Subscribe now

Twenty-five years ago, Americans watched things we assumed were secure collapse before our eyes.

The World Trade Center towers dominated the New York skyline. The Pentagon represented the military power of the United States. Commercial air travel had been an ordinary part of American life for decades.

On September 11, 2001, all of that suddenly looked fragile.

Nearly 3,000 innocent people were killed in the terrorist attacks that morning. Thousands of families lost someone they loved. First responders ran toward buildings others were desperately trying to escape. Passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 fought back against their hijackers, sacrificing their lives and likely preventing another attack in Washington.

Like millions of Americans, I remember where I was.

I was the Dean of Students at South Haven Christian School near Valparaiso, Indiana, teaching a high school Bible class when the first plane struck the World Trade Center. At first, we thought it might have been a terrible accident. When the second plane hit, there was no longer any doubt.

We gathered our students and staff for a special chapel service and prayed. At that point, we did not know how many planes had been hijacked or what might happen next.

I have written more about my experience that day.

What I remember most clearly, beyond the horrifying images, is the uncertainty. No one knew whether another attack was coming. No one knew how many people were trapped. No one knew how many more would die.

Twenty-five years later, Psalm 62 speaks directly into that uncertainty:

For God alone, O my soul, wait in silence,
for my hope is from him.
He only is my rock and my salvation,
my fortress; I shall not be shaken.
On God rests my salvation and my glory;
my mighty rock, my refuge is God.
Trust in him at all times, O people;
pour out your heart before him;
God is a refuge for us.

— Psalm 62:5–8, ESV

David does not pretend that danger is imaginary. He does not tell himself that nothing bad can happen.

He tells his soul where to place its hope.

We naturally look for security in things we can see and control: strong institutions, military power, money, technology, physical safety. Those things have their place. Governments should protect their citizens. Buildings should be secure. Terrorists should be stopped.

But none of those things can bear the weight of our ultimate hope.

September 11 exposed that brutally.

The Bible never promises a life insulated from grief or violence. Jesus told his disciples plainly, “In the world you will have tribulation.” His next words, however, were not despair: “But take heart; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33, ESV).

Psalm 46 speaks in similar language: “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.”

A refuge is needed precisely because trouble exists.

For Christians, hope is not confidence that tragedy will never come. It is confidence that tragedy does not have the final word.

That does not erase grief. Twenty-five years later, families still live with empty chairs and memories of phone calls that never came. Survivors and first responders still live with physical and emotional wounds from that day.

Scripture does not tell them—or us—to pretend otherwise.

“Pour out your heart before him,” David writes.

There is room in those words for grief, fear, anger and questions. God does not demand that we hide them before coming to Him. He invites us to bring them.

September 11 taught my generation how quickly the familiar can become uncertain.

Psalm 62 points beyond that uncertainty.

Our buildings can fall. Our sense of security can disappear in a morning. Our lives themselves are far more fragile than we like to admit.

But God is still a refuge.

Twenty-five years later, that is where I find hope.

Subscribe now

Abraham Kuyper’s best-known words came near the end of the public address he delivered at the inauguration of the Free University of Amsterdam on October 20, 1880:

“There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”

Kuyper was speaking about Christian higher education …

Read more

Subscribe now

President Trump’s new executive order on birth tourism is not the same order the Supreme Court just rejected.

The earlier order tried to deny birthright citizenship to certain children born in the United States if their parents were unlawfully or temporarily present. The Supreme Court said no. A five-justice majority …

Read more

Subscribe now

Iowa’s July 2026 voter registration numbers give Democrats a short-term bright spot and a much larger problem.

From June to July, Democrats gained more active voters than Republicans. That is a change from the post-primary movement in 2022 and 2024. But measured from 2014, 2018, 2020, or the last midterm in 2022, Iowa’s active voter rolls are far more Re…

Read more

Subscribe now

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the timing of the World Cup feels almost providential. The world is coming here — not only to watch matches in our stadiums, but to experience the country as it is lived.

Visitors are discovering the big things, like the size of the country, …

Read more

Subscribe now

One of the most common arguments against school choice is the slogan, “No public money for private schools.”

Many school choice critics say it, including the Democratic nominee for Iowa Governor, current State Auditor Rob Sand.

It sounds simple. It sounds principled. It even sounds fiscally responsible.

But the argument collapses the moment it is applied outside K-12 education.

Public money goes to private institutions all the time. It happens in health care. It happens in higher education. It happens in housing. It happens in food assistance. It happens whenever government decides the public purpose is important enough to help individuals access a service through approved providers.

The real issue is not whether public dollars ever reach a private institution. They do. Constantly.

The real issue is whether those dollars serve a legitimate public purpose, whether the recipient is eligible, and whether the provider meets the rules of the program.

That is the standard we use almost everywhere else. K-12 education should not be treated differently simply because some opponents want government-run schools to have a monopoly on public support.

Public funding does not require government delivery

No one says Medicare is illegitimate because seniors receive care from private doctors or private hospitals. No one says Medicaid becomes a giveaway to private health plans because states contract with managed care organizations. No one says food assistance is invalid because SNAP benefits are spent at privately owned grocery stores. No one says housing vouchers are an attack on public housing because families rent from private landlords.

In each case, the public purpose is clear.

Health care is a public concern. Food security is a public concern. Housing stability is a public concern. Higher education is a public concern.

And yes, K-12 education is a public concern.

But a public concern does not require a government monopoly.

Public funding is not the same thing as government operation. A program can be publicly funded, privately delivered, and still serve the public good. That is not a radical idea. It is a normal feature of American public policy.

Iowa already funds students at private colleges

Iowa provides a particularly clear example in higher education.

The Iowa Tuition Grant helps Iowa residents attend eligible private colleges and universities in the state. This is not a fringe program. It is not a scandal. It is not usually described as “public money for private colleges,” even though that is exactly what critics would call it if they applied the same slogan consistently.

The state recognizes that helping Iowa students afford college serves a public purpose. It also recognizes that students do not have to attend a government-run institution for that public purpose to be served.

A student may use state-supported aid at a private college within the state because the benefit is tied to the student’s education, not to preserving a government monopoly.

That is the same principle behind education savings accounts.

If it is legitimate for Iowa to help a student attend a private college, why is it illegitimate for Iowa to help a child attend an accredited nonpublic K-12 school?

Opponents rarely answer that question directly. Instead, they change the subject. They act as if public support for private education is unprecedented. It is not. Iowa has already accepted the principle that public dollars may help students access private educational institutions.

The debate is not about whether public money can ever support private education. That debate is already over.

The question is whether families with K-12 students should be treated with the same respect we already extend to college students.

Higher education exposes the inconsistency

The inconsistency becomes even more obvious when federal aid is considered.

Pell Grants can follow students to eligible colleges, career schools, trade schools, and universities. GI Bill benefits can be used at private institutions of higher learning. Federal student aid is not limited to government-run colleges.

Why? Because the public purpose is educating the student.

We do not tell a veteran, “You may use your earned benefit only at a government-run college.” We do not tell a low-income college student, “You may receive aid only if you attend a public university.” We do not treat private colleges as inherently disqualified from serving students simply because they are private.

Instead, we set eligibility rules. We require approval. We require compliance. We attach conditions to participation. (Contrary to what school choice critics claim, we do the same with the ESA program in Iowa.)

That is a reasonable model.

It is also the model school choice opponents suddenly reject when the student is in kindergarten, fifth grade, or high school rather than college.

It’s not a consistent position.

Location doesn’t determine what is a public good

A child’s education does not stop being a public good because the child attends a nonpublic school.

An educated child benefits the public whether that child is educated in a public school, an accredited nonpublic school, a charter school, or another lawful educational setting. Iowa benefits when children can read, write, reason, work, serve, and contribute to their communities.

That public benefit does not depend on who owns the building.

School choice recognizes that children are different. Families are different. Communities are different. A school that works well for one child may not be the right fit for another. Some children need a smaller environment. Some need a different academic approach. Some need a school culture that better aligns with their family’s values. Some are already thriving in their assigned public school. Others are not.

Respecting those differences is not an attack on public education. It is an acknowledgment that education exists for students, not systems.

Accountability does not require a monopoly

Another version of the argument says private schools should not receive public support because they are not the same as public schools.

Of course they are not the same. That is the point.

Families seek different options because schools are not interchangeable. But different does not mean unaccountable.

Programs can require participating schools to meet eligibility standards. They can limit funds to approved educational expenses. They can require state residency, student eligibility, accreditation, reporting, and program compliance. They can include safeguards against fraud and misuse.

That is how public programs already work with private providers.

Private hospitals that accept Medicare do not become government hospitals. Private landlords who participate in housing voucher programs do not become public housing authorities. Private colleges that accept Pell Grants do not become state universities.

They remain private institutions participating in public programs under defined rules.

That same basic principle can apply to K-12 education.

The slogan is not a principle unless it is applied consistently

If someone truly believes public money should never reach private institutions, then that principle should apply across the board.

No Pell Grants at private colleges.

No GI Bill benefits at private universities.

No Medicare payments to private hospitals.

No Medicaid contracts with private health plans.

No SNAP purchases at private grocery stores.

No child care assistance at private providers.

No housing vouchers paid to private landlords.

Almost no one actually believes that. Instead, the slogan is usually applied selectively to one category: K-12 nonpublic schools.

That selective application reveals the real argument. It is not “no public money for private institutions.” It is “no public support for families who choose private K-12 education.”

That is a much harder position to defend.

The better question

The better question is not whether a provider is public or private.

The better question is whether the program serves the student and advances a legitimate public purpose.

In education, the public purpose is not protecting one delivery model. The public purpose is educating children.

When public dollars help a child access an education that fits, those dollars are not being diverted from education. They are being used for education.

That is true when Iowa helps a student attend a private college.

It is true when federal aid helps a veteran attend a private university.

And it is true when an education savings account helps an Iowa family choose an accredited nonpublic school for their child.

“No public money for private schools” is not a serious governing principle. It is a slogan designed to end the conversation before the inconsistency is exposed.

Once we look honestly at how public programs already work, the slogan falls apart.

Public money should serve the public good.

Helping children receive an education that meets their needs does exactly that.

If you appreciate thoughtful commentary on faith, culture, politics, media, and public policy, I invite you to subscribe and join the conversation.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Something has shifted in how our culture talks about fathers. The change is easy to miss, but it is happening.

For decades, popular culture often served up the bumbling, unnecessary dad: Homer Simpson, Tim “The Tool Man” Taylor, and the familiar sitcom father who needed his wife to explain basic parenting. The joke was usually harmless enough on the surf…

Read more

Subscribe now

State Auditor Rob Sand issued a press release this week highlighting a report critical of Iowa’s Students First Education Savings Account program. One claim has already drawn attention: Sand says the ESA program cost $37,294 “per new student.”

That number is not the cost of an ESA. It’s political math.

The Cost of an ESA Is Not $37,294 Per Student

Sand’s own report estimates the FY26 cost of the ESA program at $329.6 million, serving 41,044 ESA users. He reaches the $37,294 figure by taking that entire program cost and dividing it only by the 8,838 students he estimates are attending nonpublic schools above prior projections.

He leaves more than 32,000 ESA students out of the calculation while still counting the money spent on them. That number may serve a political argument, but it isn’t the actual per-student cost of an ESA. For the 2026-27 school year, the ESA amount is set at $8,148 per student — the same per-pupil amount provided to public schools through supplemental state aid. That’s nowhere close to $37,294.

Sand Defines Access Too Narrowly

Sand’s calculation depends on a narrow definition of access. His report treats the ESA program as though it only provides access when a student enrolls in a nonpublic school he or she otherwise wouldn’t have attended.

But access isn’t limited to whether a family could have somehow enrolled a child in a nonpublic school without an ESA. It also includes whether a family can afford to stay there — whether parents can enroll more than one child, whether they have to rely on grandparents or private tuition assistance, whether they have to take on debt, and whether the choice is sustainable year after year.

Under Sand’s approach, a family already sacrificing to send a child to an accredited nonpublic school didn’t gain access when an ESA reduced that burden. That treats access as a one-time enrollment switch instead of an ongoing question of affordability and parental choice. Parents don’t ask only whether they can somehow make a school choice work. They ask whether they can sustain it responsibly, year after year.

Universal Eligibility Was the Point

Sand’s report criticizes the program because many ESA students were expected to attend nonpublic schools even without it. That misses the point of universal eligibility.

The Students First ESA program wasn’t created as a transfer incentive for students leaving public schools. It was created to support eligible Iowa students whose parents choose an accredited nonpublic school. Iowa doesn’t fund public school students only after proving their families would have made a different choice without public funding — we fund students because education has public value. A child educated in an accredited nonpublic school is still an Iowa student. That value doesn’t disappear because the family was already sacrificing to choose that school.

The “Private Funds” Argument Is Selective

Sand’s report claims roughly $258.7 million went toward tuition that “could have, and likely would have, been paid for with private funds.” That sentence reveals the assumption behind the whole analysis: the Auditor isn’t just asking what the program costs — he’s making a judgment about which families deserve help.

But “could have paid privately” isn’t the standard Iowa uses for public education funding anywhere else. We don’t reduce public school aid because a family could afford tutoring or online courses. We don’t means-test the legitimacy of educating a child in a public school. We shouldn’t treat a child’s education as less worthy of support because the parents chose an accredited nonpublic school instead.

The question isn’t whether parents were already committed enough to choose a nonpublic school. It’s whether Iowa families should have meaningful access to the school that best fits their child.

The School List Has Problems, Too

The press list points to a significant increase in the number of nonpublic schools and includes a table of schools described as having opened during or after the 2022-23 school year. Information from Dr. Josh Bowar, outreach director at the Iowa Association of Christian Schools (IACS), points to a basic problem: the report doesn’t consistently distinguish between a truly new school, an existing school that became accredited, an existing school with a new campus, or a school that’s still open.

That distinction matters. A school that already existed and later became accredited is not the same as a brand-new school created because of ESAs. A new campus connected to an existing school is not a new standalone school. A school that’s still open shouldn’t be treated as closed.

According to Bowar’s research, several IACS schools listed in the report already existed but later became accredited — including Clear Lake Classical Academy (listed twice), Strong Roots Christian School, Victory Christian Academy, Hillside Christian School, Keokuk Christian Academy, Lighthouse Christian School, Joshua Christian Academy (listed three times), Gospel Assembly Christian Academy, Pathway Christian School, Coram Deo Classical School, Great River Christian School, HomeGrown Christian Learning Center, Mayflower Heritage Christian School, Two Rivers Classical Academy (listed twice), Mount Pleasant Christian School, Providence Classical Christian Academy, and Winterset Christian School.

Tri-State Christian School, Siouxland Christian School, and Cedar Ridge Christian School weren’t brand-new schools either — they were existing schools with new campuses or related structures. And Clear Lake Classical and Empigo Academy aren’t closed, despite how the report treats them.

If a report uses school openings and closures to question Iowa’s ESA program, it should accurately describe the schools involved.

The report also raises concerns about independent accreditation without giving readers context. IACS notes that the newer schools in question are Christian or nonsectarian schools, which typically use independent accreditation, while Catholic schools in Iowa have historically leaned toward state accreditation — which helps explain the shift. Independent accreditation isn’t a loophole or a lesser standard. It’s an approved path under a framework established in state law signed by Governor Terry Branstad (I originally said Governor Chet Culver, but it was actually Branstad - credit to where credit is due), and it requires schools to meet standards through approved accrediting agencies. Bowar notes that, in IACS schools’ experience, independent accreditation is often more rigorous and includes actual site visits.

Accreditation is also only one piece of the accountability structure around ESAs. The program includes independent administration, verified spending through the Odyssey platform, annual eligibility review, enrollment requirements, fraud penalties, and state audit authority. School choice and accountability aren’t opposites — they’re both built into the program. It is important to point this out because Sand has criticized the ESA program repeatedly, but his office hasn’t found fraud or abuse in ESA spending.

Without that context, the report leaves readers with the impression that independent accreditation is suspect. It isn’t. It’s part of Iowa’s recognized accreditation framework.

The Political Context Is Relevant

Rob Sand isn’t only the State Auditor. He’s running for Governor, and he’s been openly critical of Iowa’s ESA program. After his office released the press release, he promoted news coverage highlighting the same criticisms that appeared in it.

The Auditor’s Office has a legitimate role reviewing public programs and asking whether taxpayer dollars are spent properly. But Iowans should pay attention to how the numbers are presented. When the full cost of a program is divided by only one subset of students and then presented as the cost of access, that’s not neutral analysis. That’s political math — and the same concern applies to a report that raises questions about school growth and accreditation without making clear which schools are new, which were already operating, which are new campuses, and which are still open.

ESAs Are About Students, Not Projections

The ESA debate should be honest about costs, eligibility, accountability, and outcomes. It should also be honest about what the program actually does.

Students First ESAs help Iowa parents direct education funding to accredited nonpublic schools. They help new families access schools they couldn’t otherwise afford, and they help existing families keep choosing schools that fit their children. Reducing the program to “new students” ignores thousands of Iowa children whose families are receiving real educational support — and it defines access in a way that excludes the very families universal eligibility was designed to include. A family doesn’t lose its need for support simply because it was already trying to do right by its child.

Iowa’s ESA program does not cost $37,294 per student. That number is a political calculation built on a narrow definition of access. The real question isn’t whether every ESA recipient would have made a different choice without the program. It’s whether Iowa believes parents should have more freedom and flexibility in choosing the education that best serves their kids.

If you found this useful, please consider subscribing for more!

Subscribe now

The Iowa Republican gubernatorial primary is over, and the national political press has largely settled on a tidy narrative: Iowa Republicans rebuked Donald Trump, rejecting his endorsed candidate in favor of Make America Healthy Again-aligned businessman Zach Lahn. NPR called it "a rare rebuke to Trump's preferences." The Hill declared it "Iowa hands T…

Read more

Subscribe now

Iowa’s school districts are serving fewer students than they did a generation ago, yet many are employing significantly more non-instructional staff—often 30% to 70% more than in the 1990s. That contrast is not limited to one region or one type of district. It shows up in large districts, mid-sized communities, and even in Iowa’s smallest schools. The o…

Read more

Subscribe now

“Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me,” (Psalm 23:4, ESV).

Psalm 23 is one of the most familiar passages in all of Scripture. It is read at bedsides, funerals, and moments when words seem insufficient. Yet familiarity ca…

Read more

Subscribe now

As the Iowa Legislature reconvenes with property tax relief topping the agenda, a familiar pattern is emerging: long-standing structural problems are being blamed on a politically disfavored reform. In a recent Des Moines Register op-ed, Rehka Basu promotes a proposal from State Senator Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, that would eliminate Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) and use the resulting savings to offset property tax cuts.

The pitch is framed as a “win-win”: property tax relief for homeowners and restored funding for public schools. But this framing collapses under closer examination. The argument relies on shaky assumptions, rhetorical shortcuts, and a false choice between educational freedom and tax relief.

Iowa’s property tax problem is real. Ending school choice is not the solution.

The Core Claim: A False Zero-Sum Choice

At the heart of the argument is the claim that ESA funding represents an unnecessary drain on the state budget—money that could be better used to reduce property taxes by increasing the state’s share of K-12 funding.

This assumes a zero-sum equation:

School choice dollars = lost public school funding

That assumption is deeply flawed.

ESA dollars do not vanish from the system. When students leave district schools, public schools no longer bear the full cost of educating them. Families who use ESAs continue paying property taxes that support public schools even though their children no longer attend them. In many cases, the state spends less per ESA student than it would have spent had that student remained in the public system.

Calling ESA funding an “outflow” ignores the cost offsets and savings created when enrollment declines.

Credentialism Is Not an Argument

The op-ed leans heavily on State Senator Quirmbach’s academic pedigree—his Princeton doctorate, his career as an economics professor—to lend weight to the proposal.

Credentials matter, but they do not replace scrutiny.

Economic policy is not validated by résumé alone. What matters are assumptions, incentives, behavioral effects, and long-term consequences. The op-ed does not meaningfully test whether ESA elimination would:

• Improve student outcomes

• Stabilize public school finances

• Solve property tax growth pressures

• Withstand political or legal scrutiny

It simply asserts that “the math works.”

That is not analysis; it is appeal to authority.

Mischaracterizing Why Families Choose School Choice

Perhaps the most revealing passage in the op-ed suggests Iowa’s ESA program exists primarily to appease parents upset about gender identity policies in public schools.

That is a caricature.

Families choose private schools for a wide range of reasons:

• Academic rigor

• Religious instruction

• School safety and discipline

• Smaller class sizes

• Educational philosophy

Reducing school choice to a single cultural grievance is not only inaccurate—it dismisses the lived experiences of thousands of Iowa families who are simply trying to find the best educational fit for their children.

Policy debates should engage real motivations, not straw men.

“Fairness” Without Parents in the Equation

The proposal is framed as a matter of fairness because property tax relief would benefit all homeowners, while ESAs benefit “only” eight percent of students.

But fairness cuts both ways.

Those eight percent of students are real children with real families—many of whom are working-class, religious, or raising children with unique needs. Eliminating ESAs to fund tax relief treats their educational opportunities as expendable.

Education choice is a recognition that parents, not bureaucracies, are best positioned to decide how their children are educated.

The Constitutional Argument Is Weak

The op-ed asserts that ESAs “indirectly funnel state funds to religious schools” and therefore violate church-state separation.

This is a legally settled question.

ESA funds go to parents, not institutions. Parents independently choose where to use them. Courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—have repeatedly upheld this distinction. Neutral aid programs that empower private choice are constitutional, even when families choose religious schools.

Equating parental choice with state endorsement of religion is both legally incorrect and rhetorically misleading.

Iowa’s Property Tax Problem Is Structural

If lawmakers are serious about property tax relief, they must confront the real drivers:

• Fragmented local taxing authorities

• Rapid assessment growth

• The state’s long-term under-assumption of education costs

• Spending priorities unrelated to school choice

Using ESAs as a funding offset does nothing to address these root causes. It merely reshuffles dollars while narrowing educational options.

That is not reform—it is deflection.

School Choice and Public Schools Are Not Mutually Exclusive

One of the most persistent myths in education policy is that supporting school choice necessarily harms public schools.

The evidence does not support this claim.

Public schools have continued to operate—and in many cases innovate—even as choice has expanded. Enrollment shifts create challenges, but they also create incentives to improve responsiveness, efficiency, and family engagement.

A strong public education system and robust parental choice can coexist. Many states are proving that right now.

A Better Path Forward

If Iowa wants both strong public schools and meaningful property tax relief, lawmakers should:

• Maintain ESAs and respect parental choice

• Increase state assumption of K-12 funding without eliminating alternatives

• Reform assessment growth and levy structures

• Expand targeted property tax relief for vulnerable homeowners

• Encourage innovation across all education sectors

Pitting parents against homeowners is a false conflict—and a political mistake.

The Bottom Line

Eliminating Education Savings Accounts will not fix Iowa’s property tax system. It will not magically restore public school funding. It will not improve educational outcomes.

What it will do is roll back educational freedom, stifle innovation, and treat families’ choices as a budgetary inconvenience.

Iowa can—and should—do better than that.

Subscribe now

Having watched all the available videos (here is a side by side of the two most circulated videos) to date preceding the shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer now identified as Jonathan Ross, including the POV video taken by Ross, I remain convinced that this was…

Read more

Subscribe now

Last week my community was rocked by the stunning news that Dr. Ian Roberts, superintendent of Des Moines Public Schools (DMPS), was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

They charge that Roberts, a native of Guyana, was living and working in the U.S. in violation of immigrat…

Read more

Subscribe now

Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) have stirred passionate debate in Iowa. Some in the homeschooling community worry that ESAs—even though they currently apply only to students in accredited nonpublic schools—will eventually lead to government intrusion into their homes. They fear that if ESAs are eve…

Read more

Subscribe now

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a devastating moment for our country. Regardless of where one stands politically, this act of violence strikes at the foundation of our shared life together as Americans. Political violen…

Read more

Subscribe now

President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order that orders the U.S. Department of Justice to “vigorously prosecute” people who burn the U.S. flag and to pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment as it relates to flag burning.

The President also ordere…

Read more

Subscribe now

I prayed this prayer from Augustine yesterday during my quiet time:

You, Lord, have become my hope, my comfort, my strength, my all! In you does my soul rejoice. The darkness vanished from before my eyes, and I beheld you, the sun of righteousness. When I loved darkness, I knew you not, but wandered on from night to night. But…

Read more