From Tamara Cohen:

Workers who spend long hours at the office are more than twice as likely to develop depression as those who do a standard day, according to a study.

British researchers found those who spend more than 11 hours a day – or 55 hours a week – at their desk faced a higher risk.

The most susceptible were women, younger people and those on a low pay grade with moderate alcohol consumption.

This article sketches the view that ADHD drugs don’t work  in the longterm.

THREE million children in this country take drugs for problems in focusing. Toward the end of last year, many of their parents were deeply alarmed because there was a shortage of drugs like Ritalin and Adderall that they considered absolutely essential to their children’s functioning.

But are these drugs really helping children? Should we really keep expanding the number of prescriptions filled?

In 30 years there has been a twentyfold increase in the consumption of drugs for attention-deficit disorder.

As a psychologist who has been studying the development of troubled children for more than 40 years, I believe we should be asking why we rely so heavily on these drugs.

Attention-deficit drugs increase concentration in the short term, which is why they work so well for college students cramming for exams. But when given to children over long periods of time, they neither improve school achievement nor reduce behavior problems. The drugs can also have serious side effects, including stunting growth.

Sadly, few physicians and parents seem to be aware of what we have been learning about the lack of effectiveness of these drugs.

 

 

One word that has come up a few times in the last year’s discussion about life after death, about heaven and hell, and about who goes where, is the word “speculation.” A number of folks have used it, but two notables who have pushed against traditionalists with that word are Rob Bell and Shane Hipps. Is the Christian hope in life after death, in “heaven” (however understood), in eternal life, speculation? I cringe when I hear “speculation” because I wonder how extensive such a view is. Is it all speculation? Just speculation? Or is just some of it speculation? What of the Big Four: return of Christ, last judgment, resurrection, and new creation?

A simplistic reaction to the “it’s speculation, after all” claim is to affirm or assert or dig one’s ground on the doctrine of Scripture. There’s a better way, and it’s a deeper way. The Christian hope is not simply believing the Bible. I will say it with Greek words and then spell this out as we discuss Tony Thiselton’s Life after Death. Here it is: euangelion is epangelia. (Gospel is promise.)

But before we get there, a little more look at this reason for the word “speculation.” We live in an evidence-based culture, and what is the “evidence” for life after death? Wittgenstein contended that propositions cannot get us beyond what we already know, they can express nothing that is higher than our world. Schleiermacher said what we know about life after death is at best approximation, and even Augustine knew that life after death transcends what language can describe.  Some have suggested we have to use “models” that can reach beyond. (more…)

The internet is ringing with stuff about pastor John Piper and his recent opening comments about masculine Christianity, and he said these things before an address on J.C. Ryle. Some have summarized his words not so well; others are simply clipping from a report on Christian Post, which was itself a clip of what he said. So I thought I’d post what he has himself posted.

The theme of his conference this year is God, manhood, and ministry. He knows he’s stepping into a quagmire, or should I call it a field of landmines, and he has done so because he believes in what is often called “biblical manhood and womanhood.” I have no reason to speculate why he chose this topic, though a number of friends have written to me to make suggestions.

What do you think of his definition of masculine? Any thoughts? What do you think of all this recent opining on the the importance of  ”manliness” and “masculinity”? Do you think he’s forcing the idea?

Here are his words, the key being the last paragraph (after the jump) on how he defines masculine Christianity:

In dealing with the life and ministry of John Charles Ryle, my hope is to clarify and commend what I mean by the value of a masculine ministry. But before we turn to “the frank and manly Mr. Ryle,” let me make some clarifying comments from the Bible.

God has revealed himself to us in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen, and as Father, not Mother. The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son. The Father and the Son created man and woman in his image, and gave them together the name of the man, Adam (Genesis 5:2). God appoints all the priests in Israel to be men. The Son of God comes into the world as a man, not a woman. He chooses twelve men to be his apostles. The apostles tell the churches that all the overseers—the pastor/elders who teach and have authority (1 Timothy 2:12)—should be men; and that in the home, the head who bears special responsibility to lead, protect, and provide should be the husband (Ephesians 5:22–33). (more…)

From Christian Today:

The Roman Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches in the UK have welcomed an “unprecedented” move towards unity this week.

They have launched a new book entitled “Joint Statements” outlining areas of theological agreement between the two denominations.

The book was developed by the Catholic-Oriental Orthodox Regional Forum (COORF) and presented by the body’s co-chairs Bishop Angaelos, General Bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the UK, and the Catholic Archbishop of Southwark Kevin McDonald.

Bishop Angaelos said that the areas of common faith and witness outweighed the issues that had separated them for the last 1,600 years. (more…)

From io9:

One of the major points of Peter Enns’s new book The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins, perhaps the major point, is that the Old Testament points toward Christ. The form this takes, however, is not exactly the traditional evangelical understanding and we would do well to rethink the form and purpose of the Old Testament.

The second chapter of The Evolution of Adam addresses the question of when and why Genesis, the Pentateuch, and indeed the entire Old Testament, was collected, written, edited, and shaped into the form we have today. This is a question that does not get enough serious thought in the church.  The Old Testament is the foundation for the story of Jesus in the New Testament.  God’s work in the world is rooted in time, place, and people and extends back in time. The image to the right (taken from wikipedia) is of a silver scroll dated to sometime around 600 BCE. This scroll has phrases from the Pentateuch, in particularly the Priestly Blessing of Numbers 6:24-26, inscribed upon it. As I understand it, this is one of the oldest existing fragments of the biblical text. It is on display in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where I saw it and first learned of its existence. This scroll and a second found at the same time predate the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians in 587 or 586 BCE.

There were certainly sources and even holy texts that predate the exile, and the scroll pictured to the right makes this clear. But the Old Testament as we have it is more than a collection of texts. It has form and purpose. The argument Enns makes is that the text we have in our Bible was shaped by and complied in response to the exile and the return from exile.

The exile was the most traumatic event in Israel’s ancient national history and was therefore extremely influential on how the Israelites thought of themselves as the people of God. The Israelites  understood themselves to be God’s chosen people: they were promised the perpetual possession of the land, the glorious temple as a house of worship, and a son of David perpetually sitting on the throne. With the exile, all of this came to a sudden and devastating end. …

The impact of this series of events cannot be overstated. Since these long-standing ties to Yahweh were no longer available to them, the Israelites turned to the next best thing: bringing the glorious past into their miserable present by means of an official collection of writings. Some of these writings were collected and edited at that time, with additions and thorough updating – like the Pentateuch. Others only came into existence then. Either way, the trauma of exile was a significant factor – if not the driving factor – in the creation of what has come to be known to us as “the Bible.” (p. 27)

What do you think the Old Testament is?

Is it reasonable to view the collected and edited form of the Old Testament as, in large part at least, a response to the experience of the exile?

(more…)

J.R. Daniel Kirk‘s new book, Jesus Have I Loved, But Paul? A Narrative Approach to the Problem of Pauline Christianity (BakerAcademic, 2011) may very well be a touchstone for the next generation of Christians who can’t accept the traditional Paul (on historical grounds) and yet who want to explore what Paul looks like if we begin with a more accurate understanding of Jesus, of Judaism, of the Bible’s Story … and of Paul himself.

What role does Paul play in your faith and in your theology? Have you struggled with him?

We begin with this: lots of Christians today are struggling with Paul. (For some that is just incomprehensible, while for many this speaks volumes.) Some are bothered that Paul doesn’t talk kingdom enough; others that Paul doesn’t even talk about Jesus’ teachings; others that Jesus was so activist and justice-oriented and Paul, well, those aren’t his gigs. Some find  him “distasteful, offensive, oppressive, exclusive, confusing, arrogant, or just plain wrong” (3). Others wonder why he gets so much attention and why his theology is the lens through which the whole Bible is read. Others think Paul was not so important until Augustine and after him not until Luther and Calvin. Kirk gives us more: Paul the angry Reformed theologian, the promoter of internalized Christians, the Neoplatonist, the exclusivist, the oppressor, the judge, the chauvinist, and the imposer of order.

Daniel Kirk thinks Paul’s been given a misreading. He thinks we need to get to the narrative shape of Paul’s thinking, to the Story at work in Paul’s letters. (more…)

From Phil Huber, at New Wineskins:

I just finished reading Happily Ever After: Six Secrets to a Successful Marriage by Gary Chapman. The book is a fairly typical example of the marriage enrichment genre, one of the best I have read. It is organized around six major areas of focus: solving conflicts, negotiating change, handling money, raising children, sex, and in-laws. Each section is then broken down into seven or eight chapters dealing with one component of that topic. The chapters are short and straightforward. There are nuggets of insight that are worthwhile. Examples abound from Chapman’s vast experience as a marriage counselor, putting flesh on otherwise theoretical abstracts. Each chapter closes with steps to put into practice what has been covered in the chapter. It’s a very good book for what it does.

But this is where my history may cloud my review. I react against the glut of marriage books that focus on techniques. With all the emphasis on techniques, marriage is reduced to a skill set, akin to playing chess. Learn the rules, get some strategy, and you can win. But the hardscrabble of life is more dynamic than a chess game. To make techniques the focal point of the relationship, “the secrets to a successful marriage,” is to cheapen the relationship. (more…)

This is a fine set of reflections by Trevor Lee on youthful idealism, reality, and faith in a God who still is at work.

As a 25 year old seminary student I sat at a Perkins with our 60-something Senior Pastor and excitedly spewed out a litany of great ideas that would change our church and then the world.  We discussed a few things and then he took a very paternal voice and told me someday reality would catch up with me.  I was disappointed by his response and vowed to never lose my optimistic zeal.

Lately I fear I’m breaking my promise to myself.  The longer I’m a pastor the more reality catches up with me and I start to wonder if I’m headed toward pessimism and eternal discouragement.  Things haven’t broken the way I pictured them when I was 25.

Was I wrong to have that optimistic zeal or am I wrong for letting it fade?  I think the answer is yes to both.  Let me explain…. (more…)