Flashback: School Days

Flashback Friday buttonPrompt: Did your family have any back-to-school traditions when you were growing up? Were you generally eager or reluctant to start school? Was buying school supplies a big deal or did you order them through the school? Were there any school supplies you particularly loved?…

Some homeschooling families greet the coming school year with great fanfare, purchasing new materials and taking “first day” photos. Others do school year-round and never have a real “first day” of school.

And some, like my family, have a first day of school, but don’t make much of a fuss about it.

In fact, we made so little fuss that I can’t remember a single thing about any of my baker’s dozen first days of school (until college–but that’s a whole ‘nother story!)

That’s not to say that I don’t remember any of the circumstances surrounding “back-to-school.”

I remember going to the packed out back-to-school sales and perusing the completely unreasonable lists all those others schools had for their students. We didn’t get backpacks and lunchbags and fancy binders and pencil cases and the like. We got milk crates to store our school books in (since we’d usually destroyed our old crates, having carted them around the house and indeed the state during the previous school year)–but that was about the only thing that was distinct for each student. Otherwise, we stocked up huge piles of notebooks, notebook paper (in wide and college rules), handwriting tablets, yellow wooden pencils, and erasers.

In the olden days, Lincoln’s tax was $0.065 per dollar–and it rounded down from the half. So if you bought something that cost exactly one dollar, you’d be charged $1.06. But if you bought two things that cost exactly one dollar, you’d be charged $2.13. One year, there was something that cost exactly one dollar, and each of us kids went through the checkout with our one item. The checkout lady tried in vain to convince us to combine our purchase (instead of passing the leftover cash to the next kid in line.) We tried in vain to explain to her that we could save three whole cents by doing it our way. (We definitely knew how to pinch our pennies!)

And I remember Mom reminiscing about her own school days. Every so often, we kids would complain about how we’d been deprived of this supply or that–how we had to share our school supplies or whatever. And when we complained, Mom might tell her story:

When she was a little girl, the fourth of twelve children, she got just what was on the list and nothing else. The list decreed that each child had to have a set of eight crayons (red, violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, black, and brown.) And so Mom had a set of eight crayons. All the other children came to school with their sets of twenty-four. There was nothing she could do about it–her family was poor, they had what was required.

We, of course, never lacked for crayons. There was always an enormous bucket of partially used crayons around the house that we could use at any time. And if we needed nice, unbroken crayons, we could always borrow from Mom’s set–for every year, Mom bought herself a shiny new box of crayons, the biggest box that could be bought.

This was as close as I could get to a “back to school picture” in our entire family collection (and I would know–I’m the keeper of the family photographs).

Kids back to school photo

From left to right: Timothy (age 3) with his preschool workbook, John (age 4) with his art book, Grace (age 1) with someone else’s workbook, Daniel (age 6) with a Boxcar children mystery from the library, and Me (age 10) with some large tome also from the library (I’m guessing it’s either a history or a work of fiction–that’s a pretty big book!)

Visit Linda for more Flashback Friday posts.


Thankful Thursday: On My Side

Today I’m thankful…

…that at least one of my professors is totally on my side regarding my thesis.

…that I have wonderful family and friends who take my side (even when I’m doing my best to self-destruct).

…that I have a great high priest who lives to make intercession for me.

This song was in the playlist that woke me up this morning. What a beautiful reminder of the God who, when I was His enemy, paid a terrible price to make me His friend.

Before the throne of God above
I have a strong and perfect plea.
A great high Priest whose Name is Love
Who ever lives and pleads for me.
My name is graven on His hands,
My name is written on His heart.
I know that while in Heaven He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Savior died
My sinful soul is counted free.
For God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.

Behold Him there the risen Lamb,
My perfect spotless righteousness,
The great unchangeable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace,
One in Himself I cannot die.
My soul is purchased by His blood,
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ my Savior and my God!

Thank You, Lord, for taking my part, for paying the price I couldn’t pay, for justifying this unworthy wretch! I am so in awe of the greatness of the God who would do such a thing for me.

Thankful Thursday banner


Bad news masquerading as good

After making a flippant but completely uninformed remark about Joel Osteen (with whom I had no familiarity except a short video clip), I was convicted that I ought not criticize things/people I know nothing about. After all, one of the charges against the false prophets in Second Peter is that they “speak evil of the things they do not understand”.

I rescinded my flippant remark and said I would look into Osteen more before making an evaluation. Thus, I traveled to my local library and picked up one of Osteen’s books–Become a Better You.

What I found shocked me and troubled me deeply. In some ways, Osteen is just another prosperity preacher of the Word of Faith tradition. He confuses the promises of the gospel with the idea of self-fulfillment and turns God into a vending-machine in the sky. The so-called prosperity gospel is a disturbing corruption of the true gospel–but I’ve known many who ascribe to a version of the prosperity gospel who still maintain at least a degree of faithfulness to the true gospel: that Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for sins, on our behalf, thus reconciling us to God.

I see no evidence that Osteen has maintained any modicum of the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Instead, Osteen has replaced the gospel with an “I’m good, you’re good, we’re all good” self-esteem talk. He tells his readers that “God has already put in the talent, the creativity, the discipline, the wisdom, and the determination. It’s all in you.” “We have to believe that we have what it takes.” Over and over, he states that “God has placed the seeds of greatness inside of you”. He emphasizes the goodness of creation–but completely ignores the fall.

I almost thought he was going to address the fall when he refers to Adam and Eve hiding after eating the forbidden fruit. “Great,” I thought, “Now he’s going to tell them that the created goodness has been warped and twisted by sin, but that Jesus died to redeem us from that twistedness, to reverse sin.” Alas, it was not to be. Instead, Osteen uses God’s response to Adam and Eve (“Who told you that you were naked?”) as “proof” that they weren’t actually naked, that they were believing a lie from the enemy. Except that wasn’t a lie. They were naked. They had something to be ashamed of. They had something to hide. It wasn’t a lie. It was the truth.

Now, this might sound like a huge downer. Osteen’s got good news, I’m bearing bad. But am I?

You see, Osteen’s message of self-esteem and “you’re all good” is a cheap substitute for the truly good news. The good news is that while we were completely worthless, God endued us with worth by sending His Son to die for us. While we were incapable of helping ourselves, Jesus Christ made us new. The good news is that while we were yet dead in our sins, Christ died for us.

Osteen’s message skips the fall–and thus sees no need for the cross. In the first seventy pages of Become a Better You, Osteen mentions the cross exactly never–unless one considers this gem on page 35: “God gave His very best for you, His only Son.”

In ignoring the fall and the cross, Osteen leaves out the essence of Christianity. As Charles Spurgeon points out (HT: Justin Taylor):

“Yes, it is Christ, Christ, Christ whom we have to preach; and if we leave Him out, we leave out the very soul of the gospel.”

You do not really preach the gospel if you leave Christ out; if He be omitted, it is not the gospel. You may invite men to listen to your message, but you are only inviting them to gaze upon an empty table unless Christ is the very center and substance of all that you set before them.”

Want to become a better you? Osteen can’t help–he can only try to convince you that you’re actually not that bad. Only in Jesus Christ can bad become good and sinners saints. Denying sin will not make it go away, it will only lead us into delusion. Only by recognizing our sin and by faith receiving Christ’s work on the cross can we be made righteous.

The gospel that Osteen shares is not good news at all–it is bad news masquerading as good.


The Voice of the Accuser

“What did you do this summer?” she asks.

I struggle to come up with a decent answer–an appropriate answer. I want to say, “Apart from trying to write a thesis blind, you mean?”

“Uh, I’ve been canning, and blogging–”

“You’ve been canning?” Her incredulosity makes me want to shrink out of the room. It sounds so frivolous, so ridiculous.

After I’ve left, my mind whirls over the dozens of things I could have said to justify my summer. I helped my brother and sister-in-law with their wedding. I drove my mom to see my grandparents. I completed two quilts, a couple of pillow shams, a dresser scarf, and over a dozen potholders. I crocheted a scarf and a half dozen dishcloths. I embroidered a set of day-of-the-week tea towels. I cleaned my house and prepared meals. I babysat and helped a friend weed. I applied for jobs and went to interviews. I read and reviewed books. I blogged. I canned. I rode bicycles with a friend. And, of course, I tried to write a thesis blind.

Even as I contemplate what I’ve done this summer, I know it would have been pointless to mention it. I think back to her raised eyebrows when I read over my lunch break. “What are you reading?–Ugh, why are you reading that?” I remember the countless questions–“How many hours are you taking?”–and the snorts when I say it’s important that I spend time with church and family. The implicit message, etched into me with every interaction?

You don’t do enough. You don’t work hard enough. The stuff you spend your time on is worthless. You are worthless.

My heart believes her message even as my head rebels.

I do work hard. I don’t waste my time on frivolous things. Relationships are important. I’m not worthless.

She is the voice I’ve heard since before I ever met her, the voice that held me in bondage for years. It labels me insufficient, unlovely, incomplete, a failure. The voice that once, inside my head, told me “You’ll never amount to anything. You have all these goals but what have you ever done?”–that voice is now an external voice, attached to a face, to a woman, my accuser. “Just give up,” it says. “You don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute. You’re a waste of time, of energy. Take the easy way out.”

I firmly tell her NO–I’m not taking the easy way out. I’m not going to quit. I’m not a failure. My ideas have merit, my work is worthwhile. I’m not going to argue with her evaluation of me–I know by now that it does no good. But I’m not going to bow to her evaluation of me either. I’m not going to bow to the accuser who says I’m still in my chains.

I’m going to take my heart–that heart that’s smarting from wounds inflicted years ago, that heart whose wounds have been reopened by her word’s claw–I’m going to take my heart to the Great Physician who bore my wounds already. He bore my insufficiency, my unloveliness, my incompleteness. The stripes on His back are my heart’s healing. He took my worthlessness, granting me worth. He bore my wrongness, giving me righteousness. He experienced my failure, and declared success.

I’m taking my heart to Jesus–for by His wounds, I am healed.


Heretic Hunting

I try to diligently evaluate what I hear or read in light of God’s word. I desire to speak the truth in love, bringing correction when needed. Often, I am very bold when writing (as on this blog), and very timid when directly addressing someone (either in person or via online means).

But there’s one thing that I’ve been very, VERY wary of. I’ve been very uncomfortable with using the term “heretic” or accusing someone of being a “false teacher.” Either of these terms bring to mind witch hunts, burning at the stake, and other such things–in which someone is condemned to torture or death as a result of their beliefs. I don’t like it. I don’t like those terms, or their connotations, at all.

Which is why when I was recently going through a Bible study on II Peter, I got rather uncomfortable. In chapter 2, Peter is all over false prophets and false teachers, likening them to brute beasts made to be hunted and killed, calling them acne on the face of the body of Christ and wells without water. It’s not a pretty picture. Peter speaks of the false teachers’ sins (covetousness, exploitation, deception, denying Christ, despising authority, walking in the flesh, presumption, willfullness, speaking evil of dignitaries, etc.) and of their impending punishment (swift destruction, the wages of unrighteousness, blackness of darkness forever).

I might be afraid of the term “false teacher”, but Peter certainly wasn’t. John recognized that false prophets have gone out into the world, and warned the church to test the spirits to see whether they were from God (I John 4:1-3). In 2 Corinthians 11:13, Paul condemns the false apostles who try to commend themselves to the Corinthian church. In Galatians 2:4, Paul speaks of the Judaizers as being “false brethren” who “came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.”

False prophets, false teachers, false apostles exist. They seek to bring people into bondage to a gospel that is not the gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-9). They seek to deceive, if possible, even the elect (Mark 13:22). However, the Judge of the world is not slow–He has a judgment reserved for these false teachers, a horrible punishment.

Okay, so…false teachers exist. It says so in Scripture. False teachers aren’t just a myth made up by the superstitious, witch-hunting, unenlightened masses. They’re real. They’re dangerous.

And what on earth are Christians supposed to do about them?

Scripture gives us some direction as to how we are to deal with false teachers (thankfully, Scripture does not suggest that we burn them at the stake or otherwise torture them).

First, we are to recognize them. Romans 16:17 says to “note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned”. I John 4:1 tells us to test the spirits, and then gives us a litmus test by which we may know deceptive spirits from the Spirit of God:

“By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.”
~I John 4:2-3

Thus, the primary means by which we can recognize a false teacher is a denial of the incarnation of Christ. Other mentions of false teachers and false “gospels” throughout the New Testament give additional characteristics of false teachers: they deny the centrality of the cross and insist upon good works (Galatians 1-2), they deny the Lord who bought them (2 Peter 2:1), they walk according to the flesh and despise authority (2 Peter 2:10), they promise liberty but actually enslave to lust (2 Peter 2:18-20).

The second thing believers are to do with false teachers is to avoid them. I Timothy 6:3-5 says that “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness….from such withdraw yourself.” Romans 16:17 urges the believers to “avoid them.” II John 10-11 tells believers not to greet or receive into their house the one who teaches a doctrine contrary to the doctrine of Christ, lest they become participants in the false teacher’s sin.

Finally, we are to combat false teaching by speaking truth. This charge is particularly true for leaders within the church. Paul charges Titus in Titus 2:1 that he “speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine.” An elder is supposed to hold fast the faithful word he has been taught, so “that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.” (Titus 1:9). Timothy was to “charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.” (I Timothy 1:3-4) All believers are called to “hold fast” to sound doctrine (Phil. 2:16, I Thess 5:21, II Thess 2:15, II Tim 1:13-14).

Interestingly, we are never called to pass judgment on false teachers or heretics. Instead, we know from Scripture that they are already under the judgment of God–but that God delays in sending His judgment because He is merciful and desirous that none should perish (2 Peter 3:5-9.) Our role is not to pass judgment on them, but to “beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Peter 2:17-18)


Heresy Hunter: A Case Study, Part 2

Yesterday, I set up a case study for the “heresy hunter” to think through. The “heresy hunter” has read The Shack and evaluated the view of God’s love found within (universalism). He has rejected this view of God’s love on the basis of Scripture. Now, a Christian friend of his is raving about how his view of God’s love has been changed dramatically by The Shack. I discussed the role of Scripture for correction, but since Scripture is clear about not judging, I closed with a question:

“How am I to correct without judging?”

I think humility is the key. I Timothy 2:24, above, says “in humility correcting those who are in opposition.” First, we must be aware of the limits of our own knowledge and understanding of the truth, as discussed in the first”heresy hunter” post. Second, we must be aware that we are not without sin or error. We are not without sin; we have no right to be casting stones.

This leads us to the second part of correction without judgment–that is, we should speak with love in order to edify. We are not called to judge or to cast stones to tear another down–we are called to correct in order to edify and build up. We must carefully consider both our motivation and our means in order to ascertain that what we are doing accomplishes edification.

Romans 14 speaks a great deal about this, encouraging more mature believers to accept the less mature ones and not to quibble about things that are unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

“Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things….Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way…Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.”
~Romans 14:1, 13, 19

We should consider first the importance of the idea or teaching. Is this something that is central to the faith or is it a periphery issue? (I would say that the idea of universalism is a central issue and therefore should be addressed.) Then we should ask how we can address this in a way that does not put a stumbling block in our brother’s way. Finally, we should seek to address the issue in a way that leads to peace and edification.

There are probably a lot of different ways this can be done. Maybe it means just bringing up your own concern in the same conversation. “The Shack was an engaging book and a lot of people seem to like it a lot. I’m concerned, though, at how it conveys the idea that everyone can be saved–without talking about how Christ is the only way to salvation.” Maybe it means encouraging further study. “You mentioned a couple of days ago that you were impressed with how The Shack talks about God’s love. I was wondering if you’d like to do a Bible study with me to explore what God’s love looks like.” Maybe it means direct confrontation. “You said you liked how The Shack portrayed God’s love, but I’m concerned that it portrays a false view of God’s love. I’m afraid that the ‘nice guy’ idea of God’s love found in The Shack might blind you to the truth of God’s love as portrayed on the cross. Could we talk about this a bit more?”

I’m certainly not perfect in this respect. Sometimes I err on the side of not bringing truth (even when falsehood is very clearly leading a brother or sister into bondage). Other times I err on the side of being an unloving bringer of truth (abrasively speaking truth in a way that tears down rather than building up.) But my heart’s desire is that somehow I could learn to walk this line: truth in love, truth in love.


TTT: Sharing a bed

My mother was at her quilting frame, I was in her rocking chair embroidering. My littlest sister sat at Mom’s computer. Dad walked in to discuss the cabins he’d just reserved for our family weekend getaway.

Dad: Well, we’ve got three queens and four single bunks.

Me: That should work great. You and Mom get one. Dan and Deb get one. And Anna and Grace get one.

Dad: Which leaves the bunks for the three boys and you.

Grace: Wait–which of the boys isn’t coming?

Dad: They’ll all be there.

Me: But Dan will be with Debbie in one of the queens.

Grace: I wish I were married so I could sleep in one of the nice beds.

Me: But didn’t you hear what I just said? You will be in one of the nice beds.

Dad: Yeah, you and Anna.

Grace: I’ll have to share?

Me: You’d have to share if you were married too–you’d just be sharing with a husband instead of Anna.

Grace: Ugh! Maybe I don’t want to get married.

Tiny Talk Tuesday Have I mentioned that my little sister is 16 years old? So she’s not quite “tiny” (even if she is the littlest we’ve got)–but she can still say some pretty outrageous things. And, believe it or not, she isn’t even blonde!

Check out more Tiny Talk Tuesday posts (featuring actual children) at Not Before 7.


Heresy Hunter: A Case Study, Part 1

Last week, I talked about the heresy hunter and made a case for evaluating information on the basis of truth–but doing it with a humble heart, recognizing the finiteness of our human knowledge compared to God’s infinite wisdom.

I think a lot of people would be with me on this one. They agree that there is an objective standard of truth and that we should evaluate information based on truth. Few people have a problem with me personally evaluating what I hear and deciding to either accept or reject it on the basis of some objective standard of truth.

But what if I tell someone else that what they’ve heard or are believing is false?

What if I say that the concept of God’s love that they obtained from reading The Shack is false? The Shack espouses universalism, the idea that God’s love means that all people will be saved. This concept is clearly unscriptural, as it denies the necessity of Christ as a mediator of the New Covenant (In John 14:6 Jesus states that “No one comes to the Father except through Me.”), the wrath of God towards sin and sinners (Romans 2:5-9 states that those who obey unrighteousness are “treasuring up for yourself wrath”), and the existence of eternal damnation (Hebrews 6:2 places eternal judgment among the foundational principles of the faith).

I know of many people who say they were “touched” by The Shack. Others came away from reading The Shack with a “different view of God.” Perhaps they were touched, perhaps they did come away with a different view of God. And truly, The Shack presents a different view of God than that presented in the Bible. But the view The Shack presents of God is patently false.

Here, a lot more people are inclined to label me as judgmental. How dare you say that this isn’t true! It feels true to me. How dare you say otherwise! Are you saying that my feelings don’t matter?

I’m not saying that your feelings don’t matter. But regardless of your feelings, truth is truth. Your feelings are not a measure of truth. Scripture is a measure of truth. So even if you “feel good” about the view of God presented in The Shack, that view is still wrong.

This is where things start getting difficult for me. What should I do when someone says something that is unbiblical? What should I do when I recognize that someone else holds a false belief about God or about truth or whatever? How should I respond?

I’ve evaluated that teaching or belief and determined that it’s unbiblical. But how do I go about pointing that out to another person? Should I point that out to the other person?

II Timothy 3:16 states that Scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” One of the roles of Scripture is to reprove and correct. And Scripture talks of the role that believers play in correcting their fellow believers:

“Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.”
~James 5:19-20

“And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.”
~II Timothy 2:24-26

The correction of other believers is one means God uses to work repentance, rescue, and salvation.

Okay, but how am I to deal with the rest of Scripture, which makes clear that I am not to judge? How am I to correct without judging?

Check back tomorrow to hear my conclusions to this case study, including cautions for the “corrector” and suggestions for different ways a “corrector” might approach this particular case.


WiW: On Focus

The Week in Words

Joni Erickson Tada, on worrying

“I want to stay in the habit of ‘glancing’ at my problems and ‘gazing’ at my Lord.”

I love this quote–and I love the circuitous route it took to get to me. I got it from Vitamin Z who got it from Josh Harris who got it from a tweet by Randy Alcorn.

Stephen Altrogge, on information and technology:

“There’s only one Word that really matters: God’s Word. We have it. Let’s never let the mass of information available push away from the only information of eternal significance.”

via Vitamin Z

Brett McCracken, on relevance:

“Everyone’s got an idea of what Christianity should be (Missional! Emergent! Conservative! Progressive! Post-colonial!…), but part of what I argue in Hipster Christianity is that we need to cool it a bit on the whole “how can we change Christianity to be more current/relevant” thing. We need to instead focus our attention on being a biblical, gospel-centered people whose attractiveness to the world is the result of the Spirit’s edifying work within us, not a result of our Tru Religion jeans, $600,000 sound system, or tasty shade-grown coffee served in the vestibule.”

Read more at McCracken’s blog.

My thoughts:

It’s so important that we fix our eyes on what’s really important: Jesus Christ, and His gospel as revealed in His word. Without that, we’re lost.

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.


Recap (August 1-7)

On bekahcubed

Book Reviews:

  • The Thief Lord by Cornelia Funke

    Rating: ****
    Category: Children’s Fantasy
    Synopsis: Two runaway orphans get taken in by Venice’s young “Thief Lord”–but when their aunt enlists a private detective to find the two, it might mean trouble for the whole crew.
    Recommendation: If you like juvenile fiction and/or fantasy, you’ll like this. Otherwise, there’s nothing particularly spectacular about it.

    Read the rest of my review

On the web

Books for the TBR list:

  • Dreaming of Dior by Charlotte Smith
    From Bermuda Onion’s review:

    “Charlotte Smith inherited a collection of beautiful vintage clothing from her godmother, Doris Darnell. Her godmother collected not only the clothing but the stories of the people who wore them. At first, Charlotte was overwhelmed and didn’t know what to do with all of the clothing (over 3,000 pieces), but once she read the stories, she knew she had to share the collection somehow. She couldn’t bear the thought of it being broken up, so she didn’t want to donate it to museums. Luckily for us, she has created a beautiful book.”

  • Stat Spotting by Joel Best
    Kevin DeYoung says “In a world full of dubious data, this book is a must read.” I respect DeYoung quite a bit and think I’ll take his advice :-)
  • To Change the World by James D. Hunter
    I’d read some responses to this book at Christianity Today, but hadn’t really thought of reading it myself until I read this Coram Deo review. The summary, also posted by Coram Deo, left me fascinated. Apparently, Hunter argues that the entire model for world change (that change is accomplished via ideas and individuals–a “bottom up” model) is wrong. I think this book may challenge a lot of my assumptions–which is what makes it so very interesting (especially in light of how my assumptions have already been challenged while reading The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd.)

News to take note of:

  • Experts proposing new recommendations for Alzheimer’s diagnosis, including a “pre-clinical” diagnosis.
    I was initially pretty concerned about this idea, because the pre-clinical biomarkers are found using cerebro-spinal fluid and imaging techniques that I don’t feel should be routinely conducted on asymptomatic individuals. However, when I read a little deeper and discovered that this classification was intended for research purposes (identifying individuals at higher risk in order to study disease progression, prevention, etc.), I relaxed a bit. It’ll be interesting to see how Alzheimer’s research progresses in the next few years.

Projects to try:

Thought-provoking posts:

  • Has our conversation gone downhill?

    “Americans have become notably loose in conversation. Emoticons and abbreviations (I recently heard a dignified woman in her 70s use “omg” in an otherwise important discussion) replace thoughtfulness and articulation. Our attention spans are shorter; we want our colleagues to get to the point and our focus wanders until they do. For decades, the “express yourself” mantra has so overpowered what used to be called civilized discourse that our generation excels most at the one-way conversation—typified on what are called (without irony) social networking sites.

    Very interesting thoughts–read more here.