Podcasts about Div

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.

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.

08-03-2025 Chapel Service, Double, Double Toil & Trouble - Alex Barnes, M. Div.

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.

Carlos Alberto Klein, autor e intérprete do espetáculo Herta no Divã, esteve no programa Rádio Revista para falar sobre a apresentação que ocorrerá no dia 12 de agosto no Teatro Mauá.

Carlos Alberto Klein, autor e intérprete do espetáculo Herta no Divã, esteve no programa Rádio Revista para falar sobre a apresentação que ocorrerá no dia 12 de agosto no Teatro Mauá.

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

V najnovšej epizóde hokejového podcastu Góly z bufetu na ŠPORT.sk sa diváci môžu tešiť na exkluzívny rozhovor s Martinom Dendisom, trénerom slovenskej hokejovej reprezentácie do 18 rokov, ktorá v posledných rokoch pravidelne dosahuje na MS v hokeji pozoruhodné výsledky.Martin Dendis, mladý a ambiciózny tréner, ktorý sa vrátil na Slovensko po 10 rokoch v zahraničí (9 vo Švédsku a rok vo Fínsku), otvorene hovoril o tom, čo sa skrýva za tromi po sebe nasledujúcimi štvrtými miestami našej „osemnástky” na MS v hokeji tento vekovej kategórie. Zmienil sa o dôležitosti vytvárania správneho kolektívu, o disciplíne, ktorú s kolegami od mladých hráčov vyžaduje, ale aj o kvalitách, ktoré vidí v slovenských hokejistoch.V podcaste sa dotkol aj očakávaní pred nadchádzajúcim Hlinka Gretzky Cupom a domácim svetovým šampionátom, ktorý čaká jeho zverencov v nasledujúcej sezóne. Diváci sa dozvedia, prečo Martin Dendis považuje turnaje za „checkpointy” v príprave, nie za konečný cieľ, a prečo je pre neho dôležitejšie, aby hráči odovzdali maximum, než samotný výsledok.„U nás je to veľmi prísne. Nerobíme kompromisy ani žiadne výnimky. A radšej zoberieme trošku slabšieho hokejistu, ale výborného človeka ako naopak,” uviedol Martin Dendis v najnovšej epizóde podcastu Góly z bufetu na ŠPORT.sk.Zaujímavé sú jeho postrehy o rozdieloch v mentalite medzi slovenskými a švédskymi mladými hokejistami, či o tom, ako vníma nedávny draft NHL a jeho vplyv na mladých hráčov. Martin Dendis vysvetlil, prečo sa nenechá pri skladaní nominácie ovplyvňovať rodičmi, ani agentmi a ako sa snaží vštepovať mladým hokejistom správne hodnoty.Na záver v rýchlych otázkach odhalil, ktorého súčasného hráča NHL by najradšej trénoval vo svojej „osemnástke”, a odhalil svoj najväčší kariérny sen - získať medailu pre Slovensko na majstrovstvách sveta.

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

Introduction      What follows is an overview of future prophetic events as revealed in Scripture. It is not a comprehensive or technical analysis, but a panoramic survey designed to provide clarity and structure for understanding God's prophetic program. This presentation moves sequentially—from the Rapture of the Church to the eternal state—outlining the major movements of eschatology as understood from a literal, historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture. Each section is grounded in key biblical passages and reflects a traditional dispensational perspective, affirming the distinctiveness of Israel and the Church and the unfolding of God's sovereign plan through both time and eternity. Readers should note that this is a bird's-eye view, intended to give the big picture. Deeper exegetical and theological treatments of these subjects are available elsewhere—but for now, we take our place as students of prophecy, watching history move steadily toward its divine consummation. Prophetic Overview      The next great event in God's prophetic program is the Rapture of the Church (John 14:1-3), which is the sudden, bodily, and upward catching away of all Church-age believers—both living and dead—to meet Christ in the air (1 Th 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:51-53). The word Rapture—though not found in English Bibles—comes from the Latin rapturo, which translates the Greek harpazō (“to snatch away”) in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, and accurately describes the sudden catching away of believers to meet Christ in the air. This event is imminent, meaning it could occur at any moment, with no signs preceding it. It is distinct from the Second Coming and is exclusively for the Church, the body and bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-27). At the Rapture, deceased believers will be resurrected, and living believers will be instantly transformed. This marks the end of the Church Age—a mystery age not revealed in the Old Testament—and removes believers from the earth before God pours out His wrath in the Tribulation (1 Th 1:10; 5:9). The Church is promised deliverance, not participation, in the Day of the Lord (Rev 3:10). According to Fruchtenbaum: "The Church is composed of all true believers from Pentecost in Acts two until the Rapture of the Church. The Rapture excludes the Old Testament saints. It also excludes the Tribulation saints. The only saints who will be raptured are the Church saints. The Rapture passages clearly state that only those who are in Christ will partake of the Rapture."[1]      After the Rapture and while the Tribulation unfolds on earth, believers in heaven will appear before the judgment seat of Christ—also called the Bema seat—for evaluation and reward (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:10-12). According to Pentecost, “The believer's works are brought into judgment, called ‘the things done in his body' (2 Cor. 5:10), in order that it may be determined whether they are good or bad.”[2] This is not a judgment for sin, as all sins were fully paid for by Christ on the cross (Rom 8:1; Heb 10:14), and believers are already justified by faith (Rom 3:28; 5:1; Gal 2:16). Rather, the Bema is a judgment of the believer's service, motives, and faithfulness in the Christian life. Paul describes this as a testing of each person's work—whether it was built with gold, silver, and precious stones, or with wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor 3:12-15). Those works of eternal value, done in alignment with God's Word, empowered by the Spirit, and offered for the glory of God, will endure the fire of divine evaluation and be rewarded. Unfruitful or self-centered efforts will be burned up, resulting in loss of reward—but not loss of salvation. The Bema seat thus underscores the seriousness of our stewardship in this life and highlights the grace of God, who not only saves but also rewards His people for their faithfulness. It is here that crowns are awarded (2 Tim 4:8; 1 Pet 5:4; Jam 1:12), and the Church is made ready as the adorned bride of Christ (Rev 19:7-8).      Following the Rapture, the Tribulation period begins, a seven-year timeframe marked by divine judgment and escalating global chaos (Dan 9:27; Matt 24:4-28). According to Thomas Ice, “In this discourse [Matt 24:4-28], Jesus describes for the disciples the tribulation period. In verses 4-14, He speaks about the first half of the tribulation, and in verses 15-28, He describes the second half leading up to the second coming.”[3] The Tribulation begins with the signing of a covenant between the coming world ruler—the Antichrist—and Israel (Dan 9:27). This covenant allows Israel to resume temple worship, likely including animal sacrifices. The first half of the Tribulation (three and a half years) is marked by political deception, regional wars, famine, and limited divine judgments (Rev 6:1-8). Though catastrophic, these judgments are restrained, giving the world time to repent. Two notable events during this time include the ministry of the 144,000 sealed Jewish evangelists (Rev 7:1-8) and the rise of global religious syncretism symbolized by the harlot of Revelation 17.      Midway through the Tribulation, the Antichrist breaks his covenant with Israel, halts temple sacrifices, and sets up the abomination of desolation in the rebuilt Jewish temple, proclaiming himself to be God (Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15; 2 Th 2:3-4). This initiates the Great Tribulation, the second and more intense half of the seven-year period (Matt 24:21-22). During this time, Satan is cast down to earth with great fury (Rev 12:7-12), and the Antichrist is empowered to wage war against the saints, particularly the believing Jewish remnant and Gentile converts who refuse to worship him (Rev 13:7-10). The False Prophet promotes this global idolatry and enforces the mark of the beast (Rev 13:11-18). Despite escalating evil, God continues to offer grace through angelic proclamations (Rev 14:6-7) and the faithful witness of believers, many of whom are martyred.      As the Tribulation nears its end, a series of cataclysmic judgments intensify God's wrath: trumpet and bowl judgments devastate the environment, economy, and world population (Rev 8-9; 16). Political alliances form against Israel, setting the stage for the Battle of Armageddon. The kings of the earth, stirred by demonic influence, gather in the valley of Megiddo to destroy Jerusalem and annihilate the Jewish people (Zech 12:2-3; Rev 16:13-16). But just as it seems all hope is lost, the heavens open, and Christ returns in glory with His holy angels and glorified saints (Zech 14:1-11; Rev 19:11-16). According to Ryrie, “the second coming of Christ will occur prior to the Millennium, which will see the establishment of Christ's kingdom on this earth for a literal one thousand years.”[4] This Second Coming is visible, dramatic, and earth-shaking. Christ will personally destroy the Antichrist and the False Prophet, casting them into the lake of fire (Rev 19:19-20), and He will bind Satan in the abyss for 1,000 years (Rev 20:1-3).      At the return of Christ, the Millennial Kingdom will be established—a literal 1,000-year reign of Jesus Christ on earth, centered in Jerusalem (Rev 20:4-6). Fruchtenbaum states, “The Millennium will not begin the day immediately following the last day of the Great Tribulation because there will be a seventy-five day interval.”[5] The 75-day interval serves to cleanse and prepare the earth for Christ's Millennial reign by judging the nations, restoring order, and inaugurating millennial blessings (Dan 12:11-12; Matt 25:31-46). After that, Christ will establish His kingdom on earth. He will fulfill all Old Testament covenants with Israel, including the Abrahamic (Gen 12:1-3), Davidic (2 Sam 7:16; Psa 89:35-37; Luke 1:31-33), and New Covenants (Jer 31:31-34). Israel will be regathered, restored, and exalted among the nations (Isa 2:2-4; Zech 14:16-21). The curse on nature will be partially lifted, and peace, righteousness, and justice will characterize Christ's reign (Isa 11:1-10). Temple worship will resume, though modified, with sacrifices serving as memorials of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice (Ezek 40–48). Though Satan is bound, human beings born during the Millennium—descendants of Tribulation survivors—will still have sin natures and need salvation.      At the end of the thousand years, Satan is released for a final rebellion (Rev 20:7-9). He will deceive a vast number of people, proving that even in a perfect environment, man's sin nature still inclines him to rebel against God. Fire from heaven will consume the rebellious forces, and Satan will be cast into the lake of fire forever (Rev 20:10). Then comes the Great White Throne Judgment, where all unbelievers throughout history are resurrected, judged according to their works, and condemned to eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Rev 20:11-15). This is not a judgment to determine salvation, but to reveal the just grounds for condemnation due to their rejection of God's provision of grace. There is no mention of the Church here, as believers were already judged at the Bema Seat following the Rapture (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:10).      After the final judgment, God creates a new heaven and a new earth where righteousness dwells (2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1). The eternal state begins, free from sin, death, pain, and sorrow. The New Jerusalem descends from heaven, adorned like a bride, and becomes the dwelling place of the redeemed (Rev 21:2-4). God's people from all ages will dwell in perfect fellowship with Him forever, enjoying His presence, His glory, and His goodness without end. There will be no temple in the New Jerusalem, for the Lord God and the Lamb are its temple (Rev 21:22). The curse is gone (Rev 22:3), the water of life flows freely, and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. Eternity will be a time of unbroken peace, joy, service, and worship. The former things will have passed away, and the redeemed will enjoy their inheritance in the presence of their Savior forever. Summary      The prophetic Word of God unveils a majestic and ordered panorama of future events, from the imminent Rapture of the Church to the eternal state in the new heavens and new earth. Each stage—whether the Tribulation, Christ's return, the Millennial Kingdom, or the final judgment—demonstrates God's sovereign control over history and His faithfulness to fulfill every covenant and promise. For the Church, prophecy is about prediction and preparation. It reminds us that history is moving steadily toward divine consummation, and that our hope is anchored not in the shifting sands of this world, but in the unshakable promises of our returning Savior. As we await that blessed hope, we do so with confidence, vigilance, and joy, knowing that the same God who keeps His Word about the future is the same God who sustains us in the present. Come, Lord Jesus (Rev 22:20). Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.     [1] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events, Rev. ed. (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2003), 142. [2] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1958), 223. [3] Timothy J. Demy and Thomas Ice, Answers to Common Questions about the End Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2011), 64. [4] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 522. [5] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah, 361.

Susan Eastman, M.Div., Ph.D., is Associate Research Professor Emerita of New Testament, Duke Divinity School. She presented "Christian Flourishing and Reimagining Healthcare: An End to Magical Thinking" for the TMC Virtual Seminar Series on January 24, 2025. "Magical thinking" is "if-then" thinking, which plays an important role in medical research and care, but falters in the face of mystery and the infinite diversity of human beings, and leads to a truncated version of human "flourishing." Christian thinking is "because-therefore" -- because God in Christ has entered into the depths of what is humanly unfixable, therefore we can articulate a vision of flourishing that includes even failure and finitude, and acknowledges the mysteries that elude our grasp. We will probe the differences such a reframing of "flourishing" might make for the care of persons.

     Those who are positive to God desire to know Him, His Word, and to pursue His will.[1] Jesus said to fellow Jews, “If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself” (John 7:17). Jesus explained that knowing God's Word is predicated on a desire to do (ποιέω poieo) His will. But some hearts are negative to God. And when the heart is negative, no amount of divine revelation will prove persuasive. For example, Noah preached to his generation for one hundred and twenty years, but they refused to listen (Gen 6:3; 2 Pet 2:5). Jeremiah spoke to the leaders of Israel, saying, “these twenty-three years the word of the LORD has come to me, and I have spoken to you again and again, but you have not listened” (Jer 25:3). Preachers are responsible for the accurate output of the message, not the outcome of response. Jesus spoke to the hard-hearted Pharisees and said, “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word” (John 8:43). Jesus then gave the answer, saying, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father” (John 8:44). They could not hear His words because they were unsaved and negative to God. These were men who “loved the darkness rather than the Light” (John 3:19). Paul described them as ones “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18). Paul also spoke about the unsaved person, saying, “But an unbeliever does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor 2:14).      Of the one with positive volition it is said, “his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night” (Psa 1:2). The benefit of such a lifelong meditation is that “He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in its season and its leaf does not wither; and in whatever he does, he prospers” (Psa 1:3). The godly person is positive to the Lord and welcomes His Word. David said, “I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart” (Psa 40:8). The word delight (חָפֵץ chaphets) means, “to take pleasure in, desire…to delight in…to be willing…to feel inclined.”[2] This speaks of positive volition. God's will (רָצוֹן ratson) refers to what pleases Him. And the word Law (תּוֹרָה torah) means teaching, direction, or instruction. Jeremiah said, “Your words were found and I ate them, and Your words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart; for I have been called by Your name, O LORD God of hosts” (Jer 15:16). To eat God's Word is a picture of positive volition, as Jeremiah welcomed the divine revelation into himself. Once received, it delighted (שִׂמְחָה simchah – delight, joy, gladness, mirth) his heart (לֵבָב lebab – inner person, mind, will). When the human heart is receptive to God's Word, it transforms that person from the inside out, and this is both cognitive and experiential. David and Jeremiah wanted to know and walk with God, and His divine revelation, properly understood and applied, was the means to know and do it.      God will open His Word to the believer who dedicates his/her life to Him. Paul wrote, “I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:1-2). A surrendered life to God makes the Christian sensitive to the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit, who aids the believer to know God's will. Concerning this passage, Arnold Fruchtenbaum states: "It is hard to understand what the will of God is without this act of dedication because the believer does not have the Spirit's illumination, which is needed to determine God's will from His Word. Dedication brings knowledge of the will of God. Having the knowledge, the logical outworking of the dedicated life is that the believer now does the will of God."[3]      God's Word is powerful and accomplishes what He desires (Isa 55:10-11; Heb 4:12), and it lights a fire in the heart of those who welcome it. For example, Jesus, after his resurrection, walked for several miles with two disciples and gave them a Bible lesson which lasted for several hours as they traveled “to a village named Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:13). Luke records what Jesus taught them, saying, “beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27). After His Bible lesson, the two disciples said, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32). The heart that is positive to God receives His Word and is excited by what is learned.  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. Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.   [1] For the Christian, this does not mean our sin nature is removed, nor that we are free from the sinful pressures of living in a fallen world. Paul said, “I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members” (Rom 7:21-23). This struggle with sin continues until we leave this world and enter into heaven. Until then, it is God's will that we remain in this world (John 17:15) as His ambassadors (2 Cor 5:20). [2] Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 340. [3] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Faith Alone: The Condition of Our Salvation: An Exposition of the Book of Galatians and Other Relevant Topics, ed. Christiane Jurik, Second Edition. (San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 2016), 120.

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

Today I am sharing 4 of the most asked questions:1. Is my daughter really good enough to be a Div 1 gymnast?2. When should we get started?3. How can my daughter get noticed by college coaches ? 4. Will my daughter receive a Div 1 scholarship? If you want to get started with one of our personal advisors go to : www.jhicksconsulting.com and click on Get Started

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

Satan, whose name means “adversary,” is a created angelic being who once held an exalted position in God's heavenly order. In Ezekiel 28:12-15, under the figure of the king of Tyre, we are given insight into Satan's pre-fall splendor: he was “the anointed cherub who covers,” full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, created blameless until iniquity was found in him. Isaiah 14:12-15, speaking of the fall of “Lucifer, son of the morning” (KJV), reveals the inner ambition of this being who said in his heart, “I will ascend to heaven... I will make myself like the Most High.” These five self-centered declarations form the anatomy of the first sin—prideful rebellion against God's sovereign authority. Though the passage addresses the king of Babylon, the language transcends the human plane, revealing a supernatural reality behind the earthly ruler. Satan's fall was not due to ignorance or weakness, but the willful distortion of his privileged position and beauty, which corrupted his wisdom (Ezek 28:17). His rebellion marked the beginning of moral evil in the universe. When Adam, the original theocratic steward of the earth (Gen 1:26-28), sinned by submitting to Satan's temptation (Gen 3:1-6), dominion was effectively transferred from man to Satan (Luke 4:5-6), who then became “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4) and “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31). While God remains sovereign over all (Psa 103:19), Satan now exerts delegated influence over human systems, cultures, and ideologies through deception and darkness (Eph 2:2; 1 John 5:19). Following his fall, Satan became the chief adversary of God, His program, and His people. He is the “god of this world” who blinds the minds of unbelievers (2 Cor 4:4), the “prince of the power of the air” who energizes the sons of disobedience (Eph 2:2), and the “deceiver of the whole world” (Rev 12:9). His access to heaven has not yet been fully revoked, for he presently accuses believers before God, day and night (Job 1:6-12; Rev 12:10). He is active in the affairs of nations (Dan 10:13), sows tares among the wheat (Matt 13:39), and promotes counterfeit signs, doctrines, and ministers (2 Cor 11:13-15; 1 Tim 4:1). Jesus called him a murderer and “the father of lies” (John 8:44). Yet even now, Satan operates only within divinely permitted boundaries—he is a defeated foe on a short leash. At the cross, Christ “disarmed the rulers and authorities,” triumphing over them (Col 2:15), and though Satan remains active, his judgment is certain. His end has already been decreed. Satan's ultimate demise will unfold in stages. During the future Tribulation, he will be cast down from his heavenly access and confined to earth (Rev 12:7-9). Near the end of the Tribulation, he will empower the Beast and the False Prophet in their final global rebellion (Rev 13:2-7). At Christ's Second Coming, Satan will be bound and imprisoned in the abyss for a thousand years during the millennial reign (Rev 20:1-3). After the thousand years, he will be released for one final revolt, gathering the nations for battle against Christ's kingdom, only to be defeated in a moment and cast into the lake of fire, where he will be tormented forever (Rev 20:7-10). This is not annihilation, but conscious, eternal punishment. The irony is profound: the one who said, “I will ascend,” will be brought “down to Sheol, to the recesses of the pit” (Isa 14:15). His story ends not with exaltation, but humiliation—forever crushed under the heel of the Sovereign God (Gen 3:15; Rom 16:20). Demons Fallen angels, often referred to as demons, are those angelic beings who chose to rebel against God. Revelation 12:4 suggests that one-third of the angels followed Satan in his rebellion and were cast down with him. These fallen angels became hostile spiritual entities, operating in opposition to God's purposes and in deceptive rebellion against divine truth. Some are active in the present age (Mark 1:32-34), while others are bound in chains awaiting future judgment (Jude 1:6; Rev 9:1-2, 14). Others are active in influencing world leaders, as seen when demonic spirits go out to deceive the kings of the earth and gather them for battle at Armageddon (Rev 16:13-16). Still others are employed by God as agents of discipline and judgment (Judg 9:23; 1 Sam 16:14-16). Demons are consistently depicted in Scripture as unclean spirits (Matt 10:1; Mark 6:7), deceitful and malevolent (1 Tim 4:1; Rev 16:14). They promote false doctrine (1 Tim 4:1), oppose the truth (2 Cor 4:4), and seek to destroy lives, both spiritually and physically (Mark 5:2-5; Luke 9:39). Their activity includes demon possession (Matt 8:16; Mark 9:17-29), where they exert direct control over human faculties, often producing self-harm, mental torment, and violent behavior. While possession is a reality in the Gospels and Acts, believers today are assured they cannot be possessed by demons, for they are indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit (John 14:17; 1 Cor 6:19-20; Eph 1:13-14). Still, demons can tempt, oppress, and deceive (Eph 4:26-27; 2 Cor 2:11). Satan, as the leader of fallen angels, is called the “god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4), “prince of the power of the air” (Eph 2:2), and the “accuser of our brethren” (Rev 12:10). He blinds unbelievers, tempts saints, and prowls like a roaring lion seeking to devour (1 Pet 5:8). He is cunning, having disguised himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), and he works through systems of false religion, secular ideologies, and demonic doctrines to oppose the gospel (Rev 2:13-24; 1 John 4:1-3). His defeat is already secured through Christ's work on the cross (Col 2:15; Heb 2:14), and his final doom awaits in the lake of fire (Rev 20:10). Until then, believers are called to resist him by submitting to God and standing firm in the truth (Jam 4:7; Eph 6:10-18). Our victory is not in power encounters or mystical deliverance rites, but in the sufficiency of Christ, the authority of His Word, and the power of the Holy Spirit. Satan's Strategies to Deceive Satan's primary method of attack is deception. As “the father of lies” (John 8:44), he traffics in half-truths, distortions, and subtle misrepresentations of God's Word. His first recorded words in Scripture are an assault on divine truth: “Indeed, has God said…?” (Gen 3:1). He questioned God's goodness, denied His judgment, and promised a counterfeit enlightenment to Eve (Gen 3:4-5). This pattern persists. Satan's deception often appears religious and even virtuous. He disguises himself as “an angel of light,” and his agents as “servants of righteousness” (2 Cor 11:14-15). He promotes false doctrine that appeals to human pride and legalism (1 Tim 4:1-3), enticing people to trust in rituals, works, or mystical experiences rather than the sufficiency of Christ and the clarity of the gospel (Gal 1:6-9; Col 2:8). He twists Scripture, as he did when tempting Jesus in the wilderness (Matt 4:6), seeking to lead believers into disobedience through misapplied truth. One of his deadliest tools is religious systems that use biblical language but deny grace, subtly shifting trust away from Christ to human performance. Another key strategy Satan uses is infiltration into the thought life of believers. Paul warns of being “led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ” (2 Cor 11:3), and commands believers to “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). Satan sows seeds of fear, anxiety, envy, bitterness, and doubt—undermining the believer's confidence in God's character and promises. He exploits emotional instability, tempts toward discontentment, and entices with worldly lusts (1 John 2:15-17). He is the master of discouragement, often accusing believers and dredging up past failures to immobilize present faith (Rev 12:10). Moreover, Satan creates ideological strongholds—philosophies, political movements, and cultural trends—that oppose biblical truth and condition people to reject the gospel (Col 2:8). He builds systems of thought that appear noble or compassionate but are anchored in rebellion against God. His endgame is to blind minds (2 Cor 4:4), corrupt hearts, and neutralize the impact of God's people. Yet believers are not helpless. By walking in the Spirit, renewing our minds with Scripture, and putting on the full armor of God, we are equipped to stand firm against the schemes of the devil (Eph 6:11-17). How to Be Rescued from Satan's Kingdom All people are born into Satan's domain of darkness, separated from God and spiritually dead in sin (Col 1:13; Eph 2:1-3). But in His grace, God rescues us through the finished work of Christ. At the moment of faith in Jesus—believing that He is the eternal Son of God who died for our sins, was buried, and rose again (1 Cor 15:3-4)—the believer is delivered from the authority of Satan and transferred into the kingdom of God's beloved Son (Col 1:13-14). This transfer is instantaneous, permanent, and entirely the work of God. Justification is by grace alone (Eph 2:8-9), through faith alone (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16), in Christ alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), and results in spiritual rebirth (1 Pet 1:3, 23) and a new identity in Christ (2 Cor 5:17). Though Satan can no longer possess or eternally condemn the believer, he still seeks to deceive, discourage, and derail. The Christian life, therefore, is a spiritual battleground—not for salvation, but for sanctification, fruitfulness, and eternal reward (2 Cor 10:3-5; 1 Cor 3:12-15). To live effectively for the Lord in this fallen world, believers must learn and live God's Word by faith. Scripture is our source of truth and stability in the face of Satan's lies (John 17:17). It nourishes spiritual growth (1 Pet 2:2), renews the mind (Rom 12:2), and equips us for every good work (2 Tim 3:16-17). As we walk by faith and are filled with the Spirit (2 Cor 5:7; Eph 5:18), prayer becomes the posture of dependence—bringing our needs, confessions, thanksgiving, and intercessions before the throne of grace (Phil 4:6-7; Heb 4:16). Sharing the gospel is both our privilege and duty, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Rom 1:16), and through it, others can be rescued from darkness as we were. Doing good—as God defines it—is not about self-promotion or religious performance, but humble service empowered by the Spirit and aligned with divine truth (Gal 6:10; Tit 2:11-14). As we abide in Christ, our lives bear fruit—bringing glory to God and blessing to others (John 15:5-8). This is how we shine as lights in the world and stand firm against the darkness—not in fear, but in confident obedience to the One who saved us by grace and sustains us through truth (Phil 2:15-16; Eph 6:10-13). The Christian Armor Paul concludes his letter to the Ephesians with a powerful call to spiritual readiness: “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might” (Eph 6:10). The verb endunamoō (“be strong”) is in the passive voice, indicating that believers are to be strengthened by God, not by self-effort. This strength comes in the Lord (en kyriō), through dependence on His strength and might. The believer stands not in personal resolve, but in the resurrection power that raised Christ from the dead (Eph 1:18-20). To walk in that strength, we are commanded to “put on the full armor of God” (panoplia), a reference to the complete suit of Roman military equipment—every piece essential for defense and stability (Eph 6:11). The goal is not to attack, but “to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.” The term methodeias refers to Satan's cunning strategies—his deceitful systems, twisted half-truths, and subversive ideologies designed to lead believers astray. Paul clarifies that our conflict is not “against flesh and blood” but against unseen forces of spiritual evil (Eph 6:12). The battle is not political or cultural at its root, but spiritual. Demonic powers are organized in ranks—rulers, authorities, world-rulers of this darkness, and spiritual forces of wickedness—and they operate in the heavenly realms. For this reason, Paul repeats the command to take up the full armor of God so that we may resist in “the evil day” (Eph 6:13)—those seasons of intense spiritual assault. The goal, repeated throughout the passage, is to stand, firm and immovable. Victory is not flashy or mystical; it is doctrinal, daily, and practical. We are to gird our loins with truth (Eph 6:14)—that is, fasten ourselves with God's revealed Word, which brings stability and prepares us for action. The breastplate of righteousness refers not to justification but to sanctification—practical righteousness that guards the inner life and silences Satan's accusations (1 Pet 3:16). A holy life is one of the best defenses against spiritual attack. Paul next highlights the footwear of the believer: “having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace” (Eph 6:15). This speaks of readiness and sure-footedness. Just as Roman soldiers wore sandals studded with nails for grip, the believer stands firm when grounded in the gospel. The peace we have with God through Christ (Rom 5:1) brings confidence and steadiness in battle. Then comes the shield of faith (Eph 6:16)—the thyreon, a large Roman shield used to block arrows. Faith is trust in God's person and promises, and it extinguishes the devil's flaming arrows—temptations, accusations, and lies. When doubts or fears are hurled at the soul, faith deflects them with the truth of God's character (1 John 5:4). The helmet of salvation (Eph 6:17) protects the mind, pointing not only to justification, but also to our future glorification—our hope in Christ's return and full deliverance (1 Th 5:8-9). Lastly, the believer takes up “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.” This is the machaira, a short sword for close combat, and the word rhēma refers to the spoken Word—specific Scriptures applied in real-time spiritual conflict. Just as Jesus used Scripture in the wilderness to deflect Satan's temptations (Matt 4:1-11), so must we. The Spirit empowers the believer not with mystical formulas, but with rightly understood and applied Scripture. Victory in spiritual warfare belongs to those who abide in Christ, walk by faith, think biblically, and live obediently—not in fear, but in confidence grounded in divine truth. Conclusion In the end, the study of angels, Satan, and demons grounds the believer in spiritual reality. It helps us interpret the chaos of our world through the lens of God's revealed truth, not mere human observation. We are reminded that unseen spiritual agents—both holy and hostile—operate within the bounds of God's sovereign rule, and that we are not spectators, but participants in an ongoing conflict between truth and deception, light and darkness. Our calling is not to speculate about the invisible, but to stand firm in what God has revealed. As we obey His commands, share His gospel, and endure in hope, we bring glory to the One who has already secured the final victory. And so, we press on—not with fear, but with clarity, confidence, and courage, knowing that the Lord of hosts is with us, and the battle is the Lord's (1 Sam 17:47; Rom 8:37-39). Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.        

This episode of Title Nerds featured three of Riker Danzig's summer associates and one of our title insurance associates, who expounded on principles of law in cases they had researched and reported on. First up, Co-Host Mike O'Donnell interviewed Noah Wilk of University of Maryland Law School, who discussed Oclar Prop. LLC v. Atl. View Cemetery Assn., Inc., No. A-0834-23, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 746 (App. Div. May 6, 2025), which concerned a deal to purchase property for single family residences in which municipal Planning Board approval was required.  The Seller ultimately terminated the contract while awaiting Planning Board approval by the Buyer.  The Buyer alleged breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case ultimately was decided by the New Jersey Appellate Division. Next, Co-Host Bethany Abele engaged Meghna Gohil of Wake Forest Law School in a conversation about Keily v. Iler, Mon-C-8-19, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 621 (App. Div. Apr. 17, 2025), a recent decision from the New Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County, Chancery Division.  The case involved a contentious dispute between members of a limited liability company and, among other things, interpretation of the LLC's operating agreement and actions taken by two of the LLC members without the knowledge of the third member. Carla Ko of Seton Hall University School of Law then discussed with Mike the Murray v. Newrez LLC case, 24-cv-6160, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75676 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2025), heard in federal court in New York.  This case involved the question of damages for servicing of a mortgage under RESPA without actual, quantifiable harm. Finally, Riker Danzig associate Matthews Florez joined the podcast to provide insight on Grabowski-Shaikh v. Conn. Atts. Title Ins. Co., 2025 WL 35522 (Vt. Dist. Ct. Jan. 6, 2025), a case out of federal court in Vermont. As discussed with Mike, the case decided a title insurer's duty to provide coverage to an insured when the insured claimed title to a disputed parcel of property based on adverse possession. Riker Danzig's Title Insurance Group also produces a “Banking, Title Insurance and Real Estate Litigation Blog,” available here.

     Knowing and doing the will of God starts with God. Biblically, there is only one God (Deut 32:39; Isa 45:5-7; 46:9), and He created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them (Gen 1:1; Ex 20:11; Neh 9:6; Acts 17:24). Furthermore, God is not silent. He has provided general revelation about Himself through nature (Psa 19:1-2; Rom 1:20) and special revelation through His Word (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21),[1] and through His Son, Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1-3; cf. John 1:1, 14, 18). Today, we have the written Word of God which provides the clearest revelation of His will. Apart from His Word, we have no clear understanding of who God is, what He is doing, or what He expects of us.      God's will is mentioned several times in the Old Testament (Deut 10:10; 23:5; 2 Ch 21:7) which uses the Hebrew word אָבָה abah, which means “to will, [or] be willing.”[2] Also, in other passages (Psa 40:8; 143:10), the Hebrew word רָצוֹן ratson is used, which refers to “what pleases the Lord.”[3] Some passages in the New Testament specifically mention God's will, where the Greek term θέλημα thelema is employed (i.e., Rom 12:2; Eph 6:5-6, Col 4:12; 1 Th 4:3; 5:16-18; Heb 10:36; 1 Pet 2:15; 4:19). God's will in each of these passages refers to “what one wishes to happen.”[4] This speaks of what God desires from people. Other passages employ the Greek word βούλομαι boulomai (Matt 11:27; Jam 1:18; 2 Pet 3:9), which denotes a “desire to have or experience something, with implication of planning accordingly.”[5] The latter term sometimes refers to what God brings to pass, such as when James writes, “In the exercise of His will [βούλομαι boulomai] He brought us forth by the word of truth” (Jam 1:18a). But sometimes it refers to what God wants, but makes contingent upon a human response of faith, such as when Peter writes that the Lord “is patient toward you, not wishing [βούλομαι boulomai] for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). Context always determines the meaning of a word.      Those who are positive to God desire to know Him, His Word, and to pursue His will.[6] Jesus said to fellow Jews, “If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself” (John 7:17). Jesus explained that knowing God's Word is predicated on a desire to do (ποιέω poieo) His will. But some hearts are negative to God. And when the heart is negative, no amount of divine revelation will prove persuasive. For example, Noah preached to his generation for one hundred and twenty years, but they refused to listen (Gen 6:3; 2 Pet 2:5). Jeremiah spoke to the leaders of Israel, saying, “these twenty-three years the word of the LORD has come to me, and I have spoken to you again and again, but you have not listened” (Jer 25:3). Preachers are responsible for the accurate output of the message, not the outcome of response. Jesus spoke to the hard-hearted Pharisees and said, “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word” (John 8:43). Jesus then gave the answer, saying, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father” (John 8:44). They could not hear His words because they were unsaved and negative to God. These were men who “loved the darkness rather than the Light” (John 3:19). Paul described them as ones “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18). Paul also spoke about the unsaved person, saying, “But an unbeliever does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor 2:14). Steven R. Cook, D.Min., M.Div.   [1] God, on several occasions, commanded His prophets to record what He had revealed to them. He told Moses, “Write this in a book” (Ex 17:14), and “Write down these words” (Ex 34:27). To Isaiah He said, “Now go, write it on a tablet before them and inscribe it on a scroll” (Isa 30:8), and to Jeremiah He commanded, “Write all the words which I have spoken to you in a book” (Jer 30:2). [2] William D. Mounce, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 788. [3] Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 1282. [4] William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 447. [5] Ibid., 182. [6] For the Christian, this does not mean our sin nature is removed, nor that we are free from the sinful pressures of living in a fallen world. Paul said, “I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members” (Rom 7:21-23). This struggle with sin continues until we leave this world and enter into heaven. Until then, it is God's will that we remain in this world (John 17:15) as His ambassadors (2 Cor 5:20).

This week David French of The New York Times joins Russell and Clarissa to talk about the Epstein files, why they're causing such a stir in MAGA and what it could foreshadow about the future of the movement. Then, CT writer Luke Simon joins us to talk about the allure of the popular nicotine product, Zyn, and how our habits shape our hearts. Finally, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart and pastor John MacArthur died this month. CT's Daniel Silliman stops by to discuss the complexity of their legacies and why so many Christians think “evangelism” is a dirty word.    REFERENCED IN THIS EPISODE MAGA Is Tearing Itself Apart Over Jeffrey Epstein - by David French Have Mercy on Me, a Zynner - by Luke Simon GO DEEPER WITH THE BULLETIN:  Send a question you have for Mike or Russell to podcasts@christianitytoday.com for a chance to win a Bulletin bumper sticker.  Join the conversation at our Substack.  Find us on YouTube.  Rate and review the show in your podcast app of choice.   ABOUT THE GUESTS:   David French is a columnist for The New York Times. He's a former senior editor of The Dispatch and author of Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation. Luke Simon is a content strategist for The Crossing church in Columbia, Missouri, and a M.Div. student at Covenant Theological Seminary. He has written on Gen Z, technology, masculinity, and the church. His writing appears in Christianity Today, Mere Orthodoxy, and The Gospel Coalition. Daniel Silliman is a journalist and a historian. He is the news editor for Christianity Today, the author of a religious biography of Richard Nixon, and a teacher of humanities at Milligan University. ABOUT THE BULLETIN:  The Bulletin is a twice-weekly politics and current events show from Christianity Today moderated by Clarissa Moll, with senior commentary from Russell Moore (Christianity Today's editor in chief) and Mike Cosper (director, CT Media). Each week, the show explores current events and breaking news and shares a Christian perspective on issues that are shaping our world. We also offer special one-on-one conversations with writers, artists, and thought leaders whose impact on the world brings important significance to a Christian worldview, like Bono, Sharon McMahon, Harrison Scott Key, Frank Bruni, and more.    The Bulletin listeners get 25% off CT. Go to https://orderct.com/THEBULLETIN to learn more.    “The Bulletin” is a production of Christianity Today Producer: Clarissa Moll Associate Producer: Alexa Burke Editing and Mix: TJ Hester Music: Dan Phelps Executive Producers: Erik Petrik and Mike Cosper   Senior Producer: Matt Stevens Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Os assuntos estão pegando fogo no Café com Divas Pais de hoje! O que acham de exposed de traição? Porque não se discute a transfobia da JK Rowling quando se fala de Harry Potter? Estamos afiados!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

On this episode, Dr. Sadaf continues her essential deep dive into vulvar health issues with a focused look at Desquamative Inflammatory Vaginitis (DIV). Learn all about this rare, yet profoundly impactful chronic inflammatory condition, often misdiagnosed as common infections like yeast or bacterial vaginosis. Dr. Sadaf goes over everything DIV, from the debilitating symptoms, its association with erosive lichen planus and the significant havoc it wreaks on patients' lives and self-esteem. This close look at DIV also includes an explanation of how it is diagnosed and what treatments are used in an effort to eventually restore comfort, hope, and a return to intimacy!Disclaimer: Anything discussed on the show should not be taken as official medical advice. If you have any concerns about your health, please speak to your medical provider. If you have any questions about your religion, please ask your friendly neighborhood religious leader. It's the Muslim Sex Podcast because I just happen to be a Muslim woman who talks about sex.To learn more about Dr. Sadaf's practice and to become a patient visit DrSadaf.comLike and subscribe to our YouTube channel where you can watch all episodes of the podcast!Feel free to leave a review on Apple Podcasts and share the show!Follow us on Social Media...Instagram: DrSadafobgynTikTok: DrSadafobgyn

Many marriages are able to make it through infidelity and betrayal and learn to thrive. Unfortunately, not all marriages make it.Today on The Faithful & True Podcast, Dr. Greg Miller is joined by Debbie Laaser, LMFT as they share a special message for those whose marriages didn't make it through the aftermath of betrayal and infidelity.They explain why divorce doesn't have to define the rest of your life and how you can learn to thrive in spite of a failed 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

#366 In this episode, the host welcomes Peter Panagore for the third time on the podcast to delve into deep discussions on spirituality, mysticism, and the challenges of modern life. The conversation kicks off with Peter's insights on the suppression of internal salvation within Western religious frameworks, advocating for spiritual awakening from within rather than relying on external saviors. They discuss key themes such as the light breaking through worldly illusions, the mystical experiences Peter had during his near-death experience, and the importance of the heart in spiritual practice. Peter shares his extensive knowledge on ancient texts like the Gospels of Mary and Thomas, highlighting their significance in understanding Christ's teachings on oneness. They also explore the potential impact of AI and societal shifts on spirituality, emphasizing the role of love and compassion in shaping a benevolent future. The episode encourages listeners to embrace mystical experiences and integrate spiritual practices into their daily lives, fostering a sense of unity and compassion. About Peter: Reverend Peter Panagore, M. Div., Yale, is the author of two best-sellers, “Two Minutes for God,” a 7/365 collection of inspirational devotions that aired daily for fifteen years on two NBC News stations in Maine and New Hampshire, and ‘Heaven Is Beautiful: How Dying Taught Me That Death Is Just the Beginning”, an audible best seller that is available globally. His upcoming third book tells true tales of modern mystics in the classical tradition, in the high hopes that he can inspire more people to come out and share their own mystical experiences.  – He previously served as a United Church of Christ minister and pastor in Maine and Connecticut. He now speaks from pulpits, stages, and on national and international media about Near Death Experience, the Reality of God, Christian mysticism, meditation, and prayer.  – Reverend Peter Panagore, M.Div (Yale) has had two near-death experiences, the first while ice climbing in 1980 and the second in 2015 due to a heart attack. In this episode, he recalls his near death experience in March 1980 when he went ice climbing along the Ice Fields Parkway in Alberta Canada with an experienced ice climber. He shares their countless misfortunes on their descent, how he was overcome by exhaustion and hypothermia. He recalls being in a proverbial tunnel and in those minutes, he has experience hell, forgiveness, and unconditional love. He also has encountered God. Key Points Discussed:  (00:00) - Unlocking the SECRETS of the Ancient Mystics (00:56) - Introduction to the Podcast and Guest (01:19) - Key Themes and Insights from the Podcast (03:34) - Peter's Near-Death Experience and Mystical Insights (07:28) - The Nature of Mystical Experiences (11:30) - The Role of Meditation and Surrender (23:07) - Historical Repression of Mysticism (29:27) - Modern Challenges and Spiritual Awakening (31:47) - The Great Awakening and AI's Role (34:06) - Climate Change and Its Impact on Livelihoods (34:44) - The Rise of Near-Death Experiences (36:08) - Healing Emotional Trauma (39:09) - The Concept of Ripening in Spirituality (43:42) - Exploring Mystical Texts and Gospels (48:19) - The Repression of Women in Early Christianity (54:23) - The Potential Impact of UFOs on Religion (57:44) - Manifestation and Living in the Flow (01:02:53) - Conclusion and Final Thoughts How to Contact Peter Panagore:www.peterpanagore.love   About me:My Instagram: www.instagram.com/guyhlawrence/?hl=en Guy's websites:www.guylawrence.com.au www.liveinflow.co

Hunter Witcraft discusses the spiritual practice of writing scripture as a means for going deeper into the Scriptures or as a method for being better equipped to share Christ with others.--Scriptures Explored: Deuteronomy 17:18, Hosea 2:14, Ezekiel 18, Mark 1:5; 13--I am married to Willa; we have two boys: Graham (3) and Benjamin (1). I have a M.Div. from Corban University, a MA in Christian Ministry from GCU, and a Post-Graduate Certificate in Biblical Languages from GCU. The Bible is God's Word to us, and for that reason, it is important for us to understand it (yes, we even have to work on the hard parts and the tricky parts). The Bible itself is a gift of grace from God to us – He was under no obligation to give it to us, and yet in it He has given us everything needed for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3). The Holy Spirit is active when we preach the Scripture and when we hear the Scripture, glorifying God and drawing us to Him; for that reason, I do what I can to accurately deliver the Word of God.--Connect with Us:contact@parableministries.comParable MinistriesInstagram--If you feel led to give to Parable Ministries, please visit: DonateMusic created by Chad HoffmanArtwork created by Anthony Kuenzi

In the months of June-August, First Presbyterian Church of Columbia will be hosting visiting pastors from across the reformed world to speak and preach on a weekly basis - and here at One Another we will be inviting them onto the podcast to introduce themselves and give us insights into their areas of expertise and the state of Christianity in the modern world. We may not get them all, but we look forward to speaking with many of these great leaders! Mark E. Ross is Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Erskine Theological Seminary in South Carolina, USA, and Director of the Institute for Reformed Worship. Prior to joining the Erskine faculty in 2004 he served for twenty years as Associate Pastor for Teaching at the First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, South Carolina. From 2003-2008 he chaired the Special Committee on Worship in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, which produced the new Directory of Public Worship adopted by the church in 2008. Dr Ross holds degrees from the University of Pittsburgh (BA, 1974), Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (M.Div., 1979), and the University of Keele in England (Ph.D., 1984). He is the author of Let's Study Matthew (Banner of Truth, 2009). He and his wife, Connie, have two children and five grandchildren. Be sure to come back every Tuesday for new episodes and find us on the following platforms as well: Find us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oneanotherpodcast?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=ZDNlZDc0MzIxNw== Find us on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4RGIMhed26LZsl9TI56yPN?si=2924a1be839549b9

What's on the horizon for foreign aid and humanitarian response strategies, especially in light of ongoing funding cuts to foreign aid around the world? In this episode, Dr. Eric James, founder of Field Ready, shares how localization can make humanitarian aid faster, cheaper, and more effective. We talk about reducing dependency on outside supply chains and how putting tools directly into the hands of local community members builds long-term resilience. Dr. James also tackles the harsh realities facing the aid sector today, including shrinking budgets and the rise of anti-intellectualism. This episode reflects both on what still needs to change and where to look for opportunities for innovation in instability. Listen in to learn more: 11:08 - Rutger Bregman on tax avoidance and social impact 18:14 - 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey   Read More from Dr. Eric James: Managing Humanitarian Relief Articles and other books Eric's post-show recommendation - Sign up for regular summaries of changes in the humanitarian landscape from the International Humanitarian Studies Association Field Ready   About Dr. Eric James Eric is an international aid worker, social entrepreneur, and educator with over 25 years of experience in humanitarian work. He has worked extensively with various NGOs and the UN in disaster and conflict zones around the world. He currently teaches in various academic contexts, leads his nonprofit Field Ready, and works on innovative ventures focused on humanitarian response, leadership, and strategy. Dr. James is also the author of several books about foreign aid, including the widely used guide, Managing Humanitarian Relief. ------------ This episode was produced by WildfireCreative  Theme Song: “Turning Over Tables” by The Brilliance Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | TuneIn | Stitcher | RSS Follow us on Twitter:  @drjamieaten |  @kentannan Follow on Instagram: @wildfirecreativeco @wheaton_hdi (Note to the listener: In this podcast, sometimes we'll host Evangelicals, and sometimes we won't. Learning how to “do good, better” involves listening to many perspectives with different insights and understanding. Sometimes, it will make us uncomfortable; sometimes, we'll agree, and sometimes, we won't. We think that's good. We want to listen for correction–especially in our blind spots.) The Better Samaritan podcast is produced by the Humanitarian Disaster Institute at Wheaton College, which offers an M.A. in Humanitarian & Disaster Leadership and a Trauma Certificate. To learn more and apply, visit our website. Get your application fee to the HDL M.A. program waived with code TBS25. Jamie Aten, Ph.D., and Kent Annan, M.Div., co-direct the Humanitarian Disaster Institute at Wheaton College and are the Co-Founders of Spiritual First Aid. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Será que a Pabllo Vittar estava certa quando disse que é melhor se arrepender do que passar vontade? Olha, gente! Esse episódio tá reflexivo! Quem nunca para às vezes para pensar em coisas que deveria ter feito diferente? O quanto que isso ajuda a melhorar e o quanto faz mal? Vamos conversar!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

Veteran humanitarian leader Roger Sandberg joins us to discuss how NGOs can lead effectively in the midst of funding cuts and uncertainty. As political shifts tighten budgets, the gap between global needs and available resources continues to widen. Roger shares practical strategies for assessing risk, strengthening communication within teams, and re-imagining sources of funding. We dive into crisis leadership—why financial clarity, quick decisions, and lessons-learned reviews matter more than ever. Roger also emphasizes the importance of donor diversity and the risks associated with relying too heavily on a single funding source. This episode offers honest insight and practical advice for any leader navigating change in the aid sector. Listen in to learn more :  4:44 - 10 Steps to Stabilize, Adapt, and Lead Through Uncertainty 31:31 - Study on the role in humility within humanitarian leadership   Read More from Roger on this topic:   NGO Leaders: 10 Steps to Stabilize, Adapt, and Lead Through Uncertainty   Crisis Leadership: Strategic Planning in the Age of Aid Disruptions   Opinion: The US aid crisis is an opportunity for outcome-based finance   The Three-Legged Stool of Humanitarian Action…Did it just break?   About Roger Sandberg Roger is a global humanitarian leader, strategist, and consultant with over two decades of experience leading emergency response and organizational transformation in crisis-affected regions. He advises international NGOs, foundations, and philanthropic networks on leadership, localization, and humanitarian response models that center community agency and sustainability. ------------ This episode was produced by WildfireCreative  Theme Song: “Turning Over Tables” by The Brilliance Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | TuneIn | Stitcher | RSS Follow us on Twitter:  @drjamieaten |  @kentannan Follow on Instagram: @wildfirecreativeco @wheaton_hdi (Note to the listener: In this podcast, sometimes we'll host Evangelicals, and sometimes we won't. Learning how to “do good, better” involves listening to many perspectives with different insights and understanding. Sometimes, it will make us uncomfortable; sometimes, we'll agree, and sometimes, we won't. We think that's good. We want to listen for correction–especially in our blind spots.) The Better Samaritan podcast is produced by the Humanitarian Disaster Institute at Wheaton College, which offers an M.A. in Humanitarian & Disaster Leadership and a Trauma Certificate. To learn more and apply, visit our website. Get your application fee to the HDL M.A. program waived with code TBS25. Jamie Aten, Ph.D., and Kent Annan, M.Div., co-direct the Humanitarian Disaster Institute at Wheaton College and are the Co-Founders of Spiritual First Aid. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jenn Fredette, LPC, MA, M.Div joins me in today's episode to share insights on building passive income as a therapist, emphasizing that while “passive” income is possible, it still requires strategy and effort—especially when it comes to leveraging intellectual property. She introduces a new freebie outlining three scalable income pathways and explores options like group practices and alternative revenue streams. Jenn also highlights the importance of clear client messaging, smart marketing, and the ongoing challenge of balancing clinical work with business growth. Visit athinkersguide.com/scale for Jenn's freebie! Attention Abundance Community members: Jenn is our Abundance Community trainer for July 2025. For details on the live training via Zoom, email the HelpDesk or check out the event listing in our private Abundance Community Facebook group. Sponsored by TherapyNotes®: Use promo code Abundant for 2 months free

We all experience relational ruptures from time to time. The question is, what does it look like to repair well after a rupture?Today on The Faithful & True Podcast, Dr. Greg Miller & Alexis Greeves, LPCC return to the program to continue their conversation about parenting in recovery. In this episode, they focus on how to repair well after a relational rupture. 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