connection and community. It was valuable to study how God asks questions. This is a good resource.

At the same time, the book got repetitive; he spends a lot of time across several chapters convincing us of the need for and benefit of questions. I was sold early, so that got old and muddled the distinctiveness of each chapter. This could have been shorter.

I did like that he offered lots of questions throughout the book; here are my three favorite:
How can I be helpful?
Do you want to be helped, hugged, or heard?
Why am I bothered right now? 

Rating: B

Tuesday, June 23, 2026

The Two Towers Deck-Building Game

Today's review is of the 2013 release, The Two Towers Deck-Building Game (hereafter, Towers DBG). For 2-5 players, it takes 30 minutes.

Overview
You are one of the heroes from The Two Towers movie; your goal is to have the most victory points. In this deck-building game, each player starts with a 10-card deck (one of which is based on your chosen hero) and draws 5 cards per turn. On your turn, you play the cards to gain power, with which you buy cards in the 'path' or defeat arch-villains; in either case, the chosen cards go into your discard pile, which is shuffled to make a new deck when you run out of cards. Over the course of the game, your hand will get increasingly powerful. Can you prevail?
The game contents; image from here
This game is a sister to The Fellowship of the Ring DBG and nearly identical; the only difference here is wall cards which provide an alternate way to end the game. 

Review
In the same game family as the DC Deck-building Game, this has all the pros and cons of that line. It is quick to learn, fun to play, and a little strange that you can buy villains from the path to incorporate into your deck (though thematically I can buy it if you look at it as 'gaining experience' from defeating them). The addition of wall cards was a helpful way to accelerate the game's end (sometimes these drag on). Overall, recommended for a light experience. 

Rating: A-

Saturday, June 20, 2026

Tournament at Avalon

Today's review is of the 2020 release, Tournament at Avalon. For 3-6 players, it takes 45 minutes.

Overview
You and your friends are invited to a tournament at Avalon, in the legendary time of King Arthur. Your goal is to have the highest health when the first person is eliminated (drops to zero health). Do you have the strength to prevail?

Tournament at Avalon is a trick-taking game . . . where you don't want to take tricks. You start with 400 health. Each player has a special protagonist and companion that grants them unique abilities (see below illustration). Companion abilities can be activated only after a player falls to or below the health level indicated on the companion card (and this varies by protagonist/companion). 
the protagonist/companion cards; image from here
Each round, players are dealt 12 weapon cards, passing three of their choice to their left (or right; it alternates). Then the player with the lowest health starts the first trick ('melee' in the game's parlance) by playing a card. In clockwise order, the other players follow suit (if they can) or play an alchemy card (wildcard) or special weapon card. If a player has no legal card to play, they are 'shamed,' discarding a card and taking 5 damage. The lowest number takes the trick, putting the card pile in front of them, then playing a card to start the next melee. Play continues in such fashion until one or more players have no cards left. Then each player tallies the damage from the cards they have taken (generally 5 points per card, but some do 10 or 25 points of damage), lowers their health total accordingly, and the godsend cards are dealt.

Godsend cards provide boons to players who are hurting, granting special abilities that can help them (or hurt others). These cards are dealt to players from lowest health on up; the number of players who get a card first depends on the total playing and the round. But then there is a second dealing of godsend cards if the current leader is 100 or more health points ahead of others, so it is possible for players to draw more than one godsend card per round.

The game ends whenever a person drops to zero health (probably after a round completes). Then the players with the highest health wins!

Review
This is a sister game to 2017's Tournament at Camelot, with largely the same rules and basic weapon cards, but with new character/companion pairs and godsend cards. The games (or cards in them) can be mixed and matched to suit your fancy, or combined to play with 7-8 players.

Overall, this one was okay. Thought I rated the sister game highly, this one felt too complex and chaotic/confusing when you added the godsend cards. (I looked at Camelot's godsend cards and found them a touch simpler.) It has its fun moments, but seems to drag on interminably (it took way longer than 45 minutes). It was fun to have new protagonist/companion abilities, so I'm tempted to just pull those out, put them in with the Camelot game . . . we'll see. This one is okay, but check out Camelot first if you like Arthurian lore and trick-taking games.

Rating: B-

Tuesday, June 16, 2026

A Field Guide on Gender and Sexuality (Ligonier Ministries)

This book, produced by Ligonier Ministries, "offers biblical answers to questions about gender, sexuality, and identity." It is separated into four categories with seven questions in each:
  • Being Human
  • Homosexuality and Transgenderism 
  • Events and Associations
  • The Gospel and Love
Topics include (but are not limited to) what it means to be made in God's image, the purpose of sex, thoughts on identity, sex, gender, and same-sex attraction, attending certain events, showing compassion, and more.

This work is a solid starting point for people seeking to learn what the Bible says on these hot-button topics. In general, it does a good job. Relevant Scriptures are presented well. In some places, the answers felt overly stark and perhaps not as nuanced as wisdom would require (I questioned an answer or two). And there is more to be said on these matters (but it is an introduction, so brevity is expected). Overall, recommended.

Rating: B+

Friday, June 12, 2026

Jack (Marilynne Robinson)

Jack is a love story. It is about John Boughton, a hopeless ne'er-do-well and preacher's son, and his relationship with Della Miles, a teacher and bishop's daughter. Set in post-WWII St. Louis, their interracial romance is illegal; Jack must navigate this tense situation while he deals with his own self-loathing and checkered past.

Jack is hopeless. "No one had done him any real harm, except himself." He clings to Robert Frost's verse as a life summary:
I have been one acquainted with the night.
I have walked out in rain—and back in rain.
After a stint in prison (ironically for a crime he did not commit), he lives in a sort of self-imposed exile, living off his brothers' generosity and spending time doing odd jobs, being a bum, engaging in petty theft, or alcoholism. He believes that "he had nothing to give anyone, that his life was an intricate tangle of futility . . ." and takes to keeping away from people, figuring that "keeping his distance was a favor, a courtesy, to all those strangers who might, probably would, emerge somehow poorer for proximity to him." Intensely lonely, he wonders "How do people live?" Then came Miss Della Miles.

Della has bright prospects, fraught though they be with the realities of being a colored woman in that era. She has been to college, has strong family support, and has her life ahead of her. Through a series of odd events, Jack and Della meet and, shockingly, enjoy each other's company. They fall in love. Jack realizes "that there is nothing more I want from life. If I could imagine an eternity of sitting here with you talking nonsense, there'd be nothing more I would want . . . " But their relationship is star-crossed from the start as Jack wrestles with his past and how/why good should come to him, and what it means to love and be loved.

Jack tries to push Della away. He warns her: "I'm ridiculous. It never changes. Every day is a new proof." "I'm ruining things. I do that. I try to keep to myself, and it happens, anyway." He wrestles with her love and grace: "Flourishing seemed wrong in a man so disheartened as he was." He confesses to a pastor: "forgiveness scares me. It seems like a kind of antidote to regret, and there are things I haven't regretted sufficiently." He is confronted with the reality that "Shame was a very old habit with him. He had long considered it pentitential, payment extracted in the form of steady, tolerable misery, against a debt he would never settle."

As Jack wrestles, Della sticks by his side. His pastor reminds him that the good things he does are just as much a part of him as his failures. And that there is grace for the latter: "If the Lord thinks you need punishing, you can trust Him to see to it. He knows where to find you. If He's showing you a little grace in the meantime, He probably won't mind if you enjoy it." In this world where guilt and grace meet, what should be his focus?
----------
Set in the same world as her other novels (Gilead, Home, and Lila), it was a delight to find out more about the wayward son that was mentioned in them. As with the others, here Robinson writes powerfully and poetically on themes of brokenness and grace. She does that well. That said, I wish a few things were different:
- one scene dragged on interminably
- it was sometimes hard to follow the chronology of events; I couldn't tell the flashbacks from the current storyline in places. I couldn't tell if that was deliberate (an echo of Jack's internal confusion) or unintentional
- the racial theme wasn't covered nearly as much as Jack's internal wrestlings, making it seem mildly imbalanced
- you never see Jack and Della come home to Gilead; I had hoped for that (which was covered in Home) to be examined from his perspective

Overall, though, this remains an excellent and worthy read. I was engrossed and enchanted.

Rating: A-

Monday, June 8, 2026

Agricola

Today's review is of the 2007 release, Agricola. For 1-5 players, it takes 30-150 minutes.

Overview
You are a farming couple struggling to survive. Starting with a plot of land and wooden shack, your goal is to survive—no, thrive—by building the homestead through plowing and sowing, animal husbandry, home improvement/expansion, and maybe even a trade or two. If you have the most points at the end of the game (14 rounds), you win!

Agricola is a worker placement game. You start with two workers, a 3x5 homestead with two wooden shacks on it, and a common board with ten possible placement positions to start. On your turn, you place one worker on an available slot and collect the resource(s) or perform the action shown. Players proceed clockwise, placing workers until all are on the board. Then workers are removed, resources replenish (additively if none are taken in a given round), a new placement option comes out, and the next round begins (unless it's harvest time—see below). 

Placement options include (but are not limited to) collecting resources (wood, brick, reed, ore, wheat, food, etc.), obtaining animals (sheep, cattle, boar), building (fences, stables, additions to the home), growing the family, plowing fields, sowing crops, and more. You could also play occupation or minor improvement cards (which are dealt randomly at the start of the game), which can provide much-needed assistance. You could also buy a major improvement (like a stove that allows you to turn animals into food); the possibilities are many. You'll need resources of all kinds, so place wisely!
game in progress; image from here
After rounds 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14, it is harvest time. Each player harvests their fields (if applicable), feeds their family (paying two food per member or taking begging card(s) if they cannot), and breeds their animals (if possible). 

At the end of round 14 there is a final harvest and then points are tallied. Highest total wins!

Review
I was excited to finally play this classic game; I wasn't disappointed. It is brutal (I couldn't feed my family one harvest and it cost me), and there is a lot going on, but there are always meaningful choices and interesting options. Replayability is high due to the 1) variability of placement cards and 2) occupation/minor improvement cards. As a new player, I felt like I was stabbing in the dark at a strategy, but I got the hang of things as the game progressed (and sense that your occupation/minor improvement cards go a long way towards dictating how you play a given game). There is a sense of urgency with only 14 rounds, making it play quickly.

A minor downside: the first player definitely has an advantage each round, and you need to spend a worker to take that mantle. Overall, though, this time-tested classic (which saw a revised version released in 2016, many expansions, and a deluxe version come out in the last year) is a winner.

Rating: A-

Friday, June 5, 2026

Masters of the Universe

Prince Adam's world is shattered as a child when Skeletor invades Eternia. Years later, Adam lives in exile on Earth, desperately seeking the sword of power that will enable him to return and fight back. When he makes his return, he is shocked at the state of his world. But he is just Adam—always weak, always the runt. Does he have the power?

I enjoyed this movie much more than I expected. It is nostalgic and the humor is good (but doesn't make sense unless you are familiar with the eighties television show). It is delightfully (and intentionally) corny in places—it doesn't hesitate to make fun of itself (and in so doing, the cartoon of old). It has a few spots of language and innuendo, which I found mystifying and out of place with the intent. But it also packs a surprisingly deep message. 

This film seems to both reflect and reject post-modern thinking. Adam learns that power is not necessarily brute force—that kindness and empathy are powerful in their own right—but at the same time, there is evil in the world that can't be cured with therapy or listening; there are Skeletors out there that need to be defeated with power. In this sense, the movie is a mix of stark eighties moralism (which featured heavily in the cartoon) and a more modern emphasis on compassion and understanding. And, surprisingly, I think they got the right mix.

Rating: B+

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

Daredevil: Lockdown

Continuing from last time . . .

Daredevil is still behind bars, and Elektra is still acting in his stead. But things are coming to a head in Hell's Kitchen . . . Bullseye is on the loose, seemingly everywhere and terrorizing the city. Mayor Wilson Fisk isn't happy with the new Kingpin and puts things in motion to handle the situation. And Daredevil uncovers a plot that may unleash yet another plague on the city . . .

This volume was in line with the others: solid. This is a mild ending of sorts, with Matt coming to grips with who he is and what he must do ("what's right"), even if that is a bit wishy-washy (as the standard is never defined). Still, I was intrigued by one of his conclusions: that maybe what his enemies need isn't punishment but grace and contentment. It's not fully the gospel, but it's on the path.

Rating: A-

Tuesday, June 2, 2026

Go Spurs Go

They did it . . . again. For the seventh time in the past 28 years, the San Antonio Spurs are headed to the NBA Finals. As a Spurs fan since the David Robinson era, I've long admired their [now retired but still influential] Coach Pop, the teamwork they embody, and attitude, even after their championship runs with Tim Duncan ended (in 2016) and they started missing the playoffs (from 2020-2025, after making them for 22 years prior). Now . . . they're back! This post celebrates a great team and season.
How were they built? Mostly through the draft (see here for more details). The depth chart above shows the roster. The players were acquired via:
  • draft: Stephon Castle, Devin Vassell, Victor Wembanyana, Dylan Harper, Keldon Johnson, Carter Bryant 
  • trade: De'Aaron Fox, Harrison Barnes, Jordan McLaughlin, Kelly Olynyk
  • free agency: Julian Champagnie, Luke Kornet, Bismack Biyombo, Mason Plumlee, Lindy Waters III
As they did with Tim Duncan in 2002, the Spurs 'lucked out' in draft lottery positioning, enabling them to get Wemby first overall in 2023, Castle fourth overall in 2024, and Harper second overall in 2025. The first two won Rookie of the Year in their respective campaigns. But it's not all about the draft . . . free agents and trades are often necessary to round things out. The Spurs have key contributors from both spheres, but none more important than De'Aaron Fox, who came over from Sacramento via trade last season.

Who are their stars? The Big Four are Wemby (the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year and MVP runner-up), Fox, Castle, and Harper. These four players give the Spurs a formidable center and deep backcourt (which also includes Keldon Johnson, the NBA's Sixth Man of the Year). Though not at the same level, the Spurs also have solid forwards in Vassell, Champagnie, Bryant, and Barnes.
Wemby and Fox (image from here)
Castle and Harper (image from here)
What does the future hold? Who knows, of course. Game One in this year's finals is on Wednesday, and the Knicks are formidable. (Sidenote: this is also a rematch of the 1998-99 Finals.) But beyond this year, the team is young and should be competitive for years to come. Do we have another Spurs dynasty on our hands? Far too early to say. But the future is bright in San Antonio . . . go Spurs go!

Sunday, May 31, 2026

Why You Think the Way You Do (Glenn Sunshine)

In Why You Think the Way You Do, Glenn Sunshine traces the history and evolution of western worldviews "from Rome to Home." His interest "is in the fundamental ideas that shaped the culture and how those ideas were lived out in Western society" and "with the impact Christianity had on worldviews and thus on culture." A summary follows.

"A worldview is the framework you use to interpret the world and your place in it." Worldviews operate "below the radar, behind the scenes, guiding our thoughts, words, and actions and only rarely being examined or analyzed." And "to understand a culture or civilization, you have to understand its wordview."

Ancient Rome
Rome had a variety of religions, most of which were pagan. Its pantheon was ever-growing as it would absorb the deities of those it conquered. Most of its gods were "feared, not loved." "Religious rituals were designed to appease deities, not please them." In this era, Plato and his teachings had a huge role. In Platonism, "ideas are the foundation for reality, [so] clear thinking and logic are the best approaches to understanding the world." It wasn't about observation but logic. He believed that "spirit was superior to matter" and had a hierarchy of being that started with the One ("a being of pure spirit"), from whom all other deities came. (Humans were down on the list, but above animals and plants.) Aristotle (also influential) would follow suit in his logic over observation approach.

Within the Empire, Jews had a different deity. "The God of Israel . . . is personal and created the world as a voluntary act." And "God created humanity in his image as his steward and regent in overseeing the rest of the created world." Eventually, a Jewish sect—Christianity—would arise that held the same beliefs (plus others, obviously, including holding Jesus as Lord and Savior). Christians claimed that their God was alone the only God—an exclusivity claim that didn't go over well in a pluralistic society. They would be persecuted for centuries . . . until Constantine.

The Roman Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, making Christianity a legal religion. He is said to have converted himself. And "the transition from being a persecuted minority religion to being the favored faith of the emperor inevitably forged ties between church and state that have been a driving force in Western political life ever since." And when the Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476, the church—often the only administrative unit left in a city—would fill the vacuum.

Medieval World
The church and state influenced each other after Constantine. After Rome fell, a "blending of Germanic and Roman cultures with Christianity . . . occurred across the board in all areas of life during these centuries. The different strands influenced each other and gradually blended together to form a new worldview . . " Little survives from that time (hence "Dark Ages"), though of course development continued in many spheres. Platonic humanism arose, and around this time, the works of Aristotle were (re)discovered, leading to scholasticism (a method of study). People viewed it as "safer and more reliable to build our understanding of the world on the base of ancient authorities." But this had its issues, too, and the Condemnations of 1277 "liberated thinking from its slavish dependence on Aristotle." Ultimately, 
The medieval mind assumed that the rational God created a rational universe and that human beings, made in the image of God, were rational as well and could undersatnd the universe. Although they believed that miracles could occur, they also believed that God idd not need to intervene actively for the world to function normally. God created it to operate in a certain way, and the rules that governed its behavior could be discovered by human investigation. Contrary to the assumptions of classical thinkers . . . the best method of learning about the world was not deductive reasoning but direct study and examination fo the world . . [which] laid the foundation for [science].
Christian thoughts influenced other spheres of worldview, too. Ideas that the physical world was real, it and work were inherently good, and property rights were important, all came from the Bible. Augustine, an important thinker of the period, developed ideas of the "City of God" (based on love of God and neighbor) and "City of Man" (based on love of self) which explained the good (and evil) in the world and how society could function with both being true. 

"Starting in the late 1400s, however, Europe was jolted by a series of movements and discoveries that threatened the underlying pillars of medieval thought. The Italian Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the European discovery of the Americas, and the rediscovery of an ancient form of skepticism set the stage for momentous changes in the European worldview."

Renaissance, Reformation, and the New World
Based in part on a calamitious fourteenth century (which included "economic decline, continent-wide crop failures, the Hundred Years War, . . . [and] the Black Death"), some "began to argue that Rome was the epitome of civilization, and when Rome fell, civilization ended." They were obsessed with classical civilization (Greece and Rome), but still drew a lot of their approach from medieval times. Like the era that preceded them, they believed "that truth existed and could be known with certainty. They also believed (obviously) that the best guide to truth was the past, and that a unified system of truth could be found by studying past authors, aiming at a grand synthesis of all human knowledge." But they encountered a problem: as they studied the past, Renaissance thinkers found that the scholars of bygone eras didn't agree. This was on problem in the time (more on this below).

Another challenge was the Protestant Reformation. They looked to the Bible as the sole authority (and not the Papacy or tradition) and "insisted that all believers are priests" (and thus elevated 'secular' roles to being sacred callings, too). In some cases, "the lines between civil and ecclesiastical functions blurred," which could mean enforcing moral standards. The rise of competing churches made people question which was right, and religious wars followed (to include the English Civil War and the Thirty Years' War). Those horrific experiences led people to start questioning if we could truly be certain of religion . . . or anything.

Finally, the discovery of the New World challenged peoples' worldview as it raised troubling questions about God and the Bible (because how could Native Americans, having not been exposed to the Gospel for centuries, possibly be saved?). This, plus the above issues and the discovery of an ancient thinker, Pyrrho (who claimed that knowing anything with certainty was impossible), further stressed the worldview.

Scientific Revolution, Deism, and Enlightenment
A slew of thinkers arose (Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, and Newton among others) who "used both science and Scripture" in their investigations and debates. Collectively, these "laid the foundation for a new epistemology in Europe." "Although the past was respected, scholars increasingly believed that they could build on and improve on past authors, and even prove them wrong. The ancients were no longer 'authorities' but merely people who wrote down ideas that might be right or wrong. Study, analysis, and, where possible, testing became more important than simply citing Aristotle. In short, the idea of progress emerged, and with it, a greater optimisim about human potential." The Christian underpinning remained (a rational God made a rational world that we as rational creatures can understand), which still left "room for supernatural intervention," but a shift was coming.

In the early seventeenth century, there was a shift to looking for exclusively rational explanations of the world, and "a similar trend toward reason occurred in religion." In addition, "many people began to think of religious passions as politically and socially dangerous." A new worldview called deism arose.

In traditional/orthodox Christianity, God was understood to be infinite, creator/sustainer of the universe, transcendent yet immanent/personal and relational. Deists believed some of this . . . to them, "God is infinite but not personal; he is creator but the universe operates on its own without any involvement by God; and he is transcendent but not immanent." Deists "believed that reason was the only guide to turth in any area of life, including religion." They respected the ethics in the Bible but "did not accept its miracles, answered prayers, and interventionist view of God."

In other areas, reason also took precedence. In economics, politics, philosophy, and other areas, "knowledge came exclusively from human reason and could be expected to grow and improve over time, based on the further accumulation of experience." The "material world was the only one that mattered." They still had some underlying Christian influence, however, like "the idea of inalienable, God-given rights, which led to the Enlightenment emphasis on life, liberty, property, and virtue." And the idea of original sin was retained (especially in America), leading to our founders establishing a government with checks and balances since humans are so easily corrupted. But things were still changing, and modernity was coming.

Modernity
Our modern worldview came about in the nineteenth century. Many were functionally deistic, and in that view, God was only there to create the universe. "If another alternative can be found to explain how the universe got here, we can safely eliminate God from the system altogether." In that case, what we would be left with was "a world consisting only of matter and energy—a metaphysical system known as naturalism or materialism." 

Related is the idea of what science is. It used to mean simply knowledge, but now came to refer to only studies that followed the scientific method. "Now only things that could be tested and confirmed through the scientific method qualified as real knowledge; everything else was dismissed as subjective or irrelevant." Given some successes in the natural sciences, this gave rise to "the attempt to apply the scientific methods to solve social problems" in many other fields of study. 

Enter Charles Darwin. His theories lent credence to the naturalistic position, though (interestingly) "Darwinism is not itself subject to the scientific method any more than anything in history is. The past is over; you cannot revisit it, observe it, test it, or experiment on it. All you can do is look at the surviving evidence and try to make sense of it." Ultimately, this shows that "Darwinism is not a scientific theory but a worldview assumption, and as such, it is not falsifiable." It is an article of faith that serves as a presupposition, and it along with materialism had broad implications for other fields.

What about meaning in life? The materialistic worldview "disenchanted" the world. "Materialism provides a ready answer to the question of the meaning or purpose of life: there is none." This leads to nihilism, but since that is hard for most to stomach, more people week to "re-enchant" and embraced existentialism ("nihilism-lite"), which "means that we are radically free to determine what we do and who we are." Things matter—because we say so (since we have rejected other authorities).

Postmodernism
Two horrific World Wars and other calamities in the twentieth century led people to re-think a purely materialistic view. Maybe there is right and wrong . . . but if there is some truth out there that cannot be scientifically proven . . . how do we learn it? Enter deconstructionism—in literature, that is "the idea that texts can be deconstructed and reconstructed as suits the reader." That can be applied to other things, too. If knowing is impossible, we can at least make our own meaning. Postmodern thought "is deconstructionism-lite," rejecting objective truth and insisting on cultural/moral relativity, but holding to "the idea that truth is relative and personal." 

Hence we arrive at present day. "You alone decide what is true and false, right and wrong, for yourself. The only limitation is that you can do nothing that infringes on someone else's freedom." The greatest virtue in such a system? Tolerance. "Not only can you not do anything that limits another's freedom . . . you cannot suggest that there is anything wrong with what they decide to do with their freedom." And not only can you not criticize another, but competing views "must be positively affirmed and celebrated." Which leads to all manner of things, including self-determination of identity, gender, and so on. Where are we now? In many ways, back at Rome, with many of their cultural practices and values being embraced in the public square.

-----
At only 215 pages, this book obviously only skimmed the surface of worldviews and how they have changed over the centuries. That said, it is an excellent work. Sunshine writes well and has a gift for explaining things succinctly and clearly. While I would have preferred some more exploration of the nuances associated with each period, I appreciate that this is intended to be an introduction only. In that, it succeeds. Highly recommended for those interesting in learning more about "how we got here."

Rating: A

Thursday, May 28, 2026

DC Deck-Building Game: Rebirth

Today's review is of the 2019 release, DC Deck-Building Game: Rebirth. For 1-4 players, it takes 45-90 minutes.

Overview
Like all games in the DC Deck-Building Game line, Rebirth is a deck-builder where you all start with the same 10-card hand, drawing 5 to play each turn (which give you some combination of power and movement) and discarding used cards. You add cards by 'purchasing' them from the lineup (putting them in your discard pile) as the game progresses to strengthen future choices (once empty, a new draw pile is formed from the shuffled discard pile; the linked game review explains more). 

But Rebirth differs from most DC:DBG expansions in three important ways:
1) it has locations and your character must move between them to achieve objectives (and buy cards),
2) it can be played as a cooperative experience,
3) it is scenario-based, with eight options, and can be played as a campaign (where information from prior games is retained and used in future ones).
Do you and your friends have what it takes to win each scenario?

Review
This felt like The DC Deck-Building Game meets Marvel United. It was busy, but I liked it—perhaps better than the normal game. Cooperative is fun, and I liked how here you do not buy villains but attack them when they are in the lineup; a more intuitive concept than the original (where you can buy heroes and villains alike for your deck). It would have benefitted from a game board to guide card placement, and I cannot speak to all scenarios (I played only the first), but I enjoyed what I experienced. Recommended.

Rating: A

Friday, May 22, 2026

The Mandalorian and Grogu

Shortly after season 3 of The Mandalorian television series and paraphrasing the opening crawl (found here):
Though the Empire has fallen (this is set after Return of the Jedi), Imperial warlords remain scattered throughout the galaxy. As the fledgling New Republic works to secure systems, they have enlisted the help of the Mandalorian and his young apprentice Grogu to hunt down these criminals in the Outer Rim. 
Here, Mando and Grogu get their hardest mission yet: tracking an elusive warlord whose whereabouts are known by the Hutts. But to get their cooperation, Mando has to do them a favor . . . and can the Hutts be trusted?

There was a lot I enjoyed about this film. I love the time period, it was fun seeing more of the Hutts (and some characters that appeared in previous series or films), the effects were good, some of the characters/moments were amusing, and the overall message was outstanding. Mando summarizes with this line:
The old protect the young. Then the young protect the old. This is the way.
That theme of sacrificing for the good of others is powerful.

I didn't love everything. It was scarier/darker in places than I expected (lots of monsters; beware if your kids are watching). The delivery was quite linear with no side-stories or sub-plots; it had points where it plodded along as a result. It didn't do much to close out the overall story of the title characters, which seemed bizarre. But my main complaint: this felt like two episodes of the television show stitched together, with a climax about halfway followed by a long dead period as the next storyline built up. 

Ultimately, this movie felt like they starting planning a fourth season of the television show, then abandoned that and decided to make a movie instead. I think it would have been better (and more powerful) as a mini-season. If you're a Mando fan, watch this, but you can wait until it hits Disney+.

Rating: B

Wednesday, May 20, 2026

How (Not) to be Secular (James K.A. Smith)

In 2007, Philosopher Charles Taylor published A Secular Age, “a book that offers a genealogy of the secular and an archaeology of our angst.” It looks at where we are and how we got here. And his approach is “not concerned with what people believe as much as with what is believable.”

In 2014, Theologian James K.A. Smith published How (Not) to be Secular, which is "a book about a book—a small field guide to a much larger scholarly tome." It takes Taylor's magisterial 900-page work and boils it down to a 133-page guide.

In 2026, amateur blogger John Mark McLean published this post, which is a 3-page summary of the book that summarizes Taylor. (I dare you to summarize my summary of Smith's summary of Taylor.)
---------
We live in a secular age. But what is that? Taylor defines three kinds of secular.

Secular1: in classical/medieval times, temporal or earthly things (which presupposes a sacred/secular divide).

Secular2: “a nonsectarian, neutral, and areligious space or standpoint.” (Which presupposes such a stance is possible.) Here, people grow disenchanted with religion, believing it to be irrational and divisive, and argue it is possible to “be governed by universal, neutral rationality.”

Secular3: Here, “religious belief or belief in God is understood to be one option among others, and thus contestable (and contested). At issue here is a shift in ‘conditions of belief.’”

He believes we inhabit a Secular3 age that masquerades as a Secular2 age. It claims neutrality and poses as a natural shift away from religion that brings a positive benefit. Being secular is “not just unbelief,” however. “The emergence of the secular is also bound up with the production of a new option—the possibility of exclusive humanism as a viable social imaginary—a way of constructing meaning and significance without any reference to the divine or transcendence.” Our underlying framework has changed. So what happened?

In medieval times, Taylor argues its social imaginary contained three things:
  1. “The natural world was constituted as a cosmos that functioned . . . as a sign that pointed beyond itself, to what was more than nature.”
  2. “Society itself was understood as something grounded in a higher reality; earthly kingdoms were grounded in a heavenly kingdom.”
  3. “People lived in an enchanted world, a world ‘charged’ with presences, that was open and vulnerable, not closed and self-sufficient.”
Over centuries, there was a shift (due to a host of factors, including the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Reformation). In modernity, he sees five elements:
  1. “Disenchantment and the ‘Buffered’ Modern Self.” Things have natural causes/explanations, it’s more about our mind and interpretation, and we are insulated/isolated.
  2. “Living Social.” Individuals “are the locus of meaning . . . [so] disbelief no longer has social consequences.”
  3. “The carnival is over: ‘Lowering the Bar’ for Flourishing.” Instead of “trying to maintain an equilibrium between the demands of creaturely life and the expectations for eternal life,” the modern age says “you can stop being burdened by what eternity/salvation demands and simply frame ultimate flourishing within this world.”
  4. “The Fullness of Time.” There used to be the notion that “time is transcended by ‘higher’ time” which is “not merely chronological or linear.” But here, “nothing ‘higher’ impinges on our calendars—only the tick-tock of chronos, and the self-imposed burdens of our ‘projects.’”
  5. “From Cosmos to Universe.” “The shift from cosmos to universe—from ‘creation’ to ‘nature’—makes it possible to now imagine meaning and significance as contained within the universe itself, and autonomous, independent ‘meaning’ that is unhooked from any sort of transcendent narrative.”
And the tide kept turning. He talks about other shifts, including a “fourfold process of ‘immanentization.’”
  • A shift away from “a sense of obligation ‘beyond’ human flourishing” [Christians say “thy will be done” of God] to “a new emphasis: providence is primarily about ordering this world for mutual benefit, particularly economic benefit.”
  • A shift away from needing grace to “we can figure this out without assistance.”
  • A shift away from God’s inscrutability/mysterious ways to “mystery can no longer be tolerated.”
  • A shift away from the idea that God is transforming us (making all things new!). “We lose the sense that humanity’s end transcends its current configurations . . .”
He also sees a shift in politics to a “modern moral order” which “amounts to an ordering of society for mutual benefit” but is “unhooked from the specifics of Christian doctrines and tethered to a more generic deistic god,” making it “independent of any specific—and hence contestable—claims about . . . God.” “The ultimate and transcendent are retained but marginalized and made increasingly irrelevant.” This “is a kind of secularization of Christian universalism.”

He sees the shift in religion, too. To a view that God is impersonal and inactive.

What do these shifts mean in aggregate? It has changed “what we take for granted.”

Aside: we all live with “an unchallenged framework” that “becomes part of the background that governs our being-in-the-world.” And that “our ‘take’ is not something reasoned to as much as it is something we reason from.” All of us live with basic orientations that (no matter how seemingly ‘neutral’) are value-laden. What do you consider uncontestable (or uncritically accept)? That is a clue to your framework. Nobody is intellectually independent; we all serve some authority, even if we don’t recognize it.

Where are we today? The shifts mentioned above have produced a different imaginary (what Taylor calls “exclusive humanism”). And yet “Our secular age is [not] an age of disbelief; it’s an age of believing otherwise. We can’t tolerate living in a world without meaning. So if the transcendence that previously gave significance to the world is lost, we need a new account of meaning—a new ‘imaginary’ that enables us to imagine a meaningful life within this now self-sufficient universe of gas and fire.” And while some “assume that this is just ‘the way things are,’ in fact what we take for granted is contingent and contestable.” And we all contest it, in our own way, as we sense something has been lost. “’We moderns’ are not entirely comfortable with modernity.”

So we live in a time “where ‘the secular’ and ‘the religious’ haunt each other in a mutual dance of displacement and decentering.” Indeed, “our age is haunted. On the one hand, we live under a brass heaven, ensconced in immanence. We live in the twilight of both gods and idols. But their ghosts have refused to depart, and every once in a while we might be surprised to find ourselves tempted by belief, by intimations of transcendence . . . on the other hand, even as faith endures in our secular age, believing doesn’t come easy. Faith is fraught; confession is haunted by an inescapable sense of its contestability. We don’t believe instead of doubting; we believe while doubting. We’re all Thomas now.”

What is the result of this mutual haunting? A “nova effect”—“an explosion of options for finding (or creating) ‘significance’” because “all sorts of people find themselves caught” in “’cross-pressures’—pushed by the immanence of disenchantment on one side, but also pushed by a sense of significance and transcendence on another side, even if it might be a lost transcendence.” This book’s ultimate argument “is that most of live in this cross-pressured space, where both our agnosticism and our devotion are mutually haunted and haunting.” We have “doubt and longing, faith and questioning.”

Where to from here? How should the Christian respond? Perhaps not by focusing on evidence or data (which in a sense concedes the game and points to human reason as the highest ideal) “but rather to offer an alternative story that offers a more robust, complex understanding of the Christian faith”. Ultimately “the appeal is to a ‘sense,’ a feel for things.” “It is not demonstrable except insofar as it offers a better account of our experience.”
---------
Smith's book is great; I assume Taylor's is, too. A highly useful guide to understanding our times. Recommended.

Rating: A

Monday, May 18, 2026

The Lost Tales of Sir Galahad (Various)

In Howard Pyle's The Story of the Grail and the Passing of Arthur, the author mentions that Sir Galahad had many adventures "of which no account hath been given" before he achieved the Grail. Rejoice . . . for account hath now been given! In this collection from Rabbit Room Press, 25 authors provide as many stories of what happened in that time, claiming discovery of "a hidden trove of medieval manuscripts" that finally shed light on Galahad's adventures.

Listed as for children (aged 8 and up), I was unexpectedly pleased with this volume. The authors do a good job maintaining the spirit of classic Arthurian tales while infusing a more accurate (yet softly-spoken) Christian message in them. (Many of the original tales show a distorted/works-based view of the Gospel, in my opinion.) There is okay humor and fun cultural references, too (mostly geared towards juveniles, but some gems only adults will catch). Recommended.

Rating: A

Sunday, May 17, 2026

Excalibur

Today's review is of the 2026 release, Excalibur. For 2-8 players, it takes 20 minutes.

Overview
In this party game, your goal is to become king of Avalon by possessing the legendary Excalibur sword when the game ends. But you must be cunning . . . for thieves and other characters abound who also yearn for the blade. Do you have what it takes?

Excalibur is a chip-based game. Two of the game's three swords—Excalibur and the Cursed Blade—are set aside at the start. Other chips are randomly chosen and added to the initial pool to equal the number of players, all are shuffled and secretly handed out (so each player has one to start), then each player draws chips from any region (there are three) in Avalon so that all players start with four chips. The game begins.
The three regions of Avalon; image from here
One player starts with the crown. All players secretly choose one of their chips, hold them in their hand, then reveal them simultaneously. The starting player goes first and the chips are resolved in clockwise order. Each chip has a role and ability on it; generally, these allow you to draw chips (from Avalon), steal (from other players), swap (with chips in Avalon or other players' hands), and so on. The game comes with a reference card that clarifies each role.
example chips; image from here

the rules and role references; image from here
As chips are used, they are trashed. Once all players have resolved their chips in a round, the crown passes clockwise, players draw back up to four chips, and the next round starts. Play continues until one or two regions in Avalon are empty; then the player with Excalibur wins, the player with the Cursed Sword loses, and the player with the Squire's Sword shares the win *only* if they are adjacent to the player with Excalibur.

Review
This is a fun and fast party game. Almost like hot potato inverted; you want to end up with the sword when the music stops. Chances are, you'll be able to figure out who has it at some point in the game, and chaos ensues as each player scrambles to get it. The chips have some fun abilities on them, and enable players to steal, swap, or even put the sword back in the middle. As you can keep shuffling your chips, even players who steal from you might not get what they want . . . it reminded me of the "where's the baseball" game at Camden Yards, where the ball is hidden under one crab and you try to track it as it is whirled around the screen with other crabs. The Arthurian theme is just pasted on (unfortunately), but this is still a winner.

Rating: A

Friday, May 15, 2026

Replayability (GDJ 6)

"Man Writing" by Oliver Ray
It's been almost six years (!) since my last game design journal post. But my dream of making a game some day remains, and 'never stop starting'. Today's post looks at replayability, with a simple thesis:
A good game has high replayability.
Okay . . . so what is replayability? A starting point: a replayable tabletop game is "a game that is enjoyable even after many plays." What makes a game enjoyable? As I explore here and here, that is based on some mixture of meaningful choices, chance, and challenge. Through that lens, I would define a replayable tabletop game as "a game that consistently presents players of all skill and familiarity levels with an engaging and enjoyable challenge." 

Why does replayability matter? It is perhaps easiest to describe this through looking at the antithesis. A non-replayable game is one easily solved—where there is one obvious path/strategy to victory, and once a player gains enough familiarity with the game, must choose that path/strategy if they care about winning. In short, a non-replayable game does not present a challenge after many plays, leaving players bored and looking for other options.

All games can be solved to some degree (veterans of a game will have an idea of which strategies are more effective), but in good games, the decision tree doesn't narrow much: there is enough 1) balance, 2) variation, and/or 3) skill required in execution that even veterans will have meaningful choices to make and view it as a challenge. I think it comes down to those three factors, which I explore more below.

Balance. By this I mean that the game is fundamentally sound and well-designed; there is no superior strategy built in (knowingly or unwittingly) by the designers that would narrow the decision tree from the outset. If a given strategy is more likely to succeed, it must be harder to implement. A silly example of a perfectly-balanced game: rock-paper-scissors. 

Variation. Many games use variation to boost replayability. Here are a few ways designers do this:
- modular boards (changing game board itself)
- unique player abilities (by being assigned a character, for example)
- different win conditions or objectives, randomly chosen before each game
- different ways to earn points
- common chance elements (shuffling decks, rolling dice)
- introducing expansions to add elements (and, in cases of Collectible Card Games, rotating older expansions out of legality, forcing players to use new cards)

Skill in execution. Think chess. There is no variation in setup or chance elements in that game—just pure skill. And it has remained a popular tabletop game for centuries. Just because you know how the pieces move doesn't mean you can play well . . . every board state requires a tremendous degree of analysis. You could argue that this is a subset of the variation category . . . but I think it merits separate contemplation, as the variation is caused solely by the movements each participant chooses.

Are there any other categories to consider for replayability?

If you love games, think about which ones have proven replayable for you and why. Or which ones have been 'solved' and left untouched as a result.

Thursday, May 7, 2026

Building a Godly Home

This past weekend was an annual men's retreat. As is my custom, I summarize and post the talks below. The speakers this year were Bob, Geoff, Kendall, Wayne, and Edward, all speaking on aspects of what it means to build a Godly home.

Session 1: God creates the home

When we think about building anything, you need to know what materials you have. God tells us this in Scripture. In this talk, we look at three things that were true before the fall of man.
  1. A call to radical optimism
    • In Genesis 1:28, God commands man to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, subdue it, and have dominion. How can we possibly achieve this?
    • Look at Genesis 1:27. God creates man in his own image, and it goes on to use a singular pronoun (created ‘him’) followed by a plural (created ‘them’). We are individuals within a plurality; God’s design for our home [or sphere of influence] is as an individual plus being with others in community.
    • We should thus have a radical optimism on what we can build.
  2. A call to humble realism
    • Consider Genesis 2:19-20. There was Adam and all the animals . . . and no suitable helper for him. Before the fall, by design, we need help! We cannot do it on our own.
    • It is easy for us to begrudge each other and grow weary of the other’s persistent imperfections, but remember that the people you are building with are image-bearers and need help. We also need to be humble enough to accept help—to embrace our own need.
  3. We are utterly compatible
    • See Genesis 2:18, 21-23. Woman was taken from man. Made in the same place, out of the same stuff, for the same purpose. Adam calls Eve “bone of my bone.”
    • It is tempting to view man and woman as entirely different. Instead, appreciate and celebrate the compatible person God gave you. Look to unity of purpose, and not what divides.

Session 2: Sin wrecks the home

How did the fall of man affect building a Godly home?

We were created with a purpose and obligation to serve God. We were never intended to be free agents, but with our whole being, we were to consecrate all that we do as an offering to God, demonstrating we are not our own. We consecrate ourselves primarily through listening and doing what God says, and not considering alternatives to what God tells us. Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Deut. 8:3 and Matthew 4:4). This should be a joyful obedience . . . but man fell (see Genesis 3).

After the fall, our consecrated purpose and obligation continues (see Hebrews 11:4 about Abel). But we are now evil (and God remains holy). Sin crouches at our door and wants to rule us (Genesis 4:6-7). What hope do we have?

In order for God to dwell in our midst (which is the essence of truly building a Godly home), Man needs to be consecrated—set apart for God as sinless, or holy through purging of evil and putting off sin. And that is only possible in Jesus. Paul tells us that through our union with Christ, we have died to sin and raised with him to new life (see Colossians 2:12-14).

Through Jesus, God is accomplishing his goal of building a Godly home. We are sinless through the work of Christ, and God's Spirit now indwells us, sanctifying us from inside out. God is dwelling in our midst now, and will be building a permanent, more glorious home yet in the future (Revelation 21:3). In this present life, we are to make all our actions as consecrated actions, doing all things in His name (Colossians 3:17, 23-24) and through His strength (John 15:5). And it is through the Spirit that we can break the bond of sin (Romans 8:1-9).

Yet as we continue to struggle with our sinful nature (Romans 7:19-25), we recognize we are in a spiritual battle., where we need to "put off " the sinful, selfish nature and at the same time "put on" the new nature being re-created in us by God's Spirit working in us. This leads to seven practical steps we should take:
  1. We must choose: will we worship God or worship ourselves?
  2. Commit to live by God’s word, not our own sense of right and wrong
  3. Realize the spiritual battle (within and around us) and decide what to do about it
  4. Recognize our need for forgiveness and boldly approach our Savior for it
  5. Commit to repent and live differently (Colossians 3:5)
  6. Be bold, courageous, and lead speaking truth. Don’t give up, knowing God is working in and through you. He will complete what He starts (Philippians 1:6)!

Session 3: God redeems the home

Though man fell (see previous session), God had a plan to redeem him.

In Genesis 17:1-8, God establishes a covenant with Abraham (God always acts first), promising blessing and multiplying and to be his God. Though we rejected God . . . He didn’t reject us. He rescues us from our burdens (see Exodus 6:7), adopts us (Ephesians 1:3-5), and is with us now (Matthew 28:20) and will dwell with us forever (Revelation 21:3). He wants to be with us!

Have you ever taken count of your blessings? We are blessed in so many ways . . . and yet we have darkness and struggles. Idols dominate relationships. There is evil, death, and hardship. And yet . . . we are in Christ.

Jesus uses hard things to grow and help us. He is sovereign even over the darkness in our life. We are promised trials, but it is to bring about God’s good purpose (see 1 Corinthians 4:11-13, James 1:2-4, 1 Peter 1:6-7). “God wastes no pain.”

Jesus wants to be our God, and for us to be His people. He gifts/equips us (2 Timothy 1:6-7) and sanctifies us (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24). He prays for us to be one with Him and the Father (John 17:20-23). Because of the redemption we have in Christ . . . the darkness will not overcome.

Session 4: We have a mission

The Christian life is not about yourself. We are commanded to go and make disciples (in and outside of your home). Consider how Jesus did so.

Read Matthew 10:1-7. Jesus appoints disciples and immediately sends them out to proclaim the kingdom of heaven, heal the sick, and more. That Jesus sends them out before being fully mature shows that their effectiveness (and ours) depends on the Spirit, not our competence, and indicates that we should not wait until we feel we are ready before we obey. (Indeed, one way to grow and fight our self-centeredness is to help others—see Philippians 2:3-8.) In doing this, the disciples learned 1) that they needed help (both God’s strength and each other) and 2) avoided hubris.

How did Jesus tell them to do things? To behave in a way that doesn’t impede the gospel (see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 or 10:24).

What are we to do? To be just, kind, and walk humbly with God (see Micah 6:8). To visit the needy and keep unstained from the world (see James 1:27).

What is our motive? Love, without which we are nothing (see 1 Corinthians 13:1-7). Love involves doing good things and laying down our life for others, and when we do so, we are doing so for Jesus (see John 15:13-14, 1 John 3:16, and Matthew 25:31-40).

Our call is to outward mission. Our motivation is love, which we can model because he first loved us (1 John 4:19). When the journey gets hard, here are four meditational aids to help us remember that we are loved.

  1. Be reminded of the creator/creation intimacy (see Psalm 139). We are known! The Creator knows me well and calls me his child.
  2. Think seriously about how sin severs that relationship (see Psalm 32:3-5) and not being right with others can hinder our prayers (see 1 Peter 3:7). We need the greater affection of being with Jesus to take over to overcome our sin.
  3. Reflect on examples (real or fictional) where people lay down their life for others. These stories can be flawed but powerful and pack an emotional punch, pointing us to what Christ did for us and demands of us (John 15:12-13). We should meditate on the perfect and real sacrifice of Christ until it moves us at least as much—the Lord’s Supper is for that purpose.
  4. Remember a sense of belonging and our end (see Matthew 25:21)—entering the joy of our Maker!
Session 5: Building like a man

God created the home. Sin wrecked the home. God redeemed the home. We have a mission. So how do we build a Godly home? There are five pillars to consider, using 1 Corinthians 16:13-14 as the text.
  1. Diligent Watchfulness
    • Whatever flows out of our hearts flows into our homes. We are called to watch two things: our hearts (Proverbs 4:23) and for the enemy (1 Peter 5:8).
  2. Firmness in the Faith
    • Cultivate a hunger for the truth of God (Proverbs 23:23)
    • Where does our time/attention go? Is it on knowing Christ and making Him known?
  3. Courageous Masculinity
    • We are called to be bold like the righteous (Proverbs 28:1). How can we? It is given to us/declared of us in Christ. We must therefore strive for bold, fearless action, avoiding fear, passivity, pride, and anger.
  4. Active Strength
    • To be strong, we need to recognize our innate weakness and sense of need (2 Timothy 2:1), modeling humble reliance on the grace of God.
  5. All-encompassing Love
    • Let all we do be done in love (1 Corinthians 13)
    • “A Godly man must be all of love or all he does is all for naught.”
    • “Love is biblical faith worked out in proper order.”