Article on paper writing from the illustrious Nate Mihelis

Hey guys, I wrote Nate M. a while ago and asked him to write something up for us about how to research and write papers. I sent him a series of questions and he responded. Hope it's helpful.


How do you pick a paper topic?

Unless assigned by a prof, my paper topics are almost always based on one (or a combination of) the following criteria: 1) something I don’t know about or want to know more about 2) something I deem to be important; that affects my life 3) something that hasn’t received much attention 4) something that has received attention but is dangerously in need of clarification – articulation is one of the gifts God has granted me; the ability to take obfuscation and make it clear. 5) something that I think people just keep getting wrong and it ticks me off. Naturally, what I am currently reading often serves as a pool from which to draw.


Where do you start your research for the topic?

I usually start with something that can give me a high level overview to provide some proverbial “hooks” on which to hang the data I find. This can be online stuff (blogs – quality ones like Euangelion, Faith and Theology, NT Gateway, etc), googling the topic, even Wikipedia sometimes. But primarily my early and middle work tends to be in finding good books first and working from their bibliographies to broaden out. I tend to avoid journal articles and dissertations till later in the process as they are normally very specialized and 1) require some degree of understanding of the topic and 2) are most helpful in clarifying fine tuned details. As I draw my own conclusions and begin to articulate them in my own words, I’ve often found it helpful to email the authors I happen to be dialoguing most with. You’d be surprised at how quickly and warmly many of them reply. For example: Scot McKnight typically responds to emails in less than 5 minutes and Greg Boyd was more than happy to engage my thinking despite the fact I told him upfront that I was actually working on a critique of his position.


While you are reading how do you record good quotations or ideas?

I’m not terribly technologically efficient on this one. 1) I read with a pen when working on a writing project and underline stuff I think is important. 2) If I want to reference something in a book for later, I dog ear the bottom of the page so I can reference it later (bibliophiles HATE me for this) 3) After finishing with the particular book, I go back through all the dog eared pages and write down anything I need to remember on a legal pad with the page number and the author’s name. 4) Once I’ve accumulated this sort of data on a decent amount of literature I start grouping it together by commonality. Actually this sort of takes place as I’m working through the process. Typically, the common headings end up becoming sections of my paper.

Granted most of this process began back when Juno was top of the line email and far before I had my Mac and Blackberry. Incredibly inefficient I know and far from exemplary, but definitely pragmatic – It works!


What order do you use in the research and writing process?

I don’t recommend my approach here, but I’ll be as candid as possible. Generally speaking, every paper I wrote in college and seminary, I pulled an all nighter on with the exception of my two papers for exegetical methods I and II (it’s impossible to write a 75+ page paper in 24 hrs for me). The way I approach writing is delay execution on the actual document until the very last minute. I’ve been using this approach, as far as I can remember, since 5th grade. At least that’s when I first remember pulling all nighters on a project and being accused of the character flaw commonly referred to as procrastination. For over a decade I wrestled with a guilty conscious exacerbated by my parents and teacher after teacher for my proclivity towards procrastination; yet I simultaneously achieved A’s on the projects that resulted from such a “character flaw. It wasn’t until grad school that I reached the self-realization moment that: 1) I work best under pressure…including the self imposed pressure of waiting till the last minute to write; and 2) I really wasn’t procrastinating. You see, I may not start writing the paper till the last possible minute, but that’s not the same as starting the paper itself the night before. I research and research and research and saturate my brain with the data and sources pertinent to the topic under consideration weeks in advance. I finally realized that if I started writing early on I’d constantly be questioning what I wrote and reconsidering how to word things (by “procrastinating” there’s no time to reconsider). Also, I felt like I might be missing some data prior to crafting my sentences. Even with the longer papers like the two for exegetical methods, I blocked out the four days before it was due and cranked it out in about 2 ½ of them. One more thing here: I always have to proofread my papers out loud with at least an hour or so break from them when I finish (the longer the better). This allows me not only to check it for grammar, spelling, etc but also to hear how it flows. Many people have said that my writing has a very conversational flow to it and in retrospect this is probably why. It has to flow; I’m very particular and intentional in crafting my syntax.

While I never failed to achieve an A under such circumstances, it must be repeated and reemphasized that I do not recommend this approach. You need to know yourself and determine what works best for you. Also, this is not something I broadcasted to a lot of folks while in school and particularly kept most of my profs in the dark about. I don’t say any of this as a boast and hope it doesn’t come across that way; if anything it took me more than a decade to recognize the fact that that’s just the way God made me.

Finally, bear in mind my context: the A’s, with a few exceptions, were not earned in a consistently rigorous academic setting. I attended NBBC (or NIU I guess…though I smirk just typing it) and CBTS. My college experience (lectures by and expectations from my profs and quality of work from my peers) was notably void of academic rigor and my seminary experience was hit or miss. Besides that, many teachers grade student papers relative to the quality of work of the rest of the class (whether consciously or not) and more often than not, the settings in which I was writing were populated by too many students with minimal intellectual interest and/or aptitude. Though that may sound arrogant to some, I assure you it actually comes out of a very humble and chastened reality. All I’m saying is: who knows if this approach would have held up as successfully had I attended Wheaton or TEDS? Maybe; maybe not. If I get into Tuft, Harvard or MIT next fall, I’ll certainly let you know if it works there too!

Boundaries and freedom

One oft-leveled attack on Christianity (or for that matter, any system of thought and authority), especially in this day of tedious identity markers ("I am a neo-Kantian through the lens of neo-Rawlsian interpretation")(groan), is something like this: "It doesn't let you be free." Free-thought is highly prized in today's intellectual economy. Not less free living. The call of a free, capitalist society, "you can be whatever you want to be" has echoed down through our vocational and fiscal choices into literally all of our other choices. For better or worse, young people today walk through a meat-market of identities and garnishes before they "pick one." Who will you be?

Now, it sounds very free and often looks very free, but is it free? Does systemized thought and cohesive identity enslave? It depends on what we mean by "free."
If by "free" we mean able, at any moment, for whatever reason, to break out of systematized thought/action and cohesive identity, then yes, avoiding systematized thought/action and cohesive identity does make us more free. Committing ourselves to anything - a religion or a square on a hopscotch court - does limit us. This is just the law of non-contradiction: a does not equal not-a. If you are a Christian you are not a Satanist. If your favorite color is blue it is not brown. If you are a communist you are not a libertarian. If you are on one of the two-legged spots on the court, you are not on one of the one-legged spots. The favorite color and the hopscotch aren't such good examples because they don't have any systematizing or identity-cohesivizing power. Long-term hobbies or much-practiced sports would better fit the point. If you want freedom in the sense of instant escape from any system of thought/action and cohesive identity, yes, avoid both. Avoid committing so you can change; and the power of freedom is change.

But if by "free" we mean being able, at any moment, for certain reasons, to take an action within systematized thought/action and cohesive identity, then avoiding those things is slavery. I can tell this is getting a little obscure so let's cut to my thesis and an illustration. (Thesis:) Truest freedom is only achieved within systematized thought/action and cohesive identity. (Illustration:) Imagine a 15-year old boy who has never had a music lesson in his life picking up a $50,000 violin. He can't read a bit of sheet music, and really all he knows about music at all is that Pharrell rocks and the Jonas Brothers suck. He picks up the violin and bow. He jams the butt under his chin and squawks a few horrible sounds out of the thing before putting it down. Then Kristen Campbell deftly plucks it from the floor and breaks into Tchaikovsky's Concerto in D major. Ah, but who has freedom? Is it that rigid musician who has subjected herself to the enslaving apparatus of systematized music? Or is it the boy who has a mind free and unhindered from all those strictures? Kristen has relentlessly behaviorized herself in music - she has trained her ear, her hands, her arms, her counting, her eyes, her chin. She has done this for thousands of hours; she has squeezed herself into the veritable mold of music. But the boy is unhindered and free and handles the violin in a manner that Kristen could not if she tried.

The point of the illustration should be apparent: freedom is defined by what we want to do. If we want to be free to handle the violin clumsily as no musician could; if we want to be able to put it down forever without a second thought, then we should avoid the systems of thought and action and cohesive identity of violinist. But if we want to be free to play on the violin music that has been recognized as great across generations and cultures, we should seek the systems of thought and action and cohesive identity of violinist. And think, is there any better live description of the term "freedom" than watching a musician whose instrument is an extension of her body, and who has played the piece 1,000 times?

Which freedom is better or more ultimately free?

There are a lot of yea-buts on this.