Willard's Divine Conspiracy (DC)

Published in Touchstone...

This year is the 25th anniversary of Dallas Willard's excellent work, The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering our Hidden Life in God. It was Christianity Today's "book of the year" when released. Given the author and the acclaim received the book, it was often bought. Unfortunately, given its depth, it was not as frequently read. I've taken hundreds of people through it in small groups-- mostly as a study before or after our 21-month discipleship curriculum, Thoroughly Equipped. And it remains one of the most influential books in my life-- probably second to C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. 

About half of the book is an extended commentary on the "Sermon on the Mount" by Jesus in Matthew 5-7. Willard argues that the "Sermon" is a sermon-- a coherent, structured discussion of related topics-- rather than mostly a pile of amazing and memorable nuggets. And he's careful to describe the teachings as a description of "life in the Kingdom"-- rather than seeing it as another list of rules. 

This is especially important for understanding "The Beatitudes". They "are not teachings on how to be blessed...They do not indicate conditions that are especially pleasing to God...[They] simply cannot be 'good news' if they are understood as a set of 'how-tos' for achieving blessedness. They would then only amount to a new legalism." Instead, "They are explanations and illustrations...of the present availability of the kingdom through personal relationship with Jesus...in him, the rule of God...is available in [all] life circumstances..." (106)

The same is true in the rest of the sermon. Instead of a list of rules and examples to follow, Christ provides illustrations of kingdom living-- not specific things to do, as much as indications of the sort of person who is comfortable in the goodness of God's kingdom. In sum, "we are not looking at laws, but at a life: a life in which the genuine laws of God eventually become naturally fulfilled." (195)

So, what is "the divine conspiracy"? In a word, it is "a gospel for our life now, not just for dying" (xvii). Willard opens chapter 2 by taking a poke at a once-popular bumper sticker (and a still-popular idea): "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." Willard's response? "Just forgiven? Is that really all there is to being a Christian? The gift of eternal life comes down to that?" (35) For many professing believers, faith reduces to a "bar code"-- that with the proper doctrinal beliefs (and perhaps modest behavioral requirements for those who believe in a works-based salvation), one will be scanned into heaven (36). 

But Willard protests: "Can we seriously believe that God would establish a plan for us that essentially bypasses the awesome needs of present human life and leaves human character untouched? Would he leave us even temporarily marooned with no help in our kind of world, with our kinds of problems: psychological, emotional, social, and global?" (38) 

The answer for many (most?) Christians is yes. In essence, this is deism-- living as if God is uninterested in (and irrelevant to) most of our daily life. “The sensed irrelevance of what God is doing to what makes up our lives is the foundational flaw in the existence of multitudes of professing Christians today. They have been led to believe that God, for some unfathomable reason, just thinks it appropriate to transfer credit from Christ’s merit account to ours, and to wipe out our sin debt, upon inspecting our mind and finding that we believe a particular theory of the atonement to be true—even if we trust everything but God in all other matters that concern us. It is left unexplained how it is possible that one can rely on Christ for the next life without doing so for this one, trust him for one’s eternal destiny without trusting him for 'the things that relate to Christian life. Is this really possible? Surely it is not! Not within one life.” (49)

Another part of the divine conspiracy is the staggering idea that God would work with bozos like us. Ephesians 2:10 is startling in this respect-- not just that we're "masterpieces" in the eyes of God, but that he has prepared works for us to do in advance! This is not merely salvation from sin-- and then sitting us on a shelf with instructions to stay out of trouble until we are raptured through death or Christ's second coming. The conspiracy is that God wants to use us as part of his plan to redeem others and the World. 

Perhaps the most important principle I learned from Willard is the interplay of "heart" and "habits". Ideally, the heart leads to the habits. "Is it then hard to do the things with which Jesus illustrates the kingdom heart of love?...It is very hard indeed if you have not been substantively transformed in the depths of your being, in the intricacies of your thoughts, feelings, assurances, and dispositions, in such a way that you are permeated with love. Once that happens, then it is not hard. What would be hard is to act the way you acted before." (183)

But how do you get the heart? One answer is changed beliefs. Part of our problem here is imagining that Jesus is rather ordinary or archaic-- or so extraordinary that he is irrelevant to everyday living. He is from "some feathery realm other than the one we must deal with" or "he is not taken to be a person of much ability." (xiii) Instead, he was-- he is-- amazing!  

In contrast, "our commitment to Jesus can stand on no other foundation than a recognition that he is the one who knows the truth about our lives. It is not possible to trust Jesus, or anyone else, in matters where we do not believe him to be competent. We cannot pray for his help and rely on his collaboration in dealing with real-life matters we suspect might defeat his knowledge or abilities...how could he be what we take him to be in all other respects and not be...the smartest person who ever lived?" (94) Instead, "Strangely, we seem prepared to learn how to live from almost anyone but him." (55)

"We must change whatever it is in their actual belief system that bars confidence in Jesus as Master of the Universe. That change is fundamental. But it is also decisive. And that is the hopeful point. When we bring people to believe differently, they really do become different...we spend so much time trying to get people to do things good people are supposed to do, without changing what they really believe." (307) 

It's not that people don't live up to their faith, but that they live in accordance with their actual faith. "We always live up to our beliefs-- or down to them, as the case may be. Nothing else is possible. It is the nature of belief. And the reason why clergy and others have to invest so much effort into getting people to do things is that they are working against the actual beliefs of the people they are trying to lead." (307-308) Instead, we should strive to understand what people really believe-- "and not pretending-- often with them-- that they believe what they don't believe at all." (308)

And this can be hard work for those who evangelize, minister, and disciple: "We must be very fair and thorough in examining those beliefs and considering to what extent they are or are not justified...One cannot build discipleship to Jesus by dodging serious issues or not doing justice to honest doubts about him and his teachings." (309)

Beyond the heart, "habits" are crucial too-- aligning the body with what the heart and mind "want" to do (and even, changing the heart and mind over time). "The patterns of wrongdoing that govern human life outside the kingdom are usually quite weak, even ridiculous. They are simply our habits, our largely automatic responses of thought, feeling, and action...We will never be able to deal with evil as long as we take it...to be external to the self or something other than precisely the humdrum routines we accept as our habits...The really good news here is that the power of habit can be broken...And God will help us to change them-- though he will not do it for us...Others can help us in certain ways, but we must act...wisely and consistently over a long period of time...From the stage of early discipleship, where 'the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak,' we increasingly pass to the stages where the flesh...is with the spirit and supportive of its deepest intentions." (343-346, 354)

Changed hearts and habits points to another part of the conspiracy: "The intention of God is that we should each become the kind of person whom he can set free in his universe, empowered to do what we want to do. Just as we desire and intend this, so far as possible, for our children and others we love, so God desires and intends it for his children. But character, the inner directedness of the self, must develop to the point where that is possible." (379)

Willard describes prayer in relationship to this, distinguishing between problems "we" can solve (e.g., changing a flat tire) and things that are largely beyond us (e.g., helping a friend get off heroin). While prayer has some role in how I do the former, prayer is my primary tool in the latter. In part, this is "not just because 'fixing him' is beyond you, but because it is good it should be beyond you." (240) It would be amazing if we could routinely heal people, but what sort of person could handle that power-- or even, more resources? 

Beyond the primary themes in Willard's book, there are so many memorable and influential nuggets in the book. His argument about the links between anger and lust has helped me counsel people who struggle with both. (158-164). His reasonable description of lust has helped me counsel those who have been crushed by an overly-stringent definition of it (164-166). 

His definitions of prayer has helped me see prayer as an event and as a lifestyle: "intelligent conversation about matters of mutual concern" (194) and "talking to God about what we are doing together." (243)

Willard's teaching on judging in Matthew 7 changed the way I think about arguably the most-famous (and worst-interpreted) passage in the Bible these days. Noting that Jesus is drawing distinctions throughout the passage, Willard notes that it must be about condemnation rather than discernment or identifying right/wrong. We should "hold people responsible and discuss their failures with them...without attacking their worth as human beings...A practiced spirit of intelligent agape will make this possible." (225)

Willard also notes that young people often "graduate" from church about the same time as they graduate from high school. As a college professor, I appreciate this deflection away from universities as some sort of massive temptation for the young. While university life and freedom away from home certainly present challenges for young adults, the larger issue is that we routinely conflate church attendance and discipleship with Jesus. Getting Johnny and Jenny to (mostly) behave themselves and attend youth group is not (nearly) the same as a thriving relationship with God or an apprenticeship with Jesus. Again, a focus on behavior modification over actual beliefs is not helpful here. 

I can't tell you how many times I referenced this idea when talking to young people: "It is one of the major transitions in life to recognize who has taught us, mastered us, and then to evaluate the results in us of their teaching." (272)

And I can't tell you how many times I've used this thought for people of all ages: God can only bless us where we are. "We must accept the circumstances  we constantly find ourselves in as the place of God's kingdom and blessing...if we faithlessly discard situation after situation, moment after moment, as not being 'right', we will simply have no place to receive his kingdom into our life...Knowledge of the kingdom puts us in position to welcome all of these, because...we are in a position to thrive on everything life can throw at us...we are to see every event as an occasion in which the competence and faithfulness of God will be confirmed to us." (348-350) We see this throughout the Bible (Joseph, Daniel, Paul, etc.) and in the faithful among us.  

On being a disciple (or Willard's favored term-- apprentice), it's not a matter of accomplishment per se: "one can be a very raw and incompetent beginner and still be a disciple." (282) "I am learning from Jesus to live my life as he would live my life if her were I." (283) It's not particularly surprising in light of work as the first institution created by God in the Bible, but our work is perhaps the key place where this happens: "Once you stop to think about it, you can see that not to find your job to be a primary place of discipleship is to automatically  exclude a major part...of your waking hours from life with him." (285)

This is often called "cheap grace" but Willard prefers "costly faithlessness." (301) In contrast to Bonhoeffer's more-famous "cost of discipleship", Willard is more focused on the cost of non-discipleship, "Non-discipleship is the elephant in the church." It is not the rampant moral failings. "These are only effects of the underlying problem." A sibling of this is idolatry. The result? "The division of professing Christians into those for whom it is a matter of whole-life devotion to God and those who maintain a customer, or client, relationship to the church..." (301)

Often, the focus in evangelical circles is conversion, but Willard argues that this is backwards: We should "intend to make disciples and let converts 'happen', rather than intending to make converts and letting 'disciples' happen." Even if one argues with Willard on the particulars, he's certainly correct to worry about discipleship just happening-- at least in any rigorous manner. Slow osmosis through listening to sermons is not consistent with Jesus' disciple-making model of ministry. An introduction to the Gospel is often "one at a time", but development through discipleship is best done "12 at a time".  

Related: "in a strange inversion of the work of the Judaizing teachers who...wanted to add obedience to ritual law to faith in Christ, we want to subtract moral law from faith in Christ. How to combine faith with obedience is surely the essential task of the church..." (140)

"The divine conspiracy will not be defeated. But [many] human beings will live a futile and failing existence that God never intended." (310)

Just do the conspiracy. "We do not need to talk a lot about what we are doing. In time it will be obvious. And we certainly are never to be judgmental of Christians who are, honestly, not yet disciples. In most cases they never will have had a serious opportunity to become apprentices of Jesus." (372)

Especially if you already have Divine Conspiracy on your shelf and haven't read it, I hope you'll find a few friends to hold you accountable as you enjoy it together. 

doing good policy analysis

Often, people settle for pursuing good outcomes (well, at least if simplistic analysis holds)-- and thus, the means of govt force are sufficient to justify the ends. 

For example...

-Is it moral/ethical/biblical to take money from a household earning $80K per year-- or undemocratically, from future households earning $80K per year-- to pay off the loans of other people for college?  

-Is it moral/ethical/biblical to use the force of govt on my neighbor smoking weed? 

-Is it moral/ethical/biblical to kidnap Maduro and replace his government? 

And then there are the practical angles to consider: 

-What are the long-term implications of bailing out people (and/or corporations) for bad decisions-- as if they're "too big/small to fail"? Can I clamor about democracy if I use EO's and debt to implement these policies? 

-What are the consequences of prohibition for 3rd world countries, inner-city youth, etc.? Does it make sense for marijuana to be illegal while cigs and alcohol are legal (and kill 100K's per year each)?

-What will replace his govt in Venezuela? Does this encourage/discourage Chinese shenanigans with Taiwan? How does this align with Ukraine/Russia, Gaza/Israel, etc.? 

Inability to do this level of analysis means that you're average (i.e. not good) at policy analysis. And that's ok; it's a common part of rational ignorance. (Just don't combine it with dogmatism and descend into irrational ignorance.) Unwillingness to do it consistently is a strong sign of unfortunate and unimpressive partisan or ideological bias. 

on the "economics of prayer"

Trip Lee did a really nice job with ask/seek/knock (from Mt 7) and what generosity looks like from a good/great God. His discussion on Jesus' analogy of God as parent was most helpful to me-- that God often gives us what's best for us (and others), instead of what (we think) we want. 

It got me thinking about the "economics of prayer": For one thing, prayer changes our hearts, particularly when those prayers are "help, sorry, and thanks". On "answers to prayer", all prayers are (probably) heard, but not as likely to be answered "yes" when they... 

-create "negative externalities" (damage-- e.g., pollution) for others 

-are zero-sum (e.g., get a certain job or my team wins) 

-are based on highly-imperfect info or "irrationality" (an inability to weigh benefits/costs well)-- e.g., all-day TV and Sour Patch Kids 

on representation, redistricting, and "gerrymandering" (with 2024 election data)

"Gerrymandering" is always a possibility in a republic, but sometimes the topic moves to the front burner. We're in one of those moments now. Last month, the Texas GOP stirred the pot with its efforts to "redistrict" and Democrat leaders in a few states responded with angry rhetoric and promises to retaliate.  

Let’s start by defining and explaining the relevant terms. “Redistricting” is the practice of redrawing the geographical lines that define a political district, given changes in national and state populations. These changes are measured at the beginning of every decade through the work of the U.S. Census Bureau.  

Consider the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. If a state's population grows/shrinks enough with respect to the national population, a state will gain/lose a seat (or more). In such cases, a state must redraw its district lines, accommodating more/fewer seats for the same geographical area. But even if the number of seats remains the same, lines are likely redrawn as population shifts within the state—from births and deaths, immigration and emigration.  

Six states have one district, so they can't redistrict. In 25 of the more populous states, these lines are redrawn by the state legislature (often approved by the governor). In the other 19 multi-district states, an independent or bipartisan group does the work in order to limit political shenanigans. And of course, the process can always be regulated by the judiciary.  

“Gerrymandering” is the practice of drawing these lines for political purposes. (The word was created by merging “salamander” with the name of the Massachusetts governor who did this in 1812, Elbridge Gerry.) But there are some inherent tensions in such efforts. For example, if there are 600 GOP'ers and 400 Democrats in a state with ten districts, you could put the 600 GOP'ers in six districts and the 400 Democrats in four districts: six seats for the GOP and four for the Democrats. This would create ten utterly "safe seats" which lack political diversity and allow each party to field less impressive candidates.  

You could also put 60 GOP'ers and 40 Democrats in each district, creating ten GOP seats that would be relatively safe, but far more politically diverse and potentially competitive. As members of a political party draw district lines, they have to wrestle with the tradeoff between more seats on average with greater political risk and fewer seats that are safer. 

Political partisans often (naively) imagine that their party leaders are far more virtuous than those in the other major political party. But it should be little or no surprise to learn that gerrymandering is both bipartisan and not all that pervasive at the federal level. With the institutional structures in play, we might expect more trouble when lines are drawn by partisan legislatures, but this activity is still regulated by the courts. And we wouldn't expect many politicians to passionately aim for another seat or two, while looking nakedly partisan and increasing the likelihood of defeat in more competitive seats. (Politicians and bureaucrats usually look to reduce risk, not increase it!)  

Still, gerrymandering does exist. One way to perceive it is to look at the political map. When districts look highly irregular geographically, it at least gives the impression that gerrymandering was the strategic product of "intelligent design". For two terrific examples, check out the 13th and 17th districts in Illinois. 

What do the numbers say and how should we measure it? Assessing representation by party is easy: That’s simply the number of seats held by each party. But what about vote percentages? The most obvious candidate would be the overall vote percentage in each state's House races. But this can be distorted by single-candidate races, where one major political party receives 100%; the other party receives 0%; and fewer voters engage that “race”. (For better/worse, I calculated average vote percentages across all districts in a state.) Given this concern, another reasonable proxy could be the percentage received by the presidential candidate in that year. (The two statistics turn out to be highly correlated, but I'll use both below.)  

Looking at the national numbers, the overall vote percentage (49.8% GOP vs. 47.2% Dem in 2024) implies a slight partisan gerrymandering advantage to the Dems, given that the GOPs only has a slight seat advantage in Congress (220-215). And in October 2025, National Review reported that the GOP controlled state government in 23 states, with 59.3% of the House vote and 75% of the seats. But in the 17 states controlled by Democrats, their House candidates got 56.7% of the vote and 77.7% of the seats.   

Breaking down the analysis to look at each state, I’ve provided all of the data below. But I only see a handful of cases where the numbers reflect the potential for gerrymandering. Some observations of note:  

-There are six single-district states where shenanigans are impossible.  

-Of the nine states with two or three districts, three raise a red flag (all of which favor Democrats): Maine with a 7-12 percentage point Democrat voter advantage and both seats (despite an "independent process"); New Hampshire with a 3-6% Democrat advantage and both seats; and New Mexico with a 6-10% Democrat advantage and all three seats.  

-Of larger states: Wisconsin advantages the GOP (only a 1-3% voter advantage, but 6-2 on seats) and Illinois strongly advantages the Democrats (8-11% advantage, but a whopping 14-3 on seats). Despite "independent" processes, Colorado advantages the GOP (11-15% Democrat advantage, but 4-4 on seats) and New Jersey benefits the Democrats (merely a 6-9% advantage, but 9-3 on seats).  

-In the Deep South, "positive" race-based gerrymandering may help with African-American representation, but hurt Democrats overall. (SCOTUS will soon wrestle with the constitutionality of this in Louisiana v. Callais.) Arkansas has an independent process and a 30-36% GOP advantage, so its four GOP seats are no surprise. In the four more rural states (LA, MS, AL, and SC), the GOP's 24-35% advantage translates into a reasonable 18-6 seat advantage. But in the two more cosmopolitan states (GA and NC), the GOP's 3-8% advantage translates into an impressive 19-9 seat advantage.  

Gerrymandering is probably a secondary concern, but certainly a shiny object for the media and political partisans. Hopefully, politicians and their partisan enablers will devote more energy to bigger concerns: finding good candidates and courageously leading through challenging problems and difficult policy choices.  

	GOPPrezAdv	GOPCongAdv	Seats	GOP	Dem
WY	46	48	1	1	0
SD	29	44	1	1	0
VT	-32	-32	1	0	1
ND	36	40	1	1	0
DE	-14	-16	1	0	1
AK	14	2	1	1	0
WV	42	42	2	2	0
HA	-24	-42	2	0	2
ID	37	38	2	2	0
RI	-14	-24	2	0	2
MT	20	20	2	2	0
ME	-7	-12	2	0	2
NH	-3	-6	2	0	2
NE	20	34	3	3	0
NM	-6	-10	3	0	3
MS	23	40	4	3	1
AR	30	36	4	4	0
UT	21	31	4	4	0
KS	16	18	4	3	1
IA	13	14	4	4	0
NV	4	0	4	1	3
OK	34	47	5	5	0
CT	-14	-19	5	0	5
KY	30	50	6	5	1
LA	22	30	6	4	2
OR	-14	-12	6	1	5
AL	31	56	7	5	2
SC	18	13	7	6	1
MD	-29	-34	8	1	7
MO	18	19	8	6	2
CO	-11	-15	8	4	4
WI	1	3	8	6	2
MN	-4	-2	8	4	4
MA	-25	-84	9	0	9
TN	30	28	9	8	1
IN	19	19	9	7	2
AZ	5	1	9	6	3
WA	-18	-26	10	2	8
VA	-6	-5	11	5	6
NJ	-6	-9	12	3	9
MI	2	-1	13	7	6
NC	3	11	14	10	4
GA	2	4	14	9	5
OH	11	11	15	10	5
IL	-11	-8	17	3	14
PA	1	0	17	10	7
NY	-13	-20	26	7	19
FL	13	10	28	20	8
TX	14	15	38	25	13
CA	-20	-22	52	9	43