Blindness That Kills

It is December 29, 1972, and Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 has just taken off from the bitter cold of New York City and is heading out to Miami. One hundred and sixty-three passengers are on board, most of them hoping to enjoy a New Year’s vacation in the sun.
 
The flight is smooth and without incident as, a little before midnight, the plane makes its final approach into Miami International Airport. The wheels are lowered in preparation for landing, the captain informs the guests of the local temperature, and the passengers fasten their seat belts.

But then the captain notices that something is wrong. On most aircraft, there are three sets of wheels: one set beneath each of the two wings, and another just below the nose. When the wheels are lowered into place and lock into position for landing, indicators in the cockpit light up. But the green light linked to the wheels beneath the nose has failed to illuminate.

This could mean one of two things: either the light itself is faulty or the wheels have failed to lock into place. Either way, the captain has no choice but to abort his landing to figure out what has gone wrong. He informs air traffic control at just after half past eleven.
 
What happens next will ultimately cause one of the biggest civil aviation disasters in history. The crew members fixate on the faulty light. They pull it from its fitting, they turn it around in their hands, they blow on it to remove dust, they get it jammed when trying to put it back in its fitting. They devote so much attention to the light, they fail to notice the gorilla in their midst.
 
The gorilla, in this case, is the fact that the autopilot has been inadvertently disengaged, and the airplane is losing altitude. As the crew continue to focus their attention on the light, the plane is now taking the crew and passengers on a downward path toward disaster in the Everglades.
 
As the plane drops through 1,750 feet, an altitude warning alarm rings through the cockpit. The alarm is part of a sophisticated warning system, informing the pilots of their mortal danger. But although the alarm is clearly audible on the black box recording, neither the pilot nor the copilot hears it. Their attention is so wrapped up with the light, they have no spare bandwidth with which to consciously register the noise. They are now less than one hundred seconds from death.
 
Altitude is declining every second. The pilots can’t feel it because their senses are deceived by the plane’s motion. They can’t see it through the windows because it’s a moonless night, and there is no visible horizon. But right in front of the pilot’s noses, the altitude meter is spinning downward. It is within their line of sight. It is possible that both pilot and copilot actually look at the meter and see it moving. But they can’t perceive what it is saying. Why? Because it never hits conscious awareness. 

Only when the plane is seven seconds from impact with the ground does the copilot finally realize that something is seriously wrong. The pilot takes evasive action, pulling hard on the lever, but it’s too late. A moment later the plane crashes, killing 101 people.
 
 
attentional resources vs. insufficient bandwidth 
 
Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 is that the plane’s detailed warning systems worked. The altitude meter told the pilots that the plane was descending, and the alarm system provided the same information in acoustic form. But neither made the slightest bit of difference. The pilots had insufficient bandwidth. They were inattentionally blind. For the pilots, focused on the faulty light, it was as if the warnings never happened. They vanished into the realms of the unconscious.
 
Crash investigators would later establish that the nose wheels had, in fact, locked into place: the plane could have landed. The only piece of faulty equipment was the lightbulb in the nose gear assembly fixture, which had burned out. One journalist said, “The crash occurred due to the failure of a $12 piece of kit.” In a way, he was right, but the deeper truth is that a warning system, however sophisticated, is often only as good as the attentional resources at the disposal of the crew.
 
Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 has become a seminal event in aviation safety history, changing the way crashes are investigated and the way pilots are trained. A key innovation in crew training systems is a clear procedure of delegation between the pilot and the copilots in order to free up attentional resources.
 
The problem with the faulty lightbulb was not just that the captain fixated on it, but that the rest of the crew did, too: the pool of attention was exclusively focused on a single problem. Had just one of the crew focused on the light fitting, there would have been plenty of available attention for the others to have picked up on the visual and acoustic cues indicating the plane’s descent. 

- Matthew Syed, Bounce: Mozart, Federer, Picasso, Beckham, and the Science of Success, Chapter 8

Rest Ethic and Noble Leisure

Even if we could work at full capacity, day in and day out, we shouldn’t. A lot of the wonderful parts of the human experience center on rest, reflection, and recovery. Our minds and bodies need a reprieve from the constant pressure and demands on our time and brainpower. If we want to accomplish the big things we’ve set out to do – to create, lead, contribute, and make an impact – we need a rest ethic as strong as our work ethic.
 
A great rest ethic is not just about working less. It’s about becoming conscious of how you spend your time, recognizing that busyness is often the opposite of productivity, admitting and respecting your need for downtime and detachment, establishing clear boundaries and saying “no” more often, giving your ideas time and space to incubate, evaluating what success means to you, and ultimately finding and unlocking your deepest creative and human potential.
 
As Nassim Taleb noted, “only in recent history has ‘working hard’ signaled pride rather than shame.” With this false pride, our culture has descended into a crisis of mental health issues, burnout, and widespread unhappiness. Even the one thing we so desperately seem to be seeking – productivity – is suffering as a result.
 

Work is a necessity. But leisure was noble.
 
The key distinction Aristotle saw between mere work and noble leisure was essentially the question of why we do it. Work is done for a purpose, a utilitarian goal. Leisure, on the other hand, is done purely for its own sake, in search of meaning rather than purpose.
 
So while today we might think of Aristotle’s pursuits as “work,” to him they were largely leisure. Most of his thoughts were pure contemplation, which he considered as an “activity that is appreciated for its own sake…. Nothing is gained from it except the act of contemplation.” He was “pursuing science in order to know, and not for any utilitarian end.” Something “useless” can be “beyond usefulness” and a true good in itself. Unfortunately, even among the most “pure” knowledge workers today, such as academics, this form of thinking removed from purpose rarely exists anymore. We no longer understand the concept of noble leisure.
 

- John Fitch & Max Frenzel, Time Off: A Practical Guide to Building Your Rest Ethic 

and Finding Success Without the Stress.

Directed, Undirected, and Misdirected

The expression “pay attention” makes sense as we dive deeper into where and how our minds concentrate.

There are different types of attention:

• Our choice to concentrate is directed attention.
• Our intentional move to let our minds wander is undirected attention.
• Our less productive, more troublesome use of the brain is wasted energy, or misdirected attention.

- Joseph McCormack, Noise: Living and Leading When Nobody Can Focus (2020)

Five Principles for Rightly Handling Scripture

God’s word is our most important and indisputable authority. This is not to say it is the only authority. R. C. Sproul notes that the Reformation notion of sola Scriptura does not mean the Bible is the only authority for the Christian, but that it is the only infallible authority—for the simple reason that God himself is infallible.

1. Scripture should speak to all of life
We should not see the Bible as a manual for how to escape this world, but rather as a book of wisdom for, in part, applying God’s revealed truth to all of life now. Scripture should be both the foundation and impetus for all our knowledge pursuits.
 
2. Scripture should define your paradigm
All of us tend to like the parts of Scripture that support our paradigms while we ignore or downplay the parts that threaten our status quo. But bad things happen when we start shaping Scripture around us rather than ourselves around Scripture. We must always be on guard against force-fitting Scripture into boxes of our liking.
 
3. Scripture is valuable as a whole, not just the parts
Context is everything in Bible study. The truth of any given verse becomes clearer when we see it in the larger context. We get the most out of the Bible when we read it in big chunks and grasp its grand narrative. The Bible is a cohesive narrative.
 
4. Scripture should spark worship and obedience
We must “be doers of the word, and not hearers only” (James 1:22). Our lives should be beautifully transformed by the Bible because we obey what it says. Part of this is acknowledging that the Bible should engage not only our minds, but also our hearts, leading us to love the Lord and trust him more and more. We read the Bible to know its author, to behold the beauty and glory of Christ.
 
5. Scripture doesn’t have to make complete sense
This doesn’t mean we turn off our brains, throw up our hands, and tolerate theological fuzziness. Rather, the difficulties of Scripture should invite us to even more rigorous and precise examination, going deeper and wider in our study as lifelong learners, not because we have to know everything God knows, but because the more immersed we are in Scripture, the nearer we feel to his sweet presence.
 

- Brett McCracken, The Wisdom Pyramid:

Feeding Your Soul in a Post-Truth World, 2021

 

What Does Agape Love Really Mean?

Maybe you’ve already heard that agape (ἀγάπη) is the standard word for love in the Greek New Testament, and maybe you’ve heard that it points to a specific kind of love: a selfless, giving, non-emotional love—as opposed to the friendship love of philia (φιλία).
 
What does agape love really mean?
 
And now to love, because John 21 provides a perfect example of what Dr. Decker is talking about. I actually remember the day as a college freshman when I was given the (supposed) secret Greek key to unlocking Jesus’ famous conversation with Peter in that passage. Jesus asks three times, “Do you love me?” Peter replies each time: “Yes, I love you.” I was told that, hidden underneath the surface of the weak, imprecise English word “love” were two different Greek words: agapao (ἀγαπάω) and phileo (φιλέω). I was further told that these two Greek words pointed to two vastly different kinds of love, the one selfless and non-emotional and the other merely emotional and friend-ish. Peter, so the interpretation goes, twice couldn’t bring himself to say he loved Jesus selflessly and unconditionally, so Jesus asked him, in effect, “Do you even love me like a friend?”
 
…The fact is that the Bible never says anywhere that real love, ideal love, is non-emotional. In Jesus’ conversation with Peter, he appears to be varying agapao and phileo for purposes of style, not meaning.
 
One of the problems with using Greek without knowing it well is that you tend to fail to apply your principles rigorously. Are all synonyms in John 21 used to point up their differences rather than their similarities?
 
As D. A. Carson points out… Jesus doesn’t just vary his words for love in his conversation with Peter, he varies his word choice for the noun “sheep”:
 
“Feed my lambs,” he says.
Then, “Shepherd my sheep.”
Then, “Feed my sheep.”
 
Is it lambs or sheep? If Jesus intends to highlight a significant difference, he does not choose to make that clear. There do not seem to be obvious differences among the three imperative verbs, either: “feed,” “shepherd,” “feed.” The verb “shepherd,” in fact, also means “feed” sometimes, especially in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). 
 
And John 21 isn’t the only place where Jesus varies his use of agapao and phileo in the Gospel of John. In John 3:35, Jesus says, “The Father loves the son,” and in John 5:20 he says precisely the same thing—only in one verse he uses agapao and in the other phileo, with no discernible difference in meaning. Jesus isn’t invoking two radically different kinds of love in his conversation with Peter.
 
One of the most popular linguistic and exegetical fallacies in modern times is that the Greek word for love, agapao, carries in it the implication of a divine love that is unconditional and comes to us in spite of our sin.
 
That is not true. Context must decide if agapao refers to our proud, cliquish love for our cronies (as in Matthew 5:46) or if it refers to God’s merciful and sacrificial love for sinners (as in John 3:16), or if it refers to our love for leaders, not unconditionally but precisely because of their labor (1 Thessalonians 5:13)
 
To be clear, the New Testament does speak of a special kind of love, but we don’t know that by looking up Greek words in the dictionary. We know it by reading the New Testament. People who can read the Bible only in English can still know what love is.
 
Debunking beloved interpretations of Scripture is a favored pastime of young seminarians. But constructive help, not destructive criticism, is my goal here. It is my impression that the church in general—and perhaps the most studious of us in particular—put too much weight on looking up Bible words and not enough weight on reading Bible sentences in their contexts. There is nothing necessarily wrong with looking up words, and Logos can do it so incredibly well! I do it all the time—and if you’re curious as to what I think “love” really means, I actually believe the standard Greek dictionary defines it pretty well if you put senses one and two together: “to have a warm regard for and interest in another; to have high esteem for or satisfaction with something, cherish, have affection for, love, take pleasure in.”
 
But you’ll learn far more about “love” by reading the resurrection accounts in the Gospels, or by reading the story of the Good Samaritan—Scripture passages which don’t even use the word—than you will by looking up agape in a dictionary. By all means do both, but know in advance which one weighs more than the other.
 

Excerpt from: https://blog.logos.com/what-does-agape-love-mean/

To vs. For

When to use TO 

1. Direction - Expressing movement toward something
i.e. We’re going to the zoo this weekend.

2. Receiving - Showing who or what receives an action or item
i.e. She was always mean to us.

3. Connection - Showing an abstract link between two people
i.e. I am married to my best friend.

4. Attachment - Showing a physical attachment between two things
i.e. The piece of paper was accidentally glued to my hand.

5. Comparison - Introducing the second part of a comparison
i.e. They preferred water to soda.

6. Reason (with verb) - Describing why something happened, when the explanation uses a verb
i.e. I study so much to get good grades.

7. Infinitives - In the infinitive form of a verb, to comes before the root verb.
i.e. To succeed in anything requires motivation.

8. Time - used to mean “before” a certain time.
i.e. Ten minutes to closing!

9. Synonym of “until” - often used colloquially as a replacement for “until.”
i.e. We’re open from dawn to dusk.
 

When to use FOR 

1. Support - Indicating agreement, allegiance, or favor toward something
i.e. If you’re not for the union, you’re against it!

2 Representation - Showing an action on behalf of or representing something else
i.e. I may work for Walmart, but I don’t shop there.

3. Exchange - Introducing the second part of a purchase, deal, or trade
i.e. He bought the entire Skrillex discography for only a dollar.

4 Length - Indicating length of time or distance
i.e. Go straight for a few miles and then turn left.

5. Gratitude - Showing thanks or gratitude
i.e. Thank you for your email.

6  Reason (with noun) - Describing why something happened, when the explanation uses a noun
i.e. She became a doctor for the money, not the long hours.
 
7. Conjunction -  a coordinating conjunction that acts as a synonym of “because,” although today it’s a little outdated. 

i.e. The crops aren’t growing, for the weather is lousy.

8. Comparisons with what’s normal - You can use for to emphasize how something is different from the norm or general standard.
i.e. “You’re not bad for an elf,” said the dwarf.

9. Scheduling - to indicate a planned arrangement in the future.
i.e. Is our D&D session still on for later?

To vs. For

Using to vs. for purpose and reason
- to is used with verbs (i.e. I came here to see you)
- for is used with nouns (i.e. I came here for you)

Using important to vs. important for
important to - indicates personal or sentimental value, with emotional significance
important for - indicates a practical benefit, not always an emotional significance

Using to vs. for with receiving something
- Essentially, when you’re talking about someone receiving something directly, use to followed by the recipient (the person who receives something).
i.e.  Every year I give a birthday gift to my dog.
- If you’re talking about the reason or purpose behind doing something—but not the actual giving—use for.
i.e. I bought a birthday gift for my dog.
(Notice how the action in the last sentence is about buying the gift, not giving the gift.)

source: grammarly blog

Why We Must Read Books

Books are vital in cultivating wisdom—not only for the truths they contain, but also for the way they help us think. In our distracted age, books give us perspective, focus, and space to reflect. Reading books—a wide variety, from different eras and places and worldviews, both fiction and nonfiction—keeps our anachronism and self-centeredness in check. They educate us, help us make connections across disciplines, and open up the world.
 
Books Help Us Connect, Explore, Think Well

When we read books, we are stepping into another’s shoes. We are entering the author’s world, giving our attention to the author’s perspective for an extended time. This last part is key. It’s hard to develop empathy when you only read a tweet by someone; but a book-length immersion in someone’s world creates the opportunity for understanding. The act of reading a book is literally the act of being “quick to listen, slow to speak.” In literary fiction, we develop empathy by getting inside characters’ minds. We may love or hate them, but to the extent that we listen to and live with them for a time, we can learn from the particularity of their existence. Research shows that literary fiction especially helps readers develop empathy—a better understanding of the complexity of what others are thinking and feeling.
We read to connect, but also to explore. Even though we technically read a book without ever physically going anywhere, we all know the feeling of how a book transports us to other places and other times.
 
There is a growing body of research that shows the powerful ways reading books—long, immersive reading in contrast to the fragmented, quick-scan reading we do online—strengthens our brains’ abilities to think well.
 
Books Confront the Noise
 
At a time when the glut, speed, and tailored-to-you nature of information is making us ever more prone to misinformation and unsound wisdom, reading books offers a powerful antidote. Books confront the “too much information” problem by focusing our attention on one thing for a longer, deeper time. They confront the “too fast” problem by forcing us to sit with one writer’s perspective for long enough to really grapple with it. Books challenge the “too focused on me” problem by putting us in another’s shoes.
 
Books give us solid grounding at a time when everything is up for grabs. They offer rubrics to better evaluate the barrage of information we face in today’s world. In a world of snapshots and soundbites, books offer fuller context, and as Andy Crouch writes, “generally speaking, the older the book, the deeper the context.”
 
Books Help us to Change
 
But reading is not merely a defensive act. To read and learn well we must also be teachable, willing to let our guard down enough to be impressionable (but not gullible). When we open a book we should be ready to be changed, open to being convinced, eager to learn something we didn’t know. If you think you know everything, you’ll have no use for books; if you are humble and curious (key foundations for a life of wisdom), you’ll devour them.
 
This is a key, yet countercultural, aspect of reading well. We live in a “death of expertise” world, after all. Our prevailing hermeneutic is suspicion. We are more comfortable proclaiming ourselves experts than we are being swayed or influenced by others. That’s why today’s discourse is at an impasse. We’ve so emphasized “you do you” liberty that expert knowledge, educated consensus, and logic no longer matter. It’s the problem educators face when they so emphasize students “learning to think for themselves” that the teacher’s own credentials and authority to adjudicate right and wrong answers loses any force.
 

Greatest Book

Still, we must put these books in their proper place. It would be folly to build one’s wisdom diet around great books but not also the greatest book, the Bible. Without the reference point of God, the “truth” of books is relative. One reader might find a book true, while another finds it false. There can be no consensus on canon if there is no transcendent reference point for words like good, true, and beautiful. “The only guarantor of communal truth is transcendent truth,” writes David Lyle Jeffrey. “Without intellectually accountable access to the Greater Book, very many lesser, yet still very great, expressions of truth may go without understanding.”
 

- Brett McCracken, The Wisdom Pyramid:

Feeding Your Soul in a Post-Truth World, 2021