• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Emerging Scholars Blog

InterVarsity's Emerging Scholars Network

DONATE
  • Home
  • About Us
    • About Our Bloggers
    • Commenting Policy
  • Reading Lists
  • Scholar’s Compass
    • Scholar’s Compass Booklet
    • View Recent Posts
  • Connect
    • Membership
    • Events
    • Donate
    • Contact Us

Mike Karim

Faithful Presence: University Structures and Faculty Service (Part Two)

photo of man sitting in front of people
Photo by fauxels on Pexels.com

Engagement

In the previous post, I identified the frustration faculty have with university structures even as they serve within such structures, how the InterVarsity Statement of Faith calls its campus ministers to engage with university structures, and the sundry collection of structures easily observed with in the Bible. I concluded by observing that “some structures we already participate within but we have yet to discover how God would incorporate our faithful presence and work in the academy into the new creation.” In other words, serving in the university can hardly promise guaranteed outcomes. The question of what kinds of outcomes should we aim toward is a question of mission, even as we live by faith and not because we can specify in advance what the outcomes will become. Christians found among university faculty have an abundance of biblical and theological resources with which to participate in fulfilling their service responsibilities. What might describe a faithful response by Christian faculty to university structures? Such faithfulness will engage with our identity in ways that received commendation by Scripture.

Trust in God Is More Than Proclamation

In conversations with Christian faculty, they describe their efforts in evangelization, especially with peers and among graduate students. Their message is orthodox. I celebrate these efforts and commend such declarations as practices that other professors can take up. These descriptions, however, gesture toward a Christian identity that only evangelizes. Surely receiving the grace of God is more than verbal proclamation. Of course, we want others to experience the joy and comfort from God through the forgiveness of sin through Jesus, along with the presence of the Holy Spirit.

What we read in the New Testament regarding identity involves both the announcement of the Gospel and agency that meets the social world to alleviate suffering, confront injustice, as well as engagement that aims to develop creation according to the good and just intent of God, i.e., the mission of God. Too much is at stake here if the only service of faculty is evangelizing their peers and students.

I would draw attention to an observation Lesslie Newbigin made regarding faithfulness in the Pauline letters, and I develop his thought below:

What really needs to be said is that where the Church is faithful to its Lord, there the powers of the kingdom are present and people begin to ask the question to which the gospel is the answer. And that, I suppose, is why the letters of St. Paul contain so many exhortations to faithfulness but no exhortations to be active in mission [i.e., cross-cultural witness and service]. 1

So, while evangelization remains a crucial element to the formation of any and all Christian faculty, such practices hardly bound the kind of engagement faculty have with university structures.

Servanthood

Responding to the call of Jesus to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God produces many changes of identity. One of those changes involves servanthood. What I would call out, for the sake of our topic, is that few Christian faculty act out of their identity as servants within their service component of their contract in ways that go beyond their shared responsibility with their unbelieving colleagues. “Going beyond” involves serving in the university that welcomes spiritual refreshment coming from salvation in Christ. “Going beyond” looks and listens for opportunities within the respective university structures to affirm, refresh, and create policies and programs that promote justice and human flourishing. In other words: “Going beyond” perceives one’s lifestyle as one who serves in the name of Jesus — in the context of the university as a faculty member — who participates in the mission of God.

While a longer discussion of the mission of God remains to be developed elsewhere, I would assert here that God aims to hear and renew all of the created order through the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ: this assertion, obviously, needs to develop how the agency of Christians serves in such a mission. For faculty, the call from Jesus to servanthood as a way of life extends directly into all aspects of being and becoming a faculty member: a researcher, a teacher, and in service to the university.

Let’s pause for a moment here. In this discussion of servanthood, we need to receive the Holy Spirit. (Jn. 20:22) One might expect that, apart from the Spirit of love and power, servanthood would hardly differ from an activism severed from a vital connection with Jesus. Servants become developed from a connection with the Holy Spirit and a praxis of care for those on the margins of their social location. (Acts 1:8; 2:4; Lk. 10) Such development contributes to exercising our faith in God and to deepening our life in God but does not guarantee specific outcomes.

Suffering

One professor informed me of deciding to decline an invitation to an elite committee involved in campus restructuring. This invitation was made with an announced conviction of trust that the persons in the committee would create new policies. The work of the committee would satisfy external regulatory boards and other credentialing associations which needed the presence of such an administrative group. Such a group, however, had existed before: And the administration managed to circumvent and ignore policies for collaboration with faculty. For this faculty member, the whole invitation reeked of the hard work of policy development that the administration had no intention of engaging and practicing. Having observed this behavior before, the faculty member perceived such labors to have zero influence and maximal discomfort.

This characterization is the hardest part of engagement. Far too many faculty reading this post know of a quiet, passive resistance to change that would produce justice and freedom within higher education. One can hardly decry decisions to avoid working with people perceived as bad actors: And, if called out, would those with power act on behalf of faculty or to preserve their powers? The kind of inflicted pain and disillusionment, even in milder forms, has contributed to faculty disengaging with university structures.

Examples of Engagement

The fiction of risk-free faith

An assistant professor on the cusp of submitting his tenure dossier explained why he wasn’t involved with any Christian students or Christian fellowship on campus. He was told by well-intentioned Christians he should just lay low with going public about his faith until he received tenure; announcing he was a Christian in the life sciences would harm his promotion. “After I receive tenure, I can start witnessing and serving.”

It may be the case that more is hidden in that declaration than disclosed. He might be the sole breadwinner of his household and may need to have health insurance or provide for childcare. He may have graduate students relying upon his funding sources and mentoring. And, yet, this tenure-track professor was convinced he needed to keep his faith under wraps. This stands in contrast to the practices of the early church:

Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs… And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens… They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonor, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they, rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life… As the soul benefits from the deprivation of food and drink, so Christians flourish under persecution. Such is the Christian’s lofty and divinely appointed function, from which he is not permitted to excuse himself.” (Letter to Diognetus, ca.130)

It should be declared now: There’s no risk-free faith. This faculty member failed to observe that he was already giving witness to the Gospel: a gospel that was full of fear. In contrast, Jesus appeared to his disciples (John 20:19–23), showing his healed wounds and breathing his Spirit into them: They were sent into the world, into God’s mission, aware that suffering would accompany them, unable to control the outcomes of their lifestyle, their service, and their proclamation. God’s power would accompany the announcement of the Good News.

Good examples

I have some examples of faculty who have created and engaged the structures of the university, and while these professors are modest, I can promote their agency here. One senior faculty member approached the department chair — asking for money! — to create an annual event at the end of the spring term. Senior students would give a public presentation of their research. Once approved, the whole department was invited. It’s a huge event with food and drink every spring. Having hosted this event for several years, invariably a colleague approaches the senior professor and says, “I love this event. It reminds me of why I got into our discipline in the first place.” This kind of celebration of knowledge production among undergraduates created a salutary and refreshing influence throughout the department.

Another faculty member served as the chair of a search committee for an African American literature professor. He needed to do homework on his colleague who had just retired. He learned how the policies and practices of the department had both helped and hindered the former colleague. He learned all the good, the bad, and the ugly of the retired professor, and how incredibly hard life and work was in the same department that they were in for years together. So, serving on the search committee became more than delegating dossiers and other tasks within the committee. He found himself having hard conversations with the department chair and the dean, collaborating to clear administrative barriers for the new hire. That initiative, outside of the search description for the chair, led to a fruitful hire and produced changed policies.

Lest I write this only citing how senior faculty have exercised influence inside their university structures, I need to reference a small tenure-track cohort of more than ten years ago at a Midwest university. None of these professors were in the same department, but the campus was small enough that they could find each other. After about a year, one of the assistant professors declared that he could not keep his faith down as he awaited his promotion for tenure when there may be a perceived safety risk. He needed to publish how he understood the Christian faith engaged his discipline as well as the campus itself: now. He asked how his cohort was feeling about this, and one of the women present expressed a desire to think it over and to pray and to talk about his proposal again. A few weeks later, she announced to the group that she, too, would be making her faith known to her students and colleagues, inviting their prayers. She realized that, for her, awaiting her tenure promotion was tantamount to placing her faith in the university instead of the risen Lord. Soon, all of the small cohort was taking on similar public projects. Unsurprisingly, they all received tenure in the time to be expected at their university. They were all known for their generous participation within their departments and understood as respectful listeners to others of different faith traditions, even as they published their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

“Saving the University?” Or Life as One Saved Inside the University?

Anyone reading this might ask the question: “Are you proposing that we serve to save the university structures’?” Given what I’ve written so far, it’s not an outlandish nor a distracting question. Furthermore, I’m aware that some reading this post might conclude I’m hosting a mild case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. (I might still.) I harbor no Pollyanna ambitions. Nor do I presuppose that such a career-long involvement would become generative of reproducing a specific sense of morality or a return to halcyon days of university life. I refuse any notion of what outcomes should materialize, save that the overall goal might produce human flourishing: an important element of God’s mission. 2 With those qualifications in mind, let me take up a few possible objections here to clarify my intention about Christian faculty serving within university structures.

First, this post is about mission, not soteriology. Put another way: Yes, God sent his one and only Son into the world to save the world. (Jn. 3:17) And, if we’re reading “save” as “getting people into heaven after they die,” we might misunderstand the Fourth Gospel or the rest of the New Testament. In saving women and men across history through the crucified and risen Jesus, God’s great reign aimed to work through them in love and with power to heal and renew creation.

Such ways of living as saved people understands God’s call to eternal life to act in the present as God’s agents of mission. These agents of God’s mission anticipate a future of God that joins the new heaven and new earth in celebration and in work to promote flourishing for all. Given the global importance of the university, Christian faculty have a credible, long-term occasion to participate in mission with Christ in a limited and selective manner. This occasion will require both spiritual disciplines and attentive labor regarding how (and to what end) university structures operate in the institution.3

I realize that no one generates and develops their intellectual powers and labor and, having obtained tenure, wakes up one day and says, “I should become an administrator of a university structure.”4 But finding the kinds of service that contribute to God’s shalom, justice, and human flourishing is surely a matter of prayer and of risk-taking, and long term commitment. Clarity in how the tenure policies/processes work? Developing sustainable practices that contribute to the flourishing of contingent faculty? There are so many possibilities for credible, fruitful service by faculty.

Second, Christian faculty serving in an intentional manner for university reform and renewal is one of many possible biblically-sourced responses. As suggested in one of my examples above, one can land on a variety of readings from the Bible and conclude: “Just make the faith about verbal proclamation. It’s a solid description of our beliefs.” It’s worth observing that none of us within the university should delegate the responsibility of proclamation to our colleagues in the religious studies department or presume that surrounding congregations and campus ministries have evangelism covered. Social and cultural diversity can work against a credible comprehensive dissemination of the Gospel.

This is why people “go,” and the faithful who are “there” both have the graceful occasion by which to faithfully live in ways that announce the Good News. It is important to recall that all structures are populated with persons who also need to hear the Good News. While a dedicated ministry of evangelism is needed, so are committed faculty who serve as agents of God’s mission throughout one’s career to heal and renew university structures. Such agency aims to serve God, the campus, and the world.

Finally, my proposal joins our spiritual disciplines with our ever-developing person within the academy: this is a long-term engagement with the academy, not a one-off event. The kind of person that God dwells within will go about knowing they are beloved by God and know themselves as a child of God (1 Jn. 3:1–3). Consequently, there is an important need to cultivate our lives centered upon Jesus. As Trevor Hudson observed, it’s far too easy for our lives to “get bogged down in dull familiarity, empty routines, and tired clichés.”5 Seeking God is not only welcomed by God, but an enduring invitation. (Jer. 29:13–14; Mt. 6:33) Experiences of seeking not only contribute to our identity as servants within the university, but empower us for bold, compassionate declaration of the Gospel.

Such is the life of faith developed and centered on Jesus: You and I may never know how our presence and labors within our respective campuses may produce the kinds of shalom, justice, and gospel that the Lord desires and takes pleasure in. But we can trust that the same power and love that was exerted in raising Jesus from the dead will be at work in us, conforming us into Christ-like women and men.

So, we pray “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as in heaven” for our departments, colleges, and universities. We live into those prayers confident that the risen Jesus accompanies us in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. We have this great and fearful occasion and opportunity to serve our campus through the university structures. We serve, then, aiming that the fruit of our prayers and labors will produce a more just campus structure, one that contributes to the flourishing of the university, the world, and to God’s mission. We may suffer. There are no promised outcomes that ensure our safety or that our name and effort will receive citation. We are promised that Jesus will be with us always, even to the end of the age.

Endnotes:

  1. Newbigin, Lesslie. 1989. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Geneva [SZ]: W.B. Eerdmans ; WCC Publications: 119.
  2. The question on the mission of God (missio Dei) deserves better discussion and engagement with higher education. See the following for a lucid explanation of the missio Dei:  Flett, John G. 2014. “A Theology of Missio Dei.” Theology in Scotland 21 (1): 69–78.
  3. “One lesson of the past would seem to be that Christian and other religiously based higher education is better off when it recognizes, as is easy to do in our postsecular age, that it is a minority enterprise in a richly diverse society. As such, it will not be able to impose its will on others, but, rather, its challenge will be to make itself so attractive in its practices and outlooks that, despite its inevitable imperfection, others will admire it and want to emulate some of its qualities.” Marsden, George M. 2021. The Soul of the American University Revisited: From Protestant to Postsecular. Oxford, UNITED STATES: Oxford University Press, Incorporated: 389. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/fuller/detail.action?docID=6551633.
  4. Dettmar, Kevin. 2022. “Advice | Administration Can Be a Calling.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. September 30, 2022. https://www.chronicle.com/article/administration-can-be-a-calling.
  5. Hudson, Trevor. 2022. Seeking God: Finding Another Kind of Life with St.Ignatius and Dallas Willard. S.l.: NavPress Pub Group: .

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • More
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest

Faithful Presence: University Structures and Faculty Service

fauxels at Pexels

The Ubiquity of Faculty Service to the University…and Frustration

Service within the university is rarely celebrated or joyfully anticipated. Every faculty member has some service responsibilities: From an R1 to a community college, faculty members have some assignment of service. And, while such is a contractual expectation, no one has received tenure (or been promoted) for completing their service responsibilities.

Many faculty disclose utter frustration when discussing their histories of serving within the university. Agendas where decisions focus on fulfilling quotas. Meetings that isolated junior faculty from participating in the decision-making of the committee. Administering programs that required reporting to several administrative offices on campus or never having any funding to hire administrative labor for communication and administrative work: sometimes, both. Committee structures that secured power for senior faculty. Meetings hosted with no clear agenda, random speeches given (by mostly senior faculty), and no clear actionable responsibilities. When I first heard these descriptions, I assumed these were outliers. Not so. Over and over faculty readily identified participating in structures that were broken and messy. Such experiences contribute to perceptions by the faculty as to the fractured nature of higher education. Frustration easily grows among the most optimistic of faculty. Including Christian professors:

The fragmentation [of higher education] is so pervasive that no one is likely to be able to do much to change the direction of the whole. Too many competing powerful interests, ideological and economic, are involved. Yet we as Christians may still ask what opportunities there are for us to contribute positively within sometimes challenging university settings.
George Marsden1

Marsden has reproduced here what so many professors know in their bones: A genuine sense of frustration and resignation in response to ideological and economic demands. This description of the brokenness by Marsden is not an exaggeration. So, Marsden decides to foreclose engagement with the university at the structural level. These kinds of decisions among faithful women and men in the academy are common; while lying out in the open, many Christian faculty do not signal their distancing from (and their sense of resignation with) university structures.

What follows from Marsden is worth trusting. He proposes a kind of disposition of better scholarship leading to a credible and faithful engagement in the academy. Note how Marsden suggests what the direction should produce:

If Christians can demonstrate by the way they treat those with whom they differ that they are good community members in a pluralistic setting, then they should be in positions to emphasize that varieties of religious viewpoint ought to be honored within university communities. Administrators and others who can influence academic policies should then be trying to promote something like “principled pluralism”…

Of course, Marsden aims toward an engagement that John Inazu developed.2 I want to join Marsden, and say, “Amen!” Our speech and conduct — our very presence — should lead to an assessment as “good community members.” We — and the world — benefit from the fruits of our knowledge production that participate in a pluralistic institution. Refreshed considerations of one’s discipline through personal faith and Christian theology can articulate a new vista for justice and human flourishing that serve the campus and the world. Our personal relations and knowledge production can lead to becoming known as collegial and a contributor. Marsden’s proposal, though, offers a clear decision to withdraw from structural rehabilitation (or renewal) in the university in favor of attractive ideational proposals.

But I would draw our attention to my emphasis on Marsden’s suggestion: To “be in position” is to participate in a university structure. To simply declare one’s ideational preferences hardly engages with the power of that university structure: Whether those administrators and others would exercise their power stands independent of what ideas are proposed to initiate and undergird changes existing in the university.

And, yet: Marsden is correct: It is to “be in position” where university structures are sustained, corrected, and improved. That is not to say that such proposed reproductions and changes will represent God or Christ, or manifest as informed by the Bible. I am only affirming that one has to “be in position” in order to have any possibility for participating in the university structures.

Surprised by the InterVarsity Statement of Faith

Possibly some reading this post might ask, “Why would InterVarsity staff care about university structures? How is this concern part of their ministry?” Tucked beneath the “Beliefs” of the Statement of Faith of InterVarsity is the following:

Our beliefs lead us to these core values [in the] Context [of] Colleges and Universities:
We are called to be a redeeming influence
among their people, ideas, and structures.

For the sake of this post, I am treating “structures” as those ideas, institutions, policies, and procedures that contribute to the operation and growth of the university, which includes “differential access to the approved opportunities for legitimate, prestige-bearing pursuit of the culture goals.”3 More often than not, faculty populate many of those structures; they often know how to obtain and who possesses “differential access” that lead to fulfilling the goals of the structure. And they often know who is excluded from “differential access.”

Some of the more obvious structures are well known: Admissions. Tenure Promotion. Academic advising. Curriculum committees. Faculty daily engage with a myriad of structures. Sometimes the engagement is fruitful, possibly pleasurable. But that’s rare. Thus, in serving the university, InterVarsity staff announce the Good News on campus. But such announcements hardly set limits on God’s reign. The Gospel is for all of creation, and therefore, it will address how university structures, obvious and inconspicuous, might participate in the Kingdom of God.

Biblical Selections on Structures

Since I’ve mentioned the Bible, it would be good to ask what, if any, concerns can be found within the Bible regarding structures. What follows represents a partial selection of structures found in the Bible. Besides lifting these to the surface, I trust this fragmentary collection demonstrates the variety of structures created, engaged, and a range of outcomes.

Genesis 47:13–26

Joseph creates and develops economic policies in response to a regional famine. The enduring problem of famine creates opportunity for a new policy measure of servitude. While servitude to cancel one’s debts could be found throughout the ancient Near East, this structure appeared without a clear termination date. Perhaps the silence within the text about the immorality of this structure suggests both a critique and a portent of what follows. 4

Deuteronomy 19:1–10

The Torah provides a safe haven for anyone committing unintentional manslaughter and elaborates on specific lethal events either known in recent history or deadly accidents that could plausibly occur, all of which precedes entry into the city. The structure also creates the possibilities for preventing civic leadership from enacting hasty judgment upon the person whose actions lead to death. The safe haven proposes a geo-institutional structure that receives theological support from a covenantal history with YHWH.5

Mark 11:15–17

The practice of Temple offerings gave important liturgical continuity with the Torah (e.g., Lev. 1–7). Depending upon one’s socio-economic class, the various offerings and sacrifices may have needed a monetary transaction or exchange to fulfill the law. The narrative suggests the presence of nearby workers who were accountants, treasury officials, and security. Such persons were needed to fulfill the transactions but the sheer volume of businesses—along with exorbitant prices for the transactions—inhibited YHWH’s call to prayer for all nations (Isa.56:7). The failure of the temple comes into sharp relief by Jesus in addressing the resources of faith, prayer, and mutual forgiveness in accessing God’s favor.6 Even if the retail exchange structures could be endorsed from the Torah, the excessive charges and corruption placed the practices of the money changers and “dove sales” representatives in opposition to the worship of God.

Revelation 21

The book of Revelation has a criticism of imperial Rome, as well as a severe critique of Roman allies and those who betray the people of God. “The whole point of John’s writing is that it is in this world, in this human history, that the power of the Lord will be seen.”7 In reading Ch 21, we observe the intention of God to establish a new city, one brightened with a different source of guidance and power for its social arrangements. Relationships are now characterized by reconciliation. The present and the future for creation proposes both the illuminating presence of God and a diversity of peoples worshipping and working in the new heavens and the new earth; such work confers dignity to the person and their labor, while contributing to the flourishing of all creation.

A summary of the above biblical texts offers both an affirmation of the tendency of humans to create structures and for those structures to produce mixed outcomes. Even with the Bible observing, affirming, and critiquing structures, we don’t necessarily find some straight-line guidance on structures. We receive narratives and poetry that aim to cultivate ways of life under the reign of God. Often, those biblical texts aim to cultivate God’s shalom and justice.

This selection of texts are examples but are not prescriptive in our efforts to understand and engage structures. I aim here to reaffirm that the Bible has already observed the presence of structures. Furthermore, some of the outcomes run counter to the worship of God and the mission of God. Some structures need revision and renewal but not abandonment. Some structures we already participate within but we have yet to discover how God would incorporate our faithful presence and work in the academy into the new creation.

In the next post, I will elaborate on engagement with university structures that cohere with the mission of God, along with a few good stories of faculty engagement with structures that aim to develop our faith in Jesus with our careers in the university.

Bibliography

  1. Marsden, George. 2022. “Higher Education in a ‘Post-Secular’ Age.” Substack newsletter. The Raised Hand (blog). September 15, 2022. https://theraisedhand.substack.com/p/higher-education-in-a-post-secular.
  2. Inazu, John D. 2018. Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference. University of Chicago Press.
  3. Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3 (5): 679. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686.
  4. Walton, John H, Victor H Matthews, and Mark W Chavalas. 2012. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. InterVarsity Press: 79.
  5. Brueggemann, Walter. 1982. “The Bible and Mission: Some Interdisciplinary Implications for Teaching.” Missiology 10 (4): 401-403. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000797138&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
  6. DeSilva, David A. 2018. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation. InterVarsity Press: 221.
  7. Boesak, Allan. 1987. Comfort and Protest: Reflections on the Apocalypse of John of Patmos. Westminster Press: 129.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • More
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest

Primary Sidebar

Become a Member

Membership is Free. Sign up and receive our monthly newsletter and access ESN member benefits.

Join ESN Today

Scholar’s Compass Booklet

Scholar's Compass Booklet

Click here to get your copy

Top Posts

  • The Message of Genesis 1
  • Faith and Reason, Part 2: Augustine
  • A Prayer for Those Finishing a Semester
  • Longing: Greatness and Grace in our Leaders
  • 2020 Advent Resources, Week 2: Black Liturgies

Facebook Posts

Facebook Posts

Footer

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

Recent Posts

  • Longing: Greatness and Grace in our Leaders
  • Through the Lens of Faith: Studying Literature in the Communion of Saints
  • Hosting Effective Book Groups

Article Categories