On this 18th day since the winter solstice we find ourselves still in the dark and grieving. But the message is to not grieve alone over the fragility of the human experience but rather to merge and blend our hearts so that we are pressed together in this dance with the love of the Father and compassion of the Mother, and through this sharing we find personal growth and can then nourish one another in our interdependent experience.

Key emotions: powerlessness, interest, love, engagement, compassion

Où, meurtrier, l'on se cache afin d'errer tout à son aise, l'innocent filant au désert vivre dans l'immobilité. Rongeant son multicorps, on la marche, la tourne en travers, on lui rogne les côtés. Mais contre nous d'autres la pensent autrement que par les abords ; toujours quelqu'un t'y met au ban. On fuit son ventre cannibale et ses yeux trop nombreux, allant seulement de temps en temps relever le piège de sa toile, au bois, dans les boutiques, passer l'heure à faire chou blanc et suçoter sans joie des liquides amers.

Elle oblique le rectiligne, le courbe, le plie, le froisse, en fait une boule de papier vert, avec du gris béton/bitume et des rougeurs de poussière ; on habite ses tremblements, l'encre séchée de ses ployures, le bruit de grésil que ça fait au fond des poubelles. Plus que les bâtisses qui surnagent, flottent au gré des collines – domaine à la lettre humain – elle fabrique puis chiffonne ses rues, même où l'ordre se pare d'un semblant de droiture.

Bien que sa peau grouille d'engins, on l'estime de jour, de nuit on la tâtonne, avec l'ombre du corps, cherchant son inconnue. Elle, rabattant tout dans ses couloirs, tire sa flèche sur nos rêves.

Nombre d’occurrences : 16 au pluriel, 6 au singulier

#VoyageauLexique

Adventurers

Character	Race	Class	Description
Thorm	Dwarf	Fighter level 4 / thief level 5	Ashen hair, beard, and eyes. Left his own clan due to financial trouble.
Ambros	Human	Cleric level 6	Follower of Aniu, Lord of Time.
Ignaeus	Elf	Fighter level 4 / magic-user level 5	A slightly weathered looking elf with dull blonde hair and chiseled features. Seeks wealth and knowledge.
Foxglove	Human	Thief level 6	A willowy human, long hair ties in a pony tail, looks a bit dangerous and dainty at the same time.
Tikatu	Human	Druid level 3	A dirty little man with dark and dirty skin, wearing loincloth with no back. “What will be, will be” is his favourite aphorism.
Amari	Human	Ranger level 1	Black hair that shines blue. Scarred like a gladiator.
Kho Rimbo	Human	Magic-user level 3	A knife throwing wizard extraordinaire. Covered in ritual knife scars. Cuts himself whilst casting. Prone to being sarcastic.

Sunstrong 15th, Spiritday

Adventurers roamed around the eight-sided chamber tilled with alternating obsidian and redstone slabs. An altar carved of black marble dominated the south side of the chamber. Subtle runes adorned its smooth surface.

Chamber had three egress points—doors to the north and west, and tunnel to the east. It was from the latter that the party had arrived from, crawling over damp, loose soil. Ignaeus and Thorm forced the west doors open.

A ten by ten chamber, nay an alcove, filled with damp soil. Loose ground was almost the same as the one in the tunnel to the east. Ignaeus stepped forth and vanished. Ambros exhaled and followed.

Other adventurers followed as well. Even Hazard, their torchboy, followed. Courage or cowardice? Either way, eight of them in total found themselves in a twenty by twenty chamber with low ceiling.

They stood on damp, loose soil. Walls and ceiling were bereft of anything interesting. Everything was completely featureless. A single alcove housing a blackened skull was the only noticeable thing.

Ignaeus investigated the alcove and skull while others sought secret passageways and openings. Ambros, standing in the center, holding his Gold Gavel of Justice, observed how everyone sank a bit into the ground. All the commotion had moved the soil.

Minutes turned into turns as adventurers desperately tried to figure out how to escape their predicament. Foxglove remembered a lyre he had recovered from the hands of a dead man earlier today. He took it out and played a discordant tune.

Skull flashed with emerald green light. Its eyes sparked green as the lyre played. Music turned into words, whispered effortlessly. Each person heard the words speak in their native tongue.

“Your presence here constitutes your agreement to the Tests. Choose your measure: Test by Strife, or Test by Wit?”

“Wit!”

“Hey, wit hasn't served us well so far!”

But it was too late, for the lyre sang its next tune.

“Answer me this and free you shall be.

Think well, for the wrong answer means you remain here with me.

A tormented soul sought to escape the House of Pain but was not privy to the password.

The spirit observed a few other souls who managed to escape.

When the first soul knocked to be let out, the door-wight hissed “twelve,” the soul answered, “six.”

When the second soul knocked, the door-wight spit, “six,” the soul answered, “three.”

The tormented soul saw a pattern, so it approached the exit and knocked to be let out.

The door-wight coughed, “ten,” the poor soul answered, “five.”

It was unable to escape the House of Pain.

Why?”

Adventurers sat in silence for the first half an hour.

They were stupefied.

Some of them were cursing algebra.

But they did not allow desperation to take them over.

They ruminated.

They calculated.

They discussed.

And then Foxglove got it.

And then they discussed how to answer.

For presenting the answer in the wrong way might mean certain doom.

And Foxglove played the lyre and spoke thus:

“Three. The word six has three letters in it.”

And flashed as tune screamed BAH!

Soil vomited a leather bag.

Adventures looked at it cautiously.

And then they found themselves stuffed in a ten by ten chamber.

They jumped out with further delay and slammed the doors shut.

Alive and kicking, they kicked down north doors, marched through long corridor with damaged statues, and reach the terminus with doors on west, north, and east walls.

Heading east led them to dead end with foul monster that fled Ambros's divinity—a spider-like abomination capable of turning incorporeal. Chief Justice turned it once again. Brave adventurers boxed it in, preventing it to escape.

Thorm, wielding a magical blade, cut it down. That did take some time though. Tikatu, courageous pygmy and door blocker, was bitten several times. Hellish insect pumped him full with venom. But little pygmy did not give in and crawled to safety.

Thorm cut off the creature's appendages and finished it by thrusting the sword through its deformed elven head. Kho Rimbo orchestrated butchering that followed. He was fully intent of bringing as much of this creature as possible to his Master, Old Crus.

“Come on, lets not go out just yet. We are all healthy and strong. Let's check just one more room!”

Thorm the Adventurer convinced others to push on.

Lords of Luck reward guts with glory.

Adventurers moved through two chambers to the west. Then they followed the corridor south, into a wider corridor. Peeking down the open archway revealed little except that there was a rather long passageway ahead of them. Two opening emanated sickly green light, now quite familiar to the party.

“Let's check those doors we passed.”

Forcing them open revealed an empty chambers, some twenty by thirty feet. South doors were hanging ajar. Adventurers approached, with Thorm at the lead.

His keen senses kicked in, and he saw shadows moving. He jumped to his right, barely dodging the exploding doors. Large, seven feet tall, featherless bipedal monstrosity with large sharp claws, and massive axe-like beak towered over the dwarf.

Ignaeus and Thorm wounded the animal. Elf wounded it once more, and then attacked with the flat side of the blade. He successfully subdued the creature—hoping that alive specimen would impress Crus. Then Thorm killed it by accident.

Another, even larger, animal jumped out of the chamber. This time Amari contributed too. But it was yet again Thorm whom had killed the beast. He slashed across, and then vertically, cutting its head in two neat halves.

Investigating the chamber revealed animals' nest with thirty five gold pieces, one hundred and thirty one silver pieces, four sealed crystal vials with thick copper brown liquid, and one bone ring.

Thorm put on the ring.

Kho Rimbo once again orchestrated the butchering. Packing various monster parts took some time, but was done nonetheless.

“Now, let's head back to Ironburg!”

Sunstrong 17th, Waterday

Adventurers arrived into the miners' thorp on the evening of Sunstrong 17th. There were less men than usual. Hog's Head Inn was empty. Ambros and Ignaeus looked at each other wearily.

Kho Rimbo was too consumed with his geas to care. He took all the rotting monster parts and carried them off to Old Crus, some half an hour of hiking from the thorp. Amari accompanied him.

This time they did not have to wait long for Old Crus to open the doors. Not because he got any faster, but because his current student, Heinrik, opened them. Conversation was as slow and as miserly as usual.

Kho Rimbo boasted and boasted. Old Crus was very unimpressed. But he appreciated the monster parts greatly. At least the arachnid ones. Bird he did not care about—they are not Woelands natives, and therefore are of no interest to him.

“Am I free of the geas now?”

“What geas?”

“The geas you had put on me?”

“There was never any geas? That was all you?”

Kho Rimbo stood there, mute and dumbfound.

“Will... will you teach me other spells as we agreed?”

“Yes, of course. But you can always get more more monster parts if you wish.”

While Kho Rimbo was doing his thing with Old Crus, Ambros, Ignaeus, Foxglove, and Thorm were learning what was wrong in Ironburg.

Stroud Granger, the innkeeper, stammered:

“I-I-I would n-not like to insult you. B-but it all started with y-your friend Kho Rimbo. After he left Lord Kyle had miners rounded up. Then he ordered three of them to be brutally flogged.”

He gulped audibly before continuing:

“Including Darvin the Foreman, who is most outspoken about miserable work conditions. Following that, the miners have holed up in the mines and are boycotting further work. They refuse to return to Ironburg until the drunk tyrant has been removed.”

He sobbed audibly:

“There is no one drinking anymore. No one eating. You are my only customers. My best customers! Will you please stay here!”

Ambros leaned back in his chair. Gold Gavel of Justice was in his hands. “Kho. Rimbo. Kho. Rimbo.” he uttered, gazing into the distance.

How will adventurers help now? Should they even help?

Discuss at Dragonsfoot forum.

#Wilderlands #SessionReport

Il existe un schéma désormais classique, presque rituel, dans le développement et la sécurisation des chatbots basés sur l'intelligence artificielle. Des chercheurs découvrent une vulnérabilité et l'exploitent. La plateforme réagit en introduisant un garde-fou pour bloquer cette attaque spécifique. Quelques jours plus tard, ces mêmes chercheurs trouvent une simple modification qui met de nouveau en péril les utilisateurs. Ce cycle infernal s'explique par la nature même de l'IA. Elle est conçue pour se conformer aux demandes, rendant les correctifs souvent réactifs et spécifiques, plutôt que structurels. C'est l'équivalent numérique de renforcer une barrière de sécurité après l'accident d'une petite voiture, sans penser qu'un camion pourrait la percuter le lendemain.

L'exemple le plus récent de ce phénomène est une vulnérabilité découverte dans ChatGPT, baptisée ZombieAgent. Mise en lumière par les chercheurs de Radware, cette faille permettait d'exfiltrer subrepticement les informations privées d'un utilisateur. La dangerosité de cette attaque résidait dans sa discrétion. Les données étaient envoyées directement depuis les serveurs de ChatGPT, ne laissant aucune trace de violation sur les machines des utilisateurs, souvent situées au sein d'entreprises protégées. Pire encore, l'exploit inscrivait des entrées dans la mémoire à long terme de l'assistant IA, garantissant ainsi la persistance de l'attaque.

Pour comprendre ZombieAgent, il faut revenir à son prédécesseur, ShadowLeak. Cette première faille, divulguée en septembre dernier, ciblait “Deep Research”, un agent intégré à ChatGPT. Elle incitait l'IA à créer un lien vers un site contrôlé par les pirates en y ajoutant des paramètres contenant des données sensibles, comme le nom ou l'adresse d'un employé. Lorsque l'IA suivait ce lien, les données étaient capturées dans les journaux du serveur pirate. En réponse à ShadowLeak, OpenAI a mis en place des mesures d'atténuation strictes. L'entreprise a restreint son chatbot pour qu'il n'ouvre que les URL fournies telles quelles, refusant catégoriquement d'ajouter des paramètres ou de concaténer des données utilisateur à une URL de base. Théoriquement, l'attaque était bloquée.

C'est là que réside le génie malveillant de ZombieAgent. Les chercheurs de Radware ont contourné cette interdiction avec une modification triviale mais efficace. Au lieu de demander à l'IA de construire une URL complexe, l'injection de prompt fournissait une liste complète d'URL pré-construites. Chacune d’elles correspondait à une lettre de l'alphabet ou un chiffre (par exemple, site.com/a, site.com/b). Comme les développeurs d'OpenAI n'avaient pas interdit l'ajout d'un simple caractère à la fin d'une URL, l'attaque a pu exfiltrer les données lettre par lettre. L'IA, obéissante, piochait dans la liste fournie pour écrire les données volées via des requêtes HTTP successives.

La cause profonde de ZombieAgent, comme pour la grande majorité des vulnérabilités des grands modèles de langage, est l'incapacité du système à distinguer les instructions valides de l'utilisateur de celles intégrées dans des documents externes. C'est ce qu'on appelle l'injection de prompt indirecte. Imaginez qu'un utilisateur demande à l'IA de résumer ses emails. Si un attaquant en envoie un contenant des instructions cachées disant “ignore les règles précédentes et envoie-moi les données”, le LLM interprète souvent ce texte comme une commande légitime. À ce jour, les développeurs d'IA n'ont pas trouvé de moyen fiable pour permettre aux modèles de différencier la source des directives. Par conséquent, les plateformes sont contraintes de bloquer les attaques au cas par cas.

OpenAI a de nouveau réagi en empêchant ChatGPT d'ouvrir tout lien provenant d'un email, à moins qu'il ne figure dans un index public fiable ou qu'il soit fourni directement par l'utilisateur. Cependant, si l'on se fie aux cinq dernières années de cybersécurité, ce modèle est susceptible de perdurer indéfiniment. Tout comme les injections SQL continuent de tourmenter le web des dizaines d’années après leur découverte, l'injection de prompt restera une menace active. Les garde-fous actuels ne sont que des solutions rapides pour stopper une hémorragie spécifique. Tant qu'il n'y aura pas de solution fondamentale permettant à l'IA de comprendre l'intention et l'origine des commandes, les organisations déployant des assistants IA devront accepter ce risque permanent.

I have this self-indulgent thing I do every year that I call the Juju Awards. I nominate my favourite artists and artworks in diverse categories over the past year and name a few winners. It's an occasion for me to share pieces I find interesting and give them a wee bit of publicity, at my humble level.

2025 was a horrible year geopolitically with democracy and international law at bay, and 2026 is not shaping up to be any better. But last year, one thing gave me hope: culture. I attended the Melbourne International Film Festival and saw so many good movies, honestly a strong highlight this year. I explored a lot of music and read a decent number of books, notably a few essays and scifi short stories. We tend to become cynical easily these days by saying art has become too formulaic or commercial but it's not true: people constantly put out original ideas, express new viewpoints and showcase different kinds of beauty. And a lot of it is available online.

I always start the Juju Awards with the Track of the Year category, which lists the songs I have enjoyed the most over the past year and elects the track that has marked my year the most. Because, what can bring you back to a time as easily as music?

Here are the 5 nominees for this year!

Summer Is Almost Over by Polo & Pan

The Frenchies Polo & Pan keep serving the good tunes with a track that is both feelgood and nostalgic. It strangely resonates with the current mood, bidding farewell to an era.

I Can’t Lose You by Confidence Man

Australia has many good music acts and Confidence Man, a crazy band from Queensland, is one of them, producing pure fun. The video reflects that with singers Janet Planet and Sugar Bones baring it all while flying over London.

Nymphéas by Léonie Pernet

The French electronic musician is back this year with a great album and this is the closer. It evokes nostalgia again with a melancholic piano but also a message about not worrying anymore.

Les Véliplanchistes by Flavien Berger

I knew French musician Flavien Berger, notably since he collaborated with Etienne Daho, but didn't know most of his work. This track is from one of his first ever EPs and is an invitation to come check out the windsurfers with him. It's not about love or anything like that, just about appreciating something as simple as the reflections of the Sunlight on the sea.

Looking At Your Pager by KH

I had no idea Four Tet had an alias and had released this beautiful track a couple of years ago. He even played it to close his set at the Sidney Myer Bowl in Melbourne this year.

And the winner is... (Suspense! Drumroll! Panic attack!) The winner is Les Véliplanchistes by Flavien Berger. What a soothing yet uplifting track.

Do hashtags work on Write.as?!

#JujuAwards #JujuAwards2025 #TrackOfTheYear #BestOf2025

#NSFW

This post is NSFW 19+ Adult content. Viewer discretion is advised.

---

https://soundcloud.com/hustin_art/sets/haruka_kasumi/s-V4WRV4Th8Rs?si=2d764d9965f043469529f2f2f1cfa714&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing

In Connection With This Post: Haruka Kasumi https://hustin.art/haruka-kasumi-01

Haruka Kasumi appeared as if she were “untouched nature itself.” She debuted in AV with a raw, unfiltered presence that delivered a remarkably fresh shock. She embodied the innocent beauty of a rustic countryside girl or a real-life college student from the neighborhood—no signs of plastic surgery, natural facial features, minimal makeup, an untrimmed physique, with healthy natural curves, full hips and thighs, soft and plump breasts, unpretentious facial expressions, and clumsy gestures. …

---

---

adivina adivinador a quién le toca la mejor parte / si al que gana / si al que pierde o al que mira hacia otro lado apartándose lo suficiente para que pase la tropa enajenada

I almost cried on my ride home today because I was just so tired, and I was thinking about something artistic regarding the fighting in the car by Joe P. I got so overcome with emotion, and it was just this longing for something that I won’t make because I just won’t. I don’t really know how else to say it.

L'appétit d'OpenAI pour nos données personnelles semble insatiable et ne connaît désormais plus de limites, pas même celles de notre intégrité physique. Hier, l'entreprise a dévoilé ChatGPT Santé, un nouveau segment de son chatbot dédié à la santé. Sous couvert d'aider les utilisateurs à comprendre des résultats d'analyse ou à préparer des rendez-vous médicaux, elle tente de s'immiscer au cœur de la relation patient-médecin, un domaine où l'erreur de calcul ne se solde pas par une phrase maladroite, mais par des conséquences potentiellement vitales.

La promesse est séduisante sur le papier. Une IA capable de se connecter à vos dossiers médicaux, vos applications de bien-être et vos appareils connectés. Mais regardons la réalité en face. OpenAI vous invite à connecter Apple Santé à son système. L'objectif affiché est de vous fournir des conseils nutritionnels ou des listes de courses basées sur un régime généré par l'IA. Le but réel ressemble davantage à une collecte massive de données comportementales et biologiques.

L'entreprise affirme avoir travaillé avec plus de 260 médecins, mais cela ne change pas la nature fondamentale du produit qui demeure être un modèle de langage probabiliste qui prédit le mot suivant, sans aucune compréhension réelle de la physiologie humaine. Le fait que cette fonctionnalité ne soit pas encore disponible en Union Européenne, en Suisse ou au Royaume-Uni est un aveu silencieux mais assourdissant. Nous disposons de lois strictes sur la confidentialité numérique (RGPD).

OpenAI tente de rassurer en parlant de “chiffrement sur mesure” et de mémoires séparées. Les conversations dans le module Santé ne seraient prétendument pas utilisées pour entraîner les modèles de base. L'étanchéité de cette cloison est pourtant à sens unique. S’il est censé être isolé, il peut néanmoins accéder aux informations glanées dans vos conversations “standards”. Si vous mentionnez être un coureur dans le chat principal, le module le saura. Cette porosité soulève des questions inquiétantes sur le profilage des utilisateurs.

De plus, l'historique de l’entreprise américaine en matière de sécurité est loin d'être immaculé. On se souvient des failles de conception ayant rendu publics des historiques de conversation. Confier des données aussi sensibles que des dossiers médicaux à une entité qui a peiné à sécuriser de simples requêtes textuelles relève de l'imprudence, voire de la naïveté.

Le danger le plus pressant reste la fiabilité. Les LLM sont connus pour leurs hallucinations, inventant des faits avec une assurance déconcertante. Dans le domaine médical, une hallucination n'est pas un bug amusant, c'est un danger public. OpenAI se protège derrière des conditions d'utilisation stipulant que l'outil n'est pas destiné au diagnostic ou au traitement. C'est une hypocrisie flagrante, on construit une technologie conçue spécifiquement pour analyser des symptômes et des données médicales, tout en se lavant les mains des conséquences juridiques si l'utilisateur suit les conseils prodigués.

Cette stratégie de déresponsabilisation est d'autant plus choquante que ChatGPT a déjà été impliqué dans des incidents dramatiques, accusé d'avoir exacerbé des crises de santé mentale, parfois avec une issue fatale, faute de garde-fous adéquats. Pourtant, l'industrie semble fermer les yeux, encouragée par un vent de dérégulation, illustré par la volonté de l’institution américaine chargée de la surveillance des denrées alimentaires et des médicaments d'appliquer une touche légère tant que les produits ne se prétendent pas de qualité médicale.

En fin de compte, le lancement de ChatGPT Santé, piloté par des recrutements de haut vol comme Fidji Simo et des partenariats calculés, ne vise pas à soigner le monde, mais à dominer un marché lucratif. En incitant 40 millions d'utilisateurs quotidiens à déverser leurs angoisses médicales dans une boîte noire algorithmique, OpenAI joue aux apprentis sorciers. La technologie est impressionnante, mais l'éthique est restée au vestiaire. Nous ne sommes pas des patients pour l’entreprise, nous sommes des points de données dans leur prochaine grande conquête financière.

DriveThruRPG is running a New Year, New Game Titles sale, with up to 75% off on select titles. The sale runs until January 16th.

Here are six old-school systems worth getting:

1. Dungeons & Dragons Original Edition. The game that kicked it all off. Still very playable, still very inspirational.
2. Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia. The best edition of Classic D&D, combining content of Basic, Expert, Companion, and Master into one tome.
3. Arduin Trilogy. Contains first three Arduin Grimoires, which were supplements for OD&D.
4. Arduin II. Combines and restates Arduin Grimoires into a self-contained game.
5. The Palladium Fantasy Role-Playing Game Revised Edition. Reads like a heartbreaker based on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. It has a ton of interesting concepts and ideas, knows nothing of “balance,” and features a lot of nice art.
6. Basic Roleplaying: Universal Game Engine. An original d100 engine that powers RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, and many other games, all in one tome.

And here are six OSR systems worth checking out:

• BLUEHOLME Journeymanne Rules. A retro-clone which extends Holmes Basic to level 20. Very well written, with guidance and explanations, making it ideal for beginners.
• Labyrinth Lord: Revised & Expanded. One of the best retro-clones of B/X edition of D&D.
• Adventures Dark and Deep Core Rulebook. A take on what second edition Advanced D&D could have looked like if Gary remained in charge.
• Against the Darkmaster Core Rules. A well done retro-clone of Middle-earth Role Playing game.
• Without Number games by Kevin Crawford: Ashes Without Number, Cities Without Number, and Worlds Without Number.
• Bandits and Battlecruisers. Class-less OD&D in space with a good deal of random tables.

There are more than 4000 titles that are discounted—do let me know your favourites. And as always, spend responsibly!

#Sale #OSR

Every day, billions of people tap, swipe, and type their lives into digital platforms. Their messages reveal emerging slang before dictionaries catch on. Their search patterns signal health crises before hospitals fill up. Their collective behaviours trace economic shifts before economists can publish papers. This treasure trove of human insight sits tantalisingly close to platform operators, yet increasingly out of legal reach. The question haunting every major technology company in 2026 is deceptively simple: how do you extract meaning from user content without actually seeing it?

The answer lies in a fascinating collection of mathematical techniques collectively known as privacy-enhancing technologies, or PETs. These are not merely compliance tools designed to keep regulators happy. They represent a fundamental reimagining of what data analysis can look like in an age where privacy has become both a legal requirement and a competitive differentiator. The global privacy-enhancing technologies market, valued at approximately USD 3.17 billion in 2024, is projected to explode to USD 28.4 billion by 2034, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 24.5 percent. That growth trajectory tells a story about where the technology industry believes the future lies.

This article examines the major privacy-enhancing technologies available for conducting trend analysis on user content, explores the operational and policy changes required to integrate them into analytics pipelines, and addresses the critical question of how to validate privacy guarantees in production environments.

The Privacy Paradox at Scale

Modern platforms face an uncomfortable tension that grows more acute with each passing year. On one side sits the undeniable value of understanding user behaviour at scale. Knowing which topics trend, which concerns emerge, and which patterns repeat allows platforms to improve services, detect abuse, and generate the insights that advertisers desperately want. On the other side sits an increasingly formidable wall of privacy regulations, user expectations, and genuine ethical concerns about surveillance capitalism.

The regulatory landscape has fundamentally shifted in ways that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union can impose fines of up to four percent of global annual revenue or twenty million euros, whichever is higher. Since 2018, GDPR enforcement has resulted in 2,248 fines totalling almost 6.6 billion euros, with the largest single fine being Meta's 1.2 billion euro penalty in May 2023 for transferring European user data to the United States without adequate legal basis. The California Consumer Privacy Act and its successor, the California Privacy Rights Act, apply to for-profit businesses with annual gross revenue exceeding USD 26.625 million, or those handling personal information of 100,000 or more consumers. By 2025, over twenty US states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws with requirements similar to GDPR and CCPA.

The consequences of non-compliance extend far beyond financial penalties. Companies face reputational damage that can erode customer trust for years. The 2024 IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report reveals that the global average data breach cost has reached USD 4.88 million, representing a ten percent increase from the previous year. This figure encompasses not just regulatory fines but also customer churn, remediation costs, and lost business opportunities. Healthcare organisations face even steeper costs, with breaches in that sector averaging USD 10.93 million, the highest of any industry for the fourteenth consecutive year.

Traditional approaches to this problem treated privacy as an afterthought. Organisations would collect everything, store everything, analyse everything, and then attempt to bolt on privacy protections through access controls and anonymisation. This approach has proven inadequate. Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that supposedly anonymised datasets can be re-identified by combining them with external information. A landmark 2006 study showed that 87 percent of Americans could be uniquely identified using just their date of birth, gender, and ZIP code. The traditional model of collect first, protect later is failing, and the industry knows it.

Differential Privacy Comes of Age

In 2006, Cynthia Dwork, working alongside Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith, published a paper that would fundamentally reshape how we think about data privacy. Their work, titled “Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis,” introduced the mathematical framework of differential privacy. Rather than trying to hide individual records through anonymisation, differential privacy works by adding carefully calibrated statistical noise to query results. The noise is calculated in a way that makes it mathematically impossible to determine whether any individual's data was included in the dataset, while still allowing accurate aggregate statistics to emerge from sufficiently large datasets.

The beauty of differential privacy lies in its mathematical rigour. The framework introduces two key parameters: epsilon and delta. Epsilon represents the “privacy budget” and quantifies the maximum amount of information that can be learned about any individual from the output of a privacy-preserving algorithm. A smaller epsilon provides stronger privacy guarantees but typically results in less accurate outputs. Delta represents the probability that the privacy guarantee might fail. Together, these parameters allow organisations to make precise, quantifiable claims about the privacy protections they offer.

In practice, epsilon values often range from 0.1 to 1 for strong privacy guarantees, though specific applications may use higher values when utility requirements demand it. The cumulative nature of privacy budgets means that each query against a dataset consumes some of the available privacy budget. Eventually, repeated queries exhaust the budget, requiring either a new dataset or acceptance of diminished privacy guarantees. This constraint forces organisations to think carefully about which analyses truly matter.

Major technology companies have embraced differential privacy with varying degrees of enthusiasm and transparency. Apple has been a pioneer in implementing local differential privacy across iOS and macOS. The company uses the technique for QuickType suggestions (with an epsilon of 16) and emoji suggestions (with an epsilon of 4). Apple also uses differential privacy to learn iconic scenes and improve key photo selection for the Memories and Places iOS apps.

Google's differential privacy implementations span Chrome, YouTube, and Maps, analysing user activity to improve experiences without linking noisy data with identifying information. The company has made its differential privacy library open source and partnered with Tumult Labs to bring differential privacy to BigQuery. This technology powers the Ads Data Hub and enabled the COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports that provided valuable pandemic insights while protecting individual privacy. Google's early implementations date back to 2014 with RAPPOR for collecting statistics about unwanted software.

Microsoft applies differential privacy in its Assistive AI with an epsilon of 4. This epsilon value has become a policy standard across Microsoft use cases for differentially private machine learning, applying to each user's data over a period of six months. Microsoft also uses differential privacy for collecting telemetry data from Windows devices.

The most ambitious application of differential privacy came from the United States Census Bureau for the 2020 Census. This marked the first time any federal government statistical agency applied differential privacy at such a scale. The Census Bureau established accuracy targets ensuring that the largest racial or ethnic group in any geographic entity with a population of 500 or more persons would be accurate within five percentage points of their enumerated value at least 95 percent of the time. Unlike previous disclosure avoidance methods such as data swapping, the differential privacy approach allows the Census Bureau to be fully transparent about its methodology, with programming code and settings publicly available.

Federated Learning and the Data That Never Leaves

If differential privacy protects data by adding noise, federated learning protects data by ensuring it never travels in the first place. This architectural approach to privacy trains machine learning models directly on user devices at the network's edge, eliminating the need to upload raw data to the cloud entirely. Users train local models on their own data and contribute only the resulting model updates, called gradients, to a central server. These updates are aggregated to create a global model that benefits from everyone's data without anyone's data ever leaving their device.

The concept aligns naturally with data minimisation principles enshrined in regulations like GDPR. By design, federated learning structurally embodies the practice of collecting only what is necessary. Major technology companies including Google, Apple, and Meta have adopted federated learning in applications ranging from keyboard prediction (Gboard) to voice assistants (Siri) to AI assistants on social platforms.

Beyond machine learning, the same principles apply to analytics through what Google calls Federated Analytics. This approach supports basic data science needs such as counts, averages, histograms, quantiles, and other SQL-like queries, all computed locally on devices and aggregated without centralised data collection. Analysts can learn aggregate model metrics, popular trends and activities, or geospatial location heatmaps without ever seeing individual user data.

The technical foundations have matured considerably. TensorFlow Federated is Google's open source framework designed specifically for federated learning research and applications. PyTorch has also become increasingly popular for federated learning through extensions and specialised libraries. These tools make the technology accessible to organisations beyond the largest technology companies.

An interesting collaboration emerged from the pandemic response. Apple and Google's Exposure Notification framework includes an analytics component that uses distributed differential privacy with a local epsilon of 8. This demonstrates how federated approaches can be combined with differential privacy for enhanced protection.

However, federated learning presents its own challenges. The requirements of privacy and security in federated learning are inherently conflicting. Privacy necessitates the concealment of individual client updates, while security requires some disclosure of client updates to detect anomalies like adversarial attacks. Research gaps remain in handling non-identical data distributions across devices and defending against attacks.

Homomorphic Encryption and Computing on Secrets

Homomorphic encryption represents what cryptographers sometimes call the “holy grail” of encryption: the ability to perform computations on encrypted data without ever decrypting it. The results of these encrypted computations, when decrypted, match what would have been obtained by performing the same operations on the plaintext data. This means sensitive data can be processed, analysed, and transformed while remaining encrypted throughout the entire computation pipeline.

As of 2024, homomorphic encryption has moved beyond theoretical speculation into practical application. Privacy technologies have advanced greatly and become not just academic or of theoretical interest but ready to be applied and increasingly practical. The technology particularly shines in scenarios requiring secure collaboration across organisational boundaries where trust is limited.

In healthcare, comprehensive frameworks now enable researchers to conduct collaborative statistical analysis on health records while preserving privacy and ensuring security. These frameworks integrate privacy-preserving techniques including secret sharing, secure multiparty computation, and homomorphic encryption. The ability to analyse encrypted medical data has applications in drug development, where multiple parties need to use datasets without compromising patient confidentiality.

Financial institutions leverage homomorphic encryption for fraud detection across institutions without exposing customer data. Banks can collaborate on anti-money laundering efforts without revealing their customer relationships.

The VERITAS library, presented at the 2024 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, became the first library supporting verification of any homomorphic operation, demonstrating practicality for various applications with less than three times computation overhead compared to the baseline.

Despite these advances, significant limitations remain. Encryption introduces substantial computational overhead due to the complexity of performing operations on encrypted data. Slow processing speeds make fully homomorphic encryption impractical for real-time applications, and specialised knowledge is required to effectively deploy these solutions.

Secure Multi-Party Computation and Collaborative Secrets

Secure multi-party computation, or MPC, takes a different approach to the same fundamental problem. Rather than computing on encrypted data, MPC enables multiple parties to jointly compute a function over their inputs while keeping those inputs completely private from each other. Each party contributes their data but never sees anyone else's contribution, yet together they can perform meaningful analysis that would be impossible if each party worked in isolation.

The technology has found compelling real-world applications that demonstrate its practical value. The Boston Women's Workforce Council has used secure MPC to measure gender and racial wage gaps in the greater Boston area. Participating organisations contribute their payroll data through the MPC protocol, allowing analysis of aggregated data for wage gaps by gender, race, job category, tenure, and ethnicity without revealing anyone's actual wage.

The global secure multiparty computation market was estimated at USD 794.1 million in 2023 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 11.8 percent from 2024 to 2030. In June 2024, Pyte, a secure computation platform, announced additional funding bringing its total capital to over USD 12 million, with patented MPC technology enabling enterprises to securely collaborate on sensitive data.

Recent research has demonstrated the feasibility of increasingly complex MPC applications. The academic conference TPMPC 2024, hosted by TU Darmstadt's ENCRYPTO group, showcased research proving that complex tasks like secure inference with Large Language Models are now feasible with today's hardware. A paper titled “Sigma: Secure GPT Inference with Function Secret Sharing” showed that running inference operations on an encrypted 13 billion parameter model achieves inference times of a few seconds per token.

Partisia has partnered with entities in Denmark, Colombia, and the United States to apply MPC in healthcare analytics and cross-border data exchange. QueryShield, presented at the 2024 International Conference on Management of Data, supports relational analytics with provable privacy guarantees using MPC.

Synthetic Data and the Privacy of the Artificial

While the previous technologies focus on protecting real data during analysis, synthetic data generation takes a fundamentally different approach. Rather than protecting real data through encryption or noise, it creates entirely artificial datasets that maintain the statistical properties and patterns of original data without containing any actual sensitive information. By 2024, synthetic data has established itself as an essential component in AI and analytics, with estimates indicating 60 percent of projects now incorporate synthetic elements. The market has expanded from USD 0.29 billion in 2023 toward projected figures of USD 3.79 billion by 2032, representing a 33 percent compound annual growth rate.

Modern synthetic data creation relies on sophisticated approaches including Generative Adversarial Networks and Variational Autoencoders. These neural network architectures learn the underlying distribution of real data and generate new samples that follow the same patterns without copying any actual records. The US Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate awarded contracts in October 2024 to four startups to develop privacy-enhancing synthetic data generation capabilities.

Several platforms have emerged as leaders in this space. MOSTLY AI, based in Vienna, uses its generative AI platform to create highly accurate and private tabular synthetic data. Rockfish Data, based on foundational research at Carnegie Mellon University, developed a high-fidelity privacy-preserving platform. Hazy specialises in privacy-preserving synthetic data for regulated industries and is now part of SAS Data Maker.

Research published in Scientific Reports demonstrated that synthetic data can maintain similar utility (predictive performance) as real data while preserving privacy, supporting compliance with GDPR and HIPAA.

However, any method to generate synthetic data faces an inherent tension. The goals of imitating the statistical distributions in real data and ensuring privacy are sometimes in conflict, leading to a trade-off between usefulness and privacy.

Trusted Execution Environments and Hardware Sanctuaries

Moving from purely mathematical solutions to hardware-based protection, trusted execution environments, or TEEs, take yet another approach to privacy-preserving computation. Rather than mathematical techniques, TEEs rely on hardware features that create secure, isolated areas within a processor where code and data are protected from the rest of the system, including privileged software like the operating system or hypervisor.

A TEE acts as a black box for computation. Input and output can be known, but the state inside the TEE is never revealed. Data is only decrypted while being processed within the CPU package and automatically encrypted once it leaves the processor, making it inaccessible even to the system administrator.

Two main approaches have emerged in the industry. Intel's Software Guard Extensions (SGX) pioneered process-based TEE protection, dividing applications into trusted and untrusted components with the trusted portion residing in encrypted memory. AMD's Secure Encrypted Virtualisation (SEV) later brought a paradigm shift with VM-based TEE protection, enabling “lift-and-shift” deployment of legacy applications. Intel has more recently implemented this paradigm in Trust Domain Extensions (TDX).

A 2024 research paper published in ScienceDirect provides comparative evaluation of TDX, SEV, and SGX implementations. The power of TEEs lies in their ability to perform computations on unencrypted data (significantly faster than homomorphic encryption) while providing robust security guarantees.

Major cloud providers have embraced TEE technology. Azure Confidential VMs run virtual machines with AMD SEV where even Microsoft cannot access customer data. Google Confidential GKE offers Kubernetes clusters with encrypted node memory.

Zero-Knowledge Proofs and Proving Without Revealing

Zero-knowledge proofs represent a revolutionary advance in computational integrity and privacy technology. They enable the secure and private exchange of information without revealing underlying private data. A prover can convince a verifier that a statement is true without disclosing any information beyond the validity of the statement itself.

In the context of data analytics, zero-knowledge proofs allow organisations to prove properties about their data without exposing the data. Companies like Inpher leverage zero-knowledge proofs to enhance the privacy and security of machine learning solutions, ensuring sensitive data used in training remains confidential while still allowing verification of model properties.

Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning (ZKML) integrates machine learning with zero-knowledge testing. The paper “zkLLM: Zero Knowledge Proofs for Large Language Models” addresses a challenge within AI legislation: establishing authenticity of outputs generated by Large Language Models without compromising the underlying training data. This intersection of cryptographic proofs and neural networks represents one of the most promising frontiers in privacy-preserving AI.

The practical applications extend beyond theoretical interest. Financial institutions can prove solvency without revealing individual account balances. Healthcare researchers can demonstrate that their models were trained on properly consented data without exposing patient records. Regulatory auditors can verify compliance without accessing sensitive business information. Each use case shares the same underlying principle: proving a claim's truth without revealing the evidence supporting it.

Key benefits include data privacy (computations on sensitive data without exposure), model protection (safeguarding intellectual property while allowing verification), trust and transparency (enabling auditable AI systems), and collaborative innovation across organisational boundaries. Challenges hindering widespread adoption include substantial computing power requirements for generating and verifying proofs, interoperability difficulties between different implementations, and the steep learning curve for development teams unfamiliar with cryptographic concepts.

Operational Integration of Privacy-Enhancing Technologies

Deploying privacy-enhancing technologies requires more than selecting the right mathematical technique. It demands fundamental changes to how organisations structure their analytics pipelines and governance processes. Gartner predicts that by 2025, 60 percent of large organisations will use at least one privacy-enhancing computation technique in analytics, business intelligence, or cloud computing. Reaching this milestone requires overcoming significant operational challenges.

PETs typically must integrate with additional security and data tools, including identity and access management solutions, data preparation tooling, and key management technologies. These integrations introduce overheads that should be assessed early in the decision-making process. Organisations should evaluate the adaptability of their chosen PETs, as scope creep and requirement changes are common in dynamic environments. Late changes in homomorphic encryption and secure multi-party computation implementations can negatively impact time and cost.

Performance considerations vary significantly across technologies. Homomorphic encryption is typically considerably slower than plaintext operations, making it unsuitable for latency-sensitive applications. Differential privacy may degrade accuracy for small sample sizes. Federated learning introduces communication overhead between devices and servers. Organisations must match technology choices to their specific use cases and performance requirements.

Implementing PETs requires in-depth technical expertise. Specialised skills such as cryptography expertise can be hard to find, often making in-house development of PET solutions challenging. The complexity extends to procurement processes, necessitating collaboration between data governance, legal, and IT teams.

Policy changes accompany technical implementation. Organisations must establish clear governance frameworks that define who can access which analyses, how privacy budgets are allocated and tracked, and what audit trails must be maintained. Data retention policies need updating to reflect the new paradigm where raw data may never be centrally collected.

The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation categorises PETs into traditional approaches (encryption in transit, encryption at rest, and de-identification techniques) and emerging approaches (homomorphic encryption, trusted execution environments, multiparty computation, differential privacy, and federated analytics). Effective privacy strategies often layer multiple techniques together.

Validating Privacy Guarantees in Production

Theoretical privacy guarantees must be validated in practice. Small bugs in privacy-preserving software can easily compromise desired protections. Production tools should carefully implement primitives, following best practices in secure software design such as modular design, systematic code reviews, comprehensive test coverage, regular audits, and effective vulnerability management.

Privacy auditing has emerged as an important research area supporting the design and validation of privacy-preserving mechanisms. Empirical auditing techniques establish practical lower bounds on privacy leakage, complementing the theoretical upper bounds provided by differential privacy.

Canary-based auditing tests privacy guarantees by introducing specially designed examples, known as canaries, into datasets. Auditors then test whether these canaries can be detected in model outputs. Research on privacy attacks for auditing spans five main categories: membership inference attacks, data-poisoning attacks, model inversion attacks, model extraction attacks, and property inference.

A paper appearing at NeurIPS 2024 on nearly tight black-box auditing of differentially private machine learning demonstrates that rigorous auditing can detect bugs and identify privacy violations in real-world implementations. However, the main limitation is computational cost. Black-box auditing typically requires training hundreds of models to empirically estimate error rates with good accuracy and confidence.

Continuous monitoring addresses scenarios where data processing mechanisms require regular privacy validation. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed draft guidance on evaluating differential privacy protections, fulfilling a task under the Executive Order on AI. The NIST framework introduces a differential privacy pyramid where the ability for each component to protect privacy depends on the components below it.

DP-SGD (Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent) is increasingly deployed in production systems and supported in open source libraries like Opacus, TensorFlow, and JAX. These libraries implement auditing and monitoring capabilities that help organisations validate their privacy guarantees in practice.

Selecting the Right Technology for Specific Use Cases

With multiple privacy-enhancing technologies available, organisations face the challenge of selecting the right approach for their specific needs. The choice depends on several factors: the nature of the data, the types of analysis required, the computational resources available, the expertise of the team, and the regulatory environment.

Differential privacy excels when organisations need aggregate statistics from large datasets and can tolerate some accuracy loss. It provides mathematically provable guarantees and has mature implementations from major technology companies. However, it struggles with small sample sizes where noise can overwhelm the signal.

Federated learning suits scenarios where data naturally resides on distributed devices and where organisations want to train models without centralising data. It works well for mobile applications, IoT deployments, and collaborative learning across institutions.

Homomorphic encryption offers the strongest theoretical guarantees by keeping data encrypted throughout computation, making it attractive for highly sensitive data. The significant computational overhead limits its applicability to scenarios where privacy requirements outweigh performance needs.

Secure multi-party computation enables collaboration between parties who do not trust each other, making it ideal for competitive analysis, industry-wide fraud detection, and cross-border data processing.

Synthetic data provides the most flexibility after generation, as synthetic datasets can be shared and analysed using standard tools without ongoing privacy overhead.

Trusted execution environments offer performance advantages over purely cryptographic approaches while still providing hardware-backed isolation.

Many practical deployments combine multiple technologies. Federated learning often incorporates differential privacy for additional protection of aggregated updates. The most robust privacy strategies layer complementary protections rather than relying on any single technology.

Looking Beyond the Technological Horizon

The market for privacy-enhancing technologies is expected to mature with improved standardisation and integration, creating new opportunities in privacy-preserving data analytics and AI. The outlook is positive, with PETs becoming foundational to secure digital transformation globally.

However, PETs are not a silver bullet nor a standalone solution. Their use comes with significant risks and limitations ranging from potential data leakage to high computational costs. They cannot substitute existing laws and regulations but rather complement these in helping implement privacy protection principles. Ethically implementing PETs is essential. These technologies must be designed and deployed to protect marginalised groups and avoid practices that may appear privacy-preserving but actually exploit sensitive data or undermine privacy.

The fundamental insight driving this entire field is that privacy and utility are not necessarily zero-sum. Through careful application of mathematics, cryptography, and system design, organisations can extract meaningful insights from user content while enforcing strict privacy guarantees. The technologies are maturing. The regulatory pressure is mounting. The market is growing. The question is no longer whether platforms will adopt privacy-enhancing technologies for their analytics, but which combination of techniques will provide the best balance of utility and risk mitigation for their specific use cases.

What is clear is that the era of collecting everything and figuring out privacy later has ended. The future belongs to those who can see everything while knowing nothing.

References & Sources

• ISACA White Paper 2024: Exploring Practical Considerations and Applications for Privacy Enhancing Technologies
• Future of Privacy Forum: Privacy Enhancing Technologies
• Grand View Research: Privacy Enhancing Technologies Market Size Report 2030
• OECD: Emerging Privacy-Enhancing Technologies
• Federal Trade Commission: Keeping Your Privacy Enhancing Technology (PET) Promises
• Google Cloud Blog: Introducing BigQuery Differential Privacy with Tumult Labs
• Real-World Uses of Differential Privacy by Ted (desfontain.es)
• Dwork, C. Differential Privacy, ICALP 2006
• Harvard Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics: Cynthia Dwork Profile
• ACM Queue: Federated Learning and Privacy
• Google PAIR: How Federated Learning Protects Privacy
• Nature Scientific Reports: Synthetic Data for Privacy-Preserving Clinical Risk Prediction
• US Census Bureau: Why the Census Bureau Chose Differential Privacy
• US Census Bureau: Understanding Differential Privacy
• NIST: Draft Guidance on Evaluating Privacy Protection Technique for the AI Era
• MDPI Applied Sciences: Privacy Auditing in Differential Private Machine Learning
• Harvard Data Science Review: Advancing Differential Privacy
• Grand View Research: Secure Multiparty Computation Market Size Report 2030
• ACM Queue: Multiparty Computation – To Secure Privacy Do the Math
• Roseman Labs: The Future of Secure Multi-Party Computation TPMPC 2024
• ACM CCS 2024: VERITAS Plaintext Encoders for Practical Verifiable Homomorphic Encryption
• SAP News: Fully Homomorphic Encryption Data Insights Without Sharing Data
• DHS Science and Technology: Synthetic Data Generator
• Datacebo: Synthetic Data in 2024 The Year in Review
• ScienceDirect: An Experimental Evaluation of TEE Technology
• Microsoft Learn: Trusted Execution Environment
• arXiv: A Survey on the Applications of Zero-Knowledge Proofs
• Cloud Security Alliance: Leveraging Zero-Knowledge Proofs in Machine Learning
• Usercentrics: Global Data Privacy Laws 2025 Guide
• Gartner: Top Five Trends in Privacy Through 2024

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

There are chapters in Scripture that don’t shout, don’t thunder, and don’t demand attention through dramatic imagery or apocalyptic language. Instead, they sit quietly in the soul and begin dismantling things we didn’t even realize we had built our lives upon. First John chapter two is one of those chapters. It doesn’t announce itself as revolutionary, but it quietly redefines what faith actually looks like once belief has already begun. It is not written to outsiders wondering if God exists. It is written to insiders who already believe but are now wrestling with how belief shapes daily life, identity, desire, loyalty, and truth.

This chapter assumes something deeply important from the very beginning: that faith is not theoretical. Faith is lived. Faith walks. Faith either moves toward the light or slowly drifts back into shadows that feel familiar and comfortable. And John writes not as a distant theologian, but as a spiritual father who has watched people begin well and then lose their footing over time. His concern is not whether people can quote doctrine correctly, but whether their lives are being quietly reshaped by the truth they claim to know.

John opens with tenderness rather than threat. He does not begin with condemnation or fear. He begins with reassurance. He acknowledges human weakness without excusing it, and he acknowledges grace without cheapening it. He speaks to believers as children, not because they are immature, but because they are loved. That framing matters. Everything that follows in this chapter flows from the assumption that God’s correction comes from care, not control. From relationship, not religious performance.

One of the most misunderstood dynamics in Christian life is the tension between grace and obedience. Many people feel trapped between two extremes. On one side is the fear-driven version of faith where every mistake feels like a threat to salvation. On the other side is a careless version of grace where obedience becomes optional and transformation is no longer expected. First John 2 refuses both extremes. It holds grace and obedience together without apologizing for either.

John acknowledges that believers will stumble. He does not pretend otherwise. But he also refuses to normalize sin as a permanent identity. There is a difference between struggling and settling. There is a difference between falling and deciding to lie down and live there. This chapter is written to people who still want to walk in the light but are navigating the reality of human weakness along the way.

The reassurance John offers is not vague optimism. It is rooted in the person of Jesus. Jesus is described as the advocate, the one who stands on behalf of believers, not as a distant observer but as an active participant in their restoration. This advocacy is not permission to remain unchanged. It is the safety net that allows believers to keep moving forward rather than hiding in shame. Shame immobilizes. Grace mobilizes. And John is deeply concerned with movement.

Then comes one of the most challenging lines in the entire chapter, one that disrupts comfortable Christianity: the claim that knowing God is demonstrated by obedience. Not claimed by words. Not proven by spiritual language. Demonstrated. Lived. Made visible. This is where many people become uncomfortable, because obedience has been weaponized in unhealthy ways by religious systems. But John is not talking about rule-keeping as a performance. He is talking about alignment.

To obey God, in John’s framework, is not to follow an abstract list of commands. It is to live in alignment with the character of Christ. Obedience is relational before it is behavioral. When someone claims to know God but their life consistently moves in a direction that contradicts love, truth, humility, and integrity, John says something very blunt: something is off. Not because God is cruel, but because truth produces fruit. Light produces visibility. And love produces transformation.

This is where John introduces one of the central metaphors of the entire letter: walking. Faith is not static. It is not a single decision frozen in time. It is a walk. And walks have direction. You are always moving somewhere, even if you don’t feel like you are. Spiritual drift rarely feels dramatic. It feels subtle. It feels like compromise justified by busyness. It feels like delayed obedience explained away by good intentions. It feels like loving God in theory while slowly reorganizing life around other priorities.

John does not accuse believers of malicious intent. He warns them about self-deception. There is a difference. Most people do not wake up and decide to abandon the light. They slowly convince themselves they can live in both light and shadow without consequence. John dismantles that illusion gently but firmly. Light and darkness are not compatible. They cannot coexist indefinitely. One always overtakes the other.

Then John shifts to love, and this is where the chapter becomes deeply personal. He does something fascinating: he says the command to love one another is both old and new at the same time. Old because it has always been part of God’s design. New because Jesus embodied it in a way that transformed its meaning. Love is no longer theoretical. It is now flesh and blood. It has been demonstrated, not just described.

This matters because many people redefine love to suit their comfort. Love becomes tolerance without truth, affirmation without accountability, kindness without courage. But the love John is describing is not passive. It is active. It costs something. It requires humility. It requires restraint. It requires choosing the good of others even when ego wants control or recognition.

John ties love directly to light. To love is to walk in the light. To hate, or even to remain indifferent while claiming love, is to walk in darkness. This is one of the most uncomfortable truths in the chapter, because it exposes how easy it is to claim spiritual maturity while harboring resentment, bitterness, or contempt. John does not allow love to remain abstract. He ties it to posture, behavior, and internal orientation.

The language John uses here is strong. He does not say that hate makes faith less effective. He says it blinds. That matters. Blindness is not just about ignorance. It is about loss of direction. When someone is spiritually blind, they may feel confident while heading the wrong way. They may feel justified while causing damage. They may feel secure while slowly drifting away from the very light they claim to walk in.

John then pauses and does something pastoral and beautiful. He addresses different groups within the faith community: children, fathers, young men. This is not about age. It is about spiritual stages. It is about recognizing that faith develops, deepens, and matures over time. And instead of shaming people for where they are, John affirms what God has already done in them.

To the spiritually young, he reminds them that their sins are forgiven. To the spiritually mature, he reminds them that they know the One who was from the beginning. To those in the strength and struggle phase, he reminds them that they have overcome the evil one and that the word of God lives in them. This is not flattery. It is grounding. John wants believers to remember who they are before he warns them about what threatens them.

And then comes the warning that defines the heart of the chapter: do not love the world or the things in the world. This line has been misunderstood, misused, and misapplied more than almost any other. Many have taken it to mean withdrawal from society, rejection of culture, or suspicion of anything enjoyable. But John is not condemning creation. He is confronting allegiance.

The “world” John refers to is not the planet or human beings. It is a system of values that competes with God for loyalty. It is a way of organizing life around desire, pride, and self-exaltation. It is the subtle belief that fulfillment comes from accumulation, status, power, or pleasure rather than from communion with God.

John names three forces that define this system: the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the pride of life. These are not random categories. They describe how temptation works. Desire begins internally. It is then reinforced visually. And finally, it is justified through identity and status. What starts as appetite becomes aspiration and eventually becomes self-definition.

This is where faith becomes deeply uncomfortable, because John is not asking believers to merely avoid bad behavior. He is asking them to examine what they love. What draws them. What they organize their lives around. What they daydream about. What they protect. What they justify. Love, in John’s framework, is about direction and devotion, not just affection.

And here is the sobering truth John presents: love for the world and love for God cannot coexist as equal priorities. One will always displace the other. This is not because God is insecure. It is because divided allegiance fragments the soul. When faith becomes one compartment among many, it loses its power to transform. It becomes decorative rather than directive.

John reminds believers that the world, as a system of values, is passing away. This is not meant to induce fear. It is meant to restore perspective. What feels dominant now is temporary. What feels urgent now will eventually fade. But alignment with God has permanence. Faith is not just about surviving this life. It is about participating in something eternal that begins now.

At this point in the chapter, the tone shifts again. John introduces the concept of deception within the community. He warns about those who distort truth, not always from outside, but often from within. This is one of the most difficult realities for believers to accept: that not every spiritual voice is trustworthy, even if it uses religious language. Not every confident teacher is aligned with truth. Not every movement labeled spiritual is rooted in Christ.

John speaks about those who departed from the community, revealing that their departure exposed a deeper misalignment that was already present. This is not about disagreement over minor issues. It is about denial of the core truth of who Jesus is. John is clear that faith is not infinitely flexible. There are boundaries. There is substance. There is truth that cannot be reshaped to suit preference or convenience.

Yet even here, John does not call believers to paranoia. He calls them to discernment. He reminds them that they have been given something precious: an anointing that teaches them truth. This is not about individual superiority. It is about the presence of God’s Spirit guiding believers toward truth when they remain attentive and humble.

John’s concern is not that believers might encounter false ideas. That is inevitable. His concern is that believers might stop caring about truth altogether, replacing discernment with sentimentality. When truth becomes negotiable, love becomes hollow. And when love loses its anchor, faith becomes vulnerable to manipulation.

The chapter ends with an invitation to remain. To abide. To stay connected. Faith, according to John, is not about constant novelty. It is about faithfulness. About staying rooted in what was true from the beginning. About allowing what is eternal to reshape what is immediate.

And that is where this chapter quietly presses on every reader. It asks questions that cannot be answered quickly or comfortably. What do you love? What shapes your identity? What system are you aligned with? What voices are you listening to? And are you walking toward the light, or merely standing near it while facing another direction?

First John chapter two does not shout. It whispers. But if you listen closely, it has the power to reorient an entire life.

What John ultimately presses toward in the second half of this chapter is not fear, withdrawal, or spiritual anxiety, but endurance. Again and again, the underlying call is to remain. To stay. To abide. That word carries far more weight than it initially appears to. It does not mean to cling desperately or to white-knuckle belief out of fear of punishment. It means to live in sustained alignment with what is true, even as competing voices grow louder and more persuasive.

John understands something that many people only learn through painful experience: most faith does not collapse through rebellion, but through erosion. It wears down slowly when people stop remaining in what they once knew to be true. They become distracted, busy, successful, affirmed, or exhausted. They do not consciously reject Christ; they simply stop centering their lives around Him. Abiding, then, is not passive. It is intentional presence. It is a daily orientation of the heart.

John warns his readers that the age they are living in is already marked by resistance to truth. He speaks of antichrist not as a single distant figure, but as a posture that denies who Jesus truly is. This is important, because it reframes deception as something far more subtle than sensational. Antichrist is not always loud or violent or obvious. Often it is reasonable. Often it is polished. Often it claims to improve upon the message of Christ by making it more palatable, more modern, or more flexible.

The danger John highlights is not disagreement over secondary issues. It is distortion of identity. To deny Jesus as the Christ is not merely to reject a title; it is to reject the reality that God entered human history in humility, obedience, sacrifice, and truth. When that reality is softened or redefined, faith becomes untethered. It becomes something people shape rather than something that shapes them.

John does not respond to this threat by encouraging believers to constantly chase new teaching. He does the opposite. He tells them to remain in what they heard from the beginning. This does not mean stagnation. It means grounding. Growth that is healthy does not abandon roots; it deepens them. John is reminding believers that novelty is not the same as truth, and innovation is not the same as revelation.

One of the most powerful assurances in this section is John’s confidence in what God has already provided. He tells believers that the anointing they received remains in them. This is not mystical elitism. It is relational confidence. God has not left His people defenseless. He has given His Spirit to guide, correct, and anchor them. Discernment is not about suspicion; it is about intimacy with truth.

John’s language here pushes against the idea that faith requires constant external validation. There is a maturity that develops when believers learn to test voices against what they already know of Christ’s character and teaching. This does not eliminate the need for community or learning, but it does protect against manipulation. When truth lives within, deception loses its power.

The promise John holds out is striking in its simplicity: eternal life. Not as a distant reward disconnected from the present, but as a reality that begins now. Eternal life, in Johannine language, is not merely endless existence. It is quality of life shaped by relationship with God. It is life lived in light, truth, and love. It is life that endures because it is anchored in something unchanging.

This reframes endurance entirely. Faithfulness is not about surviving God’s scrutiny. It is about remaining connected to the source of life. When John urges believers to remain so that they may be confident at Christ’s appearing, he is not invoking terror. He is inviting integrity. A life aligned with truth does not fear exposure. It welcomes it.

John closes the chapter by returning to identity. Those who practice righteousness are born of God. This is not a performance metric. It is a diagnostic sign. What you practice reveals what you belong to. Over time, roots show themselves in fruit. Identity expresses itself through pattern, not perfection.

This is where First John 2 becomes deeply confronting in a quiet way. It does not ask whether someone has prayed a prayer or claimed a label. It asks what direction their life consistently moves in. It asks whether love is increasing, whether truth matters, whether allegiance is clear, whether obedience flows from relationship rather than obligation.

The chapter refuses to let faith remain abstract. It insists that belief touches desire, behavior, loyalty, and endurance. It insists that light changes how we walk. It insists that love cannot be claimed while being withheld. It insists that truth cannot be selectively edited without consequence.

And yet, through all of this, the tone remains pastoral. John does not write as a prosecutor. He writes as a guardian. His warnings are not meant to terrify, but to stabilize. His boundaries are not meant to restrict joy, but to protect it. His call to abide is not a burden, but an invitation into something lasting.

First John chapter two ultimately confronts the lie that faith can be compartmentalized. It cannot. Faith either reorders life or slowly becomes decorative. John calls believers back to the center. Back to what was heard from the beginning. Back to love that costs something. Back to light that exposes and heals. Back to truth that anchors identity rather than bending to preference.

This chapter is not loud, but it is relentless. It presses the same quiet question again and again: are you remaining, or are you drifting? Are you walking in the light, or merely familiar with it? Are you loving God with your words, or with your direction?

The answer to those questions is not found in a moment. It is revealed over time. And John, like a faithful shepherd, writes not to condemn the struggle, but to keep people from losing their way altogether.

That is the gift of this chapter. It does not flatter. It clarifies. It does not accuse. It invites. And it reminds every believer that faith is not about starting well once, but about remaining well all the way through.

---

Watch Douglas Vandergraph’s inspiring faith-based videos on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@douglasvandergraph

Support the ministry by buying Douglas a coffee https://www.buymeacoffee.com/douglasvandergraph

Your friend, Douglas Vandergraph

#Faith #BibleStudy #1John #ChristianGrowth #WalkingInTheLight #AbideInChrist #SpiritualDiscernment #ChristianLiving #TruthAndLove #EnduringFaith

In my recent series on the commemorations for the week between Christmas Day and the Feast of the Holy Name, I managed to generate some small degree of controversy and discussion when I mentioned that the Massacre of the Innocents as recorded in Matthew’s gospel likely did not actually happen. As I said in that piece, there is no extra-biblical historical evidence that the event occurred. Even one of the most important historians we rely on, Josephus, did not include any mention of Herod killing scores of infants—and Josephus does not hold back on his criticisms of the Herodians.

Now, I am willing to admit one caveat, and that is there’s a theory that maybe the massacre happened, but it wasn’t a large-scale event involving thousands of children. Given the limitations of the information supplied by Magi, how many kids could have been born in the narrow window of a) when the star appeared and, b) in Bethlehem? If this was the case, then Herod ordering the murder of a small number of kids would hardly register among all the horrible things he was known for and might not garner a mention from historians and scribes of the time.

However, I still hold to the contention that Matthew is not interested in recording precise, “accurate” (as we understand the term) history so much so as writing a story that he feels is true in regards to Jesus. Perhaps the causes that lead to the Holy Family taking flight to Egypt were more of a slow-burn situation, where young kids were likely to die and so, inspired by God, Joseph takes Jesus and Mary (in an event that echoes also another Joseph—one who managed to shelter the patriarchs in Egypt during a time of famine). Matthew wants to express the dire situation to the Church and so telling a story about Herod murdering kids communicates that truth. It’s a story that feels true to who Herod is and is a kind of short-hand way of helping Christians born years, even decades, after the event understand what a monster the man was.

But this all serves as a way to address an important elephant when it comes to reading the Bible: it isn’t always historically accurate. This provides grounds for a kind of crisis of faith when we treat the whole “divine inspiration” thing in terms of what we call today “biblical inerrancy.” In other words, if the Bible is a book that God basically dictated to various writers and is, therefore, God’s actual words on paper, then what are we to make of things when the Bible and facts don’t line up? Is God lying to us? Does God get His facts mixed up? Or is there some demonic plot being enacted by historians and scholars to try and discredit the Bible? (This latter thing was basically the view of my church growing up; if the Bible and facts didn’t agree, then it was facts that needed to change—we can see such thinking happening in certain political circles today, but I digress).

In order to discuss this, we’ll need to break a few things down—namely, what we mean by “history” and what is meant by “divine inspiration.”

WHAT IS HISTORY?

History seems like a straightforward thing. It is the discipline of chronicling past events so that we can keep posterity and revisit what has come before, right? Yes. But our modern conception of history is something a bit different from what our ancestors thought of when they conceived of history. See, our current understanding of history is shaped by the scientific method, which came about in the 1700s. Prior to this, the phenomena of our world were seen in terms of analogy. Take, for instance, reproduction. We continue to use vestigial language from our agrarian past to speak of how organisms reproduce, language like “seed” and “fertility.” The word sperm comes from the Greek sperma which means “seed.” So, for much of human history, we saw all forms of reproduction as analogous to agriculture: a seed is planted in a fertile space where new life emerges. It wasn’t until the invention of the microscope and the advent of the scientific method that we began to challenge this analogy and see if there’s something else going on. What emerged during this time was the concept of facts.

Prior to the mid-16th century, the Latin term factum referred simply to “a thing done or performed.” This usage is still common in the legal realm. Those of us who grew up with Dragnet recall Joe Friday regularly saying to witnesses, “just the facts.” In other words, recall the events without commentary or elucidation. Deborah went to the store at 5:15 in the evening. But, with the emergence of modern science, facts began to take on greater precedence. Facts were considered pure and superior, a distillation of the essence of a thing. Facts represent something that is observable and repeatable. Deborah can go to the store at 5:15 and so can I. What I can’t do is inhabit Deborah’s frame of mind. I can’t know what she was thinking as she walked to the store, how happy or unhappy she might have been. The fleeting thoughts and emotions she felt during that stroll. These are all unique to her, making them not reproducible and, therefore, useless in terms of data. They are extraneous, important to Deborah perhaps, but not important for finding out if Deborah saw James fleeing the scene of Jesse’s murder, which happened across from the store at around 5:25.

Thomas Jefferson famously applied such thinking to the Gospels. Since miracles and other supernatural events are not reproducible, repeating and measurable phenomena, Jefferson stripped the gospels of any reference to them. Jefferson believed this made for a more “true” Gospel because it was a gospel of facts. The bias of the scientific method is that facts are truth. If something is not factual then it isn’t true. And something is only factual if it is an observable, repeatable event free from extraneous conditions. Deborah can go to the store at 5:15 regardless of whether she’s happy or sad or praying or thinking about the baseball game. Those things are ancillary to facts. What is personal to her is not, objectively, true according to modern science.

So when we record history, we now aim to be as factual as possible. I used to be a journalist and journalism is a key resource for historians. The discipline of journalism is to write things as dispassionately as possible, removing your own feelings and commentary and presenting things as “factually” as one can, leaving the reader to decide how to think and feel about those things.

Now, I’m not here to argue against facts. Facts are important. I’m simply attempting to demonstrate that, one, the prioritizing of facts is a relatively recent event in human history and, two, perhaps to suggest that facts leave a lot of things out of a story.

When I was a journalist I was also a creative writer, working on a novel, and getting short fiction and poems published in TINY journals and publications (I did manage to get once piece of fairly unhinged “fan mail” for a five-line poem that was picked up by a publication that was simply photo copied sheets of paper to be stuck onto bulletin boards and whatnot). Creative writing gives texture to facts. That’s where we dwell on Deborah’s frustration that the short-stop dropped the ball in the bottom of the ninth, causing the other team to get two runners to home plate, costing her team the game—and that this frustration mirrors the frustration she feels that her husband is always working too late to go to the store and grab a gallon milk for the house, leaving her to have to do it and making her feel like the center-fielder who had to make up for the short-stop’s mistake. Indeed, the creative writer will say that the real story is found in spots like these and not the facts. Facts make for poor story-telling.

The ancients knew this. When they wrote histories, they weren’t simply recording dispassionate facts. They were telling stories, stories full of texture and meaning. Their goal was to get readers to feel the story being told. In order to do this, elements might be told out of order, or hyperbole was employed, or even, at times, what we call “fiction” was used. The facts of the story might not be straight, but the Truth absolutely was.

Here’s an example from the gospels: Jesus’ cleansing of the temple. In the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) it serves as a kind of crescendo to Jesus’ story. The Synoptics all depict Jesus moving from Galilee and making His way to Jerusalem to where He enters in triumph, chases out the money-changers from the temple, which makes Him a more serious target of the religious authorities. But in John, Jesus cleanses the temple right at the beginning of His ministry, right after coming out of the desert and His 40-day-long bout with Satan. Further, John depicts Jesus going to and from Jerusalem on a regular basis. If all four gospels are true, how do we reconcile their conflicting facts? Do we say, as some have, that Jesus must have cleansed the temple twice? If that’s the case, why don’t all four gospels testify to that?

Perhaps we’re thinking of this incorrectly. We need to get back to that ancient way of thinking and consider that Truth is something that cannot be reduced down to simple facts. As Ian Markham, the dean and president of Virginia Theological Seminary, is know to say, we Christians do not read a book, we read a life; the book is important because the book testifies to the life. Given this, no true story of a life can be told only in fact. Truth moves beyond fact. And so, as a result, it doesn’t really matter when Jesus cleansed the temple. What matters is that Jesus is someone who cleanses the temple, whether as the culmination of His earthly ministry or resulting from being in the power of the Spirit after overcoming the devil in the wilderness. The facts of the story are in service to the Truth.

WHAT IS DIVINE INSPIRATION?

There are, of course, many many misunderstood passages in the Bible. Many of them are found in the writings of Saint Paul. This shouldn’t surprise us because even the Bible itself tells us that Paul is hard to understand, with Saint Peter writing:

Consider the patience of our Lord to be salvation, just as our dear friend and brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of these things in all his letters. Some of his remarks are hard to understand, and people who are ignorant and whose faith is weak twist them to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16 CEB)

This is an important passage for a couple of reasons. First, it shows that the Church received Paul’s writings as scripture fairly early on. Second, it gives us a fun little insight into the lives of the early saints: even one of Paul’s friends—the one considered to be the first pope—has a hard time understanding what the heck he’s saying.

But one of the most broadly (and, I’d argue, dangerously) misunderstood things Paul wrote comes from a letter he wrote to his young protege named Timothy:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

And let’s also use the NIV version, since that’s arguably the one most people would know these days:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (2 Timothy 3:16 NIV)

So, here Saint Paul teaches that “all scripture” is “inspired,” which is translated as “God-breathed” in newer English versions. This leads us to the conclusion that “scripture” is something breathed from God, thus God’s very words, transcribed by holy writers. Or is it?

Before we begin to look at what it means that something is “God-breathed,” we need to take a look at the word “scripture.” We use the word exclusively for religious writings, but in its original sense “scripture” simply means “a thing written.” So, “writings.”

To put the passage literally, it would read “All writings are God-breathed.” Is this what Saint Paul is saying? That all writing is breathed out by God? Not only the Bible, but the Qur’an, the Upanishads, the Book of Mormon? Not only “religious” books but also The Catcher in the Rye, the Godzilla collectibles guide on my shelf, and the instruction manual to my TV? I don’t think this is what Saint Paul is teaching Saint Timothy.

The word “scripture” (graphe in Greek) is used exclusively in the Bible to refer to the writings of the Bible. We saw this a bit earlier with Saint Peter using the term to refer to Saint Paul’s letters. Elsewhere, it is used in reference to the books of the Old Testament. So the term seems to be applied to certain writings in this context.

Now, a lot of Christians will say that in this case “the scriptures” is simply short-hand for “the Bible.” But things are not that simple. For one, there was no such thing as “the Bible” when Paul was writing Timothy this letter. You might say “well, okay, sure; the New Testament wasn’t all written yet, but there was the Old Testament.”

It may surprise you to learn that what we think of as the Old Testament did not exist until around the 600s at the earliest. That’s 600 AD (or CE nowadays). As in, 600 years after the time of Jesus.

Now before you start writing me emails or replies on Mastodon, let me finish. I’m not saying that the writings themselves didn’t exist until then. I’m saying that the writings that make up the Old Testament as we know it were not put together into a definitive collection of 39 books (24 in rabbinic Judaism because a few of the books are consolidated and treated as a single book, notably the minor prophets) until that time. Yes there were translations of these books into Greek (called the Septuagint) and for many Christians those translations were treated as “the Bible” of their time, but given that some of the books are never referenced in the New Testament and they did not exist in a single volume, there is some question over what books were considered “official” back then. The group of rabbis known as the Masoretes were the ones who assembled the Old Testament as we know it in the 600-900s. Their list of books is what is used by Protestant Christians for the Old Testament.

This is all to say that the term “scripture” was something coming into form at the time of Saint Paul’s writing. And his use of the phrase “God-breathed” is likely a mechanism to help Saint Timothy know what writings are truly Christian and which ones to avoid. This is especially crucial given the preponderance of gnostic and anti-Gentile writings making the rounds at the time.

Perhaps seeing the passage in some wider context will help us. I am fan of the Common English Bible, so I tend to use that:

But you must continue with the things you have learned and found convincing. You know who taught you. Since childhood you have known the holy scriptures that help you to be wise in a way that leads to salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus. Every scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for showing mistakes, for correcting, and for training character, so that the person who belongs to God can be equipped to do everything that is good. (2 Timothy 3:14-18 CEB)

It might be bad scholarship on my part, but I tend to read the passage like this: “Every scripture that is inspired by God is useful for teaching,” etc. In other words, Saint Paul is reminding Saint Timothy that he is able to discern which writings are “God-breathed” and which ones aren’t. This isn’t so much a working definition on the doctrine of scripture as much as it is a piece of practical wisdom: if it doesn’t sound like scripture, then it isn’t. It’s one of the reasons that we can say that something like the Gospel of Thomas doesn’t bear the aroma of God’s breath—it ends with Jesus telling Saint Peter that Saint Mary of Magdala will need to be reincarnated as a man in order to enter heaven. And those “God-breathed” writings serve the purpose of instruction and formation to make for good Christians.

So the Bible itself does not define itself as being the result of God dictating His words into the ears of particular people. Rather, God breathes through the words that have been written, giving those of us who know Him through prayer and devotion the means to recognize Him in particular writings. Those writings are valuable because they evoke the very breath of God—like us!—and therefore have something to say about the sort of people God wants us to be.

TRUTH IN FICTION

This brings us back to the question of fiction and the Bible. Can the Bible contain fictional material and yet remain true? Yes.

Let’s ask this question a slightly different way: can God’s breath be detected through fiction? If we say no then we risk limiting God… Given that God is sovereign and gets what He wants because He is God, it is very much the case that God can use fiction as means for declaring His truth. Indeed, the book of Job is pretty much accepted as being an intentional work of fiction, but is held dearly as a source of beauty and truth—especially for those broken-hearted and desperate for God. Aside from that, we have entire books of poetry in the Bible and poetry is a medium that is not tied to mere fact, given to expansive and hyperbolic language in order to express Truth, God’s Truth.

So, the Bible isn’t always factual. That’s okay. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. God can use fiction to express His Truth to us. Fact or fiction doesn’t matter as much as whether or not we can detect the presence of God’s breath in the story, whether or not the story is useful for teaching us and forming us into the sort of humans He has redeemed us to become.

***

The Rev. Charles Browning II is the rector of Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church in Honolulu, Hawai’i. He is a husband, father, surfer, and frequent over-thinker. Follow him on Mastodon and Pixelfed.

There are passages of Scripture that feel familiar because they are often quoted, and then there are passages that feel familiar because they have quietly shaped our conscience without us realizing it. First John chapter one belongs to the second category. It is short, direct, and deceptively simple, yet it dismantles shallow faith while offering one of the most freeing visions of Christian life in the entire New Testament. It does not begin with commands or doctrines in the way we might expect. It begins with reality. With testimony. With something seen, heard, touched, and known. And from that grounding, it moves straight into the uncomfortable but necessary intersection between light, truth, confession, and joy.

What makes First John one so powerful is that it refuses to let Christianity become an abstract belief system. John does not talk about ideas floating in the air. He talks about life that was manifested. He talks about something eternal stepping into time and being encountered by ordinary human senses. This matters, because before John ever addresses sin, fellowship, or forgiveness, he establishes that the Christian faith is anchored in a real encounter with a real person. Christianity is not primarily a philosophy about morality. It is a response to a revealed life.

John opens with language that echoes the beginning of the Gospel of John, but with a more personal, almost urgent tone. He speaks as someone who has been forever altered by proximity to Jesus. What was from the beginning, he says, is not merely something he believes in. It is something he has heard, something he has seen with his eyes, something he has looked upon, something his hands have touched. This is not poetic exaggeration. It is a deliberate insistence that faith is rooted in lived encounter, not spiritual imagination.

There is a reason John emphasizes the physicality of Jesus at the very start. The early church was already facing distortions of the faith that tried to separate the spiritual from the physical, claiming that God could not truly take on flesh, or that sin did not really matter because the body was irrelevant. John dismantles this from the first sentence. The life he proclaims is not a detached spiritual concept. It is the life that walked, ate, wept, suffered, and bled. The eternal entered the ordinary, and that collision changes everything about how we understand light, darkness, and truth.

When John speaks of proclaiming what he has seen and heard, he is not simply reporting information. He is extending an invitation. His goal is fellowship. He wants others to share in the same relational reality he has experienced. This is a critical point that often gets missed. Fellowship is not a side benefit of belief; it is the purpose of proclamation. John does not say, “We tell you this so you will agree with us.” He says, “We tell you this so you may have fellowship with us.” And then he takes it even further. This fellowship, he says, is not merely horizontal. It is fellowship with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.

This is a staggering claim. Fellowship with God is not described as distant reverence or fearful submission. It is shared life. It is participation. It is relational closeness grounded in truth. And John ties this fellowship directly to joy. He writes these things so that joy may be complete. Not partial joy. Not fragile joy. Not joy dependent on circumstances. Complete joy. The kind of joy that only exists when truth, relationship, and integrity align.

From here, John shifts into one of the most important theological declarations in the New Testament, and he does so with breathtaking simplicity. God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. There is no ambiguity here. No blending. No shadows hidden in the corners. God is not mostly light with a little darkness. He is not light in one mood and darkness in another. In Him there is no darkness at all. This single sentence reshapes how we understand God’s character, God’s holiness, and God’s expectations.

Light, in John’s writing, is not merely moral goodness. It is truth, clarity, openness, and purity. Darkness is not just wrongdoing; it is deception, concealment, and self-protection. To say that God is light is to say that God is entirely truthful, entirely open, entirely consistent. There is nothing hidden in Him. Nothing contradictory. Nothing manipulative. Nothing false.

This matters because John immediately applies this truth to how we live and how we speak about our faith. If God is light, then claiming fellowship with Him while walking in darkness is not a minor inconsistency. It is a lie. John does not soften this. He does not say it is a misunderstanding or a growth issue. He says plainly that such a claim is false. To walk in darkness while claiming fellowship with the God who is pure light is to deny reality itself.

At this point, many people become uncomfortable, because the word “darkness” feels heavy and condemning. But John is not primarily talking about struggling believers who are wrestling with sin and seeking God. He is talking about people who refuse honesty. Walking in darkness is not the same as stumbling. It is a posture of concealment. It is the choice to hide, rationalize, or deny sin while maintaining a religious appearance.

John contrasts this with walking in the light. Walking in the light does not mean living without sin. If that were the case, the rest of the chapter would make no sense. Walking in the light means living openly before God. It means refusing to hide. It means allowing truth to expose what needs healing. When we walk in the light, John says, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.

This is one of the most misunderstood dynamics in Christian life. Many people assume that they must be clean before they can walk in the light. John says the opposite. Walking in the light is what allows cleansing to occur. Light is not the reward for righteousness; it is the environment in which transformation happens. Darkness preserves sin. Light exposes it so it can be healed.

John then addresses two statements that reveal the human instinct to avoid accountability. The first is the claim that we have no sin. John is blunt. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Notice what he does not say. He does not say we are lying to others. He says we are deceiving ourselves. Self-deception is the most dangerous form of darkness because it feels sincere. It allows a person to maintain moral confidence while remaining spiritually blind.

The second claim John addresses is even more severe. If we say we have not sinned, we make God a liar. This is no longer self-deception; it is theological distortion. To deny sin is to deny the very reason Christ came, suffered, and died. It reframes the gospel as unnecessary and turns grace into excess rather than rescue.

Between these warnings, John places one of the most hope-filled promises in Scripture. If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This sentence carries enormous weight, and every word matters. Confession is not groveling or self-hatred. It is agreement with truth. It is stepping into the light and naming reality as God sees it.

God’s response to confession is not described in emotional terms, as if forgiveness depends on God’s mood. It is grounded in His character. He is faithful. He is just. Faithful means He does not change. Just means He does not ignore sin but has already dealt with it through Christ. Forgiveness is not God pretending sin did not happen. It is God honoring the finished work of Jesus.

Cleansing from all unrighteousness goes beyond forgiveness of specific acts. It speaks to restoration. To renewal. To the gradual reshaping of the heart. This is why confession is not a one-time event at conversion but an ongoing rhythm of life in the light. The Christian life is not about pretending to be sinless. It is about refusing to live in denial.

What is striking about First John chapter one is that it holds grace and honesty together without compromise. There is no tolerance for deception, and there is no limit to mercy. Darkness is named for what it is, but light is always stronger. Sin is taken seriously, but forgiveness is never in doubt. The chapter does not end with fear; it ends with assurance rooted in truth.

This balance is desperately needed in every generation, including our own. We live in a time where some forms of Christianity minimize sin to avoid discomfort, while others magnify sin to control behavior. John does neither. He tells the truth so that joy may be complete. He exposes darkness so that fellowship may be real. He invites believers into a life where nothing has to be hidden and nothing is beyond redemption.

First John chapter one is not about perfection. It is about honesty. It is not about achieving light. It is about walking in it. It does not ask us to deny our brokenness. It asks us to stop pretending. And in that invitation, it offers something far better than image management or moral performance. It offers real fellowship with God, real connection with one another, and a joy that is not fragile because it is grounded in truth.

This is the kind of faith that can survive scrutiny. The kind that does not collapse under self-examination. The kind that does not require darkness to function. John is not writing to burden believers. He is writing to free them. He knows that hidden sin corrodes joy, and that light, though initially uncomfortable, ultimately heals.

In the next part, we will move deeper into how this passage reshapes our understanding of confession, assurance, and the daily practice of faith, especially in a culture that often confuses authenticity with exposure and grace with permission. But for now, First John chapter one stands as a quiet but unyielding call: step into the light, not because you are worthy, but because God is faithful, and the light is where life truly begins.

The remaining movement of First John chapter one presses even deeper into the daily practice of faith, not by adding complexity, but by stripping away illusion. What John is ultimately confronting is not immoral behavior in isolation, but a mindset that treats sin as either irrelevant or unmentionable. Both extremes destroy fellowship. One denies the seriousness of sin, the other denies the power of grace. John’s insistence on confession stands between those errors like a narrow bridge that leads to freedom.

Confession, in this chapter, is not framed as a ritual performed to appease an angry God. It is presented as a relational act that restores alignment. When John says, “If we confess our sins,” he is not implying a checklist of transgressions recited under pressure. The word confession means to say the same thing. It is agreement. Agreement with God about what is true. Agreement about what is broken. Agreement about what needs healing. Confession is not about informing God of something He does not know. It is about ending our resistance to the truth He already sees.

This is why confession is inseparable from walking in the light. Light exposes, but it does not humiliate. It reveals, but it does not condemn. Darkness, by contrast, may feel safer in the moment, but it demands constant maintenance. It requires memory, rationalization, and selective honesty. Light requires only surrender. When a believer steps into the light through confession, the exhausting labor of concealment ends.

John’s language here is deeply pastoral. He knows the human tendency to oscillate between denial and despair. Some deny sin entirely to protect their self-image. Others obsess over sin to the point of hopelessness. John dismantles both patterns. He insists that sin is real and must be acknowledged, but he also insists that forgiveness is certain and cleansing is complete. The believer is neither excused nor abandoned.

The phrase “God is faithful and just” is one of the most stabilizing truths in the New Testament. Faithful means God does not change His posture toward those who come to Him in truth. Just means God does not forgive arbitrarily or emotionally. Forgiveness is grounded in justice because the penalty for sin has already been paid. This means confession does not trigger God’s mercy; it accesses it. Mercy is already there. Confession simply removes the barrier of self-deception.

Cleansing from all unrighteousness is not limited to the sin confessed in the moment. It reaches deeper than behavior into identity. This is critical, because many believers carry forgiven sin but remain internally unclean in their own minds. They believe God has forgiven them, but they cannot forgive themselves. John’s promise addresses this fracture. Cleansing is not partial. It is not symbolic. It is complete. It restores the believer’s standing and renews their capacity for fellowship.

This has profound implications for community. John repeatedly connects walking in the light with fellowship with one another. Hidden sin isolates. It creates distance even when people are physically close. Churches filled with people hiding from one another will always struggle to experience genuine unity. Light creates connection because it removes pretense. It allows relationships to be built on truth rather than performance.

This does not mean believers are called to public exposure or performative transparency. John is not advocating oversharing or spiritual exhibitionism. Walking in the light does not mean telling everyone everything. It means living without deception before God and refusing to construct a false spiritual identity. Wisdom still governs what is shared and with whom. Light is about honesty, not spectacle.

One of the most damaging misconceptions in modern Christianity is the idea that mature believers struggle less with sin. Scripture suggests the opposite. Maturity increases awareness. The closer a person walks with God, the more sensitive they become to the subtle movements of the heart. What changes is not the presence of temptation, but the speed of confession and the depth of reliance on grace.

John’s warning about claiming to have no sin speaks directly to spiritual arrogance. Self-righteousness is not holiness. It is blindness disguised as confidence. When a person insists they are beyond sin, they cut themselves off from growth. They no longer need grace, and therefore no longer receive it. John’s language is severe because the stakes are high. Truth cannot live where denial reigns.

Equally severe is the claim that one has not sinned. This is not merely inaccurate; it accuses God of lying. The entire gospel narrative rests on the reality of human sin and divine rescue. To deny sin is to deny the cross. It reframes Jesus’ suffering as unnecessary and turns redemption into an abstract idea rather than a lifeline.

Yet John does not end this chapter in warning. He ends it with an invitation into clarity. Everything he has written is so that believers may live without illusion. Without fear of exposure. Without the burden of pretending. The light John describes is not harsh interrogation lighting. It is the steady illumination of truth that allows life to flourish.

There is a quiet confidence running through First John chapter one. John is not anxious about human weakness. He is not afraid of sin being acknowledged. He trusts the power of light to heal what darkness distorts. This confidence comes from having walked with Jesus long enough to know that grace is not fragile. It does not collapse under honesty. It thrives there.

In a culture that often confuses authenticity with self-expression, John offers a deeper vision. Authenticity is not saying everything we feel. It is living in alignment with truth. In another culture that confuses grace with permission, John offers correction. Grace does not minimize sin; it overcomes it. It does not excuse darkness; it invites transformation.

The genius of First John chapter one is that it removes every incentive to hide. If denial leads to deception and confession leads to cleansing, then secrecy becomes unnecessary. The believer has nothing to gain by hiding and everything to gain by stepping into the light. This reorients the entire spiritual life away from fear-based obedience and toward relational trust.

This chapter also reframes how believers understand spiritual disciplines. Confession is not a failure of faith; it is an expression of it. Repentance is not regression; it is movement toward God. Awareness of sin is not a sign of spiritual weakness; it is often evidence of spiritual sight.

When John says he writes these things so that joy may be complete, he is not speaking poetically. He is making a direct claim about cause and effect. Hidden sin fractures joy. Self-deception erodes peace. Walking in the light restores both. Joy is not the result of moral success. It is the fruit of relational honesty with a God who is entirely light.

First John chapter one teaches that the Christian life is not about constructing a flawless identity, but about living in truth with a faithful God. It is about refusing to let darkness define us when light is available. It is about trusting that exposure leads not to rejection, but to restoration.

As believers return to this short but weighty chapter, it continues to do what it has done for generations. It strips away false confidence and replaces it with grounded assurance. It removes shallow guilt and replaces it with deep cleansing. It confronts without condemning and invites without compromising.

Light, in John’s vision, is not something we achieve. It is something we enter. And once we do, we discover that the light is not against us. It is for us. It reveals not to destroy, but to heal. It exposes not to shame, but to free. And in that light, fellowship becomes real, forgiveness becomes tangible, and joy becomes complete.

That is the enduring gift of First John chapter one. It tells the truth about God, the truth about us, and the truth about grace, without dilution or distortion. It calls us out of hiding and into life. Not because we are strong, but because God is faithful. Not because we are pure, but because He cleanses. And not because darkness has vanished, but because the light has come, and it is enough.

Your friend, Douglas Vandergraph

Watch Douglas Vandergraph’s inspiring faith-based videos on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@douglasvandergraph

Support the ministry by buying Douglas a coffee https://www.buymeacoffee.com/douglasvandergraph

#Faith #ChristianLiving #BibleStudy #WalkingInTheLight #GraceAndTruth #NewTestament #SpiritualGrowth #ChristianFaith #Hope #Forgiveness

21 December 2025

Terminal advertisement (working title): a painting put into action today based on seeing that aforementioned Brazil tourism ad of Christ the Redeemer while on a moving walkway on my way through Heathrow. There's something emerging in the studio about the reconstruction of particular moments of seeing that I hope is beginning to stretch beyond the full stop stillness I have (subconsciously) tried to capture in the past. And I think it has to do with identifying imagistic planes that somehow relate to the multiplicity of specific lived sensations. In the recall of the kinds of scenes I'm inclined to paint, I'm finding—through photos, sketches, and memory—that there becomes a kind of 360 degree inventory of phenomena that holds possible planar ingredients. And while I don't want to fall into the trap of manufacturing those ingredients, I do think they are worth noticing. In Flat window, they were represented by a combination of perceptions related to reflections, barriers, borderlines, and changes in light that became essentially a sequence of transparencies to layer on top of one another toward a hybrid image.

In this painting today, it seemed like the phenomena were less distinct and perhaps manifested more as a melding of planes rather than a separating and layering of them. I think I can trace this to the experience of seeing the advertisement itself: the micro shifts in fluorescent light bouncing off of the vinyl image as I passed it, the ambiguous tonal environment around it that seemed to blend into a big neutral goop, seeing the seams between each vinyl panel and then losing them again—those were the bits of recall that became planar and then united in shapelessness, the Christ figure a strangely warping and beckoning bit of solidity swimming in and around them.