Hi, I’m Scott Davis
a Thought Leader. Mentor. Change Agent. Father. Tech Junkie. Husband. Motivator. Christian. Software Engineer. Fiction Author.

Why Productivity Trumps Efficiency

##The Unsung Hero: Why Productivity Trumps Efficiency

I was recently sitting in a leadership meeting in Atlanta, and my VP made what came across to me as an odd statement. “I would rather you chase productivity moreso than efficiency.” I cocked my head to the side like the little RCA dog becuase it was curious to me. Aren’t they kind of the same thing? Don’t you want to be equally both? I was intrigued, and had to do more research.

In the world of work, “efficiency” and “productivity” are often used interchangeably. While both are crucial for success, it’s time to shine a light on why focusing on being productive can be more impactful than solely chasing efficiency.

Efficiency is about doing things in the most economical way, minimizing time, effort, and resources. Think of it as taking the shortest route to a destination. Productivity, on the other hand, is about the volume of meaningful output. It’s about getting the right things done. While efficiency is about the process, productivity is about the results.

So, why should you prioritize productivity?

A singular focus on efficiency can sometimes lead to a “get it done” mentality where quality and innovation take a backseat. When the primary goal is to complete tasks as quickly as possible, there’s a risk of cutting corners and producing work that doesn’t truly move the needle. This can stifle creativity and even lead to burnout.

In contrast, a focus on productivity encourages a results-oriented approach. Productive individuals and teams are motivated by achieving their goals and are more likely to be innovative in their methods. By concentrating on the tasks that deliver the most value, you can make significant strides toward your objectives. This focus on meaningful output often leads to greater job satisfaction and a stronger sense of accomplishment.

Of course, this isn’t to say efficiency should be disregarded. The sweet spot is finding a balance where you are not just getting a lot done, but you are getting a lot of the right things done, without unnecessary friction. This might mean investing time upfront in planning and strategy to ensure your efforts are channeled effectively.

Ultimately, while efficiency helps you do things right, productivity ensures you are doing the right things. In a world of endless tasks and to-do lists, focusing on what truly drives results is the key to making a real impact.

What are your thoughts? Do you prioritize productivity or efficiency in your work?

Why I am Reformed

Why I Am A Reformed Christian

In my journey from where I began to where I am in my Christian life, I have always wanted to understand the truth more than anything. I would love to have been an apostle and to have the opportunity to plumb the depths of our faith with Jesus Himself. Since I was born about 2,000 years too late, my journey has taken me back in time as far as I could go in search of a consistent message from Jesus and the Apostles, through time, to me today.

As a child, I was not taught anything about Church history or any Church Fathers, and I believe that this is by design. I believe that if you honestly and fervently look back through the hallways of time in search of a consistent message from Jesus, you will find it. It takes a long, deep immersion in history to get there, but it’s there. I think that this scholarly work in today’s evangelical world is frowned upon as elitist and unnecessary, as most Western Christians today revel in their ignorance. “I just read the Bible and believe what it says” is the mantra you’ll hear. But do you really?

Is your reading the Bible just a morning devotional where someone else tells you what to think about a passage most likely taken out of context? Or do you read books about Scripture instead of reading what it actually says? Do you go back to Scripture to check them against Scripture? Are you being told what to think about the Word instead of letting it speak for itself? If you are truly on the quest for truth and do your honest work, I think it is impossible not to end in the same place that I have ended—namely, Reformed in my theology.

I was brought up in an Arminian, Baptist, premillennial, and dispensational household. If you said those words to my parents or 99% of the people with whom I attended church—they would have no idea what you were speaking about. This is a tragedy and a testament to how theologically illiterate the vast majority of modern “Christians” in America are. My first question in my journey was: From where did this current understanding come?

I discovered that dispensationalism wasn’t even a thing until the mid-19th century. This alone was eye-opening to me. How could the Bible—the book that I was told was the Word of God, and that contained the Old Testament which had been around for approximately six thousand years, and the New Testament which had been solidly closed for two thousand of those years—have a framework that was formulated only in the 1850s? I researched and found that British theologian John Nelson Darby was largely responsible for popularizing the dispensational framework at that time and that I really couldn’t go back in history much further than that to find any tenets of this approach. If I did, I had to do some serious linguistic and hermeneutic hoop-jumping to get it. So how could Christ’s Church get it so wrong for so long?

I also discovered that in 1909 the Scofield Study Bible had a major impact in the spreading of dispensationalism across America. The Scofield Study Bible incorporated extensive footnotes and commentary that explained the dispensationalist understanding of the Bible. By using the King James Version of the Bible, Scofield made dispensationalist teachings accessible to a wider audience and helped to popularize the theological system among American Christians.

The Scofield Study Bible also provided a systematic framework for understanding the Bible through the lens of dispensationalism. This made it easier for Christians to interpret the Bible according to dispensationalist principles and to apply those principles to their understanding of history, politics, and culture. Because, let’s face it, dispensationalism and its roundabout series of events aren’t the easiest things to understand. The cross-references in this version of the Bible made dispensationalism spread like wildfire across America.

In addition, the Scofield Study Bible was widely read and promoted by influential evangelical leaders and institutions, such as Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary. These institutions helped to spread dispensationalist teachings throughout the United States and to make them a central part of American evangelicalism. Overall, the Scofield Study Bible played a crucial role in the spread of dispensationalism in the United States, helping to popularize the theological system among American Christians and to shape the way they understood the Bible and the world around them.

Now get this—around the same time that dispensationalism began gaining traction, Darwin’s ideas were sending shockwaves through the scientific community. On the Origin of Species (1859) was sparking debates that would reshape science and challenge traditional views of creation. In a different arena, the Christian world was also seeing the rapid spread of a new theological framework—dispensationalism—through the work of John Nelson Darby and, later, C. I. Scofield. The two movements were unrelated in origin, yet their near-parallel rise—each offering a radically different way of seeing the world—struck me as an intriguing historical coincidence, enough to make me pause and take notice. Could it be that if science is going to have a revolution, well, then the Church must need one too, so as not to be “left behind” (pun intended)?

I was astounded. I couldn’t believe that the words of the Apostles and Jesus Christ Himself could be left completely misunderstood for almost 1,900 years until John Darby and C. I. Scofield came along. This, as well as many things within dispensationalism that didn’t seem right to me as I read on my own, caused my belief in this system of theology to crack.

So I began to seek other writings or thoughts that would help me get further back in time, closer to the Apostles and my Savior. I questioned people who I knew were solid Christians and deep thinkers. Two people in particular steered me down the path I now find myself: my uncle, who was also brought up dispensational and is now Presbyterian, and my pastor, mentor, and friend, who—while not fully Reformed—was very Calvinist in his theology.

I discovered that this 16th-century theologian, John Calvin, was a contemporary of Martin Luther and was heavily influential in the Reformation. And since my preacher mentioned him, and Presbyterians have been fully integrated into his theological framework ever since the Reformation, I began to dig into his writings and teachings. I uncovered a treasure trove of truth. At once, in the blink of an eye, the entirety of Scripture made consistent and logical sense to me. The troubles I had with dispensationalism and Arminianism that didn’t fit with the Bible I was reading vanished. I had discovered the doctrines of grace.

I dug into Calvin because I didn’t trust him. After all, his writings could only be traced back a few hundred years to 1536, and the Reformation on which it was based was just a few years prior in 1521. This was a giant leap, but I had to get back even further. There had to be a consistent message all the way back to the Apostles. After all, God said that His Word would be preserved through all history. Therefore, one should be able to follow the breadcrumbs through the writings of history. History should tell a consistent story in a consistent way, all the way back to the original Scripture.

What I found was stunning to me. I found the writings of many early Church Fathers contained within Calvin’s writings. It was as if Calvin had brought together many previous thoughts into a single, concise framework and released them in a singular document titled The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Now, I’ve never actually read The Institutes, and I’m not sure that I ever will. If I’ve never read him, I can certainly say I’m not actually a Calvinist. But I have read the Scriptures, and I have come to the same conclusions that he did. So in the end, we’re both just Biblicists.

As I looked at who shaped and influenced Calvin’s writings in the 1500s, I found the following listed here in reverse chronological order:

• John Wycliffe (1320s-1384) - An English theologian and philosopher who criticized the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church and translated the Bible into English, paving the way for the Protestant Reformation. Calvin was influenced by Wycliffe’s ideas and theology, particularly Wycliffe’s emphasis on the importance of the Bible and the need for it to be translated into vernacular languages so that ordinary people could read and understand it. Calvin also shared Wycliffe’s belief in the preeminence of Scripture over the authority of the Church and the need for a return to the teachings of the early Church. Sola Scriptura

• Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) - An Italian theologian and philosopher who developed the “ontological argument” for the existence of God and emphasized the importance of faith seeking understanding. Calvin particularly appreciated Anselm’s contributions to the understanding of the atonement, specifically Anselm’s “satisfaction theory.” This theory posits that Christ’s death on the cross satisfied the demands of divine justice and provided a sufficient sacrifice to atone for human sin. Calvin quoted Anselm’s work, “Cur Deus Homo” (Why God Became Man), to support his own theological arguments. Solus Christus

• Augustine of Hippo (4th-5th century AD) - Augustine of Hippo, a 4th-century philosopher and theologian, wrote many influential works throughout his life, but his most famous and significant works were produced during the latter part of his career, from the late 4th century to the early 5th century. The basic tenets of Calvinism can be found in the writings of Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century AD. The similarities between Augustine’s teachings and Calvinism include the emphasis on predestination, the doctrine of original sin, and the belief in the sovereignty of God. Calvinism’s roots can be traced back to Augustine’s teachings. Sola Gratia/Sola Fide/Solus Christus/Sola Scriptura/Soli Deo Gloria

• Ambrose of Milan (4th century) - Ambrose was the Bishop of Milan at the time of Augustine’s conversion. It was Ambrose who introduced Augustine to the works of the Neoplatonists, which helped Augustine to develop his own understanding of God and spiritual life. Augustine, who heavily influenced Calvin’s theology, was heavily influenced by Ambrose. Sola Fide

• Athanasius of Alexandria (4th century AD) - Although Athanasius lived slightly after Augustine of Hippo, he is considered an important Church Father due to his defense of orthodox Trinitarian theology against the Arian heresy. He is perhaps best known for his role in the formulation of the Nicene Creed. Calvin quoted Athanasius on the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity and on the danger of heresy in distorting Christian belief. He also referred to Athanasius’ teachings on the person and work of Jesus Christ, as well as on the role of the Church in preserving and promoting orthodox Christian doctrine. Calvin’s use of Athanasius’ teachings demonstrates the significant influence of the early Church Fathers on the development of Christian theology, and how their ideas were incorporated into the theological systems of later thinkers. Solus Christus

• Origen of Alexandria (3rd century AD) - Origen was a prolific writer and theologian who made significant contributions to the development of Christian doctrine, particularly in the areas of Trinitarian theology and the interpretation of Scripture. Calvin quoted Origen in support of his understanding of the nature of God and the Trinity. He also referred to Origen’s teachings on the importance of Scripture and the interpretation of the Bible. Sola Scriptura

• Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd century AD) - Clement was a Christian theologian and philosopher who sought to synthesize Christian thought with the best of Greek philosophy. He emphasized the importance of education and the pursuit of wisdom in the Christian life. Calvin quoted Clement on the importance of Christian virtues, such as humility and charity, and on the role of the Church in promoting these virtues. He also referred to Clement’s teachings on the nature of God and the Trinity, as well as on the role of faith and reason in Christian belief and practice. Sola Scriptura/Sola Fide

• Tertullian (2nd-3rd century AD) - Tertullian was a prolific writer and theologian who is often considered the founder of Latin Christianity. He contributed to the development of early Christian apologetics and the defense of the faith against heresies. Calvin quoted Tertullian on the importance of Scripture and the interpretation of the Bible. He also referred to Tertullian’s teachings on the nature of God and the Trinity. Sola Scriptura

• Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century AD) - Irenaeus was a bishop and theologian known for his opposition to Gnosticism and his defense of the unity of the Godhead. Calvin quotes Irenaeus to argue that the knowledge of God is not something that can be attained through human effort, but rather it is a gift from God Himself. Soli Deo Gloria

• Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) - Justin was a philosopher who converted to Christianity and was martyred during the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He was a contemporary of Polycarp and is known for his defense of Christianity in his “Apologies” and his “Dialogue with Trypho,” which provides important insights into the beliefs and practices of the early Church. Calvin uses Justin Martyr’s words to emphasize the universal nature of salvation through Jesus Christ, and the fact that He is the only mediator between God and mankind. Sola Fide/Sola Gratia

• Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69-155 AD) - Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and was martyred during the reign of Emperor Antoninus Pius. He was a bishop of Smyrna and is known for his letter to the Philippians, which provides an important account of the early Church’s beliefs and practices. Calvin uses Polycarp’s words to emphasize the importance of faith in God and the role of Jesus Christ as the mediator between God and mankind. Calvin believed that it is through faith in Christ that we can serve God and be found to be of service to Him. Sola Fide/Sola Gratia

• Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60-130 AD) - Papias was a disciple of the Apostle John and was a bishop of Hierapolis. He is known for his work, “Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord,” which provides valuable information about the teachings of the Apostles and the early Church. Calvin cites Papias’s “Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord” to argue that Papias believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and that the apostles taught the same. Calvin believed that the resurrection of the flesh is a real event, not just a symbolic one, and that the early church fathers like Papias taught the same. Solus Christus

• Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107 AD) - Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John and was martyred during the reign of Emperor Trajan. He was a bishop of Antioch and is known for his letters, which provide valuable insights into the early Church. Calvin stated that Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God and the only way to have a relationship with Him, as did Ignatius in his teachings. By quoting Ignatius, Calvin fortified his own teachings on the centrality of Jesus Christ. Solus Christus

• Clement of Rome (c. 30-100 AD) - Clement was a disciple of the Apostle Peter and is considered the first Apostolic Father. He was a companion of the Apostle Paul and a contemporary of the Apostle John. Calvin reinforced his own teachings on the importance of a unified church in preserving and proclaiming the truth of the Gospel and to support his understanding of the unity and authority of the church by using Clement as source material in his Institutes. Sola Scriptura

Calvin’s writings contained quotes, thoughts, teachings, and principles from all of the above Church Fathers. Calvin stood on the shoulders of giants when he wrote The Institutes. The five solas of the Reformation were literally littered in the writings of these Church Fathers. Calvin’s TULIP could be pulled out of the very pages of these men’s words. There was no new revelation—it was the old story these men had been writing about since they sat with the Apostles. This was a refreshing revelation to me. I felt safe and warm inside the doctrines of grace. God was suddenly huge. The fact that He would choose ME for no reason at all after all my corrupt depravity drove me headlong into profound worship. I loved God more than ever and could not—not—serve Him.

What I was unable to do was look back on the writings of these titans of theology and find any trace of what we now call dispensationalism. The distinct features of that system—its rigid separation between Israel and the Church, its multiple dispensations, and its specific prophetic timelines—simply are not there. Some early Church Fathers, such as Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, did express a form of premillennial hope, but it was a very different thing from Darby’s dispensational framework.

The consistent theological thread I found through their writings was covenantal in nature, not dispensational, and certainly not the prophetic scheme that emerged in the 19th century. None of these men taught anything resembling the modern pre-tribulation rapture doctrine; in their writings, Christ’s return is always a single, visible event at the end of the age, not a secret coming to remove the Church before tribulation—a concept that would not appear until the 19th century with John Nelson Darby.

I was, for the first time in my life, able to trace a singular, consistent, coherent framework of thought, understanding, and writings from my own contemporary thinking and connect them all the way back through time to the Apostles and Jesus Himself. It was mind-bending and life-changing information. There was no other system of theology that could make the same claim from Scripture alone.

Therefore, in the words of Martin Luther:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason
(for I do not trust either in the Pope or in councils alone,
since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves),
I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.
I cannot and will not recant anything,
since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.
Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

2025 C|EH Hall of Fame Induction

Most people who earn the Certified Ethical Hacker certification are network engineers or security professionals—so as a software engineer, I was a bit out of my element. For me, becoming a C|EH wasn’t about configuring firewalls or hardening networks (though I learned plenty about that). It was about seeing security through the eyes of an attacker, then bringing those insights back to my world: code. Suddenly, I wasn’t just writing features; I was spotting vulnerabilities before they happened—designing APIs with evasion in mind, questioning data flows and UI’s that ‘worked fine,’ but were vulnerable and nudging teammates to think like adversaries. The certification gave me a vocabulary and a mindset most developers never get exposed to, and that’s been invaluable. At the end of the day, the best defense isn’t just a strong perimeter—it’s software built by people who know how things break.

I’m deeply honored to be inducted into the EC-Council CEH Hall of Fame among the Top 100 worldwide. To be recognized alongside so many brilliant minds in cybersecurity is incredibly humbling—especially as someone who came at this from the software side. Grateful for the opportunity to learn, and excited to keep bridging the gap between security and software engineering.