Ben Norquist and I have a book titled Every Somewhere Sacred: Rescuing a Theology of Place in the American Imagination coming out June 16, 2026 with IVP Academic. See the cover below:
Pre-order the book here. Download a free chapter here.
By November 2022, we had a working outline of the book and a draft proposal for the project. We were excited about the possibilities of considering land and places from a theological and social science point of view. We agreed there was a need for a book that helped American Christians think about approaches to land and place, to consider what did not work currently or in the past and what could work in the present and future.
Going from our proposal to a full draft took a lot of writing, reading, and conversation. We learned a lot. We got words into documents and then revised them. We tried out ideas with friends and colleagues. We finished the full draft manuscript in July 2024.
This is a bit of the back story of what will be released in full in June. I’ll be sharing more about the book in the coming months ahead of the release.
I have heard lots of descriptions over the years from writers and academics about how to write. What works? What doesn’t? What routine you should follow? And so on. This is often in response to a question from a colleague or student who is curious about the process or is looking for advice. The answers or accounts tend to be idiosyncratic: what works for one particular person and personality. My sense is writers have to figure it out for themselves, trying some different methods and having some flexibility since conditions can be variable.
If I were asked my tips for writing, I would offer these two pieces of advice:
Work ahead of deadlines. Some writers describe how deadlines inspire them to do great work at the last minute. They need to feel the pressure. I tend to have lots written way before the deadline. If I have a writing project to complete in a month, I will slowly work on it for weeks so that when that deadline is a week to a few days away, the draft is pretty complete. This takes some planning and finding time but my own experience is that it leads to better work. It is also related to #2…
Give yourself time to think as you write. This is another reason I find writing at or very near a deadline does not work as well for me; it limits the time I have to think about what I am writing. Writing is thinking so if I am doing this way ahead of a deadline, the wheels are turning. There is time to explore new paths, consider sources I did not consider before, revise my argument if needed, and revise. I need the time to mull over what I am writing and writing under pressure makes that harder, not easier.
As for other factors that writers often talk about – where do you write? what mood do you need to be in? do you set aside time and give yourself word counts? do you listen to music or need silence? – I find these less important than the two points above. With plenty of lead time and mental room to think, I can write.
“Zoning is one of the great protectors we have for investment,” he said. “Zoning is not (there) to exclude. Zoning is to protect.”
Suburbanites have invested money into their homes and zoning helps ensure property values increase/do not drop. Suburban residents like single-family homes, in part because of they view them as sources of wealth. They then can see many other land uses near these homes as threats to those values.
The second quote:
“Our local leaders are best positioned to craft solutions tailored to their residents’ needs,” he said.
Suburbanites also like local control. They can create zoning to prompt development that is consistent with what already exists in the community. They can spend local monies on what residents want. They have more control of local spending, rather than letting others further away spend their monies.
At the same time, do the efforts to protect and retain local control mean that suburban communities limit who might live in their community? Zoning for larger lots will tend to drive up housing values. Keeping zoning (and other matters) under local control means local officials can shape local options. If lots of suburban communities follow these logics, this can limit opportunities.
The self-driving taxi company is deploying about 10 vehicles in Chicago to start mapping the city’s streets — thus “laying the early groundwork” for future operations here — Waymo said Wednesday.
But for now, the cars will be driven by people. State officials say legislative change is likely needed to give the green light to self-driving cars in Illinois, and Waymo’s Chicago soft launch comes as a battle over the issue is heating up in Springfield…
The mayor’s office confirmed Waymo had notified the city it would be operating here “in order to map streets formations, record geographical data, and better understand driving conditions.” The company assured the city it would not deploy autonomous vehicles in Chicago yet, the mayor’s office said….
Though several legislative attempts last year went nowhere, state lawmakers have filed at least three bills related to autonomous vehicle regulation since January…
I was aware of the need for a regulatory framework. Rules need to be established. Liability needs to be defined. Political negotiations or compromises need to take place. There are regulations from other places can provide direction but there may also be Illinois or Chicago specific concerns.
I was more surprised to hear about the mapping needs. What additional information does Waymo need compared to what is already available? What extra details will be captured? How much information can the mapping gather? How much data does the typical Waymo vehicle have access to while moving around the streets of Chicago?
There are a lot of roadways in Chicago. Driving them all would take less time than running them all. But it will still take some time. Will the mapping be done before the legislative or regulatory activity finishes? Are there multiple waves of data collection?
The article provides no possible dates of when action related to this will finish. Perhaps Chicago will have its driverless cars in a year or a few years. When that happens, it will be with massive amounts of mapping data and clear state (and local?) guidelines.
I regularly drive past a sign at the beginning of a residential neighborhood that says: “Through trucks over 5000 lbs GVW prohibited.”
I would guess the primary purpose of the sign is to limit trucks from cutting through this residential area. A driver might want to avoid a busy intersection about a half mile from this sign and driving through the neighborhood could be a shortcut. Residents do not want to hear trucks, breath their exhaust, or have to maneuver around them while out and about their neighborhood.
At the same time, the vehicle weight might matter as well. Heavier vehicles put more stress on roads. Having heavy trucks regularly travel on a road will damage the surface more quickly. These are residential roads, not heavy-duty roads that handle tens of thousands of vehicles each day. The roads are meant to funnel drivers from single-family homes to the major roadways that can handle more traffic.
It is hard to get an exact figure quickly but there appears to be plenty of passenger vehicles that are over 5,000 pounds. Pickup trucks and large SUVs can exceed this weight regularly. Suburbanites drive plenty of these vehicles. Some of the homeowners in this neighborhood may have them.
So even as this sign likely is trying to keep trucks off neighborhood streets, it also hints at the increasing weight of passenger vehicles sold in the United States. They have gotten heavier over time. All roadways could be strained more, not just because of trucks.
The Arlington Cowboys. East Rutherford Giants and Jets. Inglewood Rams and Chargers. And maybe the Hammond Bears.
Ten NFL teams don’t play in their namesake cities but in their suburbs. If the Chicago Bears go through with one of their proposals for a new stadium — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker acknowledged Friday that the team’s next home is unlikely to rise within Chicago’s city limits — they could wind up in northwest suburban Arlington Heights or just across the Indiana border in Hammond.
But like other NFL teams, they have trademarked their name and would retain their city identity — along with their Chicago “C” and Bears head logos…
The move outside cities, analysts say, is driven largely by the desire for more money from new stadium revenues on larger, cheaper tracts of land, often closer to many season ticket holders, where teams can build surrounding entertainment districts with restaurants, hotels, retail and housing.
This is a classic suburban story: land outside the city is cheaper so a buyer can get more bang for their buck. This is the story often told about single-family homes: take the same home and lot and see the price to build it and buy it drop as you move out from the city through closer suburbs to outer suburbs.
With so much activity in the suburbs already, it is not like a new stadium is isolated. There are plenty of fans and businesses nearby. Americans are used to suburb-to-suburb commutes. The land that is cheaper in the suburbs can then appreciate in value and provide a big return for the football team.
And if suburban communities are willing to offer big tax breaks, this can generate even more revenue for the football teams. There can be a local or national bidding war where suburbs provide extra incentives beyond having cheaper land compared to cities.
Is there a strong counterargument for a football team to stay in a big city? Should they be loyal to the city? Can there land be even more valuable in the long run because of the demand for land in cities? At the moment, the primary thing cities might offer are big tax breaks.
People might get extra interested in these cases as football teams operate in the public eye and can bring together people across a region. But aren’t the teams just acting like all the other businesses that move locations, including going to the suburbs, so they can make more money?
You are a municipal or state leader who wants to take a stand on not providing tax breaks to corporations regarding land and/or development. You make the case that wealthy firms can pay their own way. You present evidence that tax breaks tend to benefit the companies, not necessarily communities. You say that tax dollars could be used more effectively in other ways.
This may be a convincing argument to many. But then something happens. Another community or state offers a lot of taxpayer money. They say they will spend tax money to help a company move. They want that company and will pay the money needed to help make it happen. Can a community afford to lose a major actor? Can a local politician be the one who let them get away?
Unless every body of government refuses to offer tax breaks, someone might jump in. All the places in a region might not offer a break but then someone across state lines offers money or someone in another region jumps in. There is value for organizations staying in place without tax breaks but it is also hard to do so if someone is offering a lot of money and/or savings to locate elsewhere.
This may indeed be the world we live in. Communities and places compete for jobs, resources, and firms. But hopefully the competition does not leave taxpayers paying for decades for minimal local impacts.
Expressed as a ratio, these figures mean that there are six former Christians for every convert to Christianity in the United States. The balance is especially lopsided for Catholicism (which loses 8.4 people through religious switching for every convert to the religion). But Protestants also lose more people than they gain through switching, by a ratio of 1.8 to one.
In stark contrast, the religiously unaffiliated gain nearly six people for every person they lose through religious switching. That is, there are about six times as many Americans who say they were raised in a religion and no longer identify with a religion than there are who say they were raised in no religion but now identify with one.
This is an interesting way to consider the data. Rather than focus on absolute numbers or percentages, the ratios compare those who join a religious tradition versus those who leave. Additionally, because some American religious groups see evangelism and/or conversions as part an important part of their mission, this helps highlight whether more people are coming to the Christian faith or not. (Keep in mind that this applies to the 35% of American adults who have switched religion between
The ratios suggest this is a one-sided affair. Of those who switch, more leave Christianity compared to those who join. And more switchers are becoming religiously unaffiliated compared to the religious unaffiliated joining a religious tradition.
What does this mean for the efforts of religious groups? Is this more about a powerful pattern of more people becoming religiously unaffiliated or the limited effectiveness of religious groups to gain converts?
Photo by u0414u0438u0430u043du0430 u0414u0443u043du0430u0435u0432u0430 on Pexels.com
Gov. JB Pritzker will propose a statewide zoning law in his State of the State address on Wednesday, drastically limiting the authority local governments have to control what types of housing structures can be built on land that’s zoned residential…
A study published last year by the University of Illinois found that the state is about 142,000 units of housing short and would need to build 227,000 over the next five years to keep up with demand. That equals about 45,000 new homes a year — nearly double the five-year average of about 19,000 built annually between 2019 and 2024…
Pritzker’s office says the plan includes a tiered framework to permit multi-unit housing by right in all but the smallest lots zoned for residential use. Local zoning boards would no longer be allowed to prohibit property owners from building multi-unit housing on residential lots exceeding 2,500 square feet…06
More straightforward, accessory dwelling units — attached or detached secondary residences such as granny flats, backyard cottages and above-garage apartments — would be legalized on all properties zoned for residential use. The city of Chicago moved last year to relax its 60-year ban on granny flats. And legislation was filed in Springfield last year to ban local governments from prohibiting the units. But it has not moved.
Three thoughts in response to this proposal:
One feature Americans tend to like about suburbs and local governments is that they have control over land use decisions, not people located elsewhere. This means residents have more direct say about who might be there neighbor or what might be located next door. In roughly the last one hundred years, zoning in suburbs is then used to protect single-family homes and their values. Messing with this established use is not easy; as the article briefly notes: “the effort is likely to be met with stiff pushback.”
Illinois is not the first state to pursue this so there are other models to look at and see whether similar legislation has had positive effects. This has primarily occurred in blue states with more expensive housing markets than Illinois.
It will be interesting to see how different parts or communities in Illinois respond to this. The Chicago area housing market is different than downstate. How will wealthier suburban communities react? Which communities are most eager to construct affordable or missing-middle housing? Where would developers and builders want to construct housing if these statewide guidelines are passed?
I worked at WETN 88.1 FM, Wheaton College’s radio station, for all four years as an undergraduate and for several years later as a faculty member. This is the start to a non-consecutive series of posts regarding the valuable lessons I learned while doing this. #1:
You are alone in a radio studio. You sit down in front of the mixing board and computer display. Various audio equipment surrounds you. You put on headphones, press a button to turn on the microphone, push the fader up, and start speaking.
This is a common occurrence in a radio studio but it is an odd situation compared to most of life. Typically when you start talking there is a visible audience. You are talking to a friend or a family member or to a coworker. They can see you and you can see them.
One of the first things I learned as a first-year student in college at the college radio station was to talk into a microphone with an audience in mind but no one in front of you. No immediate reactions from people or a visible audience. You can hear yourself in your headphones but that is about it. You just have to keep going until your segment is over.
What does one say in such a situation? Can you carry on a conversation with yourself? Can you imagine who might be listening? It took time to feel comfortable doing this, to have a sense of what you could feel comfortable saying and how long it might take. Even if many people have experiences talking to themselves in their heads or out loud, it is a different experience doing it into a microphone for public consumption.
And it is a skill that I think has served me well. In comparison, such an experience makes talking in front of people look more attractive. They react. They are not imaginary. You get quick feedback regarding how what you are saying is landing. There might be opportunities for dialogue. If you can keep a conversation going with yourself, having material to work with in conversation often provides better opportunities.
I do not know how many hours I ended up talking by myself into a microphone. I did spend a lot of solo time in a basement on-air studio or recording for on-air and creating ads and promos in a recording studio. The on-air studio had a few methods for interacting with the outside world – a phone line that could also be placed on-air, the computer (AOL Instant Messenger and email in my early days), and the campus “Blanchard Cam” that showed outside conditions in front of our main building. A lot of time to figure out how to be comfortable with that microphone.
I also had enjoyable radio experiences with conversation partners. I co-hosted a talk show one academic year and we regularly invited guests for conversation. I read news on our morning show and had more off-the-cuff interactions with multiple hosts. I did play-by-play of football and soccer games with partners. Radio was not only a solitary experience but learning to talk alone was critical to the experience and for other areas of life.
Legally Sociable 