> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://gijustice.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # 📧 to CT: "Some clarification and a proposal" - URL: https://gijustice.com/20150527-0940-ct/ - Published: 2015-05-27T16:40:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-15T20:13:20.000Z - Author: Logan M Isaac - Tags: War Torn, Christianity Today, Katelyn Beaty, Warren Kinghorn ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/62/5e/625e8b30-aba8-4ca4-b679-851550ded791/content/images/2026/09/Screenshot-2026-09-15-at-13.12.04.png) --- Warren and Annalaura have encouraged me to contact you about the current issue and have shared a limited amount of their correspondence with you so that I can get a sense of how we got to where we are. It is my understanding that Rob Densmore has offered a response and asked that his name be removed, and the other vets involved have all distanced themselves in one way or another from this article once the cover and title became known. I myself did not see it until you put it on social media, which, while I can sense some need for journalistic critical distance, editorial decisions were made based on miscommunication somewhere between me and Alecia Sharp, the veterans involved, etc. The following is my understanding of events, which I share in the hopes that it will illuminate a way forward. On April 8th, I got an email from Alecia, who identified herself as the Design Director at CT. She asked if I would be able to participate by being one of several vets photographed for the article focusing on Warren. She learned I was in Scotland through him and was hoping to arrange a shoot. In her email, she mentioned that "one of the goals of photographing you is to show the toll of war and moral injury... reflective \[of\] the seriousness of the topic." Specifically, she said "We want your face to speak to the pain of PTSD (if possible) and for the composition of the images to potentially allude to the darkness of the disorder and the potential light that is at the end of the tunnel, so to speak." I immediately recognised a trope that as a veteran I have been subjected to on numerous occasions that I am not willing to recreate, especially in terms of darkness and disorder. The trope is like that of the Angry Black Man or the Hysterical Woman, unhelpful precisely because it creates a master narrative, a convenient but very harmful shorthand whose effect is very rarely constructive or healthy. Veterans are stereotyped on both sides, seen as volatile and angry while at the same time being helpless victims. I see it in the VA whenever I go in, aging veterans continuing to wear uniforms because it is the only identity in which they have an identity. Better something than nothing at all. Alecia even asked if I would be willing to wear military attire. Everyone makes mistakes, but this hopefully makes clear that she did not "\[speak\] at length with" me about this approach, nor did I "\[communicate\] that \[I\] was okay with it." Anticipation is not the same as approval. I didn't even have any idea that Jo's images were to be the cover until she mentioned it in St Andrews. The same day, I wrote Alecia back in no uncertain terms that "the light at the end of the tunnel is more determinative than the pain" and that I had no intention of putting on a face or predetermining my disposition, which would rather "be determined by the prayers of the community that blessed our marriage" which was by no means a "decision too move forward from the pain of PTSD" as the article I read has stated. Rather than hearing a very clear refusal to participate if it meant being grafted onto a distorted story veterans are subjected to, my email to Alecia was reworked in such a way that it not only instrumentalized the person I love but also trivialized our sacred vows. I sympathize with you and am grateful for the extra time it must have taken to give all this unanticipated energy to the current issue, which probably usually feels good and rather satisfying once it is out the door. Besides last minute prep on a conference paper I am giving in Greece this weekend, I lost a huge chunk of my vacation with Laura to deliberation about this issue and now am having to answer direct messages on social media as to whether I am okay. The "powerful emotional response" CT created was far too simplistic - the two most readily available were "feel sorry for Logan/veterans" or "be afraid of Logan/veterans." These were available because these are the stories circulated about veterans. The article of Annalaura's that I initially read challenged these tropes, but in the age of social media headlines and images have far more lasting power than do feature length articles. I agree with you that the problem needs to be clear, but I the problem is the *only* thing communicated by the cover and image. That we are now talking about Francis as having combat stress is a much more helpful way of thinking about trauma since trauma never determined him, the body of Christ did. Francis of Assisi is remembered as a saint, not as someone who was mentally ill. Francis is remembered this way because he formed and was formed by a community capable of seeing the complexity of trauma and never having any reason to think that what he had was "a problem." What he had was a community, the Church. If we start with or prioritize problems over people, we will never really know people and, by extension, never experience God. We have not figured out what has been fueling soldier suicides, so let's keep thinking about people in terms integral to the Church. "Trauma," "injury" etc. are not ecclesial terms and their very short history should give us pause (that's my new book, btw, on the historical & theological trajectory of combat stress). That is one of my main concerns about the article, that both communality of healing almost entirely disappeared in as it progressed in the editorial process. The focus is far too heavy on the individual, whether that is me or Warren or Jeff. The three of us are part of a community, and that's what enables us to think in the way we have and participate in the ongoing healing of us all (ourselves and those we minister with). By forcing veterans into being external referential objects, they cease to be internal conversation partners. Healing, like harm, never occurs in a vacuum and neither can be addressed in one either. On April 20th, after I let Alecia know the shoot went fine and we had a good time together, I suggested working with Centurions Guild to spread the word and collaborate on what it means to be the Church after war. We had absorbed some great audio and video files from [an incredibly diverse conference in 2011](http://centurionsguild.org/resources/after-the-yellow-ribbon/?ref=gijustice.com) and are looking to make sure people know those hard earned resources find their way into congregations and seminary classrooms. But from that day forward, I got radio silence. There were a few new followers from CT on Twitter, but otherwise no response was given. One of the basic needs in combat (after water, ammo, & batteries) is communication. If you aren't talking with your friends, then you're walking dead. Its only a matter of time before something goes wrong, like it has here. Luckily, God likes second chances. I got one, every vet gets one (or two or...) and Centurions Guild is about reminding other vets that the Church already has the solutions to problems they face because its been answering them for a few thousand years. I'm really excited about the work ahead of us and I hope CT is too. We're sitting on a goldmine at the Guild in terms of theological, liturgical, historical, and homiletic content - we would love to make sure the conversations, though hitting a hiccup, can get back on track stronger than before. In that light, I'd like to talk with you about whether CT would be willing to partner with Centurion's Guild and me to bring some of these stories to light, and to think over time about how the church can really partner well with veterans. Perhaps a blog series or column on the CT site, maybe starting with a version of Rob's letter and continuing with narrative reflections and theological engagement from other vets and civilian allies (Annalaura suggested [The Atlantic did this well with Junger and Fallows](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/sebastian-junger-on-chickenhawk-nation/385825?ref=gijustice.com)). That would be a powerful way for this story to be not a one-off thing that might only reinforce stereotypes, but the beginning of a resource that could be of real service to CT readers and to the church. Would you be willing to speak by phone about this?