Andrew Forrest

  • Blog
  • About
  • Bible
large.jpg

The Somme Began 100 Years Ago Today

June 30, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in History, Thoughts, War

The Battle of the Somme began exactly 100 years ago today, July 1, 1916. By day's end, the British Army alone would suffer over 57,000 casualties, and 20,000 of His Majesty's young soldiers?lay dead in the filthy mud. That obscenity is worth reflecting on today. 

Progress is a Lie

We modern people are so arrogant. We believe that because we can split the atom and transplant the kidney that we are more advanced than the people who came before us. We believe in Progress. In fact, we worship it.But Progress is a lie. The Somme is the result of Progress.At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, all the right sort of people--cultured and cosmopolitan--knew that man was progressing toward a glorious future, and that scientific knowledge would enable us to obtain greater and greater mastery over the physical world. However, in their Promethean arrogance the smart set overlooked the stubborn fact that‘scientific knowledge might give us mastery over the physical world, but it does nothing to give us mastery over ourselves; splitting the atom and transplanting the kidney doesn't make us wise.

Modernity Began at The Somme

The late literary critic (and decorated WWII combat veteran) Paul Fussell believed that modernity began on July 1, 1916. That first day of slaughter at the Somme was the beginning of a century of slaughter. Mass graves, pointless killing: that's Progress, and that's who we are.

The Somme, 100 Years Later

100 years later, we have the iPhone and the Global Positioning System and the defibrillator. Today, all‘the right sort of people know that humankind is progressing toward a glorious future, and that death and disease will find their end in Silicon Valley. The inconvenient history of the Somme, if we choose to acknowledge it at all, is just one more example of the pitiful ignorance of past generations. Unlike them, however, we have Progress, and Progress?will make us perfect. Progress is our God.So much for progress.   

Click?here‘to subscribe to regular updates from this blog.
June 30, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
History, Thoughts, War
7 Comments
pablo-1.png

Grammar Lesson: i.e. & e.g

June 29, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Grammar, History, Thoughts

"Be thankful you don't have to read resum‘s everyday: it's depressing." So said an HR professional to me today. What she meant was that very few of the resum‘s she reads come without grammatical and spelling errors. Our lack of grammatical precision bothers me because I don't believe grammar is just a series of arbitrary rules; I believe grammar affects thought. So here, in the first of what may very well be a long-running (and doubtless highly popular) segment in Fox and Hedgehog land, is a brief lesson on?grammar and the proper use of i.e. & e.g. 

Why Grammar Matters

One of my literary heroes is the stubborn English socialist writer George Orwell. I admire Orwell because of his insistence that language matters, because, as he argues in his essay "Politics and the English Language," language either obscures or provides clarity. Insisting on precision?in language and grammar is not just pedantry, and Orwell writes that he objects to‘the idea that "any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes." Rather, language shapes our thoughts so that

an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly.... [my emphasis]

from "Politics and the English Language," by George Orwell

Grammar matters because grammar is about clarity. It is important to say exactly what you want to say, and not to say what you don't want to say. Grammar helps us‘say what we want to say.I.e., it matters that we get right the difference between i.e. and e.g.

The Slave Who Invented Abbreviation

Several of the grammatical abbreviations we use today were invented over 2,000 years ago by a brilliant Roman slave named Marcus Tullius Tiro. Tiro was born a slave in the household of the Roman statesman Marcus Tullis Cicero, and was Cicero's close confidante and personal secretary until Cicero's assassination in 43 B.C. Cicero was a great orator, and Tiro would take notes of Cicero's speeches in the Roman Forum so they could be published around the Roman Republic. (In recognition of Tiro's devotion and service, Cicero gave him his freedom in 53 B.C.) To make note-taking easier, Tiro invented a shorthand method that was still used by European monks until the 18th century, and part of that method included the abbreviations that we still use today, e.g., i.e. and e.g., as well as an early version of the ampersand, &.

i.e.

i.e. is Latin for?id?est,?"that is." When you see i.e. in a sentence, say "that is."

e.g.

e.g. is Latin for?exempli gratia, "for the sake of an example." When you see e.g. in a sentence, say "for example."

i.e. vs. e.g

These 2 Latin abbreviations do not mean the same thing. E.g.:

There are lots of ridiculous shows on television, e.g., The Bachelor.

means something different than

Last night I saw a commercial for the most ridiculous show on television, i.e., The Bachelor.

In the first example, The Bachelor is just?one of the many ridiculous shows on television, whereas in the second example, I want to say that The Bachelor is?the most ridiculous show on television.See the difference?  

Click?here‘to subscribe to regular updates from this blog: your English teacher will love you for it.
June 29, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Grammar, History, Thoughts
7 Comments
pablo-4.png

The Long Game

June 27, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Thoughts

Almost everything that really matters takes time. Marriage, friendship, family, character, wealth, legacy--these things take decades. Play the long game.

June 27, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Thoughts
Comment
pablo.png

Social Media: Soda, Wine, Oxycodone, or Heroin?

June 24, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Culture, Guest Post, Information Technology, Productivity, Thoughts

The following is a guest post (my first ever) from my friend and fellow Mungarian Mike Pratt. Mike and I have been having a friendly argument about social media: is it mainly helpful, harmful, or neutral? I'm increasingly of the opinion that it does more harm than good, but Mike doesn't agree. Here's what Mike thinks. Andrew asked me to write a guest post on this blog in response to my taking issue with his argument. It‘s not that I think his points in his first post and subsequent follow-up post are entirely wrong, but I’ll argue they have omissions and thus fail to convince. I will counter his argument and offer an alternative framework for viewing this thing called social media.Before I start I?d like to make one side point: I also think Andrew's‘statement:

?What has your attention is what has your worship. What you think about in your free moments, the topics and places to which your thoughts tend to go, those are your gods.

is gross generalization of the meaning. As Keller puts it

?What is an idol? It is anything more important to you than God, anything that absorbs your heart and imagination more than God, anything you seek to give you what only God can give??

To simply have your attention is not necessarily bad or false worship. When it has all of your attention, in place of other, more important things (first and foremost, God) then it becomes an idol of worship. Thoughts can go to many things and not render those things worship. Thank God or my daydreaming is convicted!

Now to the Main Topic

This analogy is by no means perfect but I think it‘s a decent framework to look at the issue. As you read each blurb on these four substances, ponder in your mind which one you think is most analogous to social media.

Soda

With a few exceptions, soda is viewed as a relatively benign substance to be enjoyed. In small quantities, it‘s clearly harmless and even for regular users, there have been few, if any, documented cases of extreme adverse health consequences. It is accepted that soda is not even remotely hazardous like any of the other 3 substances in this analogy.

Wine

Given the alcohol contained in wine, it‘s a step up from soda in that it can be abused and in extreme use cases, is addictive and can have serious health consequences. The Bible celebrates wine in measured doses (wedding at Cana) and also condemns its abuse (drunkenness.) Many people drink wine. Many choose not to.

Oxycodone

This seriously addictive and controlled substance is a ruiner of lives when abused. It is also extremely beneficial in tightly controlled use cases (post surgical pain relief) It is highly controlled because it is so addictive as well as misused (leading to abuse).

Heroin

There are no beneficial uses. Highly addictive. Bad bad bad. So what is Facebook, then?One man‘s opinion:It‘s not soda. I think, to Andrew‘s point, there are many people who are hooked on the stuff. Hooked? in this case being defined as they use it so much that it takes away from the lives they normally led in a detrimental way or at the expense of basic things?It‘s not Oxy. That implies a very limited, positive use case like Oxy which is just not true. A significant number of social media users engage on their platform(s) of choice in positive and beneficial ways. The government does not (nor should) control use of the platforms to prevent a possible mass wave of harmful addiction because with free use, the facts are that only a minor set of users qualify as harmfully addictive.It‘s not Heroin. That presumes there are NO beneficial uses of social media and while many do think that, those folks probably think all soda is a mind-control beverage that Pepsi uses in cahoots with the government.It‘s wine. There are plenty of beneficial, everyday uses of Facebook. Can it get out of hand? Sure. Can you drink too much?? Sure. Should some people give up drinking? Definitely. The key is to look at what you drink? and why. Does it rule your life? Are you grumpy without a drink? or do you love a glass? with a good meal or when out with friends? Andrew posted a picture of everyone in line at an airport on their phones (presuming that it was a wrong? state of the world) Replace everyone in that picture with a paperback (Google search images and you will find plenty pre-Facebook!) The devices were simply being used as boredom elimination devices. I don‘t think that picture was indicative of the eroded state of the world.

A Word on Facebook's (or Coke's) Intentions

Coke wants you to buy Coke Zero. Coke Zero is not medically addictive. You may think Coke wants to addict? you but it doesn‘t matter. They can‘t. They will do everything they can to get you to buy it. They should. That‘s their business. Blaming Facebook for not caring about the consequences? is like blaming <insert your favorite brewery or winery> for not caring about the consequences of having a glass. They inform you to drink responsibly and it can be argued that Facebook should not need to place a warning label that you might spend too much time in their web app.So, I’ll leave you with sage advice: Don‘t drink and post!

The above was a guest post by Mike Pratt. (Click?here‘to subscribe to regular updates from this blog.) Mike is:
  • A Mungarian! (Member of Munger Place Church.)
  • The CEO of technology startup Panamplify
  • Founder & President of professional org Digital Dallas
  • A former soldier, wall street trader, marketing exec and non-believer
  • Check out Mike on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikepratt
  • Email Mike:?mike@mikeratt.tv
June 24, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Culture, Guest Post, Information Technology, Productivity, Thoughts
6 Comments
time-watch-hands-of-a-clock-clock-pointers.jpg

The Limits of Tolerance

June 22, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Culture, Politics, theology, Thoughts

Is there a limit to tolerance? A friend of mine put that question to me this afternoon, in response to last week's post on tolerance. My answer: No. Here's why. 

The Roots of Tolerance

Tolerance is simply the social recognition of a fundamental truth: all people are completely free to choose to believe and do whatever they want to believe and do. There are no exceptions to this principle. This truth is not dependent on whether laws and governments recognize it; this truth is simply true.Yes, governments and societies try to constrain the behavior of the people under their power, but they cannot actually remove free choice from their people--all they can do is make it more or less likely that people freely?choose this or that action.As I argued last week, tolerance has its roots in the character of God: God created us as free creatures and allows us to exercise that freedom, for good or ill.I don't think there is a limit to tolerance because I don't think there is a time when God takes away our freedom to choose.

But Actions Have Consequences

We are all free to believe and do whatever we choose, but we are?not free to choose the consequences of our actions. Actions have consequences. I'm free to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, but I cannot avoid the consequences of my freely chosen actions. Actions have consequences.

Doesn't God's Tolerance Have a Limit?

In the Bible, we read how God eventually allowed the Israelites to be conquered by their pagan neighbors as a consequence of their continued disobedience. I don't think this is an example of the limits of God's tolerance, however. Rather, I think God's tolerance never wavered: he always allowed the Israelites to freely choose to accept or reject him. But, although God's forbearance (a synonym of tolerance) never ran out, the Israelites' actions eventually caught up with them. Their actions led to the Exile. Certain actions lead to certain consequences, the way day inexorably follows night.

What About Human Law?

As humans, we seek to constrain certain behaviors precisely because?we know that people are always free to choose. When we lock up the serial murderer, we are not suddenly denying his freedom to choose, but acknowledging it: we know that if we do not lock him up, he may very likely continue to freely choose murder. Actions have consequences and human societies impose various consequences on various behaviors, but those consequences do not change the fundamental fact on which the principle of tolerance rests, namely that people are always free to choose.

Our True Limit

God's tolerance does not have a limit, but our lives are limited: we are limited by the choices of our actions, and we are limited by our?mortality. None of us can choose to be exempt from the consequences of his choices, and none of us can choose to be exempt from death.Sooner or later, all our actions catch up to us.

P.S. Why Does This Matter?

Tolerance recognizes that it's never too late for anyone--all people can choose to turn towards God or away from God up until their last breath. (And maybe beyond their last breath--who knows?) Because I can't take away someone's free will--even by force--it means that the pressure is off: I can't force anyone to believe what I believe. I can't make anyone believe anything, but I can persuade her‘through my words and actions to freely choose the Truth I've chosen.Which is a sacred privilege, when you think about it.   

Click?here‘to subscribe to updates from this blog. It's your free choice....

 

June 22, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Culture, Politics, theology, Thoughts
3 Comments
Cal-Newport-Deep-Work.jpg

In Praise of "Deep Work"

June 20, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Books, Culture, Deep Work, Information Technology, Media Diet, Personal Development, Productivity, Reviews, Thoughts, Work

As focused attention becomes rarer and rarer in our distracted culture, the people who cultivate focused attention will find themselves becoming more and more valuable. In other words, you can't afford NOT to be doing deep work. This is the thesis of the book Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World by Cal Newport, a book that I cannot recommend highly enough. Here's why.

Deep Work: A Definition

Cal Newport, computer science professor at Georgetown University, defines deep work in this way:

Deep Work: professional activities performed in a state of distraction-free concentration that push your cognitive capabilities to their limit. These efforts create new value, improve your skill, and are hard to replicate.

In contrast with deep work is shallow work:

Shallow Work: noncognitively demanding, logistical-style tasks, often performed while distracted. These efforts tend to not create much new value in the world and are easy to replicate.

Most knowledge workers spend most of their time engaged in shallow work--email, anyone--so that, though they may be busy, they are not productive.The people who are writing the best-selling books, making the blockbuster movies, creating the irresistible advertising campaigns, winning the major tournaments, and leading the market-beating companies, these are the people who are doing deep work (whether they realize it or not). Deep work makes a difference.

The Deep Work Hypothesis

The prevalence of shallow work in our culture leads to Newport's deep work hypothesis.

The Deep Work Hypothesis: The ability to perform deep work is becoming increasingly rare at exactly the same time it is becoming increasingly valuable in our economy [and becoming valuable because it is becoming rare--AF]. As a consequence, the few who cultivate this skill, and then make it the core of their working life, will thrive.

Newport also argues that deep work actually makes people happier. As someone who has certainly spent a day being busy without being productive, I know that he's right: I'm happier when I'm able to focus.So, if you want to thrive in our knowledge work economy and if you want to be happier while doing it, you need to learn how to do deep work.

The Deep Work Rules

Newport has come up with what he calls The Rules of Deep Work.

  1. Work Deeply
  2. Embrace Boredom
  3. Quit Social Media
  4. Drain the Shallows

1. Work Deeply

Deep work is something we can learn how to do. Focused attention is not something you can just turn on or off--it's something that must be trained and cultivated, like a muscle. Just as someone who spends his time sitting on the couch eating Doritos and watching television cannot overnight become a marathon champ, neither can someone who spends his time like that be immediately good at deep work. Deep work requires practice and planning.

2. Embrace Boredom

Internet tools (social media, on-demand video, infotainment sites, etc.) have taught our minds to need constant stimulation, but deep work requires focused attention, and our need for shallow stimulation will undermine our ability to do deep work. Therefore, we need to embrace boredom. It's good to resist the urge to pull out your smart phone when waiting in line at the post office: our minds need boredom.

3. Quit Social Media

You knew this was coming, right? Newport makes the argument that people who are actually producing deep work (best-selling authors like Michael Lewis, e.g.) produce deep work because they do not allow themselves to be distracted by social media. I know lots of people believe that social media is like alcohol--to be used and enjoyed in moderation. I wonder, though, if social media is more like heroin: addictive and distracting for everyone. (UPDATE: In conversation, I could say something provocative like that and you'd understand from my jocular tone what I was trying to convey, but I realize that, if you just read those words, they come across differently. My church actively uses social media (and I use it, too) and I have many friends who work in social media marketing; if I really believed that social media was the same thing as heroin, I'd stop using it immediately. I think social media marketing is necessary in our culture. My point is just that I think all of us are much more easily distracted than we want to admit.)

4. Drain the Shallows

By "drain the shallows," Newport means that we should aggressively eliminate the non-essential from our working lives. For example, he gives practical tips on how to cut down on email, a major source of shallow work for most people.

Why I Need This Book

About 45 times a year, year after year, my professional responsibilities require me to create a brand-new, relevant, engaging, and faithful presentation and then deliver it in front of an average live audience of about 1,000 people, each one of whom is judging me savagely (even if they seem to be nice people!) on that presentation. In addition to that, I also create multiple smaller presentations and essays through the year that also need to be original, relevant, helpful, and faithful. In our distracted world, it seems as if everything but the truly important is screaming LOOK AT ME! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!, and so I've come to the following conclusion:

if I don't learn to do deep work, I'm not going to make it.

Deep Work is one of the most insightful, practical, and challenging books I've read about work and creativity...maybe ever. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.★★★★ excellent

Note on My Rating System

I use a 5 star system in my ratings to signify the following:

★★★★★  life-changing and unforgettable★★★★  excellent★★★  worth reading★★  read other things first★   not recommended

Click here to subscribe to updates from this blog. (I'm sure Cal Newport would approve.)
June 20, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Books, Culture, Deep Work, Information Technology, Media Diet, Personal Development, Productivity, Reviews, Thoughts, Work
10 Comments
Freedom-of-Worship-Norman-Rockwell.jpg

Is God Tolerant?

June 17, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in America, Current Events, Faith, Politics, Scripture, theology, Thoughts

Tolerance is not just what we need to live peaceably together in an increasingly diverse society (though that's true): tolerance is much more important than that. In fact,?I think it's fair to say that life itself depends on tolerance, as does the fate of the entire world. 

False Tolerance

Tolerance is not, despite how‘the word is often employed, a vague sense‘that all beliefs and all religions are basically the same. This is a false idea, and this is a false definition of tolerance. In fact, it's the?exact opposite of what tolerance actually implies.

True Tolerance

Tolerance is about recognizing that all beliefs and all religions are?not basically the same. In fact, tolerance recognizes that many beliefs and religions are inherently contradictory, and no amount of hand-holding and attendance at diversity seminars will make inherently contradictory beliefs the same.Rather, tolerance is about making space for irreconcilable differences. Tolerance is not about agreement, but about?tolerating viewpoints with which you vehemently disagree.

Limits of Tolerance

It should be said that the one thing that we cannot tolerate is violence (which is not‘the same thing as speech, however ugly and hateful that speech might be), because violence makes tolerance itself impossible. But, with the exception of violence, tolerance makes room for all other actions and choices and beliefs.

A Theology of Tolerance

One of the main expressions of tolerance in the American Constitution is in our First Amendment: our right to religious freedom. (The First Amendment literally says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.") But religious freedom is not just a nice idea, codified into law. Rather, religious freedom is a principle built on the bedrock of reality, because it's a principle that is obviously true: all people are free to believe whatever they want to believe. You cannot force anyone to believe anything. God created us as completely free creatures, and we can use that freedom in whatever way we want. We are even free to believe ugly things and free to act in ugly ways, free even to reject God himself. And God permits this freedom.God, you might say, is tolerant.In fact, I‘think that the Lord is far more tolerant than I would be, were I in his place:?I'd never have allowed that evil man to massacre all those people in that Orlando nightclub.But then again, neither would?I have so loved the world that I would have given my only son for the world, knowing that the world (which I created) would reject and kill him. God's tolerance, you might say, made the Crucifixion possible.Which means God's tolerance also made the Resurrection possible.Which means that tolerance is part of God's plan to save the world.   

Click?here‘to subscribe to updates from this blog.

June 17, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
America, Current Events, Faith, Politics, Scripture, theology, Thoughts
3 Comments
ct-orlando-club-shooting-20160612-082.jpeg

My Friend's Orlando Thoughts

June 15, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in America, Current Events, Faith, Personal, Politics, Thoughts

I haven't yet come up with anything interesting or helpful to say about the murders in Orlando, so I haven't written anything. But I read something my friend Jacob Sahms wrote that struck me, and I share it below. 

Reading and hearing the responses to the violence in Orlando, I'm struck by the outrage - and the way fingers start pointing at anyone but ourselves. If we're going to be the peacemakers who are called the children of God, then the solutions all start with us.Do we talk and act peacefully? (Yes, that includes driving.) Do we recognize that we're all children of God, even the people we don't agree with/like? Do our dollars and our votes endorse peace? Do we teach our children peace and love for all? We can pray all we want for peace, but if we're not part of being peace, then "thy kingdom come" isn't actually something we're part of.

-Jacob Sahms

He's totally right: "the way fingers start pointing at anyone but ourselves." Certainly true about me, and I don't like it.Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace....

June 15, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
America, Current Events, Faith, Personal, Politics, Thoughts
1 Comment
cellphone-10.jpg

Further Thoughts on Facebook

June 13, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Culture, Information Technology, Media Diet, Personal, Productivity, Technology, Television, Thoughts

I wrote a post last week suggesting that, in its quest to capture our attention, it's almost as if Facebook wants our worship. I meant the post to be provocative, and at least for me, it was: the post has provoked some further thoughts, which I share below.

My Name is Andrew and I'm a User

I have a Facebook account and a Twitter account, I use YouTube, and I carry around an iPhone that enables me to be connected whenever I want. It's precisely because I'm a user that I'm concerned about what Cal Newport calls "Internet tools" (search engines, social media sites, online encyclopedias, etc.): I see their effects on my own life. It is because I've seen what these tools are doing to me that I'm calling into question our naive and uncritical adoption of Internet tools.

Facebook Is Shorthand

For me, Facebook functions as shorthand for all the other Internet tools. I don't have anything against Facebook?per se.

Social Media Is Different Than Television

One commenter wondered if I should have included television in my critique. I don't think television and Facebook are apples to apples, for several reasons:

  • Television goes in one direction only: I receive it. Facebook, on the other hand, allows me to transmit messages to the world, and the very act of transmitting those messages in that medium promotes narcissism: it's all about me.
  • Television isn't one‘thing, but a grouping of many things: networks, advertisements, writers, actors, etc. Facebook is a for-profit monolith. It's ubiquity and power make it more dangerous than old media.

Social Media?Promotes Narcissism

The very nature of the social media promotes narcissism, because they encourage me to make everything about me: my updates, my likes, my reactions.

Social Media Isolates

For all the talk about connectivity, I find that social media and the other Internet tools are more likely to isolate than connect us together. The more time we spend looking down at our blinking smart phones, the less able we are to cultivate presence and mindfulness.

Social Media is the Enemy of Patience

Everything about Internet tools is about immediacy: immediate reactions, thoughts, and gratification of desires. If I want something, I buy it on Amazon; if I have an opinion about a current event, I share it to the world. This immediacy keeps us from developing the virtue of patience, and patience matters because the important things in life require that we wait.

Social Media Trains Me to Need Constant Stimulation

It is shameful how often I find myself in a line somewhere, only to pull out my iPhone. The way Internet tools have trained us to need constant stimulation is what scares me the most about these tools.

Social Media is the Message

If the medium is the message, then it's not the content of the various social media platforms that ought to worry us, but the very nature of these platforms themselves. In other others, it could be the case that even if we eschew all the destructive and evil things on the Internet (pornography, terrorist death videos, etc.), these tools might still warp our minds and twist our wills.At least, that's what I've started to worry about.  

Click?here‘to subscribe to updates from this blog.

 

June 13, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Culture, Information Technology, Media Diet, Personal, Productivity, Technology, Television, Thoughts
9 Comments
god-likes-this.jpg

Facebook, False God*

June 10, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Information Technology, theology, Thoughts

Facebook wants your worship. I know that sounds extreme, but?what if it's true? What if the thing Facebook most desires is to make you most desire it? Isn't that idolatry?

Worship=Attention

What has your attention is what has your worship. What you think about in your free moments, the topics and places to which your thoughts tend to go, those are your gods. By that definition, what many of us are worshipping is Facebook and the various other social media and infotainment sites. Click, click, click.And, in our naivet?, we have turned our eyes to a god-like entity that has its greedy eyes on our lives.Cal Newport, Professor of Computer Science at Georgetown, makes the?obvious (but rarely stated) point in his book?Deep Work?that we are fools if we think these Internet tools (that we find so addictive) were created to bless us without demanding something in return:

We no longer see Internet tools as products released by for-profit companies, funded by investors hoping to make a return, and run by twentysomethings who are often making things up as they go along.

from?Deep Work: Rules for Focused?Success in a Distracted World, by Cal Newport

Facebook makes MONEY off your attention. No wonder, then, that Mark Zuckerberg and his staff have worked so hard to make Facebook irresistible. Click. Click. Click.

And, not only does Facebook make money off your attention, Facebook doesn't care about you or what will happen to you, as long as it gets what it wants.

If you think about it, the world around us, including the world in our computers, is all about trying to tempt us to do things?right now. Take Facebook, for example. Do they want you to be more productive twenty years from now? Or do they want to take your time, attention, and money right now? The same thing goes for YouTube, online newspapers, and so on.

from Manage Your Day-to-Day: Build Your Routine, Find Your Focus, and Sharpen Your Creative Mind

So, Facebook is something that: 1. Makes money from our attention. 2. Doesn't care about the consequences but allures and tempts with each click, click, click.

Is Facebook a false god?

*I am aware that some of you will see irony in the fact that you actually accessed this post through Facebook. Rather than irony, I see it as an insurgency. I am also aware that many of you will want to defend your (and my) use of Facebook. Ask yourself, Why?

Click?here‘to subscribe to updates from this blog. (An added benefit: you'll bypass Facebook--my articles will come right to your inbox.)
June 10, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Information Technology, theology, Thoughts
11 Comments
the-top-15-saddest-pixar-moments-503584.jpg

When You Don't Feel Like Being Married Anymore

June 08, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Marriage, Thoughts

What do you do when you don't feel like being married anymore? One of the strangest things about marriage is how two people who love each other on their wedding day can become the bitterest of enemies. How does this happen? Marriage can be difficult, but the way many of us think about marriage doesn't make it any easier; in fact, this one mistake we make when it comes to thinking about marriage has the potential to destroy a marriage. (I heard my friend Matt Tuggle say the following last night in conversation, and I thought it was so good that I decided to share it with you.) 

Marriage Vows Aren't About How You?Feel

Have you ever noticed that marriage vows contain nothing about how a person will?feel over the course of a marriage?? The reason marriage vows aren't about feelings is because we cannot promise how we will feel in the future. If your feelings and emotions are like mine, they're liable to change as quickly and as violently as the Texas weather in spring. It's ridiculous to make a promise about future feelings, but fortunately the marriage vows don't require us to make that promise.

Marriage Vows Are About How You'll?Act

Here are the vows I've used in every wedding I've ever officiated (over 100 at this point):

In the name of God,I, John, take you, Jane, to be my wifeTo have and to hold,From this day forward,For better, for worse,For richer, for poorer,In sickness and in health,To love and to cherish,Until we are parted by death:This is my solemn vow.

Notice how the vows are all about promising to?live a certain way and have nothing to do with?feeling a certain way? Feelings are hard to control, but you control your actions. In marriage, we don't promise how we'll feel, we promise how we'll live. (And, with God's help, faithfulness is possible.)And here's the good news to everyone currently struggling to love a spouse: actions lead and emotions follow. If you act with love, love is what you'll eventually?feel.Try it.

P.S. More from Matt

Check out Matt's sermons here. Lots more good stuff where the above came from.  

Click?here‘to subscribe to updates from this blog.

   

June 08, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Marriage, Thoughts
Comment
hemingway_01.jpeg

New Plans for This Blog

May 31, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Blog, Personal, Personal Development, Thoughts

Since I started this blog on New Year's Day?2014, I've been asking myself these questions: "Who am I writing?for? What am I trying to achieve?" I've read the experts and I know that I'm supposed to have a specific topical focus and a specific audience for this blog. Here's what I've decided.

My New Purpose for this Blog

I've decided that I'm going to be writing for one reason only: to learn how to write, and on deadline. Ideas aren't my problem--I have plenty of ideas--my problem is consistently applying the seat of my pants to the seat of my chair. My problem is the discipline?of writing.I want to learn the discipline of writing in the same way that I've learned the discipline of preaching. I preach about 46 original sermons a year. Preaching a few good sermons is relatively easy; what's very difficult is to preach week in and week out, to preach when you've had a week of funerals, to preach when you're tired, to preach when you feel as if you've already said everything interesting about Christmas Eve, to preach when you feel as if you aren't prepared--that's what's difficult, and it's that discipline that I've been learning when it comes to preaching. It's‘that discipline I need when it comes to writing.

My New Schedule

I will publish a new post at 5:00 AM 3 times a week: Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. After I keep up that pace for a month, then I'll see about publishing more frequently.

The Fox and the Hedgehog

The Philosopher Isaiah Berlin, drawing?on?a line from the Ancient Greek poet Achilocus, wrote a famous essay in 1953 entitled "The Hedgehog and the Fox." The basic idea is that the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. (Berlin's essay applies this formula to Tolstoy (fox) and Dostoevsky (hedgehog).) Foxes have a variety of interests; hedgehogs have one stubborn idea.

My New Topical Focus: Fox and Hedgehog

I'm going to follow my interest wherever it takes me (like a fox) while always writing in the service of The One Big Thing (like a hedgehog).What's that One Big Thing? You'll have to read to find out. 

Click?here‘to subscribe.
May 31, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Blog, Personal, Personal Development, Thoughts
8 Comments
REL_G_016.jpg

Saturday

March 26, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Faith, Lent, theology, Thoughts

What happened on Saturday?Jesus was crucified on Friday, and he was raised on Sunday.But what happened on Saturday?Nothing.Nothing happened on Saturday.In many ways, we live in a Saturday world. Saturday is about waiting. Saturday is about the promise of a better future that hasn't yet come. Saturday is about the hope that God will do something, but still not seeing it.We live in a Saturday world.But Sunday is coming.   

Like this post? Click here to subscribe.
March 26, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Faith, Lent, theology, Thoughts
Comment
spotlight.jpg

My Thoughts on "Spotlight"

March 05, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Culture, Faith, Movies, Personal, Thoughts

I?went to see the?movie Spotlight?on Friday?afternoon. Here are some quick thoughts.Every now and then I'll go to the movies by myself on Fridays. I tend to do a lot of my sermon preparation on Fridays, and from time to time I'll go to a movie for sermon research. (I'm not kidding.) I'm preaching on Judas this Sunday, and it struck me that the movie?Spotlight might give me some insight into the idea of betrayal.Spotlight, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture on Sunday, is about the investigative reporting the Boston Globe did in 2001 that blew the clergy sex abuse scandal wide open. It is a serious, earnest movie that thankfully avoids the self-importance and self-regard?in which these sorts of "Important" Hollywood films sometimes?indulge.At one point in the film, one of the reporters, for whom reporting on the story has been an emotional ordeal, shouts: "They?knew?and they let it happen...to kids." That line really struck me, and I just started crying quietly, in the dark.How could you betray that trust?But that's the way it always is, isn't it? Spotlight does a good job of showing how the real scandal was not that hundreds of priests preyed on the vulnerable, but that thousands of people let it happen, covered it up. As one of the characters says, "It takes a village to molest a child."The movie very clearly takes on the Roman Catholic Church, but I don't think Spotlight?is either anti-Christian or anti-clerical.? There was never a point while watching the movie that made me say, "I don't think you are being fair." Rather,?I found the film‘to be a spotlight on the inevitable tendency of the strong to hurt the weak, and the invariable human tendency to knuckle-under, close ranks, and deny ever seeing anything.I can't compare Spotlight to any of the other Best Picture nominees since I haven't seen any of them, but it is exactly the sort of movie that is worthy of that designation: tautly constructed, about an important topic, and a moving story.Recommended. 

March 05, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Culture, Faith, Movies, Personal, Thoughts
Comment
usjesus-grey-thumb_1.jpg

2 Brief Thoughts on Elections

March 01, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in America, Culture, Current Events, Faith, Politics, Thoughts

Christians make two mistakes when it comes to elections. Either we are triumphalist, thinking that because our candidate won, all will be well, or we are defeatist and despairing, thinking that because our candidate lost, all will be lost. Both reactions are mistaken.

Elections Are Important

Don't get me wrong--politics matters. I voted yesterday, and I think it matters who is elected, from dog catcher to president, and I want our leaders to lead and our government to run well. It matters whether the trains run on time and the roads are paved and the trash picked up. But as important as all that is, politics is not ultimate, and political power is not most important. There is something more important than politics, and therefore Christians shouldn't make the mistake of believing that our hope depends on how the election returns come in.

But Political Power is Not *Most* Important

Faithfulness is more important than politics and election results. David Watson is the Dean of United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, and he wrote a blog post yesterday about the temptation the church faces to value political power over faithfulness. Professor Watson's article is worth quoting from at length (though you should read the whole thing):

My fellow evangelicals, let me state this clearly: the ‘system? will never serve us, because the ‘system? is not of Christ. The ‘system? is a political machine beholden to special interests, lobbying groups, large corporations, financial contributors, and other entities, many of which are not the least bit concerned with anything remotely resembling Christian values. The idea that you can tear down the ‘system? and reshape it to serve you is, and always has been, a lie. It has been a lie since the time of Constantine. The ‘system? is about power, but Christ‘s power is the power of the cross, and God‘s power is made perfect in weakness. Christians must always stand outside the ‘system,? even when it is ostensibly Christian. As Christ taught us, No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other? (Matthew 6:24). Christians willing to compromise core tenets of the faith in order to bend the political process‘to their will may win in the short term, but it will be a pyrrhic victory. In the end, they will lose far more than they gain. For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?? (Mark 8:36). It‘s not worth it. It‘s?not even close....

His ending makes our choice clear:

Who will we follow? Will we follow Christ and rightly understand ourselves as a countercultural family of faith, or will we baptize an idol of crass?materialism, place a crown on its?head, and call it?Jesus?

Good stuff.  

Click?here‘to subscribe to my blog updates, delivered right to your inbox.
March 01, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
America, Culture, Current Events, Faith, Politics, Thoughts
11 Comments
Grant_Wood_-_American_Gothic_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

You Need a Sex Habit*

January 17, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Marriage, Men, Parenting, Personal Development, Sex, Thoughts

Couples who are having problems aren't having sex. Yes, I'm not a researcher or a therapist and my evidence is all anecdotal from conversations with lots of different couples, but I'm telling you: couples who are having problems aren't having (enough) sex. Correlation or causation? Here's what I think.

Sex is a Keystone Habit

I've written previously about keystone habits:

A keystone habit is a simple habit that has effects that cascade into other aspects of an individual‘s or a group‘s life.So, a keystone habit might be:
  • Exercising every morning;
  • Making your bed every morning
  • Having all?players on the team put on their socks in a certain way;
  • Putting safety concerns on the top of your corporate agenda.

To think of it another way, a keystone habit is the first domino that falls and knocks down all the others with it.So, a keystone habit in healthy families is having dinner together at home every evening. That simple practice affects?the relationship between the mom and the dad and the kids? behavior in school and even their reading level. It‘s one domino that falls, knocking over a bunch of others."

It's not the keystone habit itself that matters as much as what that particular habit represents and sets in motion. I think sex between a husband and a wife is exactly that sort of habit; it's a domino that falls and knocks over a bunch of others. Here's why:

  • Sex requires proximity. It's good for a husband and a wife to spend time together--too much time apart is never good.
  • Sex requires selflessness. Like everything else in life that's good for you, sometimes you won't feel like it, but there are times when your husband or your wife will need?it, and therefore your relationship needs it.
  • Sex requires?intentionality. Unlike in the movies, married folks don't walk around ripping each others' clothes off whenever possible. With jobs and kids and schedules, sex requires intentionality.
  • Sex sends a message. Women tend to become self-conscious about their bodies as they age and have children, and when a husband tells his wife she is?desirable, it draws them together in a profound way. And vice versa (though not the having children part).

[http://whyatt.com.au]Everybody likes sex, but contrary to what a 15 year-old boy would think, it's not the sex itself that makes the difference for couples so much as it is the proximity, selflessness, intentionality, and message of commitment that regular sex brings to a marriage.At least, that's my theory. What do you think? *If you're married. I subscribe to the outlandish and clearly ridiculous belief that sex has a purpose, and that that purpose is only realized within a marriage between a husband and a wife. If you're not married, not having sex won't kill you, believe it or not. You should try it.   

(Click?here‘to subscribe to my blog updates, delivered right to your inbox 3 days a week.)

     

January 17, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Marriage, Men, Parenting, Personal Development, Sex, Thoughts
Comment
sermon-pic-03-le-chambon-vue-sur-le-temple-et-leglise.jpg

Everybody Wants To Be The Same

January 11, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in Culture, Faith, History, Thoughts

Everybody wants things to be different, but nobody wants to be different. It is the different people, though, who make the biggest difference. The people of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon were always different, which is why they made the difference they did.

Le Chambon Was Different

Le Chambon is a small town in southwestern France, and for centuries it had been the home for a population of French Protestants called Huguenots. The Huguenots had been influenced by John Calvin and had been persecuted by the Roman Catholic French state during the wars of religion. The Huguenots, therefore, knew what it meant to be different and knew what it meant to suffer.Andr? Trocm?, wife Magda, and their children [https://extravagantcreation.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/pastor-andre-trocme-wife-magda-and-children63.jpg]

Andr? Trocm? and the Jews

When World War II began, Pastor Andr? Trocm? led the people of Le Chambon in welcoming and sheltering refugees and fugitives, many of them Jews. The people of the town refused to declare allegiance to the collaborationist government in Vichy and devised ingenious ways to disguise the Jewish population around them.In August of 1942, the police came to the town and demanded that Le Chambon give up the Jews they were hiding. On August 30, Andr? Trocm? ascended the steps of the pulpit in his packed church.The church in Le Chambon [http://goo.gl/bnFsv6]The pastor told the people to "do the will of God, not of men." The authorities left the town without making any arrests.In 1943, however, Pastor Trocm? was arrested and detained for 5 weeks, and after his release he had to go into hiding until the end of the war. His wife Magda carried on his work and provided leadership to the effort to shelter and save Jewish refugees.Approximately 5,000 Jewish refugees were sheltered in Le Chambon (a town of only 5,000 people) over the course of the war; not a single Jew was given over to the Nazis.There is a memorial to Andr? and Magda Trocm? at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.Yad Vashem [http://goo.gl/sr6tkR]

If You're Not Different, You're Not Any Good

Nobody wants to be different, which is why the world is the way it is: everybody is just like everybody else.It's like salt. Salt is meant to flavor and preserve, but if salt loses its saltiness, it's good for nothing but to be trampled underfoot.The people of Le Chambon were different, and so they made a difference. In memory of the people of Le Chambon, the salt of the earth and "righteous among the nations."  

(Click?here‘to subscribe to my blog updates, delivered right to your inbox 3 days a week.)
January 11, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Culture, Faith, History, Thoughts
Comment
Jerusalem-Skyline-Photo.bmp

Who Cares if Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

January 08, 2016 by Andrew Forrest in America, apologetics, Bible, Culture, Current Events, Faith, Politics, Scripture, theology, Thoughts

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? Lots of folks are asking that question these days, and though it is an important question (and one that I will not be answering in this post), I don't think the question is as helpful as other people seem to think.

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

Some people say yes, and these people imply that Christians are therefore under obligation to show compassion to Muslims because of their theological commonalities. After all, aren't Christians and Jews and Muslims all "people of the book?" (That phrase comes from the Qu'ran.) And, since we are all people of the book, shouldn't Christians treat Muslims with compassion?I do not agree with this implication.

The Problem With Saying Yes

As Mark Tooley points out in Newsweek, if you stress that Christians are obligated to show compassion to Muslims because they are theological cousins, you are inadvertently implying that Christians are not under the same obligation to show compassion to other peoples with whom they don't have any theological commonalities. Hindus, for example, are not "people of the book," and yet that fact should not affect Christian treatment of Hindus (or Sikhs or Jains or Buddhists or atheist communists, etc.)A Christian's compassion for another does not depend on that other's theological commitments. Whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same God is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether a Christian should show compassion towards his Muslim neighbor.Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? What if the answer is no--should‘that change how a Christian treats her Muslim neighbor?

Love Isn't Conditional

Christians are not required to only love people with whom we agree (or partially agree).Jesus, after all, told his followers to love their enemies.  

(Click?here‘to subscribe to my blog updates, delivered right to your inbox 3 days a week.)

 

January 08, 2016 /Andrew Forrest
Islam, Mark Tooley, People of the Book, Pluralism, Qu'ran
America, apologetics, Bible, Culture, Current Events, Faith, Politics, Scripture, theology, Thoughts
12 Comments
OBJ_H_004.jpg

In Death's Dark Valley

October 22, 2015 by Andrew Forrest in apologetics, Current Events, Faith, Munger, Pastoral Ministry, theology, Thoughts

Our community was shocked last week when we heard the evil news that an 18 year-old young woman named Zoe Hastings was found murdered. What do we do in the face of this kind of loss? I don't know the Hastings family personally and I don't presume to have any idea of the hell through which they are walking. But, I have been thinking about loss, and I humbly offer the following thoughts to anyone struggling with the question, "What do we do in the face of evil, death, and suffering?"

We Grieve

When we experience loss, we grieve. It is appropriate and necessary to be filled with anger or dread or numbness. It's okay to scream and cry. When someone you love is taken away, anything less than grief would be an obscenity. And, because grief comes in all different forms and in different ways and at different times for different people, whatever you are feeling is fine. Don't analyze it. Just grieve.

We Resist

When we experience evil and loss we want to scream out "Why?" When evil comes upon us, it is always inexplicable, but for some reason we still feel the need to offer an explanation. Don't. One of the wisest things I ever heard my father say: "Resist the urge the explain." We don't know why Zoe Hastings was murdered. No one knows. "Why?" is a useless question, and do not attempt to offer an explanation or a platitude--however well intentioned--to someone grieving. Resist the urge to explain: it won't do any good.

We Hope

I may not have an answer to the "Why?" questions, but there is something else that I do have. Please know that I mean no offense in sharing the following, as I am aware that not everyone reading this shares my faith. But, as a Christian, in the face of evil, pain, and loss, I have hope.Now, Christian hope is not wishful thinking. It is not a vague sense that we should think positively or put a sunny gloss on our grief. Wishful thinking has nothing to offer to those who grieve.No, Christian hope is?certainty. Christian hope is based on the fact that Jesus is risen; Christian hope knows that the?Resurrection proves that evil will not win and that everything sad will become untrue. Christian hope is the certainty that God will ultimately right every wrong.That is the hope I have.So, in the face of evil, death and suffering, we grieve. And we wait until the day when God will make everything new.And we hope.Lord, help our unbelief. 

P.S. One of My Favorite Bible Verses

Jesus says, I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world. (John 16:33)

October 22, 2015 /Andrew Forrest
apologetics, Current Events, Faith, Munger, Pastoral Ministry, theology, Thoughts
2 Comments
david_points_10241.jpg

What The Experts Don't Want You to Know

March 30, 2015 by Andrew Forrest in Thoughts

Nobody knows the future. Nobody. That's the secret that the experts don't want you to know. Here are 3 examples of expert ignorance, and why that matters for you.

1. No One Knew the Future of American Oil

For most of my life, experts have talked about American dependence on Middle Eastern oil. And then, in the past several years, something extraordinary happened: America became the world's largest oil producer. In retrospect, it seems obvious how the shale revolution would cause us to extract oil that was previously too expensive or difficult to extract, but that's exactly the point: in retrospect, it's easy to see, but in the year 2000, I don't remember that any of our experts foresaw the American oil boom of the last several years. Why? Because no one knows the future.http://www.aei.org/publicatAnd then, this past year, oil prices collapsed. In Texas, where I live, lots of folks who work in the energy business are feeling that collapse, but I don't know anyone who predicted a year ago that oil prices would fall off a cliff. Why? Because no one knows the future.brent-crude-chart 

2. No One Got Ebola Right

Last fall when there a few cases of Ebola in Dallas, I remember reading the experts' predictions that the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone and Liberia might infect 1.4 million people by January 2015. Although about 10,000 people died and although the Ebola outbreak has been a disaster for the countries affected, the worst part of the experts' predictions did not happen (thank God!). Why? Because no one knows the future.Dr. Kent Brantly was one of the lucky ones, as many of the Africans he treated died from Ebola.

3. But That's Not Always Good: Look at the Cost of the Iraq War

I don't mean to suggest that the experts' predictions are always worse than what actually happens. Sometimes, reality turns out worse than the experts' sanguine predictions, as the depressing example of the the cost of the Iraq War shows.People argued in 2002-2003 about how much the Iraq War would cost, and people argue today about how much it ultimately cost, but what is absolutely certain is that it cost many many many times more than what the experts predicted in 2002-2003.Spectators from Washington came out to watch the 1st battle of the Civil War. Everyone thought it would be a quick war....Some things never change: no one thought the Civil War would be as long or as bloody as it was, either. War planners always underestimate a war's cost and casualties and length, except when they do the opposite.

The Experts Don't Know What Will Happen

Here's the point: no one knows the future, and no one knows on any particular issue whether the future will get better or get worse. Because no one knows the future, excessive worry about it is a waste of time.Often, when experts predict the worst, things will get better in unexpected ways: be hopeful.Often, when experts predict a rosy future, things will get worse in unexpected ways: be prudent.Either way, remember: no one knows the future, and there is no point in worrying about it: "Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own" (Matthew 6:34).

March 30, 2015 /Andrew Forrest
Thoughts
6 Comments
  • Newer
  • Older

Subscribe to My Mailing List