Depression and Work Hours

February 3, 2012 By scotmcknight 6 Comments

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.

Filed Under: Public Issues 6 Comments

Long term, ADD drugs

February 3, 2012 By scotmcknight 8 Comments

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.

 

 

Filed Under: Education 8 Comments

Is Christian Hope Speculation?

February 3, 2012 By scotmcknight 28 Comments

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. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Eschatology 28 Comments

John Piper, what he said

February 3, 2012 By scotmcknight 198 Comments

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). [Read more...]

Filed Under: Pastoring and Leading, Pastoring and Preaching, Women and Ministry 198 Comments