A new website has appeared that might be of interest for busy people who are hungry, don't want to eat out, but who don't have time to go grocery shopping.
The millennial generation is usually defined as those born since the late 1970s. Now, two authors (in a piece you can read here) expose ten myths about this generation as false:
1. Young people think and behave the same at all times. One generation is just like the one before it and the one that follows.
2. Millennials are narcissistic, self-indulgent kids who think they are entitled to everything.
3. Millennials volunteer and serve because they are “forced” to or are trying to polish their college application resume.
4. Millennials became Democrats and liberals because they are hero worshipers of Barack Obama.
5. Millennials will become more conservative as they age.
6. Millennials, like all young people, are apathetic and uninterested in voting.
7. Like Boomers and Gen-Xers before them, Millennials are cynical and disillusioned by the problems facing them and America.
8. Millennials care only about what happens in their own country, community, and lives and not on what goes on in the rest of the world.
9. Millennials, like all generations, are rebels who are hostile to civic institutions and government.
10. Millennials are more focused on trivialities such as celebrities than on the big issues facing America.
The authors, Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, have written Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics published by Rutgers University Press.
Source: Thanks to my good friend Kevin Offner for alerting me to this.
This was filmed in the mountains of Colorado during the annual ladybug swarm.
5D and EX1 Lady Bug Swarm from Michael Ramsey on Vimeo.
Reza Aslan has published two books. Both are well written (not for nothing does Aslan teach creative writing at the University of California), clearly accessible to any interested reader. Both address topics of great importance at the beginning of the 21st century. Both allow most Americans (or Westerners) insight into a world that is usually outside their daily existence. Both challenge some assumptions that tend to be held by many Americans. And for many Americans, both are written from a perspective that they seldom hear expressed with such care and thoughtfulness.
Aslan (love that name!) ethnic heritage is Persian, though Americans often mistake him for being an Arab. His family moved from Iran to the U.S., where they became proud citizens of America. Reza Aslan is also a Muslim, concerned that the West not only understand the beliefs and practices of Islam but be able to distinguish the vast majority of mainstream Muslims from the Jihadist thugs that draw the most attention in the media.
Aslan’s first book, No God But God: The origins, evolution and future of Islam is must reading.
In his second book, How to Win a Cosmic War, Aslan does three things. First, he traces the development of the Jihadist movement which gave rise to 9/11, the War on Terror, and so much more that dominates the daily news. Second, he helps us see the Western, especially the U.S. response through Muslim eyes. And third he argues that we must refuse the most basic assumption of the Jihadists, namely that this is a cosmic religious war, a war between Islam and Christianity. If we fail at this, Aslan argues persuasively that we will needlessly alienate the vast majority of Muslims who are repulsed by Jihadist terrorism, we will inadvertently reinforce Jihadist recruitment among young disaffected Muslims, and we will make it more difficult to bring these criminals to justice.
But I’ll let Aslan speak for himself:
This book is, above all else, a proclamation: the War on Terror, conceived by the previous American administration as a cosmic contest between the forces of good and evil for the future of civilization, is over. It is time to strip this ideological conflict of its religious connotations, to reject the religiously polarizing rhetoric of our leaders and theirs, to focus on the material matters at stake, and to address the earthly issues that always lie behind the cosmic impulse. For although the grievances of the hijackers may have been symbolic, though they may have been merely causes to rally around, to the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who watched the towers fall—who were, in fact, the intended audience of that theatrical display of violence—they are nonetheless legitimate grievances and must be addressed as such. The Palestinians really are suffering under Israeli occupation. Arab dictators are in fact being propped up by U.S. policies. The Muslim world truly does have reason to feel under attack by a “crusading” West. Addressing these grievances may not satisfy Osama bin Laden and his fellow cosmic warriors, whose sights are set beyond this world. But it will bring their cosmic war back down to earth, where it can be confronted more constructively. It will take away the appeal of the Global Jihadist movement and loosen the ties that have bound so many young, disaffected Muslims together under a master narrative of oppression and injustice. Most of all, it will deny Jihadist ideologues their principal argument that the War on Terror is, in fact, a war against Islam. Because in the end, there is only one way to win a cosmic war: refuse to fight in it.
Aslan’s argument needs to be heard, discussed, and seriously considered. Even at those occasional points where I disagree with Aslan I am extremely glad I have listened to him.
Source: How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror by Reza Aslan (New York, NY: Random House; 2009) p. 11.
Not long ago I visited a friend who said that he had recently been convicted about the fact that he’d not really “checked into the veracity” of his Christian beliefs. So he had recently made it something of a project to look into the evidence for and against the Christian tradition into which he’d been born and raised. He wanted to take a step back and see whether or not the stuff he’d been raised with was actually true. I asked him what he’d been reading. He pointed me to a collection of about eight to ten books on the evidence for and against Christian belief on his shelf—not bad for a busy professional with a young family. But upon closer examination, I noticed that all of the books had Christian authors.
“These books are all written by Christians,” I pointed out.
“Yep. I’ve been making apologetics a sort of hobby. I especially like the stuff by Craig, Strobel, and Geisler.”
“Do you suppose there are non-Christians writing on this topic?”
“I suppose there probably are.”
“Do you know who they are?”
“No. I haven’t really looked for that sort of thing.”
Now I don’t mean to suggest that what my friend was doing is a bad idea. There’s nothing wrong with trying to shore up your faith with evidence. There’s a wealth of very good material out there on the rationality of Christian belief, and Christians do themselves a favor by getting acquainted with it. But to think of this as a genuine checking into the veracity of Christian belief is a bit of a stretch. It’s a bit like checking into the claims of “holistic medicine” by reading only those studies written by its practitioners and ignoring the critical treatment of these practices in “mainstream” medical journals.
Source: I Told Me So: Self-deception and the Christian life by Gregg A. Ten Elshof (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing; 2009) pp. 34-35.
Each day I receive via email a little excerpt from the writings of John Stott, a free service which you can sign up for here. I highly recommend it. Stott’s wisdom is worth heeding.
When Paul and Barnabas set out into the unknown on the first missionary journey, they found (as Abraham, Joseph and Moses had found before them) that God was with them. That is exactly what they reported on their return (Acts 14:27; 15:12). Indeed, this assurance is indispensable to mission. Change is painful to us all, especially when it affects our cherished buildings and customs, and we should not seek to change merely for the sake of change. Yet true Christian radicalism is open to change. It knows that God has bound himself to his church (promising that he will never leave it) and to this Word (promising that it will never pass away). But God's church means people not buildings, and God's Word means Scripture not traditions. So long as these essentials are preserved, the buildings and the traditions can if necessary go. We must not allow them to imprison the living God or to impede his mission in the world. [From The Message of Acts (The Bible Speaks Today series: Leicester, IVP, 1990), p. 143. Stott Daily Thought 14 Sept 09.]
Eight years ago today the United States was viciously attacked from within as the result of an international conspiracy. Part of our response was to reenergize a thread in American history that goes back to the founding of the country. A military response was launched not only for defense but also to try to destroy the root causes of the attack.
For most of our history we have assumed that we have the responsibility—even the obligation—to secure human and democratic rights for others. For those who see history this way the United States has succeeded Israel as God’s benighted, exceptional nation and we are required by our Creator to bring his and our civilizing message to the rest of the world.
Over the past 200 years, this peculiar form of connecting the divine to human history has melded into a powerful secular religion of the state. Over time, our secular religion has been the driving force behind much of American foreign policy, justifying and rationalizing our expansion to the Pacific Ocean and many of our overseas adventures and acquisitions.
Since the end of the Cold War and especially since 9/11, this idea of American exceptionalism, with its civilizing mission, has been manifest primarily in a determination to build Western-styled nations (i.e. states) where they have “failed” or have not previously existed. The underlying rationale is that a world of democratic states, supported by a free-enterprise system, will establish peace, because other democracies will not attack us or tolerate terrorists and will live at peace with each other.
Unfortunately, this has not worked. There are four major reasons for this. First, in the rapidly globalizing world, the state is becoming less important as the only vehicle of political and economic organization and success. Although still very important, the state is now merely one among several major global actors. Second, building a nation takes enormous resources and the US does not have the talent, resolve, or money to accomplish the task in regions of the world that we think need fixing. Third, it is the height of arrogance to assume that everyone wants our model, and this is demonstrated on a daily basis as various groups fight back. Finally, despite our claims, there is no necessary connection between terrorism and particular types of political community. Terrorism can grow in successful as well as in “failed” states.
Over the past two decades we have tried and failed (or are failing) in several critical places to achieve nation building. In the early 1990s, a state-building effort in Somalia collapsed and the effort has never recovered. Shortly thereafter, we tried to build a state in Bosnia and after 15 agonizing years Bosnia is on the verge of collapse. Despite the general reduction in violence in Iraq, the desired goal of a modern, unified, multiethnic, free-enterprise state is not taking hold and there are growing signs that the progress which has been made is likely to unravel once the US departs. Finally, like Somalia, Afghanistan has never been a state in the Western sense of the term and the sacrifice in human life and material resources is not worth the pursuit of a goal that cannot be reached.
While it is certainly legitimate to oppose those who would try to harm us, and while it is appropriate to offer advice and help to those who ask for it, it is a fool’s errand to try to build political communities in our image around the world. It would be much better to heed the advice of John Quincy Adams, offered in 1821: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
—Steven E. Meyer, Professor of Political Science, National Defense University
(The views expressed here are the author's alone.)
The Capital Commentary may be photocopied or retransmitted in its entirety but not otherwise reprinted or transmitted without permission. Commentaries do not necessarily represent an official position of the Center but are intended to help advance discussion.
Copyright Center for Public Justice 2009.
This piece was issued originally as the Capital Commentary for September 11, 2009.
To learn more about the Center for Public Justice, visit the Center’s website.
P.O. Box 48368
Washington, DC 20002-0368
Phone: (410) 571-6300 Fax: (410) 571-6365
I received this from a friend who happens to be a seminary professor. Wise words.
To my friends who enjoy a glass of wine...
And those who don't.
As Ben Franklin said:
In wine there is wisdom,
In beer there is freedom,
In water there is bacteria.
In a number of carefully controlled trials,
Scientists have demonstrated that if we drink
1 liter of water each day,
At the end of the year we would have absorbed
More than 1 kilo of Escherichia coli, (E. Coli) - bacteria
Found in feces.
In other words, we are consuming 1 kilo of poop..
However,
We do NOT run that risk when drinking wine & beer
(or tequila, rum, whiskey or other liquor)
Because alcohol has to go through a purification process
Of boiling, filtering and/or fermenting.
Remember:
Water = Poop,
Wine = Health.
Therefore, it's better to drink wine and talk stupid,
Than to drink water and be full of shit.
There is no need to thank me for this valuable information:I'm doing it as a public service!
In his fascinating and helpful book, Cultural Intelligence, David Livermore argues that Christian faithfulness in a globalized world includes deepening our “ability to effectively reach across the chasm of cultural differences in ways that are loving and respectful.” One part of that includes the need to learn empathy. Of being able to see things from another’s perspective, not merely from our own. Of being able to enter their world and life view, their way of seeing, so that we can catch of glimpse of their situation as they are actually experiencing it. “The point” Dr Livermore says, “is not to respect different religions merely for political correctness, but instead, to truly become incarnational in seeking to empathetically identify with what following Jesus will mean for an individual.” And then he tells of a conversation between a young woman and her missionary mother:
“Mom, wait a minute,” Emma said to me. Something had been troubling her ever since she first came home from school. “What would you say if...” I set the plates back on the table and sat down. “What would you say if I told you I was going to become a Hindu?”
It was a good thing I sat down. “What did you say Emma?” I stalled.
“What would you say if I told you I was going to become a Hindu?” She didn't take her eyes off my face.
“You’re not joking?” I knew she wasn’t. Her deep brown eyes could not have been more serious.
“I am not joking,” Emma replied.
What was there for me to say? The sweet, earnest, devout child before me, flesh of my flesh, a Hindu?! I had never thought of her in any way except as a child of Christ. I had failed her, and I had failed God. I had failed the other missionaries and the Indian Christians. How could I face anybody? All this came over me in a flash, and I was then more deeply shamed in the realization that my first reaction was one of loss of face.
She let me sit in silence until the whole impact of what she had said sank in. I saw her whole life before me including her marriage to.... Where was her father?! Perhaps he would be able to cope with this better than I could.
I must have looked very stricken, for she suddenly said, “I’m sorry, Mom. I just want you to know how Rani’s mother will feel. Rani is going to tell her mother, this vacation, that she is going to become a Christian. It will affect her family as deeply as it would affect you if I became a Hindu.”
Source: Cultural Intelligence: Improving Your CQ to Engage Our Multicultural World by David A. Livermore (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic; 2009) pp. 160-161.
Charlie Fineman (played superbly by Adam Sandler) has been ambushed by the brokenness of the world. An orphan, the aunt who raised him died just prior to his marriage. Then, after a decade of marriage and three lovely daughters (nine, seven, and five), Charlie’s family perished in one of the airplanes that were flown into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Overcome by the crushing burden of his grief, Charlie has withdrawn into a world where he does not need to remember, haunted by the pain. Serendipitously one day Alan Johnson (played by Don Cheadle) runs into him—they had been roommates in dental school—and a renewed friendship is launched.
Reign Over Me is remarkable for several reasons. It faces the horror of death with a rare honesty. It accurately depicts the brokenness that results when someone is overwhelmed by that horror, unable to find healing in his grief. Without sentimentality—everyone in this film has been touched by brokenness—Reign Over Me shows how we flourish as individuals only in community, in friendships that share all of life for blessing and for curse. And it reveals the true costliness of community and friendship. Opening our homes and lives in warm hospitality always extracts a toll en route to shalom.
For Christians Reign Over Me raises important questions. Are we willing to follow Christ in paying the necessary cost to achieve real community in a broken world? Are we willing to walk with someone for the long haul, rather than walking away if healing hasn’t occurred in six months? Do we see and treat people like Charlie, deeply disturbed people, as creatures of wonder who are made in God’s image? Are we the sort of people that those who are hiding deep secrets of regret and hurt are drawn to us because they can sense we are safe?
In his new book Jerram Barrs has a chapter on the striking episode in Jesus’ life that is recorded in St John 7:53-8:11.
They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
Jerram’s reflections on this text are exactly what those of us who know him have come to expect from him—thoughtful, true to the text, and sensitive to real people living real lives in a broken world. What stunned me, however, and what I want to highlight here are the study questions he included for this text. Unless I am badly out of touch with the sort of discussion that usually goes on in Bible studies today, his questions are of a different sort entirely. The sort of questions we should be addressing but usually don’t. Truth be told, I don’t even think of them.
1. What in your life would you hate to have exposed for public humiliation? This is a question to answer on your own, just between you and the Lord. If you are considering these questions in a group setting, it might be valuable for everyone present to take a few minutes to reflect on this question before discussing the following ones.
2. Are there particular sins in the lives of others that you have exposed for condemnation or even for the public humiliation of the sinner?
3. Are there unbelievers, maybe in your own family or workplace, to whom you need to apologize for the way you have criticized or judged them in the past?
4. What are the sins that preachers most often tend to parade for the church’s condemnation?
5. Are there particular kinds of sinners from whom you have desired to separate yourself?
6. Why do we all find it so much easier to see the sins of others and to criticize them, rather than to see our own sins and to criticize ourselves?
7. Are there examples in your life and ministry where you have shown the kind of mercy to a sinner that Jesus shows to this woman?
Source: Learning Evangelism from Jesus by Jerram Barrs (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books; 2009) pp. 253-254.