True freedom isn’t following the crowd or rebelling against it. Learn how autonomy helps you think independently and strengthen your community.

Freedom is one of the most cherished human values. But real freedom is more than simply doing whatever we want. Autonomy is the ability to think for yourself, make thoughtful choices, and take responsibility for the life you create while respecting the freedom of others to do the same.

What Is Autonomy?

Autonomy is the freedom to direct your own life according to your values rather than simply following the crowd or reacting against it. It means making decisions because you have thoughtfully considered them, not because they’re popular, expected, or approved by someone else. True autonomy requires both the courage to be yourself and the curiosity to keep learning.

In today’s world, we’re constantly influenced by friends, social media, news, and algorithms that try to shape what we believe. That’s why personal freedom begins with critical thinking. Instead of accepting ready-made opinions, we can ask questions, seek different perspectives, and decide for ourselves. At the same time, autonomy isn’t about standing alone. Healthy communities are built when free people choose to work together, recognizing that protecting one another’s freedom ultimately protects our own.

Discuss It!

Younger Children

1. Have you ever chosen something because everyone else was doing it? How did it make you feel?

2. What does it mean to make your own decision while still being kind and respectful to others?

3. How can people with different ideas still work together as friends or teammates?

Everyone Else

1. How can you tell the difference between a belief you’ve carefully thought about and one you’ve simply absorbed from people around you?

2. Why do you think some people mistake personal freedom for having no responsibilities to others?

3. Think about one opinion you hold strongly. When was the last time you intentionally explored a thoughtful perspective that challenged your own?

Take Action!

Autonomy grows stronger every time we choose to think carefully instead of reacting automatically. This week, notice one decision you’re about to make, big or small. Pause before you act. Ask yourself whether you’re making the choice because it reflects your own values or because you’re following expectations, habits, or outside pressure. Then choose intentionally, and remember that your freedom is strongest when it also respects the freedom of those around you.

What is one thing you will do this week to practice Autonomy?

Share

Foundational Values Connection

Autonomy grows from Integrity, Fairness, and Curiosity. Integrity gives us the courage to live according to our own values instead of seeking constant approval. Curiosity helps us question assumptions, examine new ideas, and make informed choices. Fairness reminds us that our freedom depends on protecting the equal freedom of others. Together, these values create communities where people are free to think independently, contribute willingly, and flourish together.

Closing Thoughts

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.”

— Mahatma Gandhi

Growth rarely comes from getting everything right the first time. It comes from making thoughtful choices, learning from experience, and continuing to grow. Real autonomy isn’t about being perfect, it’s about having the freedom and responsibility to become the person you choose to be.

This week, remember that your life is ultimately your own to shape. Think carefully, choose wisely, and use your freedom in ways that help both you and your community thrive.

I joined Indivisible for what I thought they stood for: stopping the rise of authoritarianism in the US and demanding a real democracy. I think the national and even state level Indivisible groups are still doing that, while the local chapters may have missed the memo. It often seems that what people are trying to build locally is conformity. They want a progressive echo chamber. They want to be free to talk disparagingly about MAGA supporters and be met with laughter, cheers, and pats on the back for doing so.

The need to vent and be assured that you’re not alone and you’re not wrong is certainly something that I can understand. What I don’t understand is the desire for conformity. I’ve heard people in our group look at people in another Indivisible group and say, “They’re not being very ‘indivisible,’ are they?” The reason they said that? Because those other people had the gall to have a different opinion or support a tactic that our member didn’t approve of. They seem to believe that being ‘indivisible’ means that everyone else needs to conform to their specific views and opinions.

That’s not what Indivisible is about.

Share

My Understanding of Being “Indivisible”

Indivisible is not a description, nor is it a demand for conformity or even uniformity. Indivisible is a challenge, both individually and collectively. It asks us to bring our various ideas, opinions, and perspectives together in a shared fight for democracy and freedom. The challenge, though, is not to conform to the views of some authority figure and ensure all our members are in lockstep. The challenge is to stand together and fight for this overarching common cause in spite of our differences.

Indivisible is a challenge for us, as individuals, to be willing to discuss, debate, and disagree, and then go along with what the group decides, whether it was exactly what we wanted or not. If the group does something that angers some people and they choose to walk away, the group hasn’t failed those individuals, those individuals have failed the challenge of being indivisible.

When an Indivisible local chapter tries to avoid disagreements or makes decisions to simply appease a member who is angry about something, the group is failing to create a space where people can disagree vehemently and still not get “their way,” if their preference is not what the majority of the group wants to do. The chapter lives up to the challenge of being Indivisible by not simply appeasing the loudest voices and not being afraid to anger a minority of members. The satisfaction of all members is not the responsibility of the chapter. The chapter should be representing the democratically determined will of the membership.

Learning to hold a minority view and still stand with the majority decision is the challenge for each individual. Remember, we’re talking about disagreements between people who are generally aligned in their values and politics. So, a member who gets angry at a decision made by the group and chooses to leave, claiming that “this group is far from indivisible” is mistaken. Those who remain in the group, whether they fully agree with everything the group decides or not, have risen to the challenge of being indivisible. Those who choose to leave, even on the pretext of standing on their principles, have failed to meet the challenge. The group has not failed them; they have failed the group.

This precise tension between personal preference and collective action is playing out right now in my own backyard.

Who to Endorse: A Contentious Issue

I’m thinking about all of this because the national Indivisible organization has decided to consider endorsing primary candidates for certain statewide elections. If a statewide Indivisible group chooses to endorse a candidate for the US Senate, then the Indivisible national group will issue its endorsement of that candidate.

This is a new process. They’ve never done this before, so they’re figuring it out on the fly. Since it’s often the “establishment” candidates who are better known and better funded, I was not completely opposed to this idea. However, in absence of a very robust selection process that focused on truly informing our membership before asking them to select a primary candidate to endorse, I personally thought the group should’ve simply focused more on non-biased comparisons of the various candidates.

Regardless, the Michigan statewide Indivisible group (SWIM), asked all the Michigan chapters what they would like to do and who they would like to endorse. They stated that they would endorse the candidate who receives a supermajority of 60%. Unfortunately, no candidate received that supermajority, so SWIM said that they “would not endorse a candidate at this time.”

Now, here’s where things got difficult, depending upon your approach. Unlike most MAGA folks that I know, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially people who are basically aligned with my political beliefs. I start from a place of assuming positive intent.

Unfortunately, not all Indivisible members do the same.

What’s 90% of a Supermajority?

Anyway, my assumption was that the original thought behind wanting a supermajority was to protect against a situation where one candidate had 51% of the vote and another had 49%. At that point, it would basically be a draw, which could really be troublesome. (What they could’ve done was say that if no candidate won by at least 10%, then the top two would go to a runoff. But I digress.)

Unfortunately, the supermajority mark was not missed because more than one candidate had extremely strong support. It was missed because 40% of Indivisible chapters, including the group I belong to, didn’t want to endorse anyone during the primaries. In other words, a minority of Indivisible chapters were allowed to pull a de facto filibuster and stymie the entire process. If 40% abstained, that meant one candidate would’ve needed 100% of the remaining votes in order to achieve an overall supermajority. I really don’t think that was the intent of SWIM’s desire for a supermajority.

To their credit, SWIM didn’t simply scrap the entire process. (Keep in mind, this is a new process, so they’re trying to work out the kinks as they go.)

Basically, a 40% minority utilized abstention as a de facto filibuster, blocking a 60% supermajority from achieving an endorsement threshold. Despite this, 60% of chapters wanted a candidate endorsement, and of those voting for a candidate, over 90% selected Abdul El-Sayed. SWIM subsequently recognized this overwhelming consensus and moved to verify the endorsement.

Again, to their credit, they didn’t simply submit the endorsement to Indivisible national, they asked the membership one more time: should we endorse Abdul El-Sayed. (Remember, over 90% of the supermajority who wanted to endorse a candidate had already selected El-Sayed.)

Assuming Negative Intent Isn’t “Indivisible”

Well, various people were extremely upset. They claimed this was a page out of Trump’s playbook. They accused SWIM of ignoring their own rules. They called it “push polling” because a Political Science professor who’s a member of one group claimed that’s what it was. Some of my group’s leadership acted like it was a five-alarm fire that would destroy Indivisible if it wasn’t addressed immediately.

The knee-jerk reactionism and false labeling of “push polling” reminded me of a cautionary lesson from Animal Farm: how easy it is for well-meaning movements to slowly take on the worst traits of the system they’re trying to change. When allegedly liberal, open-minded people don’t get their way, the reflex to pivot toward conspiracy theories and melodrama looks a heck of a lot like right-wing reactionism. And it all seems to start with assuming negative intent. Instead of seeing a state group trying to fairly navigate an imperfect, new process, they chose to see an enemy intent on enforcing its own will.

So, let’s not do that. Let’s take a step back, take a deep breath, and try to think logically about this situation.

My View of the “Facts”

First of all, what was done wasn’t “push polling,” which any Poli-Sci professor worthy of the title should know. Push polling is a deceptive negative campaigning technique disguised as a legitimate opinion poll, designed to manipulate voters rather than gather their actual perspectives. El-Sayed already received over 90% of the votes from the supermajority who wanted to endorse a candidate during the primaries. This was simply an attempt to verify that fact one last time before submitting SWIM’s endorsement to the national Indivisible team.

Second, after the initial chapters voted and no candidate received a supermajority, SWIM said it would not be endorsing a candidate at this time. Those who assumed negative intent saw this as SWIM breaking their own rules AND going back on their word. However, I think the intent of a rule is what matters, especially when a group like this is defining a new process. I really don’t believe the intent of requiring a supermajority was to create a filibuster option, where 40% of groups could abstain and scuttle the entire process. My assumption is that SWIM looked at the initial goal of setting a supermajority threshold—to ensure they endorsed a candidate who was a clear winner among the membership—and they said, “We DO have a clear winner… Abdul El-Sayed.”

The third thing that bothered me was that many on the leadership teams of these local Indivisible chapters didn’t seem to consider anything other than the “negative intent” version of this entire situation. Even the group I belong to didn’t offer to talk internally about it. They didn’t ask what other members of the leadership team thought. They initially simply joined with others who had assumed negative intent. Because SWIM is gearing up to do something that some people on these leadership teams disagree with, they were willing to jump on board with the conspiracy theories, false labelling, and the-sky-is-falling rhetoric.

In their defense, the leadership of my local chapter shared an unbiased message with our general membership that fairly reflected the request and the goal from SWIM. I commend them for that.

However, that doesn’t change the fact that the initial over-the-top reaction from so many people in local leadership positions shocked me. They seemed to be angered by the fact that they didn’t get their way. They weren’t able to stop the endorsement process. They didn’t “win.” And it didn’t seem to matter to them that they were in the minority (by a lot). They still seemed to feel completely justified in acting self-righteous and indignant, implying that the people who disagree with them are the ones who aren’t being ‘indivisible.’

The Challenge Ahead

If Indivisible is a personal challenge to learn how to disagree, hold that tension in a positive light, and still stand beside each other, then we can’t just walk away when we lose a vote. True progress isn’t built on total agreement. It’s built on democratic resilience.

When we fight our allies over process because we didn’t win the outcome, we choose division over democracy. That’s not effective leadership, it’s not sustainable, and it’s definitely not what our movement needs in order to defeat authoritarianism.

We need to stop demanding conformity from our neighbors and start demanding solidarity from ourselves. If you’re angry about a recent group decision, don’t walk away. Bring your perspective, your dissent, and your passion back to the table. Our membership meetings are where we need to prove what we’re made of. Let’s show up, debate fiercely, accept the democratic will of the majority, and then march forward together.

That’s how we meet the challenge. That’s how we become truly indivisible.

Advocacy is more than having an opinion. Discover how integrity and curiosity turn convictions into meaningful action that strengthens communities.

Most of us have strong opinions about how the world should be. But opinions alone don’t change anything. Advocacy begins when we move beyond simply believing something is right and choose to take meaningful action in order to make a difference.

What Is Advocacy?

Advocacy is standing up for what’s right by using your voice, your time, or your actions to help others and to improve your community. It means more than just caring about an issue. It means doing something about it. Whether you’re speaking up for a classmate, volunteering for a local cause, or working to solve a problem in your neighborhood, advocacy turns your values into actions.

Good advocacy also requires humility. We don’t have all the answers, and the people most affected by a problem often understand it best. That’s why effective advocates listen, ask questions, and remain open to learning. The goal isn’t simply to win an argument or prove we’re right. The goal is to help create positive change. When integrity and curiosity work together, advocacy becomes both courageous and compassionate.

Discuss It!

Younger Children

1. Can you think of a time when you helped someone who was being left out or treated unfairly? What happened? Why did you take action?

2. Why is it sometimes hard to speak up when you know something isn’t right?

3. What is one small way you could help make your school, family, or neighborhood a kinder place?

Everyone Else

1. What is the difference between having a strong opinion and being an advocate?

2. Why is it important to listen to the people most affected by a problem before trying to solve it?

3. Think about an issue you care about. What is one meaningful action you could take beyond simply talking about it?

Take Action!

Advocacy doesn’t always require a microphone or a large audience. Often, it begins with one conversation, one act of kindness, one letter, one volunteer effort, or one decision to stand beside someone who needs support. This week, choose one issue that matters to you and take one meaningful step toward making a positive difference.

What is one thing you will do this week to practice Advocacy?

Share

Foundational Values Connection

Advocacy grows from Integrity and Curiosity. Integrity gives us the courage to act on our values, even when it would be easier to remain silent. Curiosity reminds us to listen, learn, and adapt instead of assuming we already know the best solution. Together, these values help us become thoughtful advocates who seek progress rather than seeking to simply prove a point.

Closing Thoughts

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

— Margaret Mead

Margaret Mead reminds us that meaningful change rarely begins with huge crowds or perfect plans. It starts when ordinary people decide their values are worth putting into practice. Every positive movement in history began with someone who cared enough to take that first step.

This week, remember that your voice matters, but your actions matter even more. Small, thoughtful acts of advocacy have a way of inspiring others to join in, and together they can make a lasting difference!

Picture a cross for a moment. What do you see?

If you’re an atheist, maybe you see a superstition, or a symbol of an institution that has caused lots of harm over the last 2,000 years. If you’re a humanist, you may see religious iconography: jewelry, church steeples, stained glass, and a lot of theological baggage. If you’re a Christian, you may see salvation, forgiveness, sacrifice, or a source of comfort in difficult times.

Those reactions make sense. They are also almost certainly nothing like what a cross meant in first-century Roman Palestine!

For people living under Roman occupation, a cross was not a decorative symbol. It was not a private spiritual reminder. It was a public instrument of terror. Think less of a necklace and more of a lynching noose. Think of an electric chair, a guillotine, or a brutal execution displayed where everyone passing by is meant to see it. The point was not only to kill a person. The point was to warn everyone else.

That changes the way we hear the line in Matthew 10 about taking up a cross.

Today, people often use “my cross to bear” to describe a difficult boss, a chronic illness, an annoying relative, or the fact that the Wi-Fi goes out during the season finale. Life is hard; we all have burdens. But that is not the meaning that this image originally carried. The language points toward danger, punishment, and the possibility that standing against entrenched power can cost a person everything.

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever noticed how easy it is to care about a problem without actually doing anything about it? We can offer sympathy, share a post, say the right words, and still leave the person in front of us carrying the same burden… alone. The hard part is not always recognizing that something is wrong. The hard part is deciding that someone else’s dignity is worth our time, comfort, resources, or social ease.

Welcome to Mythologizing the Bible, where we’ll be taking a look at three readings from the Christian Bible through the lens of “sacred myth.”

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore advocacy as a way of living: making practical room for vulnerable people, challenging the habits that keep us passive, and accepting the discomfort that comes with standing up for what’s right.

In this episode, we’re asking a practical question: Where in your everyday life is someone carrying discomfort or exclusion, and what small amount of friction are you willing to accept to help change it? Because actions speak louder than words, and good intentions don’t protect human dignity until they become action.

One of the most controversial acronyms in America right now is DEI.

If you’ve spent any time watching cable news, scrolling social media, or listening to political speeches over the last few years, you’ve probably noticed that those three letters can trigger an almost immediate reaction. For some people, DEI represents fairness, opportunity, and social progress. For others, it represents discrimination, lowered standards, and institutional favoritism. It’s become one of those topics where everyone seems to have strong opinions, but relatively few people stop to make sure they’re arguing about the same thing!

To be fair, the most common criticism isn’t difficult to understand. Many people have been told that DEI is essentially a zero-sum game. In this view, every opportunity given to a woman, a racial minority, a disabled person, or an LGBTQ employee must have been taken away from a more qualified straight white dude. The story goes something like this: DEI isn’t about fairness at all. It’s about replacing merit with identity and rewarding people for belonging to the “right” demographic category.

Now, whether you’ve heard that argument from a politician, a podcaster, a coworker, or an uncle who spends a little too much time watching Fox News, it’s important to recognize that this understanding is what I would call a meme-level explanation. It’s simple. It’s emotionally satisfying (to some people). And it’s completely disconnected from what the philosophy of DEI was originally trying to accomplish.

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever noticed how much energy we spend trying to be the version of ourselves that other people want us to be? Families, schools, workplaces, religions, political movements, and entire cultures often reward conformity while making authenticity feel risky. The pressure isn’t always obvious, but it’s there… quietly encouraging us to fit in, stay comfortable, and avoid becoming too different from the crowd.

Welcome to Mythologizing the Bible, where we’ll be taking a look at three readings from the Christian Bible through the lens of “sacred myth.”

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the 12th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore the courage required to resist conformity, the surprising power a single unique individual can have on the course of history, and the challenge of living openly as your authentic self in a world that often rewards imitation over originality.

In this episode, we’re asking an honest question: What part of your authentic self is currently being held back by a fear of what others might think? Because if we’re not careful, we can spend so much time “performing for other people’s expectations” that we lose sight of who we really are, and we miss the unique contribution only we can make to the human story.

Your uniqueness isn’t a weakness to hide. Discover how authenticity, fairness, and curiosity help people and communities thrive.

Every person has something that no one else can offer: a unique combination of experiences, talents, perspectives, and dreams. When we learn to appreciate what makes us different, and encourage others to do the same, we create stronger communities where everyone has the opportunity to contribute their best.

What Is Uniqueness?

Uniqueness is the recognition and celebration of the qualities that make each person who they are. It means understanding that there is no single “right” way to think, learn, create, or contribute. Our differences aren’t flaws to be hidden; they’re valuable parts of our identity.

In everyday life, uniqueness requires the courage to be yourself, even when it might be easier to blend in. It also requires creating spaces where others feel safe doing the same thing. Communities thrive when people bring their authentic selves to the table. New ideas, creative solutions, meaningful friendships, and lasting progress often emerge when different perspectives are welcomed rather than suppressed. When we celebrate uniqueness, everyone benefits.

Discuss It!

Younger Children

1. What is something special about you that makes you different from other people?

2. Have you ever been nervous about sharing something you like because it was different from what others liked? What happened?

3. How can you help someone feel proud of what makes them unique?

Everyone Else

1. Have you ever hidden part of who you are in order to fit in? What happened?

2. Why do you think people sometimes pressure others to think, act, or look the same?

3. How does a group, school, workplace, or community benefit when people feel free to express their unique talents and perspectives?

Take Action!

The world doesn’t need more copies of the same person. It needs people who are willing to bring their own strengths, experiences, and ideas into the conversation. This week, challenge yourself to share something authentic about yourself or encourage someone else to do the same. Remember: small acts of authenticity help create communities where everyone can thrive!

What is one thing you will do this week to explore uniqueness?

Share

Foundational Values Connection

Uniqueness grows from several of our Foundational Values. Integrity gives us the courage to be honest about who we are rather than pretending to be someone else. Curiosity helps us explore our own interests and appreciate the differences we see in others. Fairness reminds us that everyone deserves the freedom to express their identity and contribute their unique gifts. Together, these values help create communities where diversity of thought, experience, and talent becomes a strength rather than a source of division.

Closing Thoughts

“Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else.”

— Margaret Mead

Margaret Mead’s famous observation reminds us that uniqueness is something we all share. Every person has a story, a perspective, and a set of strengths that can’t be fully duplicated. The goal isn’t to be better than others because of our differences. The goal is to recognize that our differences make us valuable contributors to something larger than ourselves.

This week, take pride in what makes you who you are. The qualities that set you apart may be exactly what the world needs from you!

Now, before anyone starts drafting an angry email, let me be clear: I am not arguing for cruelty, indifference, or treating people like malfunctioning office equipment. Quite the opposite, in fact. But I do think we’ve stumbled into a semantic trap. When most people praise empathy, what they actually mean is kindness, understanding, compassion, patience, or simply paying attention to another human being. Those are all valuable qualities. The problem is that empathy, in its most literal sense, means something much more specific. It means feeling with another person. It means emotionally resonating with their experience, absorbing some portion of their fear, grief, anxiety, or distress into yourself.

And that’s where I started getting uncomfortable with the way empathy was being promoted in management circles. Back when I was supervising teams, I used to argue against empathy in the workplace. Not because I was heartless, but because I noticed a pattern. Whenever I began feeling with an employee—when I emotionally absorbed their panic about a deadline, their anxiety about a project, or their frustration with a workplace conflict—my decision-making often got worse. Instead of stepping back and evaluating the situation more clearly, I found myself reacting to the strongest emotional signal in the room. I wasn’t solving problems anymore. I was performing emotional triage.

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever noticed how often people claim to value diversity right up until someone’s differences become visible, inconvenient, or uncomfortable? We celebrate acceptance in theory, but in practice, we often expect people to fit in, quiet down, or keep certain parts of themselves hidden before they’re granted full belonging. The result is a world where many people are tolerated, but far fewer are truly accepted.

Welcome to Mythologizing the Bible, where we’ll be taking a look at three readings from the Christian Bible through the lens of “sacred myth.”

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the 11th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore the journey from recognizing the value of every person, to accepting people without demanding conformity, to turning that acceptance into meaningful action on behalf of our broader human family.

In this episode, we’re asking a challenging question: Do we actually accept people who are different from us, or do we just tolerate them as long as they stay quiet, invisible, and out of our way? Because there is a world of difference between privately allowing someone to exist and publicly embracing their full humanity.

Acceptance doesn't mean agreeing with everyone. Learn how curiosity, compassion, and fairness help us embrace differences and build stronger communities.

In a world where people seem increasingly divided by politics, beliefs, and identities, acceptance can feel more difficult than ever. Yet acceptance is one of the most important skills for building strong relationships and healthy communities. When we learn to accept people as fellow human beings, even when we disagree with them, we create space for understanding, cooperation, and growth.

What Is Acceptance?

Acceptance is recognizing that every person has inherent worth, dignity, and the right to belong. It does not mean approving of every choice someone makes or agreeing with every opinion they hold. Instead, acceptance means understanding that a person’s value as a human being is not dependent on whether they think, act, or live exactly as we do.

In everyday life, acceptance helps us face differences with kindness and respect. It allows us to remain curious about people whose experiences differ from our own and compassionate toward those we don’t fully understand. Acceptance doesn’t mean we have to abandon our own values. It means we should remember that disagreement and dignity can exist at the same time. Communities become stronger when people learn how to embrace differences while still working together toward shared goals.

Discuss It!

Younger Children

1. Have you ever met someone who liked different things than you? What did you learn about them?

2. How can you be kind to someone even when you don’t agree with them?

3. What makes every person important, even when they are different from us?

Everyone Else

1. What is the difference between accepting someone and agreeing with them?

2. Why do you think people sometimes treat disagreement as a reason to reject others?

3. Think of someone whose views or lifestyle are very different from your own. What would it look like to show them acceptance without compromising your own values?

Take Action!

Acceptance becomes meaningful when we practice it, especially when it feels uncomfortable. This week, look for an opportunity to listen more carefully, ask a thoughtful question, or show kindness to someone whose experiences, beliefs, or perspectives differ from your own. Small acts of acceptance help create stronger relationships and more resilient communities.

What is one thing you will do this week to practice Acceptance?

Share

Foundational Values Connection

Acceptance grows from several of our Foundational Values. Compassion reminds us that every person deserves care and dignity. Curiosity encourages us to learn from people whose experiences differ from our own. Fairness helps us treat others with equal respect, regardless of our disagreements. Together, these values make acceptance possible and help diverse communities live, work, and thrive together.

Closing Thoughts

“The highest result of education is tolerance.”

— Helen Keller

Helen Keller’s words remind us that wisdom is not measured by how many facts we know, but by how well we learn to live alongside people who are different from us. The more we understand the world and the people in it, the more capable we become of extending acceptance rather than judgment.

This week, remember that you do not have to agree with everyone you meet. You simply have to recognize their humanity. Acceptance begins with that simple choice, and every act of acceptance makes our communities a little stronger!

Just a few chapters after Paul presented his inclusive “one body” image, we encounter one of the most frequently quoted passages used to exclude women from leadership in the church. Suddenly, the same letter that seemed to be dismantling social barriers appears to be reinforcing them. The same author who sounds radically egalitarian in one chapter sounds surprisingly authoritarian in another. One moment we’re all one body. The next moment women are told to sit down, shut up, and let the men handle things.

That should make us uncomfortable.

Not because we’re modern people imposing modern values onto an ancient text, but because the contradiction exists inside the text itself. The tension is already there. If Paul is truly building a community based on shared dignity and participation, why does he suddenly sound like he’s auditioning for a first-century patriarchy appreciation society?

Most Christians are taught that the answer must be theological. Maybe Paul changed topics. Maybe there’s hidden context. Maybe we’re misunderstanding the Greek. Maybe there’s an invisible footnote that only appears if you’ve attended three years of seminary and consumed an unhealthy amount of coffee.

But what if we’re asking the wrong question?

What if the real question isn’t what Paul meant?

What if the real question is whether Paul wrote every word attributed to him in the first place?

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever noticed how often people talk about equality while defending systems that leave some people without food, housing, healthcare, education, or opportunity? Most of us claim to believe that every human being has equal worth, but our policies, institutions, and communities often tell a very different story. Somewhere along the way, many basic human needs stopped being treated as necessities and started being treated as privileges that must be earned.

Welcome to Mythologizing the Bible, where we’ll be taking a look at three readings from the Christian Bible through the lens of “sacred myth.”

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, we’ll explore what equality actually requires: recognizing our shared human vulnerabilities, embracing our responsibility to one another, and ensuring that the resources people need to flourish are accessible to everyone.

In this episode, we’re asking a challenging but practical question: If every person has equal dignity, why do we continue building systems that ration basic human needs according to wealth, status, geography, or privilege? Because it seems strange to celebrate symbols of shared nourishment while millions of real people are still struggling to find enough nourishment to survive.

The fact is that ancient ideas about inherited punishment eventually collided with growing concepts of compassion and individual accountability. But this isn’t just about ancient times because all of this still matters today as we struggle to break cycles of harm in our own families, communities, and societies!

One of the things I find genuinely fascinating about organized religion is how often it quietly edits itself while simultaneously insisting that its truths are eternal and unchanging. And honestly, nowhere is that more visible than in the Lectionary readings used in many churches. For those unfamiliar, a Lectionary is simply a pre-selected schedule of scripture readings used during worship services. It determines which passages get read publicly and which ones… mysteriously remain out of sight… kind of like that weird cousin who eats by himself in front of the TV during Thanksgiving dinner.

This week’s reading from Exodus is a perfect example. In the Roman Catholic Lectionary, the reading jumps from Exodus 34:6 directly to verse 8. That seems harmless enough until you realize that verse 7 is doing the theological equivalent of pounding on the locked door it was shoved behind, screaming, “Hey! You skipped something important! Don’t forget me!”

Well, we’re not going to ignore it or just skip over it. We’re going to take a good hard look at Exodus 34:7 and talk about exactly what it means… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever noticed how often people talk about love, compassion, and caring for others… while rarely being willing to sacrifice anything meaningful to actually help? We live in a world overflowing with inspirational slogans, social media outrage, and empty “thoughts and prayers.” But real service costs us time, comfort, energy, patience, or resources. And that kind of service has become surprisingly rare.

Welcome to Mythologizing the Bible, where we’ll be taking a look at three readings from the Christian Bible through the lens of “sacred myth.”

Share

As we reflect on the readings for Trinity Sunday, we’ll explore what genuine service actually looks like: standing beside imperfect people, doing the exhausting work of peacemaking, and giving something real of ourselves to help sustain our communities.

In this episode, we’re asking a difficult but deeply practical question: What happens when caring becomes performative instead of sacrificial? Because honestly, it’s hard to build healthy families, communities, or societies when everybody wants the appearance of compassion without paying any of the actual cost.

“We are all one body.” It sounds beautiful, right? A message of unity, care, and radical empathy.

But what happens when a tyrant uses that exact same phrase to keep you in your place?

For thousands of years, rulers, kings, and modern CEOs have weaponized the Bible’s “one body” metaphor to argue that because you are the “foot,” your holy duty is to walk in the dirt and never question the “head.”

I think it’s time to pull back the curtain on how a text meant for “community care” became history’s ultimate tool for social control and how corporate culture still uses it against you today.

From Ancient Rome to modern workplace culture, empathy and interdependence has been twisted into obedience. This is a fact. The question we face now is how to reclaim those ideas in ways that actually support human dignity, equality, and flourishing!

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you noticed how difficult it has become for people to truly listen to one another? We live in a world where everybody is talking, arguing, posting, reacting, and defending their tribe, but very few people seem willing to slow down long enough to understand somebody else’s experience. Fear, outrage, politics, religion, culture, and social media have all combined to make empathy feel less like a strength and more like a liability.

Welcome to Mythologizing the Bible, where we’ll be taking a look at three readings from the Christian Bible through the lens of “sacred myth.”

Share

As we reflect on the readings for Pentecost Sunday, we’ll explore what empathy really requires of us: learning how to cross cultural divides, value human differences, and show up for people in moments of fear, pain, and vulnerability. In this episode, we’re asking an uncomfortable but important question: What happens to families, communities, and entire societies when people stop seeing each other as human beings and start treating one another like enemies, outsiders, or obstacles to overcome? Because honestly, we’re watching that happen all around us right now.

The following post is supplemental to this week’s podcast episodes. For the full discussion, check out this week’s episode of Afterthoughts: The Gospel of Empire, and share your honest thoughts in the comments section below.

Walk into almost any Christian church on any given Sunday and you’re likely to hear something in the sermon that praises community. You’ll hear about a love that crosses borders, unites humanity, and inspires believers to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. In Christian tradition, Matthew 28:16-20, the “Great Commission,” is treated as the ultimate blueprint for global charity and solidarity.

They couldn’t be more wrong because history tells a radically different, far more blood-soaked story.

When we look past the stained glass version of the Great Commission, we see a rather disturbing reality: the mandate to “make disciples of all nations” provided the ideological, legal, and psychological operating system for global supremacy and cultural erasure. On this week’s episode of Afterthoughts, The Gospel of Empire, we stripped away the supernatural veneer to confront the toxic framework that mainstream believers routinely ignore.

To explore this topic even deeper, I think we need to wrestle with three rather devastating questions that challenge the very core of Western religious outreach.

So, let’s do that right now!

Question 1: If love requires conversion, is it love or a hostile takeover?

The Great Commission establishes what amounts to a non-reciprocal framework. It forces an immediate hierarchy: one group possesses the absolute, exclusive truth, while the rest of the world is reduced to a “project” to be managed, converted, or spiritually conquered.

True human community requires an equal partnership. Community requires a mutual exchange where both parties are willing to listen and learn. But the Matthean mandate explicitly forbids reciprocity. A missionary cannot accept wisdom from an Indigenous elder; they can only deposit their own dogma. It’s a one-way relationship with no room for reciprocity.

When your affection for another human being is intrinsically tied to a desire to change their fundamental identity, culture, or worldview, it ceases to be benevolence. It becomes an ideological hostile takeover. It reduces another person to being the “other” who has a deficit that needs fixing. In short, operating from within this theological model means you cannot love people for who they actually are.

Question 2. Why fund global missions instead of paying historical reparations?

The connection between Christian scripture and global atrocities is not a historical accident or an unlucky correlation. It is causation. In the 15th century, the Vatican issued a series of papal decrees known as the Doctrine of Discovery. These documents explicitly cited the absolute authority granted in Matthew 28 to give European explorers legal permission to seize non-Christian lands and “reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”

From the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the horrific residential and boarding school systems in North America, empires used the Great Commission to justify cultural genocide. To “teach them to obey everything” meant doing things like forcibly cutting children’s hair, banning indigenous languages, and destroying familial structures. And all of this was done under the guise of Christian love.

This well-documented history should cause a massive crisis of accountability for modern churches. If mainstream religious institutions acknowledge that their foundational mandate was the operating system used to justify global theft and violence, the hypocrisy is glaring. Why are they still spending billions annually funding programs like short-term youth mission trips instead of using their massive institutional wealth to pay systemic reparations to the very communities they tried to destroy? (Hint: It’s because they’re still using this toxic operating system while ignoring the past and repairing the veneer.)

Question 3. Can a pluralistic world survive a mandate for absolute homogeneity?

The short answer: no.

We live in a deeply interconnected, diverse global society. The survival of humanity depends on our ability to cooperate across ideological, political, and cultural divides. Humanism teaches us that community is built on shared human needs—things like food, safety, art, respect, and love—without requiring anyone to surrender their worldview.

The Great Commission is fundamentally incompatible with this democratic reality. It operates on an existential ultimatum: absolute, global homogeneity. It views every cultural difference, every alternative wisdom tradition, and every secular space not as a valid expression of human life, but as a target for spiritual conquest.

Can a global human family ever truly survive when one of its largest segments operates under a command that explicitly forbids mutual learning? The historical and modern legacy of cosmic colonialism suggests that as long as religious groups prioritize ideological conversion over ethical solidarity, true community will remain entirely out of reach.

My Final Thoughts on This

To be completely clear, even though I no longer believe in the supernatural, I don’t expect everyone to drop their religion or give up their spiritual beliefs. It would be incredibly hypocritical of me to stand here arguing for plurality and diversity, and then turn around and expect everyone to agree with me on everything.

I’m also not one of those people who insists that to be considered a Christian, you have to blindly believe every single word written in your Scriptures. In fact, I would love to see more Christians explore what it means to be a “Values-Based Christian.” Instead of fighting to defend the idea that the Bible (with its hundreds of different translations) is the literal, inerrant word of God, why not approach it as an inspired collection of works from an old wisdom tradition? That’s basically what I try to do every single week with Mythologizing the Bible.

Of course, if shifting that perspective feels like too much of a leap for you, that’s totally fine. All I ask is that you don’t look down on the people who don’t share your unprovable supernatural beliefs, whether they have no religious beliefs at all, or whether they have a different set of supernatural beliefs than your own. We might not find a lot of common ground in our theology, but we can absolutely use our shared core values to build a solid common floor that will stabilize and support all of us.

What does true pluralism look like to you? Can we actually build that common floor together, or are we still quietly trying to remake each other in our own image?

For instance, when a well-meaning believer tells an out-and-proud atheist, “I’m praying that God will keep using your life for good,” are they actually respecting that person’s worldview, or are they just forcing a secular life into a religious box?

Let’s talk about it. Listen to the full discussion on this week’s episode of Afterthoughts: The Gospel of Empire, and share your honest thoughts in the comments section below.

For centuries, Western civilization has wrapped its worst atrocities in the language of supreme benevolence. We are taught to look at the ‘Great Commission’ of Matthew 28, the command to go and make disciples of all nations, as a beautiful blueprint for global love, charity, and connection.

But what if the most celebrated mandate in Christian history isn’t a message of community at all? What if it is actually the foundational operating system for global supremacy, cultural erasure, and cosmic colonialism?

In this episode, I bust through the beautiful stained glass image of the Great Commission to expose how five verses in the Gospel of Matthew provided the psychological and legal permission to conquer the world, and why mainstream believers are still running that exact same operating system today.

So, let’s talk about Cosmic Colonialism… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever noticed how often people wait for someone else to fix the world? We wait for the right politician, the right movement, the right church, the right billionaire, or maybe even divine intervention from somewhere up in the clouds. Meanwhile, communities weaken, loneliness spreads, and the problems right in front of us keep getting worse because too many of us are standing still, staring upward, hoping somebody else will step in.

Welcome to Mythologizing the Bible, where we’ll be taking a look at three readings from the Christian Bible through the lens of “sacred myth.”

Share

As we reflect on the readings for Ascension Sunday, we’ll explore what happens when people stop waiting for rescue and begin building communities that are rooted in shared responsibility, mutual support, and collective action.

In this episode, we’re asking a challenging question: What if the future we keep hoping for isn’t going to descend from the sky someday? What if the real challenge of being human is learning to build the kind of communities we wish already existed, and realizing that nobody else is coming to do it for us?