Podcasts about Div

Předvolební televizní debaty mají v Česku dlouhou tradici, jejich vliv ale postupně slábne. Diváci čím dál víc očekávají show a emoce, zatímco programové vize ustupují do pozadí. Stále častěji se proto obracejí k sociálním sítím a influencerům. Jak se média, rozhlas a televize chopily sněmovních voleb? Mediální analytik Filip Rožánek v audiozáznamu přiblíží i to, jak tuzemské redakce přistupují k používání umělé inteligence.Všechny díly podcastu Jak to vidí... můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

Air Date - 03 September 2025Kriya yoga is an ancient meditation technique that focuses on breathing and the spine to unlock deep states of awareness, self-realization, and spiritual growth. Kriya can provide a fast path to awakening, yet its practice has been shrouded in secrecy, passed only from master to initiate for millennia. How may we learn more about this sacred practice and know if it is right for us? My guest this week on Destination Unlimited Keith Lowenstein, M.D., M.Div., is a physician, holistic coach, and yogic meditation instructor. In 1980, he began his training in Kriya yoga with Ganesh Baba. He is board-certified in integrative medicine, psychiatry, and obesity medicine. He also integrates medical acupuncture into his work. Keith has a Masters of Divinity with an interfaith focus, is an ordained, interfaith minister and is a Yogacharya in a Kriya (Raja) Yoga lineage.His website is humanholistics.com, and he joins me this week to share his path and book, Kriya Yoga For Self-Discovery: Practices for Deep States of Meditation.#KeithLowenstein #VictorFuhrman #DestinationUnlimited #Interviews #SpiritualityConnect with Victor Fuhrman at https://victorthevoice.com/Visit the Destination Unlimited Show Page https://omtimes.com/iom/shows/destination-unlimited/Subscribe to our Newsletter https://omtimes.com/subscribe-omtimes-magazine/Connect with OMTimes on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Omtimes.Magazine/ and OMTimes Radio https://www.facebook.com/ConsciousRadiowebtv.OMTimes/Twitter: https://twitter.com/OmTimes/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/omtimes/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/2798417/Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/omtimes/

So you're in recovery AND you're dating...how much should you share with a significant other about your recovery? What does it look like to share in an effective way?Today on The Faithful & True Podcast, Dr. Greg Miller & Jim Farm, LMFT, CSAT share how you can navigate the complexities of dating while in recovery. Subscribe to our YouTube channel:   - https://bit.ly/FaithfulandTrueAttend a Workshop Experience:   - For Men - https://bit.ly/MensJourneyWorkshop   - For Women - http://bit.ly/WomensJourneyWorkshop   - For Couples - http://bit.ly/CouplesIntensiveWorkshopContact us:   - https://faithfulandtrue.com/   - info@faithfulandtrue.com   - 952-746-3880Dr. Mark Laaser, M.Div., Ph.D., was considered one of the Christian leaders in the field of sex addiction before his death in September 2019. Mark, together with his wife, Debbie Laaser, MA, LMFT, have shared their 32 years of personal experience in sexual addiction recovery with thousands of individuals and couples through their work and resources at Faithful & True.The Faithful & True 3-Day Intensive Workshops continue to transform lives, rebuild trust, and help heal marriages.Send us a text

Velký vlastenecký pokus: dezolát a válečný analytik spolu na filmu. Shodnou se, nebo zhádají?Tři dlouholetí známí, vlastně kamarádi, se vypravili do kina, aby spolu zhlédli film, o němž mluví všichni: Velký vlastenecký výlet. Předem vědí, že nemají stejné názory. Jeden se označuje za dezoláta, druhý rozhodně nikoli. A třetí usiluje jejich rozhovor moderovat. Jak to může dopadnout? Mohou se na kvalitách filmu shodnout, anebo vůbec ne?O tom je nová epizoda sourozeneckého podcastu Hej, Slované, do níž si tentokrát osiřelý Lukáš Novosad pozval dva hosty: překladatele Viktora Janiše, který od začátku velké války v Ukrajině před třemi roky intenzivně překládá publicistiku a denní analýzy, jež se konfliktu věnují, aby česká společnost měla dostatek relevantních informací o tom, co se děje.A podnikatele Pavla Kopřivu, který žije v Německu, po ruské invazi na Ukrajinu ubytoval několik ukrajinských uprchlických rodin, v Ukrajině plánoval podnikat a který tvrdí, že sám má tytéž názory jako hrdinové snímku Petra, Ivo a Nikola. Naopak Viktor se dle něj mýlí a podléhá západní propagandě. Vše prý je jinak, a to jak ve válce, tak ve filmu — vlastně hrané inscenaci. “Nebyla to sice taková hrůza, jak jsem se bál, ale hrůza to byla,” tvrdí o filmu Pavel. “Je to vynikající dílo,” kontruje Viktor. Diváky podcastu můžeme ovšem uklidnit: na začátku byl opravdu hec, jestli lidé různého založení spolu mohou jít na film, který jistojistě uvidí jinýma očima. Pak proběhla hádka. A nakonec došlo na happyend: při loučení stáli jsme spolu pod obsypaným špendlíkem, ládovali se jeho plody a hovořili úplně klidně také o jiných věcech.

SUNDAY'S GUEST PASTOR Rev. Gabriel Lopez Co-Pastor of Iglesia Cristiana del Este de Whittier Gabriel is an immigrant from Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. He was brought to the U.S. at the age of 7. His parents planted a church in Huntington Park, California in the early 90's and the church is now in East Whittier, Ca. His experience as an immigrant and as a pastor's kid has shaped his passion for ministry for the Latino/x/e context (immigrant, first- and second-generation Latino church). These experiences have made him a Puente-- a bridge -- between multiple generations and as someone who thirsts and hungers for justice for the most vulnerable. Gabriel is a graduate of the Claremont School of Theology, M.DIV, and is an ordained minister with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). He is married to Rev. Siobhan Lopez and they have a 7-year-old daughter, Metztli. He is a fan of Star Wars, sneakers, Rock en Español, and is a gamer.

     When reading through the New Testament, we see that God provides both general and specific directives to Christians. General directives include learning and applying God's Word (Rom 12:1-2; Col 3:16; 2 Tim 2:15; 1 Pet 2:2; Jam 1:22), loving others as Christ has loved us (John 13:34), being filled with and walking by the Spirit (Eph 5:18; Gal 5:16), submitting to governing authorities and paying taxes (Rom 13:1, 6), stimulating one another to love and good deeds (Heb 10:24), and not forsaking our assembling together (Heb 10:25). Believers are also called to live by faith (Heb 10:38; 11:6), seek godly wisdom (Jam 1:5), pursue peace with others (Rom 12:18), forgive one another (Col 3:13), speak graciously (Col 4:6), and show kindness (Eph 4:32; cf. Prov 3:3-4). Additional directives include edifying others (Rom 14:19; 1 Th 5:11), serving in love (Gal 5:13), doing good to all (Gal 6:10), seeking the best interests of others (Phil 2:3-4), rejoicing always, praying without ceasing, and giving thanks in everything (1 Th 5:16-18), and doing all for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31).      Other instructions involve the inward spiritual life. Believers are to abide in Christ (John 15:4-5), present their bodies as living sacrifices (Rom 12:1), and renew their minds through Scripture so that they are transformed and not conformed to this world (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23). We are to set our minds on things above (Col 3:1-2), and put on the new self—marked by compassion, humility, gentleness, patience, and love (Col 3:10-14). Paul urges believers to live without grumbling or disputing, so that we shine as lights in the world (Phil 2:14-15). We are also to restore sinning believers in gentleness (Gal 6:1), bear one another's burdens (Gal 6:2), and practice hospitality without complaint (Rom 12:13; 1 Pet 4:9). The Christian life is marked by moral purity—fleeing sexual immorality, glorifying God with our bodies (1 Cor 6:18-20; 1 Th 4:3-5), and remaining spiritually vigilant and prayerful (1 Pet 5:8; Eph 6:10-18).      Some directives are role-specific. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church, and wives are to submit to their husbands' loving spiritual leadership and show them respect (Eph 5:22, 25, 33; 1 Pet 3:1-2). Children are to obey and honor their parents (Eph 6:1-4). Employees are to serve their supervisors with sincerity (Eph 6:5-8; Col 3:23-24), and supervisors are to treat their workers with fairness and integrity (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1; Jam 5:4). Older women are to teach younger women to love their husbands and children, and to be pure and sensible (Tit 2:3-5), while older men are to be dignified, temperate, and sound in faith (Tit 2:2). Younger men are to be self-controlled, an example of good deeds, and sound in doctrine (Tit 2:6-8). Church members are instructed to support their pastors materially and respectfully (Gal 6:6; 1 Tim 5:17-18), and to use their spiritual gifts for the edification of the body (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Pet 4:10). We are to sing with thankfulness (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16), care for orphans and widows (Jam 1:27; 1 Tim 5:3-16), pray for all people—including leaders (1 Tim 2:1-2), and carry out church discipline when needed, with love and humility (1 Cor 5:1-13). Finally, Paul urges believers to flee youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace with a pure heart (2 Tim 2:22). Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.

     These audio lectures accompany BE302, Genesis through Ruth, a graduate-level course at Chafer Theological Seminary. The class serves students in programs such as the Master of Arts (M.A.) and Master of Theology (Th.M.), though it may also be taken on an audit basis. My lecture notes are available here: https://thinkingonscripture.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/BE302-Genesis-to-Ruth-Complete-Study-Notes.pdf      Students seeking academic credit must formally register through Chafer Theological Seminary and secure the required materials from the seminary. Work submitted by non-enrolled individuals will not count toward degree credit. Further details are available at www.chafer.edu. Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.

Diváci ju poznajú z televíznych obrazoviek, filmov, ale aj divadelných dosiek. Herečka Eva Mores sa otvorila v úprimnom rozhovore v najnovšej epizóde relácie Ide o nás. V seriáli Sľub aktuálne stvárňuje postavu sudkyne Ivany Sklenárovej, ktorú považuje za vrchol svojej doterajšej práce. "Je to najkrajšia rola, akú som kedy hrala," uviedla bez zaváhania. Herečka sa však netají ani skúsenosťami, ktoré ju viedli urobiť odvážne kariére rozhodnutie. Pred časom odišla zo seriálu Nemocnica. Dočasne.  Ako priznala v relácii Ide o nás, jej odchod zo seriálu Nemocnica nebol rozmarom, ale principiálnym postojom. Kvalita scenárov a nelogický vývoj postáv klesli pod úroveň, ktorú bola ochotná akceptovať. „Bola som veľmi nahnevaná a a odišla som. Nešlo len o moju postavu, ale koncept samotný. V scenároch sa nedržali charaktery, v každom dieli bola moja postava iný človek. Ja si divákov vážim a cítim voči nim zodpovednosť. Myslím si, že slovenský divák si zaslúži viac," uviedla tiež v relácii. Do projektu sa neskôr vrátila - stalo sa tak so zmenou na poste hlavnej scenáristky. Kormidlo prevzala Hana Lasicová a podľa Moresovej sa aj kvalita opäť výrazne zdvihla. Rovnakú úprimnosť ako pri konverzácii o práci však 32-ročná rodáčka zo Žiliny prejavuje aj pri témach zo súkromia. Jedným z najdiskutovanejších aspektov jej života je rozhodnutie nemať vlastné deti, ktoré, ako priznáva, zásadne ovplyvnilo jej partnerské vzťahy. „Už som zažila, že som niekoho naozaj milovala a vedela som, že sa s ním musím rozísť, lebo on sa so mnou nikdy nerozíde. Ale ja mu tie deti proste nedám a viem, že on si zaslúži tdeti mať - proste už len preto, že to chce,“ odhalila otvorene osobnú spomienku. Práve táto životná filozofia a prežité skúsenosti formujú jej jedinečný pohľad na svet a empatiu voči ostatným. Pre Evu Mores nie je svet čierno-biely a snaží sa vyhýbať rýchlym súdom. V našom rozhovore sa dozviete aj prečo hrdinka populárnych televíznych projektov ako Sľub, Vina či Nemocnica neznáša leto? Ako jej práca v seriáloch pomáha zvládať vlastné emócie a prečo je pre ňu súcit jednou z najdôležitejších hodnôt? A dokáže odovzdať absolútnu dôveru do rúk režiséra? To všetko a omnoho viac v novej epizóde relácie Ide o nás.

Chase Davis and Joe Rigney join the show to talk about spiritual formation, worship, masculinity, and corporate agency.   Notes: Spiritual Formation and the Trouble with Christian Nationalism - American Reformer   J. Chase Davis (M.Div, Th.M, Denver Seminary) is Lead Pastor of Ministry of The Well Church in Boulder, Colorado. Chase is married to Kim and they have two sons. He is the author of Trinitarian Formation: A Theology of Discipleship in Light of the Father, Son, and Spirit (2021). He also hosts the podcast Full Proof Theology. You can find more of Chase's writing at jchasedavis.com.   Learn more about J. Chase Davis: https://www.jchasedavis.com/   Dr. Rigney is an Associate Pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho and serves as Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College. He is the author of seven books: Live Like a Narnian: Christian Discipleship in Lewis's Chronicles (Eyes & Pen, 2013); The Things of Earth: Treasuring God by Enjoying His Gifts (Crossway, 2015); Lewis on the Christian Life: Becoming Truly Human in the Presence of God (Crossway, 2018); Strangely Bright: Can You Love God and Enjoy This World? (Crossway, 2020); More Than a Battle: Experiencing Victory, Freedom, and Healing from Lust (B&H, 2021), Courage: How the Gospel Creates Christian Fortitude (Crossway, 2023), and Leadership and Emotional Sabotage (Canon Press, 2024). Previously, Dr. Rigney served as a professor and president of Bethlehem College & Seminary in Minneapolis, a pastor at Cities Church in St. Paul, and a teacher at Desiring God. Joe lives in Moscow, Idaho with his wife Jenny and three sons.   Learn more about Joe Rigney's work at: https://nsa.edu/contributors/joe-rigney https://emotionalsabotage.com   ––––––   Follow American Reformer across Social Media: X / Twitter – https://www.twitter.com/amreformer Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmericanReformer/ YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@AmericanReformer Rumble – https://rumble.com/user/AmReformer Website – https://americanreformer.org/   Promote a vigorous Christian approach to the cultural challenges of our day, by donating to The American Reformer: https://americanreformer.org/donate/   Follow Us on Twitter: Josh Abbotoy – https://twitter.com/Byzness Timon Cline – https://twitter.com/tlloydcline   The American Reformer Podcast is  hosted by Josh Abbotoy and Timon Cline, recorded remotely in the United States, and edited by Jared Cummings.   Subscribe to our Podcast, "The American Reformer" Get our RSS Feed – https://americanreformerpodcast.podbean.com/ Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-american-reformer-podcast/id1677193347 Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/1V2dH5vhfogPIv0X8ux9Gm?si=a19db9dc271c4ce5

Você tem um fato da sua vida que se contar ninguém acredita? Baseado num tweet que bombou na semana, pedimos para vocês contarem algo totalmente inusitado sem se explicar muito!Episódios novos toda sexta-feira, 00h. Comente o que achou do episódio ou mande um recado para a gente diretamente no Spotify!Apoie o Divã da Diva e tenha um episódio a mais, exclusivo, no Divã da Diva para Íntimos!Apoia-se: https://apoia.se/divadepressaoOrelo: https://orelo.cc/podcast/65c0ddb1243feaaede3cea6c

Událost, kterou si rozhodně nesmí nechat ujít žádný milovník letectví a aviatiky – to je letecký den na letišti Hosín u Českých Budějovic, který se odehraje o víkendu 30. a 31. srpna. Diváci uvidí třeba špičkovou leteckou akrobacii v podání mistrů této kategorie, jako jsou Martin Šonka nebo Petr Jirmus. Na jih Čech ale zamíří taky raritní letecká technika.Všechny díly podcastu Dopolední host můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

     These audio lectures accompany BE302, Genesis through Ruth, a graduate-level course at Chafer Theological Seminary. The class serves students in programs such as the Master of Arts (M.A.) and Master of Theology (Th.M.), though it may also be taken on an audit basis. My lecture notes are available here: https://thinkingonscripture.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/BE302-Genesis-to-Ruth-Complete-Study-Notes.pdf      Students seeking academic credit must formally register through Chafer Theological Seminary and secure the required materials from the seminary. Work submitted by non-enrolled individuals will not count toward degree credit. Further details are available at www.chafer.edu. Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.

Halftime Heroes, hosted by Adam Kelly, Pete Susovich, Neil Craig, Spook Harris and Jacob Kelly​. It's finals time and The Comish and Adam are back to sort things out and add a little professionalism back to the garage.....well at least for a couple minutes anyway......hehehe! HH Selection Table:Div 1 - Finals Week 1 Qualifying Final - Frankston YCW FNC v Edi Asp FNC, Saturday 30 August. Elimination Final - Langwarrin FNC v Mt Eliza FNC, Sunday 31 August. Div 2 - Finals Week 2 Semi Final 1 - Frankston Bombers FNC v Devon Meadows FNC, Saturday 30 August. Semi Final 2 - Pearcedale FNC v Somerville FNC, Sunday 31 August. Spooks Soap Box - Spook finds out that The Comish has crossed over to the other side of the Media...providing special comments for the Local Footy Hub at the Rosebud FNC v Mt Eliza FCN game. It's a must listen, very, very funny. Sus's Pallets - Picking up where Spook left off, Sus takes aim at The Comish and Adam for leaving just as finals starts...he's not happy the big Chief and goes WHACKKKKK!!!!!! hahahahaha Halftime Heroes Website Halftime Heroes Facebook PageSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jason Miller and Dale and Juanita Ryan - The biblical story, including what we see lived out in the life and teachings of Jesus, is this: God is love, we are loved, we are capable of loving others and we are called to a life of love. Participating in this story is, however, not always easy for us. Instead of welcoming the love of God, we sometimes find ourselves afraid that God is angry, distant, displeased, uncaring, or impatient. Instead of celebrating that we are loved, we sometimes fear that we are not lovable, not enough, or not measuring up. Instead of rejoicing in our calling to love others, we sometimes see other people through the distorting lens of our fears and judgments.  This fall, we'll be hosting a workshop led by Dale and Juanita Ryan to explore these dynamics in community. Whether you're able to join us in person for the workshop or not, this episode will help you get to know Dale and Juanita, and to hear the heart behind their work.  Until his retirement, Dale Ryan was a member of the faculty at Fuller Theological Seminary where he taught pastoral care classes about addiction, abuse and trauma. Currently Dr. Ryan is the executive director of the National Association for Christian Recovery, which he founded in 1990. He has earned a PhD (UCDavis, Biochemistry) and an M.Div. (Bethel Theological Seminary, St. Paul, MN). Juanita Ryan is a mental health clinical nurse specialist. She has had a private counseling practice for over 35 years. Because she writes and speaks about spirituality and trauma, many of the people she works with are seeking help in these areas.  To learn more about her you can visit her website. Dale and Juanita have been married for 55 years. They have two sons and four grandkids. Most of what they know about distorted images of God, of self and of others comes from personal experience.

What does it look like to be in recovery and be single?Today on the Faithful & True Podcast, Dr. Greg Miller & Jim Farm, LMFT, CSAT begin a conversation about singleness and recovery. Listen as they share some of the similarities and differences between being in recovery as a single person and as a person in a committed relationship.Subscribe to our YouTube channel:   - https://bit.ly/FaithfulandTrueAttend a Workshop Experience:   - For Men - https://bit.ly/MensJourneyWorkshop   - For Women - http://bit.ly/WomensJourneyWorkshop   - For Couples - http://bit.ly/CouplesIntensiveWorkshopContact us:   - https://faithfulandtrue.com/   - info@faithfulandtrue.com   - 952-746-3880Dr. Mark Laaser, M.Div., Ph.D., was considered one of the Christian leaders in the field of sex addiction before his death in September 2019. Mark, together with his wife, Debbie Laaser, MA, LMFT, have shared their 32 years of personal experience in sexual addiction recovery with thousands of individuals and couples through their work and resources at Faithful & True.The Faithful & True 3-Day Intensive Workshops continue to transform lives, rebuild trust, and help heal marriages.Send us a text

     Trials are not accidents in the Christian life; rather, they are divine appointments. Paul learned this when God allowed “a thorn in the flesh” to keep him from exalting himself (2 Cor 12:7-10). Instead of removing the trial, the Lord assured him, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Paul's response was to “boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.” Likewise, we are told that suffering produces perseverance, proven character, and hope (Rom 5:3-4), and that we are to “consider it all joy…knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance” (Jam 1:2-4). God's hand is at work, as it was in Joseph's life, turning what others meant for evil into good (Gen 50:20).      Such trials teach us lessons we could learn no other way. The Psalmist wrote, “It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I may learn Your statutes” (Psa 119:71). In hardship, God promises His presence, saying, “Do not fear, for I am with you” (Isa 41:10), and His help, for “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Psa 46:1). We can rest in the truth that “God causes all things to work together for good” (Rom 8:28) and respond by choosing joy, prayer, and gratitude in all circumstances (1 Th 5:16-18). Trials may press us down, but in Christ they also lift us up, shaping us into people who reflect His strength, wisdom, and steadfast love. Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.

Pred dvanástimi rokmi predával na jarmokoch na opačnej strane zemegule píšťalky. Dnes jeho topánky, ktoré simulujú chôdzu naboso, nosia ľudia od Tokia po Toronto. Juraj Fehervari je podnikateľ a filantrop, známy aj ako investor z televíznej šou Jama levova. Vypočujte si podcast Impact Talks, v ktorom prinášame inšpiratívne príbehy o pomáhaní a búrame tabu spojené so slovom filantropia. Keď Juraj Fehervari prišiel v Sydney o prácu v reštaurácii, získal licenciu na predaj špeciálnych píšťaliek pre Nový Južný Wales a obiehal s nimi jarmoky. Úspech prišiel paradoxne po návrate domov, vďaka barefootovej obuvi, ktorá sa predáva v 70 krajinách. Juraj založil Be Lenka Foundation, podporuje ekologické iniciatívy aj vzdelávanie mladých, pomáha nemocniciam aj staniciam na záchranu zvierat. Prednášky či workshopy na komerčných akciách si necháva zaplatiť a peniaze posiela na účet Be Lenka Foundation. „Vypýtať si na Slovensku alebo v Čechách honorár nie je úplne sexi téma. Nepotrebujem na tom zarábať, ľuďom hovorím – pozrite sa, kam to posielate.“ V podcaste sa dozviete: ako pomáha spojenie barefoot obuvi s Guinnessovým rekordom, čo Juraj urobil pre nemocnicu po synovej liečbe, koľko krokov chôdze naboso prinesie duševnú pohodu, čo pre neho znamená karma-free biznis, a budete počuť aj špeciálnu píšťalku z Austrálie. Kto je Juraj Fehervari Zakladateľ a CEO značiek Be Lenka a Barebarics získal v roku 2022 titul EY Podnikateľ roka. Diváci ho poznajú ako jedného z investorov v televíznej šou Jama levova. Svoje skúsenosti zdieľa prostredníctvom konzultácií a mentoringu so zameraním na biznis. Be Lenka Foundation organizuje osvetové kampane, podporuje startupy a vzdelávanie. Impact Talks V podcaste Impact Talks vám predstavujeme osobnosti z biznisu, kultúry a športu, ktoré búrajú zaužívané predstavy o filantropii. Srdciarov, ktorí pomáhajú intuitívne, aj tých, ktorí sa snažia o čo najväčší spoločenský dopad. Lebo filantropia je pestrá a zďaleka nie je iba o rozdávaní peňazí. Impact Talks vám prináša Nadácia Pontis, ktorá sa dlhodobo venuje rozvíjaniu filantropie, sociálnych inovácií a zodpovedného podnikania. Podcast vzniká v spolupráci s portálom Aktuality.sk a moderuje ho Martin Staňo.

When reading through the New Testament, we see that God provides both general and specific directives to Christians. General directives include learning and applying God's Word (Rom 12:1-2; Col 3:16; 2 Tim 2:15; 1 Pet 2:2; Jam 1:22), loving others as Christ has loved us (John 13:34), being filled with and walking by the Spirit (Eph 5:18; Gal 5:16), submitting to governing authorities and paying taxes (Rom 13:1, 6), stimulating one another to love and good deeds (Heb 10:24), and not forsaking our assembling together (Heb 10:25). Believers are also called to live by faith (Heb 10:38; 11:6), seek godly wisdom (Jam 1:5), pursue peace with others (Rom 12:18), forgive one another (Col 3:13), speak graciously (Col 4:6), and show kindness (Eph 4:32; cf. Prov 3:3-4). Additional directives include edifying others (Rom 14:19; 1 Th 5:11), serving in love (Gal 5:13), doing good to all (Gal 6:10), seeking the best interests of others (Phil 2:3-4), rejoicing always, praying without ceasing, and giving thanks in everything (1 Th 5:16-18), and doing all for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.

08-17-2025 Sanctuary Service, Fire Signs - Alex Barnes, M.Div.

Episódios novos toda sexta-feira, 00h. Comente o que achou do episódio ou mande um recado para a gente diretamente no Spotify!Apoie o Divã da Diva e tenha um episódio a mais, exclusivo, no Divã da Diva para Íntimos!Apoia-se: https://apoia.se/divadepressaoOrelo: https://orelo.cc/podcast/65c0ddb1243feaaede3cea6c

Bleav Host Robert Land asks Astros Pitcher Scipio Spinks about Johnny Bench ending his career, stealing the Braves mascot head, impersonating Lou Brock, getting advice from Don Wilson & Bob Gibson - and his memories of Jose Cruz, JR Richard, Larry Dierker, Joe Torre & his famous stuff gorilla. Plus, Robert talks Astros disastrous decline and the Texans chances against the Rams. Presented by FanDuel! (1:00) Biggest Astros Problem Not What You Think? (2:16) Time to Bet on Astros for AL Title? (5:40) Interview with Astros & St. Louis Cardinals Pitcher Scipio Spinks (6:28) Memories of Dierker & Don Wilson (7:30) JR Richard was a Freak? (8:42) Stealing Braves Mascot Head for $1K? (10:06) How good was young Cesar Cedeno? (11:12) Jimmy Wynn & Joe Morgan teaches Gambling lesson (11:59) How hard did Joe Morgan work? (13:20) Was Don Wilson mean? (14:17) Favorite Astros Memory? (14:58) Johnny Bench ruins career? (18:12) Impersonating Lou Brock? (18:45) Memories of Brock & Bob Gibson? (21:45) What was young Jose Cruz like? (22:30) Did 3B Joe Torre look like a great Manager? (23:17) Scipio's best friend - the stuffed animal Mighty Joe? (26:14) Being a stand-in for Lou Gossett & hanging out with Satchel Paige (28:50) Getting Directed by George C. Scott (29:53) Author Doug Gladstone on Scipio & several hundred MLB Players being denied pension (37:46) Coaching UH-Downtown to Div 2 Club baseball WS (38:28) Did Scipio root for Astros or Cards in '04 & '05? (39:34) Which hitter scared Scipio? And Fav Strikeouts? Subscribe on Youtube, Spotify, Apple & iHeart X @HSTPodcast #astros #texans

Stuart Kellogg challenges leaders to equip the next generation to think biblically about life and justice. His book The Post Covid Church: An Action Plan to Thrive, Not Just Survive offers strategic insight.Youtube - https://youtu.be/g-RTksBFPU8Audio - https://andymilleriii.com/media/podcastApple -  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/more-to-the-story-with-dr-andy-miller/id1569988895?uo=4Here's the link to Stuart's book - https://www.amazon.com/Post-Covid-Church-Action-Survive-ebook/dp/B09JBM9LP4?ref_=ast_author_mpbIf you are interested in learning more about my two full-length video-accompanied courses, Contender: Going Deeper in the Book of Jude andHeaven and Other Destinations: A Biblical Journey Beyond this World , visit courses.andymilleriii.comAnd don't forget about my most recent book, Contender, which is available on Amazon! Five Steps to Deeper Teaching and Preaching - Recently, I updated this PDF document and added a 45-minute teaching video with slides, explaining this tool. It's like a mini-course. If you sign up for my list, I will send this free resource to you. Sign up here - www.AndyMillerIII.com or Five Steps to Deeper Teaching and Preaching. Today's episode is brought to you by Wesley Biblical Seminary. Interested in going deeper in your faith? Check out our certificate programs, B.A., M.A.s, M.Div., and D.Min degrees. You will study with world-class faculty and the most racially diverse student body in the country. www.wbs.eduThanks too to Phil Laeger for my podcast music. You can find out about Phil's music at https://www.laeger.net

Taking ownership is an essential aspect of recovery, without it, it's simply not possible to move forward. Today on the Faithful & True Podcast, listen as Dr. Greg Miller & Tammy Gustafson unpack what it looks like to take ownership and why it's so important.Subscribe to our YouTube channel:   - https://bit.ly/FaithfulandTrueAttend a Workshop Experience:   - For Men - https://bit.ly/MensJourneyWorkshop   - For Women - http://bit.ly/WomensJourneyWorkshop   - For Couples - http://bit.ly/CouplesIntensiveWorkshopContact us:   - https://faithfulandtrue.com/   - info@faithfulandtrue.com   - 952-746-3880Dr. Mark Laaser, M.Div., Ph.D., was considered one of the Christian leaders in the field of sex addiction before his death in September 2019. Mark, together with his wife, Debbie Laaser, MA, LMFT, have shared their 32 years of personal experience in sexual addiction recovery with thousands of individuals and couples through their work and resources at Faithful & True.The Faithful & True 3-Day Intensive Workshops continue to transform lives, rebuild trust, and help heal marriages.Send us a text

How did Marco Casanova go from addiction to gay porn while studying to be a Catholic priest to a life of chastity, healing, marriage, and fatherhood? This is a great story. Along the way, you'll get a beautiful introduction to Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body—particularly what Marco has learned about the dignity of women and what it means to be a man.Marco Casanova, M.Div., serves as Associate Director of Desert Stream Ministries. His journey with the Living Waters program began during his seminary years, when he sought healing from his own experience of sexual brokenness. After eight years in priestly formation, Marco discerned a new call to join the Desert Stream team. Today, he oversees Living Waters USA, equipping lay leaders to establish and lead effective healing groups within their church communities. Marco lives in Kansas City, MO, with his wife, Ania, and their daughter, Marianna.More from Desert Stream Ministries:Website: desertstream.orgYouTube: youtube.com/@DesertStreamMinistriesMore on Theology of the Body:theologyofthebody.nettobinstitute.orgSupport the showTake the Husband Material Journey... Step 1: Listen to this podcast or watch on YouTube Step 2: Join the private Husband Material Community Step 3: Take the free mini-course: How To Outgrow Porn Step 4: Try the all-in-one program: Husband Material Academy Thanks for listening!

Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison, president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, takes some time during the Gathering to talk about Christ's life and Christian love for all human life.   Bio: The Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison has served as president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) since 2010. As president, he is the chief ecclesiastical supervisor of the Synod and is responsible for the ministries directed by LCMS International Center staff, including the Office of International Mission and its nearly 150 missionaries serving around the globe. Before becoming president, Harrison served for nine years as executive director of LCMS World Relief and Human Care (2001–2010), which expended over $100 million for mercy efforts done in the clear name of Christ. These efforts included caring for people after 9-11, Katrina and many hurricanes, the great Asia tsunami, the Haiti earthquake, and many other disasters and humanitarian efforts. Harrison also managed relationships with some 120 LCMS Recognized Service Organizations and other inter-Lutheran social ministry organizations, worked in consultation with LCMS partner/sister churches to build capacity during numerous mercy outreach efforts, and managed LCMS pro-life efforts. From 1995 to 2001, Harrison served as pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Fort Wayne, Ind. Prior to that, he served St. Peter's Lutheran Church in Westgate, Iowa (1991–1995). Ordained in 1991, he has served in a number of elected and appointed positions in the LCMS and on various entity boards of directors. Harrison is co-founder and chairman of the board of The International Lutheran Society of Wittenberg (Old Latin School), which hosts some 40 students and church planters from the European Union and beyond who are studying to become ordained pastors. In addition, Harrison chairs the board of the Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty and serves on the executive committee of the International Lutheran Council. Harrison is also active in the prolife movement and frequently speaks at such events. A native of Sioux City, Iowa, Harrison holds a bachelor's degree in religious studies from Morningside University in Sioux City, Iowa. He attended Concordia University, Nebraska, in 1984. He has M.Div. and S.T.M. degrees from Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne. Harrison has pursued additional graduate study at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne. Furthermore, he has received honorary doctorates from Concordia University Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, Mich., and Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne. Since 2010, Harrison has served as assistant pastor of Village Lutheran Church, Ladue, Mo. He has translated and edited five volumes of essays and letters by Lutheran theologian Hermann Sasse (published through Concordia Publishing House [CPH]). He has also revised C.F.W. Walther's The Church and the Office of the Ministry (CPH) and written several other books, including Christ Have Mercy, A Little Book on Joy and At Home in the House of My Fathers. Harrison has been married to Kathy (Schimm) Harrison since 1981, and they have two sons (Matthew M.L. married to Courtney, and Mark M.C. married to Tara). The Harrisons have two grandchildren, Rosie and Shiloh. In his spare time, Harrison enjoys reading, writing, vintage Jeeps, old banjos and books, and — most of all — time with family. Resources: Email us at friendsforlife@lcms.org LCMS Life Ministry: lcms.org/life  Not all the views expressed are necessarily those of the LCMS; please discuss any questions with your pastor.

     The Lord directs us to obedience and tests us by providing opportunities to follow His Word, whether through His commands, His provisions, or the circumstances He ordains (Ex 16:4; Deut 8:2; 13:3; Judg 2:21-22; 3:4; John 6:5-6; Heb 11:17; Rev 2:10). In Scripture, testing is consistently purposeful, designed to reveal the true condition of our hearts, whether we will love and obey Him above all else (Deut 8:2; 13:3). Like a refiner's fire, divine testing burns away weakness and exposes sin so that our faith may be strengthened and our character purified (Psa 66:10; Prov 17:3).      Testing, however, is not confined to adversity but also arises through prosperity. Israel was warned that when they entered the land and experienced abundance, they must not forget the Lord (Deut 8:11-16). Agur likewise prayed for moderation, recognizing that riches could lead to denial of God (Prov 30:8-9). Paul issued a similar caution, warning that “those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap” (1 Tim 6:9). In this sense, blessings themselves are tests, exposing whether our hearts will remain humble in gratitude to God or whether abundance will foster pride and forgetfulness.      Through both trial and blessing, the Lord works to produce endurance, humility, and godliness in us, shaping us to walk faithfully and bear fruit to His glory (Ex 16:4; Jam 1:2-4). Divine testing is God's means of refining us so that our faith may grow strong (Rom 4:19-21), our character be strengthened, and our lives conformed to His will. As growing Christians, we should strive to be obedient-to-the-Word believers who are daily learning and living His Word (1 Pet 2:2; Jam 1:22). Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.

Hoje o podcast pega fogo! Todo mundo que namora acaba se irritando com alguma mania ou costume do parceiro, não tem como! Estamos lendo os desabafos de vocês e muitos deles a gente acabou se identificando. A discussão foi boa!Episódios novos toda sexta-feira, 00h. Comente o que achou do episódio ou mande um recado para a gente diretamente no Spotify!Apoie o Divã da Diva e tenha um episódio a mais, exclusivo, no Divã da Diva para Íntimos!Apoia-se: https://apoia.se/divadepressaoOrelo: https://orelo.cc/podcast/65c0ddb1243feaaede3cea6c

In this episode Bill and Diane Ury discuss their lifelong passion for holiness and spiritual formation. Their book, Conversations About Holiness, invites readers to rediscover the beauty and necessity of holy living.Youtube - https://youtu.be/OrtXqurgv3MAudio - https://andymilleriii.com/media/podcastApple -  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/more-to-the-story-with-dr-andy-miller/id1569988895?uo=4Here's a link to their book - conversationsaboutholiness.comIf you are interested in learning more about my two video-accompanied courses, Contender: Going Deeper in the Book of Jude andHeaven and Other Destinations: A Biblical Journey Beyond this World , visit courses.andymilleriii.comAnd don't forget about my most recent book, Contender, which is available on Amazon! Five Steps to Deeper Teaching and Preaching - Recently, I updated this PDF document and added a 45-minute teaching video with slides, explaining this tool. It's like a mini-course. If you sign up for my list, I will send this free resource to you. Sign up here - www.AndyMillerIII.com or Five Steps to Deeper Teaching and Preaching. Today's episode is brought to you by Wesley Biblical Seminary. Interested in going deeper in your faith? Check out our certificate programs, B.A., M.A.s, M.Div., and D.Min degrees. You will study with world-class faculty and the most racially diverse student body in the country. www.wbs.eduThanks too to Phil Laeger for my podcast music. You can find out about Phil's music at https://www.laeger.net

What are the foundational principles of sex addiction?Today on The Faithful & True Podcast, listen to Dr. Greg Miller's conversation with Tammy Gustafson from The Betrayal Healing Conference 2025.Greg shares some of the foundational principles of sex addiction and recovery.Subscribe to our YouTube channel:   - https://bit.ly/FaithfulandTrueAttend a Workshop Experience:   - For Men - https://bit.ly/MensJourneyWorkshop   - For Women - http://bit.ly/WomensJourneyWorkshop   - For Couples - http://bit.ly/CouplesIntensiveWorkshopContact us:   - https://faithfulandtrue.com/   - info@faithfulandtrue.com   - 952-746-3880Dr. Mark Laaser, M.Div., Ph.D., was considered one of the Christian leaders in the field of sex addiction before his death in September 2019. Mark, together with his wife, Debbie Laaser, MA, LMFT, have shared their 32 years of personal experience in sexual addiction recovery with thousands of individuals and couples through their work and resources at Faithful & True.The Faithful & True 3-Day Intensive Workshops continue to transform lives, rebuild trust, and help heal marriages.Send us a text

The Coalition has hired a Chaplain! Debbie Royals is piloting this new position, to feel out the possibilities of providing decolonizing worship and spiritual care to our growing movement. In this episode, we talk about what colonized/colonizing worship is and, thus, what constitutes decolonized/decolonizing worship. This is a work in progress, as we together seek to realign ourselves with the Creator and Creation through worship. Debbie is Pascua Yaqui from Tucson, AZ, a sister, mother to two wonderful young men and grandmother to four. She is an Episcopal priest, author, retreat leader and educator. Debbie earned a diploma in Nursing, a B.A. in Native American Spirituality and Theology from Prescott College, an M.Div. from the Church Divinity School of the Pacific and a M.A. in Religion and Society from the Graduate Theological Union. She serves as the Canon for Native American Ministry in the Diocese of Arizona and is developing a“new church community called Four Winds serving Indigenous people. Debbie led the Indigenous Theological Training Institute for 10 years and published several journals with Indigenous theologians. She has published in books on prayer and daily meditations. Debbie has navigated the divide by forming a bridge as a Native American spiritual leader and Episcopal priest. Her passion for restorative justice and binding community is evident in every aspect of her life. Watch video recordings of this and other episodes from Season 4 of the Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery Podcast on our YouTube Channel. Show Notes: Decolonizing Worship happens the last Friday of every month at 1:00 p.m. PT / 4:00 p.m. ET. You can sign up through this calendar link by clicking on the event. Sarah and Sheri's book: So That We and Our Children May Live: Following Jesus in Confronting the Climate Crisis Sarah and Sheri's Substack: So That We and Our Children May Live You can follow the Coalition to Dismantle the Doctrine of Discovery on Instagram (@coalitiontodismantle) and Facebook (www.facebook.com/dismantlediscovery).

Matt Steen has served the local church for over two decades as a youth pastor, church planter, and executive pastor. Originally from Baltimore, Matt currently lives in the Orlando, FL area with his wife Theresa, and has a B.S. in Youth Ministry from Nyack College and an M.Div. and MBA from Baylor University.Certified as an Urban Church Planter Coach by Redeemer City to City and as a StratOp facilitator by the Paterson Center, Matt has made a career of helping churches thrive through intentionality, clarity, and creating healthy cultures. He is convinced that a healthy church is led by a healthy team with great chemistry, and loves partnering with Chemistry's churches to do great things for the Kingdom.Matt joins Dale on today's 95Podcast to discuss the subject of succession planning. As the average age of the American pastor continues to get older, it's imperative that churches begin having conversations around the subject of who will lead the church in the future.Show Notes: https://www.95network.org/how-chemistry-staffing-can-help-you-with-succession-planning-w-matt-steen-episode-298/Support the show

Sometime in eternity past, God the Father planned to send God the Son into the world to fulfill a divine mission. God's Word tells us, “The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14). This was the great mission: to bring salvation to everyone. This act of God was done in love, as it is written, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16), and “He loved us and sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10). The Son agreed with the Father, saying, “I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38), and “The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). When God the Son came into the world and took upon Himself humanity, He executed His mission flawlessly.   The divine mission began in time and space nearly two thousand years ago when God the Son took upon Himself humanity. The writer to the Hebrews cites the words of God the Son as He was about to enter the world, saying, “Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says [to God the Father], ‘Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for Me'” (Heb 10:5). The third Person of the Trinity, God the Holy Spirit, facilitated the mission by bringing about the hypostatic union within the womb of the virgin Mary (Isa 7:14; Luke 1:30-35; Gal 4:4). The angel Gabriel told Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). At the moment of conception in the womb of the virgin Mary, undiminished deity was combined forever with perfect humanity. Eventually, Jesus was born, and God “became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). The apostle Paul tells us, “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9).   God's Word informs us that Jesus was a Jew, born a son of Abraham, in the line of David (Matt 1:1), the promised Messiah (Matt 1:17). Jesus grew in wisdom (Luke 2:40, 52) and lived a perfectly righteous life before God and man. The record of Scripture is that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Cor 5:21), was “without sin” (Heb 4:15), “committed no sin” (1 Pet 2:22), and “in Him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5). In His humanity, Jesus walked in perfect conformity to God the Father's holy character and divine revelation. This is important, for Jesus' sinless life qualified Him to go to the cross and pay the ransom price for our sins (Mark 10:45).   When the divinely appointed time came for Jesus to go to the cross (John 12:23; 13:1), He went willingly (Isa 53:10; John 10:18). Just hours before the crucifixion, Jesus said to His Father, “I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do” (John 17:4). Then He went to the cross and “offered Himself without blemish to God” (Heb 9:14), giving “His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Jesus paid our sin debt by means of His “precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Pet 1:19). While on the cross, “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3), and He died in our place, “the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God” (1 Pet 3:18; cf. Rom 5:8).   Jesus' death on the cross was a one-time event, as He “offered one sacrifice for sins for all time” (Heb 10:12). After Jesus paid for all our sins, “He said, ‘It is finished!' And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit” (John 19:30). Jesus' death on the cross satisfied every righteous demand of God the Father concerning the payment for our sins (Rom 3:25), for “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Jesus paid the price for all our sins. There's nothing more to pay. After Jesus died, He was placed in a grave and was resurrected to life on the third day (Acts 2:23-24; 4:10; 10:40; 1 Cor 15:3-4), never to die again (Rom 6:9). Because Christ died for everyone (John 3:16; Heb 2:9; 1 John 2:2), everyone is savable. The Bible tells us that God has brought “salvation to all men” (Tit 2:11), that He “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), and is “not wishing for any to perish” (2 Pet 3:9).   Once we understand who Jesus is, as God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14), and what He has accomplished for us on the cross—having died for our sins, was buried, and raised again on the third day (1 Cor 15:3-4)—we can then exercise our faith by trusting in Him as our Savior (John 3:16; 20:31). To receive salvation, the unbeliever is told to “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31a). Jesus is the object of our faith. To believe in Christ as our Savior means we trust Him to accomplish for us what we cannot accomplish ourselves: eternal salvation from the lake of fire.   Faith in Christ is the only condition for salvation. Faith does not save; Christ saves. Faith is merely the instrument by which we receive the free gift of God, which is eternal life. Though the gift was very expensive for the Lord, it is offered totally free to us, for “the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23). And it is “by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9). Only the empty hand of faith accepts the gift. It offers nothing but is open to receive that which is offered by another. God's gift is available to everyone, for “whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16), and “he who believes has eternal life” (John 6:47). No payment is required from us to receive it (Rom 4:4-5), and no precondition of good works is necessary before, during, or after salvation. The only sin that keeps a person out of heaven is the sin of unbelief, the individual choice NOT to trust in Jesus as one's Savior. The one who rejects Jesus as Savior is judged by God on the sole ground that “he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). These are the ones who “are always resisting the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51; cf. John 16:8), who “do not believe” in Jesus as their Savior (John 16:9), and “are unwilling to come” to Him so that they “may have life” (John 5:40). Those who willingly reject Christ as Savior will, after death, experience eternal separation and punishment away from God for all eternity, for “if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev 20:15). This need not happen. Hell is avoidable for the one who trusts in Christ as Savior, for “whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Salvation is a free gift from God (Rom 3:24; 6:23), offered by grace alone (Eph 2:8-9), through faith alone (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16; 3:26; 2 Tim 3:15), in Christ alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), totally apart from human works (Rom 4:5; Eph 2:8-9; Tit 3:5). For lost sinners, the matter is simple: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).   Our forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and many wonderful blessings from God are all made possible because God the Son came down to us and accomplished what we cannot: our salvation. For this, we praise God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit for their work of salvation, for “having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1). Amen.   Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.

     Second, there is God's directive will, which refers to His actively guiding His people to do what He expects. It is sometimes called His prescriptive will because it prescribes how people are to think, live, and relate to Him and others. For example, God directed Adam and Eve to be “fruitful and multiply” and to “rule” as theocratic administrators over His creation (Gen 1:28). After creating the garden of Eden, He directed them to “cultivate it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). He also gave them freedom, saying, “from any tree of the garden you may eat freely” (Gen 2:16), but also gave one prohibition, saying, “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Gen 2:17). Other examples include God directing Noah to build an ark (Gen 6:13-14), directing Abraham to leave his country and go to the place where God wanted (Gen 12:1), directing Moses to go to Egypt to liberate His people (Ex 3:10), and later to give them the Law so they could walk in His will (Ex 34:27-28).[1] It should be remembered that the four Gospels reveal that Jesus was born and lived under the Mosaic Law code (Gal 4:4), and during His time of ministry, He directed others to obey that code (i.e., Matt 8:1-4; 23:1-3). However, that covenant and law code has been fulfilled by Christ and rendered obsolete (Matt 5:17-18; Heb 8:13). And now, God has given commands to Christians which are found in the New Testament. The book of Acts covers the first thirty years of the Church and is generally historical information, being descriptive but not prescriptive. Specific commands for the Christian living in the dispensation of the Church age generally start in Romans 1 and extend to Revelation 3. However, Jesus' discourse in the Upper Room (John chapters 13-17), the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:19-20), and the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-2) belong to the Church.      These biblical distinctions are important, for though all Scripture is written for us, only some portions of it speak specifically to us and command our walk with the Lord. Just as Christians would not try to obey the commands God gave to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1-2, or the commands God gave to Noah in Genesis 6-9, so we should not try to obey the commands God gave to Israel in Exodus through Deuteronomy. Christians are not under the Mosaic Law (Rom 6:14), which has been rendered obsolete (Heb 8:13). but operate under the Law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2). Charles Ryrie states: "Adam lived under laws, the sum of which may be called the code of Adam or the code of Eden. Noah was expected to obey the laws of God, so there was a Noahic code. We know that God revealed many commands and laws to Abraham (Gen 26:5). They may be called the Abrahamic code. The Mosaic code contained all the laws of the Law. And today we live under the law of Christ (Gal 6:2) or the law of the Spirit of life in Christ (Rom 8:2). This code contains the hundreds of specific commandments recorded in the New Testament."[2]      Because God is the Author of both law-codes (i.e., the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ), it is not surprising that He chose to incorporate some of the laws He gave to Israel into the law-code which He has given to the Church. Nine of the 10 commandments are restated in the New Testament (the Sabbath is excluded because it was the sign of the Mosaic Covenant; Ex 31:13-17).[3] Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.   [1] God had revealed His will for Israel through the Law of Moses, and this gave them clear guidelines for how to live as God desired. Because God cares for His people, He provided them rules for living in relationship with Himself and others. If His people walked in the ways of the Lord, He promised them blessing (Deut 28:1-14). But if they turned away from His revealed will, He promised them cursing (Deut 28:15-68). The blessed life or the cursed life was always before them (Deut 11:26-28). God's directives were communicated through Moses to God's people (Deut 6:1-2), who were to receive them and adhere to them (Deut 6:3-6), and communicate them to their children (Deut 6:7). [2] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 351. [3] Additional biblical distinctions reveal that Israel is a nation (Ex 19:6), but the church is not a nation (Rom 10:19). God's program for Israel focused on the land promised to Abraham (Gen 12:1; 15:18; 17:8), whereas the church is called to go out to many lands (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 1:8). Israel was mentioned throughout the Old Testament and recognized by other nations (Num 14:15; Josh 5:1), but the church was a mystery not known in the Old Testament (Eph 3:1-6; Col 1:26-27; cf. Rom 16:25-26). Israel had a priesthood that was specific to the tribe of Levi (Num 3:6-7), whereas all Christians are priests to God (Rev 1:6). Israel worshipped first at the Tabernacle and later the Temple (Ex 40:18-38; 2 Ch 8:14-16), but for Christians, their body is the temple of the Lord and they gather locally where they want (1 Cor 6:19-20; cf. 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15). Israel offered animal sacrifices to God (Lev 4:1-35), but Christians offer spiritual sacrifices (1 Pet 2:5; cf. Rom 12:1; Heb 13:15). Israel was required to tithe from the produce of their land (Deut 14:22-23; 28-29; Num 18:21), but there is no tithe required from Christians, only a joyful attitude when giving, “for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7).

Be sure and join us with our special guest, 40 year FDNY veteran, Battalion Chief Tom Martin. He has had an absolutely incredible career and worked in some great companies.Appointed 8/4/1862 to E.1  - Transferred to L.24 8/1968 Transferred to L.26-2 5/1969 (2nd section)- Promoted to Lt. 9/1973- Assigned to L.19: 9/73-5/1981- Promoted to Captain 5/1981- Assigned to E.216. 5/81-5/1982- Transferred to L.14 5/1982- Promoted to B.C. 5/1986.- Assigned to Div.6: 5/86-2/1991- Assigned Bn.3- 2/91-12/2001- Retired 12/31/2001Pretty sure he didn't see any fires Going to be another great show. We will get the whole skinny. You don't want to miss this one. Join us at the kitchen table on the BEST FIREFIGHTER PODCAST ON THE INTERNET! You can also Listen to our podcast ...we are on all the players #lovethisjob #GiveBackMoreThanYouTake #Oldschool #Tradition #volunteerfirefighters #FDNY #nationalfallenfirefightersfoundationBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gettin-salty-experience-firefighter-podcast--4218265/support.

Todo mundo já foi a Camila Fremder, que foi num podcast errado por engano. Quem nunca chegou num evento achando que era coisa e descobriu que era outra? Uma festa que era culto, um date que virou encontro de vendas, velório errado… é cada história!Episódios novos toda sexta-feira, 00h. Comente o que achou do episódio ou mande um recado para a gente diretamente no Spotify!Apoie o Divã da Diva e tenha um episódio a mais, exclusivo, no Divã da Diva para Íntimos!Apoia-se: https://apoia.se/divadepressaoOrelo: https://orelo.cc/podcast/65c0ddb1243feaaede3cea6c

V najnovšej epizóde populárneho hokejového podcastu suSPEAK sa Rasťo Konečný a Marek Marušiak porozprávali s obrancom HK Nitra Martinom Vitalošom, ktorý patrí medzi najtvrdších hráčov našej extraligy.Nitriansky hokejista, ktorý je držiteľom rekordu za najviac bodyčekov v našej najvyššej súťaži, sa v rozhovore otvorene rozhovoril o svojej kariére a životných skúsenostiach. Martin Vitaloš prezradil, ako sa ružinovský odchovanec dostal cez Slovan až do švédskeho klubu Rögle, kde strávil dve sezóny.Diváci sa dozvedia zaujímavé a miestami humorné príbehy z jeho pobytu vo Švédsku vrátane ochutnávky surströmmingu (fermentovanej ryby), ktorá sa skončila nepríjemnou skúsenosťou, ale aj pozitívne momenty zo švédskej hokejovej kultúry. Martin Vitaloš tiež otvorene porozprával o náročnej epizóde v českej Plzni, kde nemal takmer žiadny priestor na ľade a dokonca ho poslali hrať za Klatovy do tretej najvyššej súťaže.Rozhovor postupne prešiel k jeho najväčšiemu kariérnemu úspechu - zisku majstrovského titulu s Nitrou, kde si zaspomínal na kľúčový moment sezóny a následné oslavy. Martin Vitaloš tiež zaznačil svoje plány do budúcnosti vrátane ambícií zahrať si opäť v zahraničí, ale odhalil aj prekvapivé štúdium diplomacie ako prípravu na život po hokejovej kariére.V uvoľnenej atmosfére plnej vtipných momentov sa dozviete, prečo sa tento tvrdý obranca stal postrachom útočníkov v našej extralige, aký typ bodyčekov preferuje a aká je jeho hokejová filozofia.Táto epizóda ponúka výnimočný pohľad do života jedného z najvýraznejších hráčov slovenskej extraligy, ktorý otvorene rozprával o vzostupoch aj pádoch svojej hokejovej kariéry.

Dr. Chris Kiesling shares insights from his book Discipleship for Every Stage of Life, examining how churches can foster character development and disciple-making across generations.Youtube - https://youtu.be/2GLVhaXiYosAudio - https://andymilleriii.com/media/podcastApple -  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/more-to-the-story-with-dr-andy-miller/id1569988895?uo=4Here's a link to Chris' book - https://www.amazon.com/Discipleship-Every-Stage-Life-Understanding/dp/1540966844If you are interested in learning more about my two video-accompanied courses, Contender: Going Deeper in the Book of Jude andHeaven and Other Destinations: A Biblical Journey Beyond this World , visit courses.andymilleriii.comAnd don't forget about my most recent book, Contender, which is available on Amazon! Five Steps to Deeper Teaching and Preaching - Recently, I updated this PDF document and added a 45-minute teaching video with slides, explaining this tool. It's like a mini-course. If you sign up for my list, I will send this free resource to you. Sign up here - www.AndyMillerIII.com or Five Steps to Deeper Teaching and Preaching. Today's episode is brought to you by Wesley Biblical Seminary. Interested in going deeper in your faith? Check out our certificate programs, B.A., M.A.s, M.Div., and D.Min degrees. You will study with world-class faculty and the most racially diverse student body in the country. www.wbs.eduThanks too to Phil Laeger for my podcast music. You can find out about Phil's music at https://www.laeger.net

Episode Topic: Finding FriendshipExplore friendship in the era of social media. Friendship can seem harder–and maybe weirder–than ever, science tells us there is an inextricable link between friendship and our well-being. Uncover the ways to create and cultivate the life-giving friendships we all need to thrive.Featured Speakers:-Fr. Nate Wills, C.S.C., Ph.D. '99, '03 M.Ed., .05 M.Div., Ryan Family ACE Professorship; Faculty, Mary Ann Remick Leadership Program; Director, Blended Learning Initiatives, University of Notre Dame-April Garcia '05, Faculty, Mary Ann Remick Leadership Program, University of Notre Dame-Gregory Haake, C.S.C. ‘99, '06 M.Div., Liaison of Graduate Studies of French and Francophone StudiesAssociate Professor of French and Francophone Studies, University of Notre DameThanks for listening! The ThinkND Podcast is brought to you by ThinkND, the University of Notre Dame's online learning community. We connect you with videos, podcasts, articles, courses, and other resources to inspire minds and spark conversations on topics that matter to you — everything from faith and politics, to science, technology, and your career. Learn more about ThinkND and register for upcoming live events at think.nd.edu. Join our LinkedIn community for updates, episode clips, and more.

Slips and relapses in recovery are possible and they are not inevitable. Today on The Faithful & True Podcast, Dr. Greg Miller & Debbie Laaser, LMFT return to discuss slips and relapses in recovery. They unpack why they believe lasting sobriety is possible. Subscribe to our YouTube channel:   - https://bit.ly/FaithfulandTrueAttend a Workshop Experience:   - For Men - https://bit.ly/MensJourneyWorkshop   - For Women - http://bit.ly/WomensJourneyWorkshop   - For Couples - http://bit.ly/CouplesIntensiveWorkshopContact us:   - https://faithfulandtrue.com/   - info@faithfulandtrue.com   - 952-746-3880Dr. Mark Laaser, M.Div., Ph.D., was considered one of the Christian leaders in the field of sex addiction before his death in September 2019. Mark, together with his wife, Debbie Laaser, MA, LMFT, have shared their 32 years of personal experience in sexual addiction recovery with thousands of individuals and couples through their work and resources at Faithful & True.The Faithful & True 3-Day Intensive Workshops continue to transform lives, rebuild trust, and help heal marriages.Send us a text

Turan De'Angelo Rush is joined by Bethany Rivera Molinar and Jeff Biddle to discuss CCDA's leadership cohorts. They unpack what cohorts are and why they're important; they also share their experiences in their cohorts, the incredible relationships they've formed, and the leadership lessons they are still drawing on today. CCDA's newest cohort, Cohort 9, is now accepting applications! This cohort is for Gen Z leaders in the Southeastern U.S. Learn more and apply at ccda.org/cohort. Turan De'Angelo Rush is the founding COO of the Midian Leadership Project, Inc., a sports-based community development nonprofit in Charleston, WV, an Evangelist with New Hope Community Church in Charleston, and the Director of Sports Science and Nutrition for the Capital High School football team. He played football at Eastern Michigan University, where he was team captain and earned a BA in communications with a minor in special education. He holds a master's degree in Sports Science from West Virginia State University, and is pursuing his PH.D in sports psychology from Kairos University, where his research focuses on the trauma-healing power of team sport participation. Bethany Rivera Molinar is a fronteriza Chicana living and working in El Paso, Texas, about a mile from the international border line of the United States and Mexico. She is the Executive Director of Ciudad Nueva Community Outreach, a holistic, asset-based, Christian community development nonprofit organization walking alongside their neighbors to develop youth, support families, equip leaders, and strengthen community in downtown-central El Paso. Bethany is deeply passionate for Ciudad Nueva to be a place where community work unfolds and community members are actively engaged and accessing their gifts, skills, and resources to collectively lead towards a vibrant and thriving community. Along with her team and community, this passion has driven the work that she has done through Ciudad Nueva for over ten years. Bethany serves as Chair for the board of the national Christian Community Development Association (CCDA) as well as other local boards. Bethany earned both Masters of Divinity & Masters of Social Work degrees from Baylor University. In 2023, President Obama selected Bethany as one of 100 Leaders from across the United States for his inaugural Obama Leaders USA program. Bethany serves with prophetic strength and innovative leadership within local, regional, and national women of color faith circles. When not doing all of the above, Bethany enjoys spending time with her husband Adrian and their three little ones, running, urban gardening, and pursuing the crafty arts.Rev. Dr. Jeff Biddle, Jr. is the founding pastor of New Hope Community Church and the co-founder of the Midian Leadership Project. He holds a BA in Economics from Harvard University, an M.Div from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and his doctorate from Palmer Seminary, where his thesis focused on sports, faith, and community leadership development among young people affected by the school-to-prison pipeline. He is the coauthor of Playing For The City: The Power of Sports for Christian Community Development. Connect with CCDA on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Follow CCDA on YouTube. 

RJ Olmstead takes a brief survey of what the New Testament says about love by observing the idea of agape love and eleeo mercy.--Scriptures Explored: Mark 12:29-31; John 15:12; Philippians 2; 1 Corinthians 13:1-8; Romans 14; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; 1 Corinthians 10; Ephesians 4:25-32; Luke 10:25-37 --RJ Olmstead is a central Arizonan who has set his heart to follow God's calling into academia. Using an undergrad focus on Behavioral Health and Ministry, and an M.Div. focused on Intercultural Studies and Missiology, RJ strives to engage people on their own grounds for Christ and biblical thinking through his adjunct professorship at Arizona Christian University and partnerships with parachurch ministries, such as Pickled Parables. With his wife, Camryn, the two aim to provide firm, faithful ground for their community through hospitality, biblical literacy, and higher education.--contact@parableministries.comhttps://www.parableministries.comhttps://www.instagram.com/parable_ministries/--If you feel led, give to the work of Parable:https://www.parableministries.com/donate--Music created by Chad HoffmanArtwork created by Anthony Kuenzi

"I played the game different because I had too. I only knew one way." -- Matt Baty, former Div. I athlete and Entrepreneur   The NCAA ruled college sports with an iron fist for decades-- it was unconstitutional.   NCAA wants control. "The student athlete -- to me, the regulations need to be around the student“ states Matt Baty, former Senior Associate Athletic Director for the University of Kansas.  It's clear that the NCAA wants control. In June 2021 the Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0 in the NCAA v. Alston that the NCAA rules violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. And the term NIL was born! (and for some reason, Name Image & Likeness is confusing the hell out of people) It's also giving athletes opportunities to profit and through those profits they create opportunities for many more people. Matt Baty was a student athlete at the highest level. He worked for one of the greatest programs in college athletics at the highest level. He coaches kids of all ages to get the best out of each one of them so that they can improve their lives. And congratulations Coach on your first Kansas State baseball Championship at Trinity Academy. If you really want control, teach an individual the disciplines so that they can go on and become successful in their own life.

Theological Categories of God's Will      The will of God can be divided between His secret will and revealed will. Moses wrote, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law” (Deut 29:29). What God has revealed in Scripture is what He deems important for us to know. But there are secret things that belong to the Lord, and on these matters, He remains silent. To spend our days pursuing what God has sovereignly chosen to keep hidden will only lead to unending frustration. If we have prayed and studied God's Word thoroughly yet received no clear answer, it may be because God does not want us to know—or not to know at this time. Though we may seek to discern God's will through daily experiences, such providential insight must always remain subordinate to His written revelation. Though we don't know many particulars about what God is doing, we know He is in control and directing history to the return of Christ and the eternal state, and we are part of that grand plan. Concerning God's revealed will, Scripture presents several classifications.      First, there is God's sovereign will, which refers to His free and independent choices to do whatever He pleases, without external constraint or consultation. God declares, “My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isa 46:10b; cf. Psa 33:11), and “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?'” (Dan 4:35). “Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps” (Psa 135:6), and He “works all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph 1:11b). According to McChesney: "There is a sense, indeed, in which the sovereignty of God is absolute. He is under no external restraint whatsoever. He is the Supreme Dispenser of all events. All forms of existence are within the scope of His dominion. And yet this is not to be viewed in any such way as to abridge the reality of the moral freedom of God's responsible creatures or to make men anything else than the arbiters of their own eternal destinies. God has seen fit to create beings with the power of choice between good and evil. He rules over them in justice and wisdom and grace."[1]      God remains in constant sovereign control, guiding His creation through history. He meddles in the affairs of mankind, and His unseen hand works behind all their activities, controlling and directing history as He wills. We know from Scripture that God possesses certain immutable attributes and that He never acts inconsistently with His nature. For example, because God is righteous, all His actions and commands are just. Because God is immutable, His moral perfections never change. Because God is eternal, He is righteous forever. Because God is omniscient, His righteous acts are always predicated on perfect knowledge. Because God is omnipotent, He is always able to execute His righteous will. Because God is love, His judgments can be merciful toward the undeserving and humble.       God controls who sits in positions of power, whether they hold that position by birth or democratic vote. Ultimately, it is God “who changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and establishes kings” (Dan 2:21a), for “the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes and sets over it the lowliest of men” (Dan 4:17). When Israel turned negative to God, He judged them by placing weak leaders over them, saying, “I will make mere lads their princes, and capricious children will rule over them (Isa 3:4). The result was, “Those who guide you lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths” (Isa 3:12b).      God even controls hostile unbelievers to accomplish His purposes (Prov 16:4). When Jesus was on trial, Pilate falsely thought he had control over Him, saying, “Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?” (John 19:10). Operating from divine viewpoint, Jesus said to Pilate, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above” (John 19:11). While praying to God, Peter and John acknowledged God's sovereignty over the Gentile rulers, saying, “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur” (Acts 4:27-28).      Second, there is God's directive will, which refers to His actively guiding His people to do what He expects. It is sometimes called His prescriptive will because it prescribes how people are to think, live, and relate to Him and others. For example, God directed Adam and Eve to be “fruitful and multiply” and to “rule” as theocratic administrators over His creation (Gen 1:28). After creating the garden of Eden, He directed them to “cultivate it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). He also gave them freedom, saying, “from any tree of the garden you may eat freely” (Gen 2:16), but also gave one prohibition, saying, “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Gen 2:17). Other examples include God directing Noah to build an ark (Gen 6:13-14), directing Abraham to leave his country and go to the place where God wanted (Gen 12:1), directing Moses to go to Egypt to liberate His people (Ex 3:10), and later to give them the Law so they could walk in His will (Ex 34:27-28).[2] It should be remembered that the four Gospels reveal that Jesus was born and lived under the Mosaic Law code (Gal 4:4), and during His time of ministry, He directed others to obey that code (i.e., Matt 8:1-4; 23:1-3). Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.   [1] E. McChesney, “Sovereignty of God,” in The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill F. Unger and R.K. Harrison (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988). 1085. [2] God had revealed His will for Israel through the Law of Moses, and this gave them clear guidelines for how to live as God desired. Because God cares for His people, He provided them rules for living in relationship with Himself and others. If His people walked in the ways of the Lord, He promised them blessing (Deut 28:1-14). But if they turned away from His revealed will, He promised them cursing (Deut 28:15-68). The blessed life or the cursed life was always before them (Deut 11:26-28). God's directives were communicated through Moses to God's people (Deut 6:1-2), who were to receive them and adhere to them (Deut 6:3-6), and communicate them to their children (Deut 6:7).

Visitar a casa da família de um amigo ou amiga é uma experiência! É quando a gente percebe que os costumes são diferentes e acontece cada uma! Inspirados num tweet que viralizou, a gente leu o que os ouvintes mais viram de diferente na família dos outros.Episódios novos toda sexta-feira, 00h. Comente o que achou do episódio ou mande um recado para a gente diretamente no Spotify!Apoie o Divã da Diva e tenha um episódio a mais, exclusivo, no Divã da Diva para Íntimos!Apoia-se: https://apoia.se/divadepressaoOrelo: https://orelo.cc/podcast/65c0ddb1243feaaede3cea6c

We've covered the US Agency for International Development, or USAID, pretty consistently on Statecraft, since our first interview on PEPFAR, the flagship anti-AIDS program, in 2023. When DOGE came to USAID, I was extremely critical of the cuts to lifesaving aid, and the abrupt, pointlessly harmful ways in which they were enacted. In March, I wrote, “The DOGE team has axed the most effective and efficient programs at USAID, and forced out the chief economist, who was brought in to oversee a more aggressive push toward efficiency.”Today, we're talking to that forced-out chief economist, Dean Karlan. Dean spent two and a half years at the helm of the first-ever Office of the Chief Economist at USAID. In that role, he tried to help USAID get better value from its foreign aid spending. His office shifted $1.7 billion of spending towards programs with stronger evidence of effectiveness. He explains how he achieved this, building a start-up within a massive bureaucracy. I should note that Dean is one of the titans of development economics, leading some of the most important initiatives in the field (I won't list them, but see here for details), and I think there's a plausible case he deserves a Nobel.Throughout this conversation, Dean makes a point much better than I could: the status quo at USAID needed a lot of improvement. The same political mechanisms that get foreign aid funded by Congress also created major vulnerabilities for foreign aid, vulnerabilities that DOGE seized on. Dean believes foreign aid is hugely valuable, a good thing for us to spend our time, money, and resources on. But there's a lot USAID could do differently to make its marginal dollar spent more efficient.DOGE could have made USAID much more accountable and efficient by listening to people like Dean, and reformers of foreign aid should think carefully about Dean's criticisms of USAID, and his points for how to make foreign aid not just resilient but politically popular in the long term.We discuss* What does the Chief Economist do?* Why does 170% percent of USAID funds come already earmarked by Congress?* Why is evaluating program effectiveness institutionally difficult?* Why don't we just do cash transfers for everything?* Why institutions like USAID have trouble prioritizing* Should USAID get rid of gender/environment/fairness in procurement rules?* Did it rely too much on a small group of contractors?* What's changed in development economics over the last 20 years?* Should USAID spend more on governance and less on other forms of aid? * How DOGE killed USAID — and how to bring it back better* Is depoliticizing foreign aid even possible?* Did USAID build “soft power” for the United States?This is a long conversation: you can jump to a specific section with the index above. If you just want to hear about Dean's experience with DOGE, you can click here or go to the 45-minute mark in the audio. And if you want my abbreviated summary of the conversation, see these two Twitter threads. But I think the full conversation is enlightening, especially if you want to understand the American foreign aid system. Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious edits.Our past coverage of USAIDDean, I'm curious about the limits of your authority. What can the Chief Economist of USAID do? What can they make people do?There had never been an Office of the Chief Economist before. In a sense, I was running a startup, within a 13,000-employee agency that had fairly baked-in, decentralized processes for doing things.Congress would say, "This is how much to spend on this sector and these countries." What you actually fund was decided by missions in the individual countries. It was exciting to have that purview across the world and across many areas, not just economic development, but also education, social protection, agriculture. But the reality is, we were running a consulting unit within USAID, trying to advise others on how to use evidence more effectively in order to maximize impact for every dollar spent.We were able to make some institutional changes, focused on basically a two-pronged strategy. One, what are the institutional enablers — the rules and the processes for how things get done — that are changeable? And two, let's get our hands dirty working with the budget holders who say, "I would love to use the evidence that's out there, please help guide us to be more effective with what we're doing."There were a lot of willing and eager people within USAID. We did not lack support to make that happen. We never would've achieved anything, had there not been an eager workforce who heard our mission and knocked on our door to say, "Please come help us do that."What do you mean when you say USAID has decentralized processes for doing things?Earmarks and directives come down from Congress. [Some are] about sector: $1 billion dollars to spend on primary school education to improve children's learning outcomes, for instance. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) [See our interview with former PEPFAR lead Mark Dybul] is one of the biggest earmarks to spend money specifically on specific diseases. Then there's directives that come down about how to allocate across countries.Those are two conversations I have very little engagement on, because some of that comes from Congress. It's a very complicated, intertwined set of constraints that are then adhered to and allocated to the different countries. Then what ends up happening is — this is the decentralized part — you might be a Foreign Service Officer (FSO) working in a country, your focus is education, and you're given a budget for that year from the earmark for education and told, "Go spend $80 million on a new award in education." You're working to figure out, “How should we spend that?” There might be some technical support from headquarters, but ultimately, you're responsible for making those decisions. Part of our role was to help guide those FSOs towards programs that had more evidence of effectiveness.Could you talk more about these earmarks? There's a popular perception that USAID decides what it wants to fund. But these big categories of humanitarian aid, or health, or governance, are all decided in Congress. Often it's specific congressmen or congresswomen who really want particular pet projects to be funded.That's right. And the number that I heard is that something in the ballpark of 150-170% of USAID funds were earmarked. That might sound horrible, but it's not.How is that possible?Congress double-dips, in a sense: we have two different demands. You must spend money on these two things. If the same dollar can satisfy both, that was completely legitimate. There was no hiding of that fact. It's all public record, and it all comes from congressional acts that create these earmarks. There's nothing hidden underneath the hood.Will you give me examples of double earmarking in practice? What kinds of goals could you satisfy with the same dollar?There's an earmark for Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) to do research, and an earmark for education. If DIV is going to fund an evaluation of something in the education space, there's a possibility that that can satisfy a dual earmark requirement. That's the kind of thing that would happen. One is an earmark for a process: “Do really careful, rigorous evaluations of interventions, so that we learn more about what works and what doesn't." And another is, "Here's money that has to be spent on education." That would be an example of a double dip on an earmark.And within those categories, the job of Chief Economist was to help USAID optimize the funding? If you're spending $2 billion on education, “Let's be as effective with that money as possible.”That's exactly right. We had two teams, Evidence Use and Evidence Generation. It was exactly what it sounds like. If there was an earmark for $1 billion dollars on education, the Evidence Use team worked to do systematic analysis: “What is the best evidence out there for what works for education for primary school learning outcomes?” Then, “How can we map that evidence to the kinds of things that USAID funds? What are the kinds of questions that need to be figured out?”It's not a cookie-cutter answer. A systematic review doesn't say, "Here's the intervention. Now just roll it out everywhere." We had to work with the missions — with people who know the local area — to understand, “What is the local context? How do you appropriately adapt this program in a procurement and contextualize it to that country, so that you can hire people to use that evidence?”Our Evidence Generation team was trying to identify knowledge gaps where the agency could lead in producing more knowledge about what works and what doesn't. If there was something innovative that USAID was funding, we were huge advocates of, "Great, let's contribute to the global public good of knowledge, so that we can learn more in the future about what to do, and so others can learn from us. So let's do good, careful evaluations."Being able to demonstrate what good came of an intervention also serves the purpose of accountability. But I've never been a fan of doing really rigorous evaluations just for the sake of accountability. It could discourage innovation and risk-taking, because if you fail, you'd be seen as a failure, rather than as a win for learning that an idea people thought was reasonable didn't turn out to work. It also probably leads to overspending on research, rather than doing programs. If you're doing something just for accountability purposes, you're better off with audits. "Did you actually deliver the program that you said you would deliver, or not?"Awards over $100 million dollars did go through the front office of USAID for approval. We added a process — it was actually a revamped old process — where they stopped off in my office. We were able to provide guidance on the cost-effectiveness of proposals that would then be factored into the decision on whether to proceed. When I was first trying to understand Project 2025, because we saw that as a blueprint for what changes to expect, one of the changes they proposed was actually that process. I remember thinking to myself, "We just did that. Hopefully this change that they had in mind when they wrote that was what we actually put in place." But I thought of it as a healthy process that had an impact, not just on that one award, but also in helping set an example for smaller awards of, “This is how to be more evidence-based in what you're doing.”[Further reading: Here's a position paper Karlan's office at USAID put out in 2024 on how USAID should evaluate cost-effectiveness.]You've also argued that USAID should take into account more research that has already been done on global development and humanitarian aid. Your ideal wouldn't be for USAID to do really rigorous research on every single thing it does. You can get a lot better just by incorporating things that other people have learned.That's absolutely right. I can say this as a researcher: to no one's surprise, it's more bureaucratic to work with the government as a research funder than it is to work with foundations and nimble NGOs. If I want to evaluate a particular program, and you give me a choice of who the funder should be, the only reason I would choose government is if it had a faster on-ramp to policy by being inside.The people who are setting policy should not be putting more weight on evidence that they paid for. In fact, one of the slogans that I often used at USAID is, "Evidence doesn't care who pays for it." We shouldn't be, as an agency, putting more weight on the things that we evaluated vs. things that others evaluated without us, and that we can learn from, mimic, replicate, and scale.We — and the we here is everyone, researchers and policymakers — put too much weight on individual studies, in a horrible way. The first to publish on something gets more accolades than the second, third and fourth. That's not healthy when it comes to policy. If we put too much weight on our own evidence, we end up putting too much weight on individual studies we happen to do. That's not healthy either.That was one of the big pieces of culture change that we tried to push internally at USAID. We had this one slide that we used repeatedly that showed the plethora of evidence out there in the world compared to 20 years ago. A lot more studies are now usable. You can aggregate that evidence and form much better policies.You had political support to innovate that not everybody going into government has. On the other hand, USAID is a big, bureaucratic entity. There are all kinds of cross-pressures against being super-effective per dollar spent. In doing culture change, what kinds of roadblocks did you run into internally?We had a lot of support and political cover, in the sense that the political appointees — I was not a political appointee — were huge fans. But political appointees under Republicans have also been huge fans of what we were doing. Disagreements are more about what to do and what causes to choose. But the basic idea of being effective with your dollars to push your policy agenda is something that cuts across both sides.In the days leading up to the inauguration, we were expecting to continue the work we were doing. Being more cost-effective was something some of the people who were coming in were huge advocates for. They did make progress under Trump I in pushing USAID in that direction. We saw ourselves as able to help further that goal. Obviously, that's not the way it played out, but there isn't really anything political about being more cost-effective.We'll come back to that, but I do want to talk about the 2.5 years you spent in the Biden administration. USAID is full of people with all kinds of incentives, including some folks who were fully on board and supportive. What kinds of challenges did you have in trying to change the culture to be more focused on evidence and effectiveness?There was a fairly large contingent of people who welcomed us, were eager, understood the space that we were coming from and the things that we wanted, and greeted us with open arms. There's no way we would've accomplished what we accomplished without that. We had a bean counter within the Office of the Chief Economist of moving about $1.7 billion towards programs that were more effective or had strong evaluations. That would've been $0 had there not been some individuals who were already eager and just didn't have the path for doing it.People can see economists as people who are going to come in negative and a bit dismal — the dismal science, so to speak. I got into economics for a positive reason. We tried as often as possible to show that with an economic lens, we can help people achieve their goals better, period. We would say repeatedly to people, "We're not here to actually make the difficult choices: to say whether health, education, or food security is the better use of money. We're here to accept your goal and help you achieve more of it for your dollar spent.” We always send a very disarming message: we're there simply to help people achieve their goals and to illuminate the trade-offs that naturally exist.Within USAID, you have a consensus-type organization. When you have 10 people sitting around a room trying to decide how to spend money towards a common goal, if you don't crystallize the trade-offs between the various ideas being put forward, you end up seeing a consensus built: that everybody gets a piece of the pie. Our way of trying to shift the culture is to take those moments and say, "Wait a second. All 10 might be good ideas relative to doing nothing, but they can't all be good relative to each other. We all share a common goal, so let's be clear about the trade-offs between these different programs. Let's identify the ones that are actually getting you the most bang for your buck."Can you give me an example of what those trade-offs might be in a given sector?Sure. Let's take social protection, what we would call the Humanitarian Nexus development space. It might be working in a refugee area — not dealing with the immediate crisis, but one, two, five, or ten years later — trying to help bring the refugees into a more stable environment and into economic activities. Sometimes, you would see some cash or food provided to households. The programs would all have the common goal of helping to build a sustainable livelihood for households, so that they can be more integrated into the local economy. There might be programs providing water, financial instruments like savings vehicles, and supporting vocational education. It'd be a myriad of things, all on this focused goal of income-generating activity for the households to make them more stable in the long run.Often, those kinds of programs doing 10 different things did not actually lead to an observable impact over five years. But a more focused approach has gone through evaluations: cash transfers. That's a good example where “reducing” doesn't always mean reduce your programs just to one thing, but there is this default option of starting with a base case: “What does a cash transfer generate?"And to clarify for people who don't follow development economics, the cash transfer is just, “What if we gave people money?”Sometimes it is just that. Sometimes it's thinking strategically, “Maybe we should do it as a lump sum so that it goes into investments. Maybe we should do it with a planning exercise to make those investments.” Let's just call it “cash-plus,” or “cash-with-a-little-plus,” then variations of that nature. There's a different model, maybe call it, “cash-plus-plus,” called the graduation model. That has gone through about 30 randomized trials, showing pretty striking impacts on long-run income-generating activity for households. At its core is a cash transfer, usually along with some training about income-generating activity — ideally one that is producing and exporting in some way, even a local export to the capital — and access to some form of savings. In some cases, that's an informal savings group, with a community that comes and saves together. In some cases, it's mobile money that's the core. It's a much simpler program, and it's easier to do it at scale. It has generated considerable, measured, repeatedly positive impacts, but not always. There's a lot more that needs to be learned about how to do it more effectively.[Further reading: Here's another position paper from Karlan's team at USAID on benchmarking against cash transfers.]One of your recurring refrains is, “If we're not sure that these other ideas have an impact, let's benchmark: would a cash-transfer model likely give us more bang for our buck than this panoply of other programs that we're trying to run?”The idea of having a benchmark is a great approach in general. You should always be able to beat X. X might be different in different contexts. In a lot of cases, cash is the right benchmark.Go back to education. What's your benchmark for improving learning outcomes for a primary school? Cash transfer is not the right benchmark. The evidence that cash transfers will single-handedly move the needle on learning outcomes is not that strong. On the other hand, a couple of different programs — one called Teaching at the Right Level, another called structured pedagogy — have proven repeatedly to generate very strong impacts at a fairly modest cost. In education, those should be the benchmark. If you want to innovate, great, innovate. But your goal is to beat those. If you can beat them consistently, you become the benchmark. That's a great process for the long run. It's very much part of our thinking about what the future of foreign aid should look like: to be structured around that benchmark.Let's go back to those roundtables you described, where you're trying to figure out what the intervention should be for a group of refugees in a foreign country. What were the responses when you'd say, “Look, if we're all pulling in the same direction, we have to toss out the three worst ideas”?One of the challenges is the psychology of ethics. There's probably a word for this, but one of the objections we would often get was about the scale of a program for an individual. Someone would argue, "But this won't work unless you do this one extra thing." That extra thing might be providing water to the household, along with a cash transfer for income-generating activity, financial support, and bank accounts. Another objection would be that, "You also have to provide consumption and food up to a certain level."These are things that individually might be good, relative to nothing, or maybe even relative to other water approaches or cash transfers. But if you're focused on whether to satisfy the household's food needs, or provide half of what's needed — if all you're thinking about is the trade-off between full and half — you immediately jump to this idea that, "No, we have to go full. That's what's needed to help this household." But if you go to half, you can help more people. There's an actual trade-off: 10,000 people will receive nothing because you're giving more to the people in your program.The same is true for nutritional supplements. Should you provide 2,000 calories a day, or 1,000 calories a day to more people? It's a very difficult conversation on the psychology of ethics. There's this idea that people in a program are sacrosanct, and you must do everything you can for them. But that ignores all the people who are not being reached at all.I would find myself in conversations where that's exactly the way I would try to put it. I would say, "Okay, wait, we have the 2,000,000 people that are eligible for this program in this context. Our program is only going to reach 250,000. That's the reality. Now, let's talk about how many people we're willing to leave untouched and unhelped whatsoever." That was, at least to me, the right way to frame this question. Do you go very intense for fewer people or broader support for more people?Did that help these roundtables reach consensus, or at least have a better sense of what things are trading off against each other?I definitely saw movement for some. I wouldn't say it was uniform, and these are difficult conversations. But there was a lot of appetite for this recognition that, as big as USAID was, it was still small, relative to the problems being approached. There were a lot of people in any given crisis who were being left unhelped. The minute you're able to help people focus more on those big numbers, as daunting as they are, I would see more openness to looking at the evidence to figure out how to do the most good with the resources we have?” We must recognize these inherent trade-offs, whether we like it or not.Back in 2023, you talked to Dylan Matthews at Vox — it's a great interview — about how it's hard to push people to measure cost-effectiveness, when it means adding another step to a big, complicated bureaucratic process of getting aid out the door. You said,"There are also bandwidth issues. There's a lot of competing demands. Some of these demands relate to important issues on gender environment, fairness in the procurement process. These add steps to the process that need to be adhered to. What you end up with is a lot of overworked people. And then you're saying, ‘Here's one more thing to do.'”Looking back, what do you think of those demands on, say, fairness in the procurement process?Given that we're going to be facing a new environment, there probably are some steps in the process that — hopefully, when things are put back in place in some form — someone can be thinking more carefully about. It's easier to put in a cleaner process that avoids some of these hiccups when you start with a blank slate.Having said that, it's also going to be fewer people to dole out less money. There's definitely a challenge that we're going to be facing as a country, to push out money in an effective way with many fewer people for oversight. I don't think it would be accurate to say we achieved this goal yet, but my goal was to make it so that adding cost-effectiveness was actually a negative-cost addition to the process. [We wanted] to do it in a way that successfully recognized that it wasn't a cookie-cutter solution from up top for every country. But [our goal was that] the work to contextualize in a country actually simplified the process for whoever's putting together the procurement docs and deciding what to put in them. I stand by that belief that if it's done well, we can make this a negative-cost process change.I just want to push a little bit. Would you be supportive of a USAID procurement and contracting process that stripped out a bunch of these requirements about gender, environment, or fairness in contracting? Would that make USAID a more effective institution?Some of those types of things did serve an important purpose for some areas and not others. The tricky thing is, how do you set up a process to decide when to do it, when not? There's definitely cases where you would see an environmental review of something that really had absolutely nothing to do with the environment. It was just a cog in the process, but you have to have a process for deciding the process. I don't know enough about the legislation that was put in place on each of these to say, “Was there a better way of deciding when to do them, when not to do them?” That is not something that I was involved in in a direct way. "Let's think about redoing how we introduce gender in our procurement process" was never put on the table.On gender, there's a fair amount of evidence in different contexts that says the way of dealing with a gender inequity is not to just take the same old program and say, "We're now going to do this for women." You need to understand something more about the local context. If all you do is take programs and say, "Add a gender component," you end up with a lot of false attribution, and you don't end up being effective at the very thing that the person [leading the program] cares to do.In that Vox interview, your host says, "USAID relies heavily on a small number of well-connected contractors to deliver most aid, while other groups are often deterred from even applying by the process's complexity." He goes on to say that the use of rigorous evaluation methods like randomized controlled trials is the exception, not the norm.On Statecraft, we talked to Kyle Newkirk, who ran USAID procurement in Afghanistan in the late 2000s, about the small set of well-connected contractors that took most of the contracts in Afghanistan. Often, there was very little oversight from USAID, either because it was hard to get out to those locations in a war-torn environment, or because the system of accountability wasn't built there. Did you talk to people about lessons learned from USAID operating in Afghanistan?No. I mean, only to the following extent: The lesson learned there, as I understand it, wasn't so much about the choice on what intervention to fund, it was procurement: the local politics and engagement with the governments or lack thereof. And dealing with the challenge of doing work in a context like that, where there's more risk of fraud and issues of that nature.Our emphasis was about the design of programs to say, “What are you actually going to try to fund?” Dealing with whether there's fraud in the execution would fall more under the Inspector General and other units. That's not an area that we engaged in when we would do evaluation.This actually gets to a key difference between impact evaluations and accountability. It's one of the areas where we see a lot of loosey-goosey language in the media reporting and Twitter. My office focused on impact evaluation. What changed in the world because of this intervention, that wouldn't otherwise have changed? By “change in the world,” we are making a causal statement. That's setting up things like randomized controlled trials to find out, “What was the impact of this program?” It does provide some accountability, but it really should be done to look forward, in order to know, “Does this help achieve the goals we have in mind?” If so, let's learn that, and replicate it, scale it, do it again.If you're going to deliver books to schools, medicine to health clinics, or cash to people, and you're concerned about fraud, then you need to audit that process and see, “Did the books get to the schools, the medicine to the people, the cash to the people?” You don't need to ask, "Did the medicine solve the disease?" There's been studies already. There's a reason that medicine was being prescribed. Once it's proven to be an effective drug, you don't run randomized trials for decades to learn what you already know. If it's the prescribed drug, you just prescribe the drug, and do accountability exercises to make sure that the drugs are getting into the right hands and there isn't theft or corruption along the way.I think it's a very intuitive thing. There's a confusion that often takes place in social science, in economic or education interventions. They somehow forget that once we know that a certain program generates a certain positive impact, we no longer need to track continuously to find out what happens. Instead, we just need to do accountability to make sure that the program is being delivered as it was designed, tested, and shown to work.There are all these criticisms — from the waste, fraud, and corruption perspective — of USAID working with a couple of big contractors. USAID works largely through these big development organizations like Chemonics. Would USAID dollars be more effective if it worked through a larger base of contractors?I don't think we know. There's probably a few different operating models that can deliver the same basic intervention. We need to focus on, ”What actually are we doing on the ground? What is it that we want the recipients of the program to receive, hear, or do?” and then think backwards from there: "Who's the right implementer for this?" If there's an implementer who is much more expensive for delivering the same product, let's find someone who's more cost-effective.It's helpful to break cost-effective programming into two things: the intervention itself and what benefits it accrues, and the cost for delivering that. Sometimes the improvement is not about the intervention, it's about the delivery model. Maybe that's what you're saying: “These players were too few, too large, and they had a grab on the market, so that they were able to charge too much money to deliver something that others were equally able to do at lower cost." If that's the case, that says, "We should reform our procurement process,” because the reason you would see that happen is they were really good at complying with requirements that came at USAID from Congress. You had an overworked workforce [within USAID] that had to comply with all these requirements. If you had a bid between two groups, one of which repeatedly delivered on the paperwork to get a good performance evaluation, and a new group that doesn't have that track record, who are you going to choose? That's how we ended up where we are.My understanding of the history is that it comes from a push from Republicans in the ‘80s, from [Senator] Jesse Helms, to outsource USAID efforts to contractors. So this is not a left-leaning thing. I wouldn't say it is right-leaning either. It was just a decision made decades ago. You combine that with the bureaucratic requirements of working with USAID, and you end up with a few firms and nonprofits skilled at dealing with it.It's definitely my impression that at various points in American history, different partisans are calling for insourcing or for outsourcing. But definitely, I think you're right that the NGO cluster around USAID does spring up out of a Republican push in the eighties.We talked to John Kamensky recently, who was on Al Gore's predecessor to DOGE in the ‘90s.I listened to this, yeah.I'm glad to hear it! I'm thinking of it because they also pushed to cut the workforce in the mid-90s and outsource federal functions.Earlier, you mentioned a slide that showed what we've learned in the field of development economics over the past 20 years. Will you narrate that slide for me?Let me do two slides for you. The slide that I was picturing was a count of randomized controlled trials in development that shows a fairly exponential growth. The movement started in the mid-to-late 1990s, but really took off in the 2000s. Even just in the past 10 years, it's seen a considerable increase. There's about 4-5,000 randomized controlled trials evaluating various programs of the kind USAID funds.That doesn't tell you the substance of what was learned. Here's an example of substance, which is cash transfers: probably the most studied intervention out there. We have a meta-analysis that counted 115 studies. That's where you start having a preponderance of evidence to be able to say something concrete. There's some variation: you get different results in different places; targeting and ways of doing it vary. A good systematic analysis can help tease out what we can say, not just about the effect of cash, but also how to do it and what to expect, depending on how it's done. Fifteen years ago, when we saw the first few come out, you just had, "Oh, that's interesting. But it's a couple of studies, how do you form policy around that?” With 115, we can say so much more.What else have we learned about development that USAID operators in the year 2000 would not have been able to act upon?Think about the development process in two steps. One is choosing good interventions; the other is implementing them well. The study of implementation is historically underdone. The challenge that we face — this is an area I was hoping USAID could make inroads on — was, studying a new intervention might be of high reward from an academic perspective. But it's a lot less interesting to an academic to do much more granular work to say, "That was an interesting program that created these groups [of aid recipients]; now let's do some further knock-on research to find out whether those groups should be made of four, six, or ten people.” It's going to have a lower reward for the researcher, but it's incredibly important.It's equivalent to the color of the envelope in direct marketing. You might run tests — if this were old-style direct marketing — as to whether the envelope should be blue or red. You might find that blue works better. Great, but that's not interesting to an academic. But if you run 50 of these, on a myriad of topics about how to implement better, you end up with a collection of knowledge that is moving the needle on how to achieve more impact per dollar.That collection is not just important for policy: it also helps us learn more about the development process and the bottlenecks for implementing good programs. As we're seeing more digital platforms and data being used, [refining implementation] is more possible compared to 20 years ago, where most of the research was at the intervention level: does this intervention work? That's an exciting transition. It's also a path to seeing how foreign aid can help in individual contexts, [as we] work with local governments to integrate evidence into their operations and be more efficient with their own resources.There's an argument I've seen a lot recently: we under-invest in governance relative to other foreign aid goals. If we care about economic growth and humanitarian outcomes, we should spend a lot more on supporting local governance. What do you make of that claim?I agree with it actually, but there's a big difference between recognizing the problem and seeing what the tool is to address it. It's one thing to say, “Politics matters, institutions matter.” There's lots of evidence to support that, including the recent Nobel Prize. It's another beast to say, “This particular intervention will improve institutions and governance.”The challenge is, “What do we do about this? What is working to improve this? What is resilient to the political process?” The minute you get into those kinds of questions, it's the other end of the spectrum from a cash transfer. A cash transfer has a kind of universality: Not to say you're going to get the same impact everywhere, but it's a bit easier to think about the design of a program. You have fewer parameters to decide. When you think about efforts to improve governance, you need bespoke thinking in every single place.As you point out, it's something of a meme to say “institutions matter” and to leave it at that, but the devil is in all of those details.In my younger years — I feel old saying that — I used to do a lot of work on financial inclusion, and financial literacy was always my go-to example. On a household level, it's really easy to show a correlation: people who are more financially literate make better financial decisions and have more wealth, etc. It's much harder to say, “How do you move the needle on financial literacy in a way that actually helps people make better decisions, absorb shocks better, build investment better, save better?” It's easy to show that the correlation is there. It's much harder to say this program, here, will actually move the needle. That same exact problem is much more complicated when thinking about governance and institutions.Let's talk about USAID as it stands today. You left USAID when it became clear to you that a lot of the work you were doing was not of interest to the people now running it. How did the agency end up so disconnected from a political base of support? There's still plenty of people who support USAID and would like it to be reinstated, but it was at least vulnerable enough to be tipped over by DOGE in a matter of weeks. How did that happen?I don't know that I would agree with the premise. I'm not sure that public support of foreign aid actually changed, I'd be curious to see that. I think aid has always been misunderstood. There are public opinion polls that show people thought 25% of the US budget was spent on foreign aid. One said, "What, do you think it should be?" People said 10%. The right answer is about 0.6%. You could say fine, people are bad at statistics, but those numbers are pretty dauntingly off. I don't know that that's changed. I heard numbers like that years ago.I think there was a vulnerability to an effort that doesn't create a visible impact to people's lives in America, the way that Social Security, Medicare, and roads do. Foreign aid just doesn't have that luxury. I think it's always been vulnerable. It has always had some bipartisan support, because of the understanding of the bigger picture and the soft power that's gained from it. And the recognition that we are a nation built on the idea of generosity and being good to others. That was always there, but it required Congress to step in and say, "Let's go spend this money on foreign aid." I don't think that changed. What changed was that you ended up with an administration that just did not share those values.There's this issue in foreign aid: Congress picks its priorities, but those priorities are not a ranked list of what Congress cares about. It's the combination of different interests and pressures in Congress that generates the list of things USAID is going to fund.You could say doing it that way is necessary to build buy-in from a bunch of different political interests for the work of foreign aid. On the other hand, maybe the emergent list from that process is not the things that are most important to fund. And clearly, that congressional buy-in wasn't enough to protect USAID from DOGE or from other political pressures.How should people who care about foreign aid reason about building a version of USAID that's more effective and less vulnerable at the same time?Fair question. Look, I have thoughts, but by no means do I think of myself as the most knowledgeable person to say, here's the answer in the way forward. One reality is, even if Congress did object, they didn't have a mechanism in place to actually object. They can control the power of the purse the next round, but we're probably going to be facing a constitutional crisis over the Impoundment Act, to see if the executive branch can impound money that Congress spent. We'll see how this plays out. Aside from taking that to court, all Congress could do was complain.I would like what comes back to have two things done that will help, but they don't make foreign aid immune. One is to be more evidence-based, because then attacks on being ineffective are less strong. But the reality is, some of the attacks on its “effectiveness,” and the examples used, had nothing to do with poorly-chosen interventions. There was a slipperiness of language, calling something that they don't like “fraud” and “waste” because they didn't like its purpose. That is very different than saying, “We actually agreed on the purpose of something, but then you implemented it in such a bad way that there was fraud and waste.” There were really no examples given of that second part. So I don't know that being more evidence-based will actually protect it, given that that wasn't the way it was really genuinely taken down.The second is some boundaries. There is a core set of activities that have bipartisan support. How do we structure a foreign aid that is just focused on that? We need to find a way to put the things that are more controversial — whether it's the left or right that wants it — in a separate bucket. Let the team that wins the election turn that off and on as they wish, without adulterating the core part that has bipartisan support. That's the key question: can we set up a process that partitions those, so that they don't have that vulnerability? [I wrote about this problem earlier this year.]My counter-example is PEPFAR, which had a broad base of bipartisan support. PEPFAR consistently got long-term reauthorizations from Congress, I think precisely because of the dynamic you're talking about: It was a focused, specific intervention that folks all over the political spectrum could get behind and save lives. But in government programs, if something has a big base of support, you have an incentive to stuff your pet partisan issues in there, for the same reason that “must-pass” bills get stuffed with everybody's little thing. [In 2024, before DOGE, PEPFAR's original Republican co-sponsor came out against a long-term reauthorization, on the grounds that the Biden administration was using the program to promote abortion. Congress reauthorized PEPFAR for only one year, and that reauthorization lapsed in 2025.]You want to carve out the things that are truly bipartisan. But does that idea have a timer attached? What if, on a long enough timeline, everything becomes politicized?There are economic theorems about the nature of a repeated game. You can get many different equilibria in the long run. I'd like to think there's a world in which that is the answer. But we have seen an erosion of other things, like the filibuster regarding judges. Each team makes a little move in some direction, and then you change the equilibrium. We always have that risk. The goal is, how can you establish something where that doesn't happen?It might be that what's happened is helpful, in an unintended way, to build equilibrium in the future that keeps things focused on the bipartisan aspect. Whether it's the left or the right that wants to do something that they know the other side will object to, they hold back and say, "Maybe we shouldn't do that. Because when we do, the whole thing gets blown up."Let's imagine you're back at USAID a couple of years from now, with a broader latitude to organize our foreign aid apparatus around impact and effectiveness. What other things might we want to do — beyond measuring programs and keeping trade-offs in mind — if we really wanted to focus on effectiveness? Would we do fewer interventions and do them at larger scale?I think we would do fewer things simpler and bigger, but I also think we need to recognize that even at our biggest, we were tiny compared to the budget of the local government. If we can do more to use our money to help them be more effective with their money, that's the biggest win to go for. That starts looking a lot like things Mark Green was putting in place [as administrator of USAID] under Trump I, under the Journey to Self-Reliance [a reorganization of USAID to help countries address development challenges themselves].Sometimes that's done in the context of, "Let's do that for five or ten years, and then we can stop giving aid to that country." That was the way the Millennium Challenge Corporation talked about their country selection initially. Eventually, they stopped doing that, because they realized that that was never happening. I think that's okay. As much as we might help make some changes, even if we succeed in helping the poorest country in the world use their resources better, they're still going to be poor. We're still going to be rich. There's still maybe going to be the poorest, because if we do that in the 10 poorest countries and they all move up, maybe the 11th becomes the poorest, and then we can work there. I don't think getting off of aid is necessarily the objective.But if that was clearly the right answer, that's a huge win if we've done that by helping to prove the institutions and governance of that country so that it is rolling out better policies, helping its people better, and collecting their own tax revenue. If we can have an eye on that, then that's a huge win for foreign aid in general.How are we supposed to be measuring the impact of soft power? I think that's a term that's not now much in vogue in DC.There's no one answer to how to measure soft power. It's described as the influence that we gain in the world in terms of geopolitics, everything from treaties and the United Nations to access to markets; trade policy, labor policy. The basic idea of soft power manifests itself in all those different ways.It's a more extreme version of the challenge of measuring the impact of cash transfers. You want to measure the impact of a pill that is intended to deal with disease: you measure the disease, and you have a direct measure. You want to measure the impact of cash: you have to measure a lot of different things, because you don't know how people are going to use the cash. Soft power is even further down the spectrum: you don't know exactly how aid is helping build our partnership with a country's people and leaders. How is that going to manifest itself in the future? That becomes that much harder to do.Having said that, there's academic studies that document everything from attitudes about America to votes at the United Nations that follow aid, and things of that nature. But it's not like there's one core set: that's part of what makes it a challenge.I will put my cards on the table here: I have been skeptical of the idea that USAID is a really valuable tool for American soft power, for maintaining American hegemony, etc. It seems much easier to defend USAID by simply saying that it does excellent humanitarian work, and that's valuable. The national security argument for USAID seems harder to substantiate.I think we agree on this. You have such a wide set of things to look at, it's not hard to imagine a bias from a researcher might lead to selection of outcomes, and of the context. It's not a well-defined enough concept to be able to say, "It worked 20% of the time, and it did not in these, and the net average…" Average over what? Even though there's good case studies that show various paths where it has mattered, there's case studies that show it doesn't.I also get nervous about an entire system that's built around [attempts to measure soft power]. It turns foreign aid into too much of a transactional process, instead of a relationship that is built on the Golden Rule, “There's people in this country that we can actually help.” Sure, there's this hope that it'll help further our national interests. But if they're suffering from drought and famine, and we can provide support and save some lives, or we can do longer term developments and save tomorrow's lives, we ought to do that. That is a good thing for our country to do.Yet the conversation does often come back to this question of soft power. The problem with transactional is you get exactly what you contract on: nothing more, nothing less. There's too many unknowns here, when we're dealing with country-level interactions, and engagements between countries. It needs to be about relationships, and that means supporting even if there isn't a contract that itemizes the exact quid pro quo we are getting for something.I want to talk about what you observed in the administration change and the DOGE-ing of USAID. I think plenty of observers looked at this in the beginning and thought, “It's high time that a lot of these institutions were cleaned up and that someone took a hard look at how we spend money there.”There was not really any looking at any of the impact of anything. That was never in the cards. There was a 90-day review that was supposed to be done, but there were no questions asked, there was no data being collected. There was nothing whatsoever being looked at that had anything to do with, “Was this award actually accomplishing what it set out to accomplish?” There was no process in which they made those kinds of evaluations on what's actually working.You can see this very clearly when you think about what their bean counter was at DOGE: the spending that they cut. It's like me saying, "I'm going to do something beneficial for my household by stopping all expenditures on food." But we were getting something for that. Maybe we could have bought more cheaply, switched grocery stores, made a change there that got us the same food for less money. That would be a positive change. But you can't cut all your food expenditures, call that a saving, and then not have anything to eat. That's just bad math, bad economics.But that's exactly what they were doing. Throughout the entire government, that bean counter never once said, “benefits foregone.” It was always just “lowered spending.” Some of that probably did actually have a net loss, maybe it was $100 million spent on something that only created $10 million of benefits to Americans. That's a $90 million gain. But it was recorded as $100 million. And the point is, they never once looked at what benefits were being generated from the spending. What was being asked, within USAID, had nothing to do with what was actually being accomplished by any of the money that was being spent. It was never even asked.How do you think about risky bets in a place like USAID? It would be nice for USAID to take lots of high-risk, high-reward bets, and to be willing to spend money that will be “wasted” in the pursuit of high-impact interventions. But that approach is hard for government programs, politically, because the misses are much more salient than the successes.This is a very real issue. I saw this the very first time I did any sort of briefing with Congress when I was Chief Economist. The question came at me, "Why doesn't USAID show us more failures?" I remember thinking to myself, "Are you willing to promise that when they show the failure, you won't punish them for the failure — that you'll reward them for documenting and learning from the failure and not doing it again?" That's a very difficult nut to crack.There's an important distinction to make. You can have a portfolio of evidence generation, some things work and some don't, that can collectively contribute towards knowledge and scaling of effective programs. USAID actually had something like this called Development Innovation Ventures (DIV), and was in an earmark from Congress. It was so good that they raised money from the effective altruist community to further augment their pot of money. This was strong because a lot of it was not evaluating USAID interventions. It was just funding a portfolio of evidence generation about what works, implemented by other parties. The failures aren't as devastating, because you're showing a failure of some other party: it wasn't USAID money paying for an intervention. That was a strong model for how USAID can take on some risks and do some evidence generation that is immune to the issue you just described.If you're going to do evaluations of USAID money, the issue is very real. My overly simplistic view is that a lot of what USAID does should not be getting a highly rigorous impact evaluation. USAID should be rolling out, simple and at scale, things that have already been shown elsewhere. Let the innovation take place pre-USAID, funded elsewhere, maybe by DIV. Let smaller and more nimble nonprofits be the innovators and the documenters of what works. Then, USAID can adopt the things that are more effective and be more immune to this issue.So yeah, there is a world that is not first-best where USAID does the things that have strong evidence already. When it comes to actual innovation, where we do need to take risks that things won't work, let that be done in a way that may be supported by USAID, but partitioned away.I'm looking at a chart of USAID program funding in Fiscal Year 2022: the three big buckets are humanitarian, health, and governance, all on the order of $10–12 billion. Way down at the bottom, there's $500 million for “economic growth.” What's in that bucket that USAID funds, and should that piece of the pie chart be larger?I do think that should be larger, but it depends on how you define it. I don't say that just because I'm an economist. It goes back to the comment earlier about things that we can do to help improve local governance, and how they're using their resources. The kinds of things that might be funded would be efforts to work with local government to improve their ability to collect taxes. Or to set up efficient regulations for the banking industry, so it can grow and provide access to credit and savings. These are things that can help move the needle on macroeconomic outcomes. With that, you have more resources. That helps health and education, you have these downstream impacts. As you pointed out, the earmark on that was tiny. It did not have quite the same heartstring tug. But the logical link is huge and strong: if you strengthen the local government's financial stability, the benefits very much accrue to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Social Protection, etc.Fighting your way out of poverty through growth is unambiguously good. You can look at many countries around the world that have grown economically, and through that, reduced poverty. But it's one thing to say that growth will alleviate poverty. It's another to say, "Here's aid money that will trigger growth." If we knew how to do that, we would've done it long ago, in a snap.Last question. Let's say it's a clean slate at USAID in a couple years, and you have wide latitude to do things your way. I want the Dean Karlan vision for the future of USAID.It needs to have, at the high level, a recognition that the Golden Rule is an important principle that guides our thinking on foreign aid and that we want to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Being generous as a people is something that we pride ourselves in, our nation represents us as people, so we shouldn't be in any way shy to use foreign aid to further that aspiration of being a generous nation.The actual way of delivering aid, I would say, three things. Simpler. Let's focus on the evidence of what works, but recognize the boundaries of that evidence and how to contextualize it. There is a strong need to understand what it means to be simpler, and how to identify what that means in specific countries and contexts.The second is about leveraging local government, and working more to recognize that, as big as we may be, we're still going to be tiny relative to local government. If we can do more to improve how local government is using its resources, we've won.The third is about finding common ground. There's a lot. That's one of the reasons why I've started working on a consortium with Republicans and Democrats. The things I care about are generally non-partisan. The goal is to take the aspirations that foreign aid has — about improving health, education, economic outcomes, food security, agricultural productivity, jobs, trade, whatever the case is — and how do we use the evidence that's out there to move the needle as much as we can towards those goals? A lot of topics have common ground. How do we set up a foreign aid system that stays true to the common ground? I'd like to think it's not that hard. That's what I think would be great to see happen. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

So you just got home from attending a workshop at Faithful & True and now you're wondering...what's next?Today on The Faithful & True Podcast, Jim Farm, LMFT, CSAT joins Dr. Greg Miller to share about a brand new experience we're offering called Workshop Aftercare Groups.Subscribe to our YouTube channel:   - https://bit.ly/FaithfulandTrueAttend a Workshop Experience:   - For Men - https://bit.ly/MensJourneyWorkshop   - For Women - http://bit.ly/WomensJourneyWorkshop   - For Couples - http://bit.ly/CouplesIntensiveWorkshopContact us:   - https://faithfulandtrue.com/   - info@faithfulandtrue.com   - 952-746-3880Dr. Mark Laaser, M.Div., Ph.D., was considered one of the Christian leaders in the field of sex addiction before his death in September 2019. Mark, together with his wife, Debbie Laaser, MA, LMFT, have shared their 32 years of personal experience in sexual addiction recovery with thousands of individuals and couples through their work and resources at Faithful & True.The Faithful & True 3-Day Intensive Workshops continue to transform lives, rebuild trust, and help heal marriages.Send us a text

Sabe quando você está num rolê e sempre vem amiga aquela que quebra a vibe com um assunto pesado ou então torna tudo sobre ela? Ou aquele que sempre se passa quando bebe demais e dá até vontade de sair de perto? Tem aquele parente que sempre vem falar das dores da vida… Esse é um programa só sobre relatos de amigos que pesam em rolês!Episódios novos toda sexta-feira, 00h. Comente o que achou do episódio ou mande um recado para a gente diretamente no Spotify!Apoie o Divã da Diva e tenha um episódio a mais, exclusivo, no Divã da Diva para Íntimos!Apoia-se: https://apoia.se/divadepressaoOrelo: https://orelo.cc/podcast/65c0ddb1243feaaede3cea6c

From 'Baseball Isn't Boring' (subscribe here): We at Baseball Isn't Boring always love to be inspired, which is why it's always a good time when we get a chance to roll out podcasts like this one: The inspirational stories of 45-year-old Rich Hill and a player 20 years his junior, Otto Kemp. Bradfo catches up with a teammate of Hill from last season, Red Sox reliever Brennan Bernardino, to get some insight into the importance of having Hill around. (It's perfectly timed considering Hill's debut with the Royals, his 14th MLB team.) Bradfo then talks to new Phillies third baseman Otto Kemp, who has made it to the big leagues despite not being drafted after starring in Div. 2 college baseball. It's a podcast that will get your blood pumping. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From 'Baseball Isn't Boring' (subscribe here): We at Baseball Isn't Boring always love to be inspired, which is why it's always a good time when we get a chance to roll out podcasts like this one: The inspirational stories of 45-year-old Rich Hill and a player 20 years his junior, Otto Kemp. Bradfo catches up with a teammate of Hill from last season, Red Sox reliever Brennan Bernardino, to get some insight into the importance of having Hill around. (It's perfectly timed considering Hill's debut with the Royals, his 14th MLB team.) Bradfo then talks to new Phillies third baseman Otto Kemp, who has made it to the big leagues despite not being drafted after starring in Div. 2 college baseball. It's a podcast that will get your blood pumping. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is it ever too late to experience healing and transformation? For those in the later years of their life, it can be easy to assume it's too late to experience growth. But is that really true?On this episode of The Faithful & True Podcast, listen as Debbie Laaser, LMFT joins Tammy Gustafson at The Betrayal Healing Conference 2025 to share why healing and transformation is possible no matter your age. Subscribe to our YouTube channel:   - https://bit.ly/FaithfulandTrueAttend a Workshop Experience:   - For Men - https://bit.ly/MensJourneyWorkshop   - For Women - http://bit.ly/WomensJourneyWorkshop   - For Couples - http://bit.ly/CouplesIntensiveWorkshopContact us:   - https://faithfulandtrue.com/   - info@faithfulandtrue.com   - 952-746-3880Dr. Mark Laaser, M.Div., Ph.D., was considered one of the Christian leaders in the field of sex addiction before his death in September 2019. Mark, together with his wife, Debbie Laaser, MA, LMFT, have shared their 32 years of personal experience in sexual addiction recovery with thousands of individuals and couples through their work and resources at Faithful & True.The Faithful & True 3-Day Intensive Workshops continue to transform lives, rebuild trust, and help heal marriages.Send us a text