Someone recently accused me of wanting to dismiss the Eastern Church entirely.

My offense was pointing out that the canon of saints is overwhelmingly male — and that this isn’t coincidence. It’s what you get when the institution that decides who counts as a saint has been, for most of Christian history, run exclusively by men. The outcome speaks for itself. You don’t need to establish intent when you have five hundred years of publication records.

Their counterargument: We don’t reject the Western church because of colonialism.

The rooster crowed.

That’s how the song ends. That’s how the gospel ends that scene. And it’s not just a detail about the hour. It’s the sound of a worldview breaking open.

Peter hadn’t simply lied to save his skin. He had, three times over, declared a theology. He knew what a Lord was supposed to be — and the man being led away in chains didn’t match it. So the denials weren’t just fear. They were confession. Every “I don’t know him” was also an “I know what a Lord looks like, and it’s not that.”

There is a confusion embedded in the name itself. Good Friday. As if death were the point. As if the cross were the gift. As if what we are celebrating — if that word even applies — is the killing of a man by an apparatus of imperial power and religious collaboration.

It is not.

Death is the enemy. Paul says so plainly: “The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26). The whole arc of the New Testament runs against death, not toward it. Jesus doesn’t die because death is good. He dies because the machinery of human sin — state power, religious legitimacy, crowd psychology, bureaucratic cowardice — grinds up innocent people, and he walked straight into it rather than around it.

There is a thing we do when we are afraid. We ask for the map. We want to know the route, the timeline, the method. We want someone to tell us: here is exactly how this ends. Here is the morning that is coming. Here is the mechanism by which the suffering resolves.

And when no one will tell us — when the silence holds, when the answer doesn’t come — we decide that the silence means the story is not going to end well.

We conflate not knowing the how with not knowing the what. We mistake the absence of a timetable for the absence of a promise.

A LinkedIn post went modestly viral this week. It warned that people in emergencies are reaching for their phones instead of helping. It urged “responsible actions over passive observation.” It got a lot of 🙏 reactions and shares.

It was also wrong — or at least wrong enough to be worth correcting.

In 1964, Kitty Genovese was murdered outside her apartment building in Queens. The story that spread was that dozens of neighbors heard her screams and did nothing. No one intervened. No one called the police. Later reporting showed the original account was exaggerated — fewer witnesses, more ambiguity. But the psychological research it inspired has been replicated dozens of times under controlled conditions. The phenomenon is real even if the founding story was messy.

One sermon can’t do everything. But it does choose what it will leave out.

I want to be fair about what happened at the Maundy Thursday service I attended, because it was led by a woman pastor — and we need more of those, not fewer. She preached well. The message was drawn straight from the opening of John 13: Jesus loves his people to the end. True. Grounded. Worth sitting with.

And the basins came out. The towels followed. People removed their shoes.

There is a kind of knowledge that only imagination can give you.

Not speculation. Not fantasy. Something more painful and more useful than either — the capacity to hold what could have happened alongside what did, and to feel the difference. Not abstractly. In your chest.

This is what grief does at its most honest. And this is what the dramatic monologue at the heart of this song asks Judas to do — not from the outside looking in, but from the wreckage, looking back at the fork in the road he didn’t take.

The clip circulated for days: a pastor at a campaign rally, Bible raised, declaring that God had anointed this candidate to restore Christian America. The crowd roared. The flags waved. And somewhere offscreen, the sword was already drawn.

There’s a version of Christian witness that looks like a clenched fist. It knows who the enemy is. It has scripture for the fight. It has prophets on the stage reading the maps and showing you where you are on heaven’s calendar. And it is absolutely certain that this moment — this political moment, this cultural conflict — is the one where the church must hold the line.

There is a version of Christianity that treats surrender like agreement.

As if the will of God and the will of the person happen to line up, and what looks like obedience is really just preference with a theological label on it. As if submission costs nothing because there was never any real resistance to overcome.

Gethsemane destroys that story.

There is a particular kind of comfort that comes from being in the room.

You know the people. You know the liturgy. You’ve been doing this long enough that the words come before the thought, the gesture before the intention. You reach for the bread because that’s what you do on Thursday nights. You drink the cup because you always have.

The disciples at the Last Supper weren’t strangers off the street. They were the inner circle — the men who had left everything, who had walked the roads, who had watched the miracles up close. If anyone had earned the right to feel secure at that table, it was them. And that’s exactly what makes the question so devastating.

We would have given him the credit.

That’s the thing worth saying first, before anything else. If Donald Trump had spent these years building the infrastructure of human flourishing — if his name were on the cooling towers, the community daycares, the Medicaid checks, the rockets going to the moon — we would have said: fine. Put your name on it. Gold letters if you want. Trump Care. Trump Space. The Tremendous Beautiful Big-Hearted Social Safety Net.

We don’t care about the name. We care about the thing.

I know a publisher who has built a catalog of books using AI assistance — cover art generated by machine, text modernized and edited with AI tools, production work that would have required a small team a decade ago now handled by one person and a subscription. That catalog has generated real income over the past few years. Not quit-your-day-job money. But real money, accumulating quietly while doing something else.

Roughly fifteen percent of that income has been going to a friend who is a working digital artist. Not because a platform required it. Not because a licensing agreement mandated it. Because every AI-generated cover is a commission that didn’t go to a human artist — and this particular human artist is in exactly the cohort that absorbed that displacement most directly. The money arrives in two installments. She didn’t know the first payment was half until the second one arrived.

This is not a policy proposal. It is a thing that is already happening. And it points toward something the current AI ethics debate has almost entirely missed.

A recent essay in Minding the Campus covers the departure of James Hankins from Harvard after 40 years on the faculty. His exit essay indicts the institution for displacing academic merit with racial preference in admissions. The author treats this as the central problem in American higher education.

It isn’t. It’s a distraction from a more fundamental question that neither conservatives nor liberals particularly want to ask: why is the pool so artificially small to begin with?

Harvard’s endowment sits in the tens of billions of dollars. They admit roughly 3% of applicants. That ratio is not a law of nature. It is a resource allocation choice that keeps the brand exclusive and the endowment appreciating.

As I write this, Donald Trump is sitting inside the Supreme Court chamber — the first sitting president ever to attend oral arguments — watching Solicitor General D. John Sauer argue that children born in the United States to undocumented parents should not be citizens. Chief Justice Roberts is already pushing back hard. The ACLU is about to respond. And somewhere in the chamber, two justices — Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson — are descended from enslaved people whose very citizenship was established by the amendment now under siege.

It is not a small day.

But I want to come at this from a different angle than the legal commentators. Because in Christian nationalist circles, and in the broader religious right that has given Trump his political oxygen, there is often an appeal — sometimes explicit, sometimes just atmospheric — to biblical principles of nationhood. America was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The Bible has something to say about who belongs.

There’s a film term for an object that everyone in the story wants, that drives the entire plot, but that has no real content of its own. It’s a briefcase full of light. It’s the Holy Grail. It’s the thing that makes people do things without mattering in itself.

The term is MacGuffin.

I want to ask, gently but honestly, whether that’s what Mary has become in certain strands of Christianity — particularly those shaped by American Catholic conservatism. Not as an accusation. As a question worth sitting with. Because if the answer is yes, something important has been lost. And the loss isn’t just about Mary.

A woman named Suzanne posted on Reddit yesterday. She wrote:

“Hi, I’m Suzanne and I’m trying to stay housed right now. I need $400 to cover my next week in a hotel in Williamsburg, VA. Without it, I will be back on the street. I am partially disabled with respiratory issues and severe PTSD, and I rely on my service dog daily. I cannot be separated from him. I’ve been working online and trying to stabilize, but it hasn’t been enough yet. I’ve also tried shelters and local options but have not been able to get help in my situation. If anyone is able to help or offer advice, I would truly appreciate it. Thank you for reading.”

That’s $400 for one week. $1,600 a month — if she can string the weeks together — for a room at an extended-stay motel. No lease. No protections. No security deposit to recover. Just weekly rates and the permanent threat of being told to leave.

There’s a recurring scene in the Gospels that never stops being uncomfortable. The disciples argue. Not just once — with remarkable consistency, they argue about rank, about proximity to power, about who among them is greatest. Luke places this argument at the Last Supper itself. While Jesus is instituting the meal that commemorates his broken body, his closest followers are negotiating their seating chart in the coming kingdom.

Jesus is not attending to them.

This is what “He Stopped For Me” asks us to sit with: the structural irony that the people most desperate to be seen by Jesus — most anxious about their standing before him, most vocal about their place in his orbit — are precisely the ones he keeps decentering. He corrects them. He washes their feet. He loves them with patience that strains comprehension. But his attention, in the Gospels’ most charged moments, moves somewhere else entirely.

There’s a moment in Luke 16 where it’s already too late — and that’s when the man finally understands. He remembers Lazarus. He remembers his brothers. He has, at last, the moral clarity he lacked when it would have cost him something.

That scene haunts me — not because it’s a neat lesson about hellfire, but because of the specific agony at its center: the man can now see clearly, and seeing clearly no longer helps. The chasm is fixed. The story is done.

But what if it weren’t? What if the rich man got a second pass — not as punishment, but as grace? Not to undo anything, but simply to reckon with it? What would he say?

John 18:38 is one of the most devastating verses in the New Testament, not because of what Jesus says, but because of what Pilate does immediately after asking.

“What is truth?”

He walks out. He doesn’t wait for an answer. He already has one.

There is a kind of captivity that doesn’t look like captivity. It has stained glass. It has harmonies. It has people who love you — in their way, in their limits, in their need for you to stay exactly as you are.

This song is for the woman who has been loved badly and told it was holy.