God's Blessing Celebration

The video is three hours long. You have been warned ;)

Answering Questions on an Application to a Non-Profit

1. I was brought up in a Christian home, expressing belief in Jesus Christ at 5 years old. I was baptized when I was about 12 years old. I experienced a change in my relationship to Christ when I was 17 years old and consider that the point of my conversion. Having been brought up in a legalistic church/family, I was pretty aware of my particular weaknesses and bore the guilt and shame of them for many years. My wife and I had a falling out several years back and God sent his servants into our life to keep us on the straight and narrow. It took several more years of me toughing it out before I released us both through forgiveness. For the last 22 months I have experienced the grace of God in a way I could only speculate about before. God healed me. God healed my marriage. God has further saved me from my weaknesses in a sanctifying sense; the battles are won daily by his grace.

2. The Bible is God-breathed and contains everything we need to know about God and how to have a right relationship with him. Jesus Christ is the messiah to the Jews first and the Gentiles by ingrafting. He is the Son of God and God the Son. He is fully God and fully man. He is my Lord and Savior. God raised him from the dead. His words will judge the world of sin in the last day. In his first coming, he came to save the world and not to condemn it.

3. I attend St. Charles Anglican Church in Poulsbo, WA. I am involved on a weekly basis with my church: co-organize a Sunday small group, teach Sunday School once a month, Acolyte once a month, meet up with an accountability group once a week, I am in the process of starting a small group fellowship in Bremerton which by God's grace will result in a church plant, and have just been elected to a three-year term to serve my parish as part of the Vestry.

Self Selected Positive Personality Traits

Adaptable, Agreeable, Alert, Amiable, Anticipative, Articulate, Aspiring, Balanced, Benevolent, Calm, Capable, Caring, Challenging, Cheerful, Clean, Clear headed, Clever, Compassionate, Conciliatory, Conscientious, Considerate, Contemplative, Cooperative, Courageous, Courteous, Creative, Curious, Decent, Decisive, Dedicated, Deep, Disciplined, Discreet, Dutiful, Dynamic, Efficient, Empathetic, Energetic, Enthusiastic, Faithful, Farsighted, Flexible, Focused, Forgiving, Freethinking, Friendly, Generous, Gentle, Genuine, Good-natured, Gracious, Hard-working, Helpful, Honest, Honorable, Humble, Humorous, Imaginative, Insightful, Intelligent, Intuitive, Kind, Liberal, Logical, Lovable, Loyal, Mature, Methodical, Meticulous, Objective, Observant, Open, Passionate, Patient, Peaceful, Perceptive, Personable, Precise, Principled, Prudent, Rational, Realistic, Respectful, Responsible, Scholarly, Scrupulous, Selfless, Self-critical, Self-sufficient, Sensitive, Sentimental, Sober, Sociable, Sophisticated, Studious, Subtle, Systematic, Thorough, Tolerant, Trusting, Understanding, Upright, Well-rounded, Wise

The Depth of Leadership

David Marquet is a man who had the know-how and the opportunity to provide a counter-cultural shift in a heavily structured enterprise. Unfortunately his ideas have not been adopted by the bureaucracies that are at the same time threatened by his ideas, so it is no wonder. The military is not known for its innovation and creativity. This aversion to change may seem a necessary quality to some but it really stifles the ability to be human and to interact with others as humans.

Burdensome administration has clearly been identified as one of the hallmarks of the passing guard, but that guard has not yet passed. I think it will be at least a "generation" or more of the leadership changing hands before the cultural is unilaterally shifted. Adoption of Marquet's ideas now is only in the realm of possibility, vice probability. His situation was unique in that his squadron had all but given up on the idea of success of the USS Santa Fe. That being the case, his commodore had little risk aversion to try something innovative and creative.

Fast forward to today and you have an enterprise trying to systematize Marquet's ideas (a recognized "program" of success). Everyone is now ordered to use the phraseology, "I intend to..." and then carry on if there is no interjection by any team member present. But in practice the officer in charge will not carry on with the confidence he exhibits with this expression until acknowledged-essentially permitted-by his superior officer. So you have the enterprise paying lip service to an effective idea but without having the gall to actually live out the idea. Puppetization of followers into bespoken leaders is a far cry from the advice to "give control, don't take control."

Power, responsibility, authority and technical competence shifts up not down in a bureaucracy unless you intentionally change the "natural" process. Leadership is all about accountability. A leader is held accountable for the mistakes of his team. At this point a leader has the choice of blaming his team or making his team blameless (i.e. competent by learning from the mistakes). Trust is an eerily appropriate term to use here. It's eerie because it doesn't seem like it should apply to this aspect of leadership. It's absolutely appropriate because it is the fabric that power, responsibility, authority and technical competence is woven into. When a leader has to take the punishment for his team, he is highly likely to lose trust in his team and hold his supervisors accountable. So the responsibility moves away from the craftsmen to the supervisors. Another mistake and the managers are given the responsibility to ensure the craftsmen and supervisors are "doing their job." The cycle of stripping trust continues to deteriorate technical competence of the craftsman until they no longer have pride in their work. At this point, you will see people "jump ship."

Honesty, clarity and clear goals are paramount. So in a politically driven environment how is one to show s/he actually cares about her/his people? There are two ways to do this. Convince your people that you care about them regardless of your true feelings (unfortunately it works). Or actually do what is the best for them, at your own expense at times (that's leadership). This last course will net you the love and respect of your team but not your co-leaders and possibly your superiors. It is humbling to be honest with your team. In a highly driven environment where humility is reviled and pride is exulted, you as a leader will appear weak, incompetent and unable to measure up to the acceptable and required standard.

I had the moral courage to not give in to the "You're an f****** officer in the United States Navy, you tell your people what to do and they will do it!" I refrained from "all caps" here because I hate how it looks, but it should have been put in all caps. I walked into an environment where the managers and senior leadership were not generally trusted. I could not work with my team on an open and honest level. It took me too long to build rapport with the supervisors and I came so close to the ledge of jumping into the stereotypical "in-charge" leader. By God's grace I did not. I knew it was not me and I could not sustain the role. I also did not want to change into the kind of leader the system was trying to groom me to be. So the system rejected me.

This was my experience. These are my observations. This is my perspective. You can take anyone else from that environment and potentially get a view contradictory to mine on every point. I think you won't. I had the unique opportunity to read David Marquet's book, "Turn This Ship Around!" at the very beginning of my interaction with this enterprise and to stand as an auditor or evaluator of sorts. I am not bitter. I do not hate this community. I forgive it for the culture of bullying. And I love it for the incredible people I was able to meet, influence and be influenced by. I absolutely love submarine technology and will continue to stand as an outside observer and commentator for years to come. I look forward to a day when people are the number one mission, because that really is our mission. Think about it. Peace and Grace.

Church-State...Christians-Politicians

I grew up very much being taught to be politically conservative. But not one to simply carry on, I studied the philosophical underpinnings of what the conservatives claimed: free markets. This inevitably led me to Austrian economics and libertarianism as a result. But from the start I had embraced "Christian Economics" and had arrived by a different gate than most libertarians. Mine came through my theological studies primarily, which is foundational to all of my [good] thinking. Even here I found no refuge and have forsaken all political parties. I have abandoned the idea of "rights" which seem to me to be extremely selfish and have instead adopted the idea of "duties." This is a perspective change, however and not some wholesale pitch of a new ideology. Instead of the right to bear arms I believe I have the God mandated duty to protect my family. Instead of "blah" rights I have "blah" duties before God to do "such and such." Our duty must also be weighed in the balance between obeying our earthly rulers with God's rule from heaven (obedience of course, as long as there is no conflict). This is a very different ideology from Ayn Rand's; I would daresay it's the biblical one. Thus, I reject outright the idea that the conservative party represents Christianity in American politics. In fact, it represents the worst of religiosity's use of "god" to invade other countries, claim more power over men's lives and meanwhile holding themselves up as substitute messiahs (even though they prove themselves philanderers, thieves and cheats).

What is a Christian’s responsibility when it comes to politics? I look to Moses who set up the system of judges. I look to Joseph who was the second most powerful person in Egypt. I look to Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael who served a pagan ruler but did not partake in wickedness. So Christians may be involved. And I would argue should be involved in order to exert a godly influence. My view of the biblical argument: Christians can be involved in government without committing sin. In the cases where Christians are involved, we have an established precedence that where God’s people are, God’s mercy is extended (i.e. mercy is God’s law and love). Anecdotally it's kind of like this; given a controlled culture and government that claims the sovereignty that belongs only to God, I appear as a libertarian or even anarchistic. But if I were to live in an anarchistic country, I would appear as a statist/monarchist/socialist since I would call for the restriction of violence by the state. This always seems to be the rule: moderation in all things.

Anglican Blogs & Websites

Reformed Churchmen
Wannabe Anglican
Parish Priest: St. Francis, Dallas
Virtue Online
Stand Firm
Wesleyan/Anglican
Anglicani
Anglicans Ablaze
Anglican Ink
The Sword and the Ploughshare
The Conciliar Anglican
Anglican Way
Anglo-Reformed
Churchmouse Campanologist

The Fallacy (?) of Sola Scriptura

Where do you find that in the Bible?
Sola Scriptura?
Sola Scriptura

This country needs reform, let alone its prisons.

"Fleming is among more than 1,350 inmates exonerated nationwide in the last 25 years."

Wow, that is heart-breaking. How do we stop wrongly convicting the innocent? Is it better to err on the side of more or less people in prison? Traditionally we say to err on the side of safety...don't assume more people in jail is the "safe" option. We place non-violent "criminals" in prison with violent criminals-literally creating criminals that will surely never leave the US criminal "justice" system. Rehabilitation occurs in the real world, not in lockup with [really] bad people.

Political Groupthink

If you think like we do, you deserve the freedom and liberty to be enslaved by groupthink.

If however you exercise the freedom and liberty to think differently you will be enslaved to the court of public opinion.

Enter Bundy.

His words couldn't be less palatable to contemporary sensibilities...but the question isn't "is he right or wrong?"; the question we should be asking is "does he have the right to think differently?".

Women's Ordination

William Witt's Article Series on Women's Ordination

John Piper and Wayne Grudem's Complementarianism

Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE): Free Articles