What can i do with my obsession
With the things i cannot see
Is there madness in my being
Is it the wind that moves the trees?
Sometimes You're further than the moon
Sometimes You're closer than my skin
And You surround me like a winter fog
You've come and burned me with a kiss

And my heart burns for You
And my heart burns...for You

And i'm so filthy with my sin
i carry pride like a disease
You know i'm stubborn, Lord, and i'm longing to be close
You burn me deeper than i know
And i feel lonely without hope
And i feel desperate without vision
You wrap around me like a winter coat
You come and free me like a bird

optimal sleeping time!

HERE IS YOUR PERSONALIZED AUTO-MEQ FEEDBACK (18 Dec 2007)
Your score is 43.

YOUR MORNINGNESS-EVENINGNESS TYPE IS CONSIDERED TO BE INTERMEDIATE.
Morningness-eveningness scores range from 16-86. Scores of 41 and below indicate "evening types." Scores of 59 and above indicate "morning types." Scores between 42-58 indicate "intermediate types."

16-30 31-41 42-58 59-69 70-86
definite evening moderate evening intermediate moderate morning definite morning
Your score allows us to estimate when your brain begins to produce the nighttime hormone melatonin*, which normally occurs before you are ready to fall asleep.

WE ESTIMATE THAT YOUR MELATONIN ONSET OCCURS AT ABOUT 10:30 PM.

*saliva concentration of 3 picograms per milliliter
The time you are first able to fall asleep easily (assuming that you keep a regular sleep schedule) is related to the time that your brain begins to produce melatonin in the evening or at night.

WE ESTIMATE THAT YOUR "NATURAL" BEDTIME IS AT ABOUT 12:15 AM.
This information can be put to important use if you are trying to organize your daily schedule to best match with your circadian rhythm type. It is especially useful if you want to use light therapy to shift your rhythms in a desired direction (morning light shifts rhythms earlier; evening light shifts them later).

Appropriate timing of therapy can help you wake up more alert for a normal work day, reduce insomnia when you are trying to get to sleep, accommodate to shift work, prepare for (or recover from) long distance air travel, and even correct abnormal sleep patterns such as the Delayed Sleep Phase Syndrome. Below, we specify two well-tested applications:
Light therapy is the first-line treatment for Seasonal Affective Disorder, eliminating or reducing the need to take drugs. People suffering with major depressive episodes in winter should seek supervision of treatment by a health professional knowledgeable about managing the symptoms. The personalized advice we give you here is based on a large clinical trial at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center. That clinical trial used a 10,000 lux fluorescent light box with an overhead diffusing screen, for 30 minutes daily. (Other light box types might require longer exposure duration, or might be less effective. You should ask your doctor to help you make adjustments to maximize the antidepressant effect.)

If you are considering 10,000 lux light therapy to combat winter depression, your morningness-eveningness score indicates that YOUR OPTIMUM 30-MINUTE LIGHT TREATMENT SHOULD BEGIN AT 7:00 AM.
You can try the same light timing, 7:00 AM, to combat oversleeping and ease of rising in morning, whether or not you have winter depression.
Our recommendation provides only a general guideline. You may need to adjust the timing based on your experience during treatment. If you sleep longer than 7 hours per night, this schedule will require you to wake up earlier than usual for greatest benefit. Some people compensate by going to bed earlier, while others feel fine with shorter sleep.




1 Approximately what time would you get up if you were entirely free to plan your day?

(You may want to use your browser's zoom function to maximize the size of the question text on your screen.) 11:00 a.m.-12:00 noon
2 Approximately what time would you go to bed if you were entirely free to plan your evening? 12:30-1:45 a.m.
3 If you usually have to get up at a specific time in the morning, how much do you depend on an alarm clock? Slightly
4 How easy do you find it to get up in the morning (when you are not awakened unexpectedly)? Fairly easy
5 How alert do you feel during the first half hour after you wake up in the morning? Slightly alert
6 How hungry do you feel during the first half hour after you wake up? Not at all hungry
7 During the first half hour after you wake up in the morning, how do you feel? Fairly refreshed
8 If you had no commitments the next day, what time would you go to bed compared to your usual bedtime? 1-2 hours later
9 You have decided to do physical exercise. A friend suggests that you do this for one hour twice a week, and the best time for him is between 7-8 a.m. Bearing in mind nothing but your own internal "clock," how do you think you would perform? Would find it very difficult
10 At approximately what time in the evening do you feel tired, and, as a result, in need of sleep? 12:45-2:00 a.m.
11 You want to be at your peak performance for a test that you know is going to be mentally exhausting and will last two hours. You are entirely free to plan your day. Considering only your internal "clock," which one of the four testing times would you choose? 11 a.m.-1 p.m.
12 If you got into bed at 11 p.m., how tired would you be? Very tired
13 For some reason you have gone to bed several hours later than usual, but there is no need to get up at any particular time the next morning. Which one of the following are you most likely to do? Will not wake up until later than usual
14 One night you have to remain awake between 4-6 a.m. in order to carry out a night watch. You have no time commitments the next day. Which one of the alternatives would suit you best? Would take a good sleep before and nap after
15 You have to do two hours of hard physical work. You are entirely free to plan your day. Considering only your internal "clock," which one of the following times would you choose? 3-5 p.m.
16 You have decided to do physical exercise. A friend suggests that you do this for one hour twice a week. The best time for her is between 10-11 p.m. Bearing in mind only your own internal "clock," how well do think you would perform? Would be in reasonable form
17 Suppose you can choose your own work hours. Assume that you work a five-hour day (including breaks), your job is interesting and you are paid based on your performance. At approximately what time would you choose to begin? 5 hours starting between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m.
18 At approximately what time of day do you usually feel your best? 10 pm-5 a.m.
19 One hears about "morning types" and "evening types." Which one of these types do you consider yourself to be? Rather more an evening type than a morning type

Love of reading opens up a world of possibilities

Tanya Plibersek
December 12, 2007

The novel Northanger Abbey, one of Jane Austen's less read works, has a gentle dig at the contorted plotlines and melodramatic expression of the gothic novels popular in the author's day.

But still Austen offers a defence of the novel, having her hero Henry Tilney say, "the person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid".

Today's students need Jane Austen (and other authors who have stood the test of time) as much as ever. Good fiction is not a waste of time.

True story: a young man wondered why his colleague - a huge, rough-looking gardener who sported the DIY teardrop facial tattoos common on prisoners - read children's books at lunch time. His lips would move slowly as he read and re-read the picture books. The young man finally worked up the courage to ask why. "Because, mate," came the reply, "If I'd ever learnt to read I would never have ended up in jail."

He was learning the books so he could read them more fluently to his own children, hoping to spark in them an interest in reading he had never had.

It is a tragedy that 2½ million Australians can't read and another 2.7 million can barely read. Getting children who don't like reading to read comic books or reviews of computer games or car manuals - it doesn't matter what - is important. But we shouldn't lower our expectations of children.

Studying English should be more than just learning to communicate. It should be learning to love language. Of course, students need the basic skills of literacy - spelling, punctuation, grammar, a broad vocabulary - but complex and creative thinking relies on a playfulness with language that is bred by immersion in all its possibilities.

Many people eschew fiction, thinking that reading time should be spent learning facts. Good fiction helps us understand human experience. It is the food of empathy. It can make other cultures, other historical periods real for us. It is empathy that drives social progress: if we can imagine the hardships of a person's life we are prepared to work to relieve their burden.

As well as helping us understand the world, fiction helps us understand ourselves. Jane Austen's heroines are appealing (except, perhaps, the insipid Fanny Price) but they are mostly flawed. Emma Woodhouse thinks too highly of her own understanding; Elizabeth Bennet jumps to false conclusions; Anne Elliot has to learn proper balance between respecting the wishes of her family and being true to herself. No one can help reading these novels without asking, "Am I guilty of the same failing?"

In a world where teenagers are exposed to consumerism, early sexualisation, self-destructive behaviour and the prevailing message that if they want something they should have it (and happiness lies in getting everything you want), diving into a world that confronts them with moral dilemmas can open up parts of their minds that are otherwise not challenged. How many young people first thought about apartheid in South Africa after reading Alan Paton's great novels?

We want young Australians exposed to the best the English language has to offer, including the best colloquial expressions of it, because we want to develop the part of the brain that feeds creativity and complexity, that understands subtlety and wit, that allows higher communication and an ability to see things from the perspective of another.

Several years ago the Singapore Government realised that the education system of Singapore, while excellent, did not foster creativity in students. Since 2004 the Government has adopted a policy of "teach less, learn more", which aims for "less dependence on rote learning, repetitive tests and a 'one size fits all' type of instruction, and more on experiential discovery, engaged learning, differentiated teaching, the learning of life-long skills, and the building of character …"

One of the reasons cited for this change was that students needed to be better innovators for the good of the economy. Well, there is that, but reading good literature happens to be delightful, too.

Tanya Plibersek is a Federal Government minister and the federal member for Sydney.

op/ed on race

he other day a skinny white boy came to me complaining about his teacher’s “anti-white racist remarks.” These remarks were made while the teacher was lecturing in a course here at UNC-White (Oops! I mean, UNC-Wilmington). After listing a bunch of bad things white people have done to black people, the professor stated in front of a racially-mixed audience: “You know … I’m actually embarrassed to be white.”

The student thought this made his teacher look like an “anti-white racist.” But looks can be deceiving. In reality, like most white “liberals,” the teacher is really a white supremacist.

In order to demonstrate the true nature of this professor’s racism, I suggested the student spend a few days emulating his professor’s conduct. He could start in the very class where he heard the “I’m actually embarrassed to be white” remark. Here are some specific suggestions I gave to the skinny white boy:

When a white person comes into class late, tell him “You make me embarrassed to be white.”

When a white person’s cell phone goes off in class, tell him “You make me embarrassed to be white.”

When a white person says something dumb in class, tell him “You make me embarrassed to be white.”

And, finally, when his white professor says “You know … I’m actually embarrassed to be white” say “You know … I’m actually embarrassed you’re white, too. For once, we agree on something.”

Try this yourself and see how long it takes for the nearest black person to realize that you have higher expectations for white people simply because of the color of their skin. Since this places you at risk of being labeled a white supremacist, or getting your skinny white ass kicked, I will do the following (so I cannot be accused of personal cowardice):

When I see the Director of Diversity at UNCW, I will say that Dog Chapman “Sure makes me embarrassed to be white. I wish he was black. Then I wouldn’t be embarrassed because whites and blacks are not members of the same race.”

When I see our token black political scientist at UNCW, I will say that “Senator Joe from Delaware makes me embarrassed to be white. He’s pretty inarticulate for a white guy.”

When I see the Chancellor of UNCW, I will tell her that her decision to put herself in an ad in the otherwise all-black “Black Pages” - a version of the “White Pages” meant to advertise black owned businesses - “makes me embarrassed to be white.” She’ll understand what I mean because she’s already trying desperately to be black.

Finally, I’ll go to the next all black faculty meeting and introduce myself to black faculty saying “I thank God that none of you are white. This segregation thing has been a terrible embarrassment to my great race. But you people go right ahead.”

Then, after I’m done apologizing for all the dumb things white people do, I’ll spend the rest of the afternoon at the tanning bed.

But, of course, this business of trying to walk out on the white race is surely not the white thing to do (Oops! I mean the right thing to do). Instead of having enlightened “liberals” - like the skinny white boy’s professor - leave the white race we could declare certain whites to be “in-authentically white.” Let me explain.

For years on our campuses, blacks who do not agree with affirmative action – or any other mainstream “liberal” policies – have been labeled “in-authentically black.” By dubbing blacks “in-authentic” for other reasons - being too educated, too grammatically correct, or too family-oriented – “liberals” have half-succeeded in fulfilling their dream of white supremacy in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance.”

Now, by purging the white race of all of those who do not live up to the “liberal” ideals of white moral superiority, we can create a truly enlightened master race. Sound confusing and ridiculous? Welcome to UNCW (The University of Non-Caucasian Wannabes).

People at the Office of Campus Diversity tell me I need to learn to be more tolerant – especially of white “liberals” with a superior vision of the way things ought to be. But I just can’t tolerate white supremacy. I could tolerate a black supremacist. But I expect so much more from white people.

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel: Confessions of a Conservative College Professor.

eisegete and proud of it!

3.30.2006
Eisegete and Proud of It!

In many circles, academic and ecclesiastical, eisegesis is bad news. You are always told not to do it, and when you do, you are condemned. So what is eisegesis? It is reading your personal interpretations into the Biblical text. The "correct" way to read Scripture, say some, is using exegesis, which is bringing out the supposed "clear" meaning of the text or the intention of the author. I often find that nobody really does eisegesis, if you ask them at least. Exegesis is what you do with Scripture; eisegesis is what your opponent does.

I bring this up because I was in a conversation last night where a non-Catholic accused Catholics of being eisegetes for "finding" Mary in the Old Testament. Mary, according to "sound exegetical principles" is not in the Old Testament, he reasoned, therefore we have no right to use Old Testament Scriptures to back up "clearly unbiblical ideas" like Mary's assumption and queenship.

At this point, I realized that I had a grave confession to make: I have no problem using eisegesis (there goes any chance of me getting into a Biblical Studies PhD program!). The thing is that I believe everyone is an eisegete. From the Baptists who claim to "just follow Scripture" to the United Church of Christ scholar who claims the same thing: every last one of us uses eisegesis. Can we ever approach Scripture totally objectively? Is there even an "objective" meaning (from a purely scholarly standpoint) to the text, since both the Old and New Testaments were written for living, religious communities, and the texts were intended for these communities only. So can a scholar in the 21st century really objectively find the meaning of the text? Maybe, Maybe not. Also, even the most objective researcher has biases that will, even subconsciously, be read into the text.

Additionally, we Christians are the original eisegetes: we read Jesus into the Old Testament. I hate to break it to everybody, but Jesus isn't in the Old Testament if you strictly exegete the text, otherwise every Jew would have accepted Jesus as the Messiah, because his name and location would have been clearly spelled out. Basically we have to read Jesus into the Old Testament. The Church has consistently found Jesus (and Mary and all sorts of New Testament concepts) in the text where Jewish exegetes did not find him. My response to all of this: good! We Christians believe that Jesus is the interpretive lens through which we are to read Scripture. So yes, we are interpreting Scripture though a very biased lens, but if it is the right lens, then we are safe. We are truly eisegetes, by modern academic and certain Protestant standards, but what is wrong with that? If Jesus himself truly is the Word (logos), then it makes perfect sense that the Old Testament be read typologically to find Jesus there. From our standpoint, Jesus is there, and thus we find him everywhere we can, whether his presence is clear to all modern "exegetes" or not.

Now, I am not saying all interpretations are right, or that eisegesis itself is a divinely inspired concept or anything. There are limits to eisegesis, and the community that produced the texts, the Church, sets various limits on how its own documents may be read. So while we are obvious eisegetes by modern academic standards, as Catholics we are not permitted to "read into" Scripture anything that contradicts Apostolic Truth. In other words, we find Jesus in the Old Testament because he is truly there. So maybe (and I am thinking out loud here) Catholics tend to operate outside the strict modern categories of exegesis and eisegesis when reading, interpreting, and preaching Scripture. This is because we believe that we truly are finding the actual meaning of the texts when we read them with the Apostolic Church in light of the person of Christ. However, this seems like eisegesis from the perspective of non-Catholics, when it is really a sort of "Apostolic exegesis."

Ultimately, the idea that we can use exegesis to neutrally find the objective truth of the Bible has led to various contradictory readings of Scripture. This means that the Jehovah's Witnesses are "just using sound exegesis" when they conclude Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and so is the Jesus Seminar, when they conclude Jesus was just a good man. In fact, unchecked exegesis has certainly contributed to the myriad Christian denominations we now have.

So, I stand by my beliefs: I am an unrepentant eisegete! I read Scripture with the community that wrote it, through the lens of the Word of God. I find all sorts of Apostolic Truths in Scripture. Biased? yes. Right? I hope.

a plea for sanity!

Bible Commentaries - a plea for sanity (or, in praise of eisegesis)

It's got to stop...


I was just checking through some Bible Commentaries yesterday and I was astonished at the proliferation of mighty tomes that have been published in the last few years. Ephesians is a case in point, with several major commentaries being published in the last decade - including the daddy of them all Hoehner's 960 page volume. Or, take the case of the Book of Revelation: Aune's three-volume account is matched by Beale's 1245 page effort!

This phenomena is fairly recent, I think. In the sixties and seventies, perhaps one major commentary would be published per decade (correct me if I am wrong). But with the computerisation of academia and the growth of theological education in the US especially, the steady flow is now an avalanche of commentary. Library shelves are heaving with the things: and the books themselves get bigger and bigger...
I don't think this is a sign of health. The sheer size of commentaries indicates that commentators are still working with an encyclopeadist's mentality, accumulating references and knowledge, and trying to provide as comprehensive an account of the field as possible. No article or monograph is left unreferenced; no alternative argument left unconsidered. Each new commentary pleads to be considered the one-stop-shop for all your Ephesians needs - until the next one comes along, and like an upgrade of Windows, makes everything before it redundant.

There seems to be a tacit assumption that more information equates to better knowledge and greater enlightenment. It doesn't. The commentator operates still with an objectivist mindset: the assumption being that the skill of exegesis means the removal of all personal touches from the commentary whatsoever. That is to say: exegetes assume that textual interpretation is best served by a quasi-scientific distance and dispassion. It isn't!

Further, this tendency heightens the impression (long fostered by those in the field of biblical studies) that expert knowledge is utterly indispensible for any comprehension at all. It is just impossible for a non-specialist to get accross it all - you could give a life time just to reading commentaries on the book of Romans written since 1980! In addition, the experts are under pressure to come up with some new way of reading in order to make their name professionally and so get a nice job and some recognition. Now, I don't want to be too cynical or obscurantist here, but this leads to crackpot theories getting more airtime than they ought, just because they are novel (here's a particularly egregious example). Or you find the commentator almost wondering aloud whether he/she has anyting new to say: I found Douglas Moo on Romans to be one of the least helpful on this score: he can't decide between various readings, so he blends them all together, leaving you even more confused than you were before.

My first degree was in English literature. I was trained in the art of reading - reading texts closely, and in relation to other texts. When I began my theological studies, I had assumed that I would find Biblical Studies the sub-discipline that attracted me most. I was quite dismayed to find that the art of reading texts had nothing to do with biblical studies by and large. The two disciplines were not at all related - despite some hokey attempts around the 80s and early 90s to introduce 'literary criticism' in to the field. These were pretty much like seeing your old dad dancing at your 21st...

The best commentaries, to my mind, aren't by exegetical specialists but by people who were preachers, theologians and churchmen. The commentaries of Calvin, for example: meant as a companion set with his sermons and the Institutes. Luther's landmark work. Barth on Romans. Augustine. What is different here? Well, partly, it is that there is no hint of an attempt at pseudo-objectivity. In each case, the context and personality of the commentator is unashamedly in evidence. You could correct the reading of each in numerous ways - but then, they are not attempting to be comprehensive and definitive for all times. You need to be an eisegete in order to be an effective exegete. That's how reading texts works. This isn't postmodern relativism: this is just how texts work!

So, a plea to Biblical Studies boffins: stop and delate all those major commentaries you were working on. They aren't helping! We don't want them! Rather: let's have more wood and fewer trees. Let's have a disciplined limit on the length of commentaries (if we must have them) - no more than 250 pages please. And, liberated from that task, get on and do something that serves the church.

And to preachers: stop purchasing the things! They aren't helping your sermon preparation - and they certainly aren't helping your sermons. They are high-cost high redundancy items. Find the absolute classics in each book and stick with those. Buy some theology instead, or read a novel or two, or a biography, or philosophy. Make your Greek better and read the text for yourself! Spend more time in prayer even. Your spouse will appreciate the space you save by not buying commentaries, too.

Posted by michael jensen at 6:44 AM

dave harvey interview

Author Interview: Dave Harvey

July 17, 2007

Dave Harvey is the author of When Sinners Say "I Do," recently published by Shepherd Press. He was kind enough to answer some questions about the book and about marriage posed by Tim Challies.

Discerning Reader: Why did you write When Sinners Say “I Do”?

Dave Harvey: The book was my stab at reality therapy for couples. I thought it might serve couples to take a no-nonsense peek beneath the hood of their marriage. So often marriage advice orients from the perspective of unmet needs. I wanted to talk biblically and honestly about what we bring to our spouse. Sin isn’t pretty, but it’s real. I think the book expresses the truth of Scripture, that sin is the fundamental cause of what ails marriages.

You see, what I’ve discovered in my marriage—and how my perspective has been informed by Scripture—is that in order for me to experience a happy, fruitful marriage, I need to stare boldly into the fact that I’m a sinner. Once we acknowledge that and understand how that reality influences our behavior, the gospel can shine brighter because we’re in touch with why the cross was really necessary.

DR: There is certainly no shortage of books dealing with marriage. What sets your book apart from the others?

DH: Yep, there’s plenty out there … and I have certainly benefited from some of them. But it’s so common for marriage books to address the symptoms of marital challenges while neglecting the real problem. My hope is that this book doesn’t merely bemoan the problem of sin, but escorts the reader to the true solution—the gospel! When Sinners Say “I DO”: Discovering the Power of the Gospel for Marriage cuts through the cultural and psychological assumptions that fill the pages of many popular needs-based resources. Instead, it encourages the reader to develop the convictions and tools to diagnose their hearts and then apply the Gospel toward change. As I write in chapter one, “When we apply the gospel to our sin, it gives us hope in our personal lives and in our marriage. Bad news leads to great news. It’s the story of the Bible, and the story of our lives.”

DR: The first several chapters of this book deal primarily with sin and the last chapter deals with decline and death. Some people are probably going to argue that this is the most depressing book on marriage they’ve ever read! Why the emphasis on such weighty and unpopular topics?

DH: Let me answer the way I think Thomas Watson, the great Puritan pastor, might respond. He said, “Until sin be bitter, Christ will not be sweet.” To say “I am a sinner” is to locate the source of our problems not first in our circumstances or relationships, but in our hearts. When we acknowledge the presence of sin—the sin that roots in our hearts and influences our lives—several great things become clear. First, we find ourselves in some pretty good company—the heroes of our faith from Old Testament times to present—who experienced the battle with sin on the front lines. Second, we also acknowledge what everybody around us already knows, particularly our spouse. It removes the false, self-justifying basis for much of our behavior in our marriage. But, by far the greatest benefit of acknowledging our sinfulness, is that it makes Christ and his work precious to us. Like Jesus said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5: 31-32). Only sinners need a Savior. So I guess the bad news is that we’re sinners, but the good news is that the power of the gospel gives us hope for a happy, fruitful marriage.

In writing the book, I needed to walk people carefully through the biblical doctrine of sin because there is so much misunderstanding and fear with even the mentioning the word. But I think people will quickly realize both the invasive hope and practical vision that emerge from allowing the gospel (which must include the doctrine of sin) to reshape our thinking, feeling and doing in marriage. The Bible comes alive because it is God’s unfolding plan for redemption, with sin and grace soaking every page. My emphasis is intended to bring the hope of the gospel into the shadows so that Christ’s light and promises can shine brighter in each marriage.

DR: You say in the book that “What we believe about God determines the quality of our marriage.” Can you explain that statement?

DH: In the book, I take time to explain this statement more fully. In fact, we spend almost the entire book unpacking some of its implications. A brief explanation, though, is that because everyone views life from a perspective (what some call a worldview), that view profoundly shapes a marriage. Whether or not we realize it, our ideas about life, our needs, marriage, romance, conflict—and everything else!—reveal themselves in our words and deeds. Inevitably, this reflects our view of God.

Here’s the connection: what you truly believe about God and what it means to live your life for God is your theology. As a husband gets angry or a wife complains, theology is spilling out. A good everyday spouse-theologian can discern that beliefs about God and self, about problems and relationships, and about right and wrong are hotly defended and argued all the time. It’s there in our vocabulary, it’s revealed in how we perceive and discuss our needs and it’s displayed through the underlying assumptions about why we do what we do.

Make no mistake—how a husband and wife build their marriage day-by-day and year-by-year is fundamentally shaped by their theology. It governs how we think, what we say, and how we act. Our theology governs our entire life. So certainly, our theology—what we believe about God—ultimately determines the outcome and quality of our marriage.

DR: You also say, “I am a better husband and father, and a happier man, when I recognize myself as the worst of sinners.” Can you explain what you mean by this?

DH: The worst of sinners is not my term; I actually borrowed it from the apostle Paul in his words to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:15). But it applies to all of us. Yes, really.

Paul didn’t say ‘I was.’ He said ‘I am’—the ‘present-tense’ apostle Paul saw himself as the chief of sinners. Paul was a student of his heart. He paid attention to the desires and impulses that churned within. And I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that he knew he was capable—given the right circumstances—of the worst of sins and the vilest of motives. Paul was a realist. He wanted to see God and himself truly. No hiding behind a facade of pleasantness or religiosity for him. It’s almost as if Paul is saying, “Look, I know my sin. And what I’ve seen in my own heart is darker and more awful; it’s more proud, selfish, and self-exalting; and it’s more consistently and regularly in rebellion against You than anything I have glimpsed in the heart of anyone else. As far as I can see, the biggest sinner I know is me.”

But in the very next verse Paul says, “But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.”

With the passing of each day, two things grew larger for Paul: his sinfulness in light of the holiness of God, and God’s mercy in the face of it. Knowing both God and himself accurately was not at all discouraging or depressing. Rather, it deepened his gratitude for the vastness of God’s mercy in redeeming him, and the patience of Christ in continuing to love and identify with him in his daily struggle against sin.

Paul’s confession to Timothy presents us with a stunning example of moral honesty and theological maturity: Paul’s acute, even painful awareness of his own sinfulness caused him to magnify the glory of the Savior!

As I’ve studied Paul’s example, I’ve found it to be true in my own life as well. The more aware I am of my sinful heart, the more I’m able to magnify the Savior by extending grace, love and kindness to my wife and children.

Chances are that all of us have witnessed a marriage dissolve because of “irreconcilable differences.” What does the Bible say about irreconcilable differences? Is there any such thing in a Christian context?

I think there can be significant differences among well meaning Christians. Paul and Barnabas appeared to confront major differences over the utility of Mark. They were mature Christians who recognized that their different perspectives required a separation. We must acknowledge God has worked even in differences and separation among believers to further his purposes throughout history. But marriage is different. Marriage is a picture of the very heart of reconciliation in Christ as Paul says in Ephesians 5. So God holds the covenant of marriage above the fray of what we typically understand as ‘irreconcilable differences.’ Jesus, the Reconciler, said it himself, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew19:6).

Let’s be honest, marriage is all about encountering differences and finding grace in the fallout. It’s no wonder that Martin Luther called marriage “the school of character.” That’s part of the reason I wrote the chapter on mercy. Without mercy (which I unpack with the words kindness, patience and forgiveness), differences become divisive, sometimes even appearing “irreconcilable.” It’s not the presence of differences, but the absence of a biblical interpretation of our differences that makes them irreconcilable. I do wonder how many sinners who say “so long” would remain married if they understood the purpose and place and mercy in marriage.

Our spouse was a strategic choice, created for our good, by a wise and loving God. Selected by him, for us, from the beginning of the world, our spouse is an essential part of God’s rescue mission for our life. If we’re willing to see God’s design in our differences, we will realize that He is behind it all and that we can overcome our differences through His amazing grace.

DR: Why is it so easy to read a book and become convicted of other people’s sin? How did you approach the topics in this book to encourage people to primarily become aware of their own sin?

DH: Actually, I don’t need a book to become convicted of other people’s sin. I just need to wake up in the morning! Sin is crafty; it orients us towards overlooking our sin and micro-examining the sins of others. In chapter four, we look at this universal tendency in Matthew 7. As we would expect, Jesus commands us to start with ourselves. Where we start in dealing with sin makes all the difference in how we deal with it. And that’s what you find as you read through the many stories in this book. Emma was grievously sinned against by her husband, Gordon. But because she understood that she was a sinner saved by grace, bitterness didn’t settle into her soul. Jeremy committed adultery, and, yet, because his wife Cindy was willing to examine her own heart, she was positioned to extend forgiveness after a process of repentance. The approach of this book is to start with self-examination because when we understand who we are, it will be less likely that we’ll be preoccupied with another’s sin.

DR: If I love my wife, why do I find it so easy to treat her like I don’t?

DH: The universal answer to this question is that we all encounter strong temptations to love ourselves more than our spouse. Therein lies the greatest challenge of marriage and the greatest opportunity for the gospel. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul makes it simple when he talks about the flesh giving into desires that oppose the Spirit. Why do I find it easy to treat my wife like I don’t love her? Because the desires within me oppose the good things I want to do. I put it this way in the book:

“Here I sit, just a plain ole’ loveable bundle of neutrality and noble-heartedness, minding my own business, when my wife says or does something which, from my unassailable vantage point, clearly crosses the line. Acting swiftly and efficiently as a judge and jury of one, I evaluate her behavior as obviously sinful. Hers is a transgression that demands my just but resolute response. In order to deal swiftly with any violation of my emotional air space or risk a breach of my personal security, I must expose her sin plainly and condemn it openly. If this creates a negative impact on my wife—the clear aggressor in my mind—well, a “stern” response from me is unfortunate but necessary to maintain the peace. In fact, I’m simply engaged in an act of leadership; perhaps she’ll learn the lesson for the future. Yes, if feels right, doesn’t it—it seems so clear. But it’s just my sinful flesh doing what it does best: making war against the Spirit and, in this case, against [my wife] as well.”

DR: When speaking to couples who are struggling in their relationship I’m sure you’ll find that one of the partners will be convinced that he or she is the one most interested in change and growth. Often, it seems, this is the case. What counsel do you have when one spouse is committed to change and growth while the other seems ambivalent?

DH: That question is so important that I touch on it in several chapters. I think its essential to understand that when encountering marriage challenges, both partners want change. The issue is they often have a program of change that looks a lot like renovation of the person sitting across from them. Or it can look like, “I’ll change, but only if you….” I find that even people who say, “I can’t change,” are really saying, “the cost of change is more than I currently want to pay.” I certainly have played all those tunes myself. The only way I experience lasting change is when my motivation is to love God more than anything else, and obey him no matter what. There is a great freedom to change when we know that we can please God regardless of what our spouse does or doesn’t do. That freedom comes from seeing myself as called by God, who knows my worst acts and darkest thoughts, but who gave himself for me in redeeming love. One of the hardest things to do is to live with a spouse who doesn’t seem to want to change. But the Gospel declares to me that God seeks those who want to hide, saves those who don’t want saving, and sanctifies those who don’t want to change. I am a holy reclamation project. The only desire and power to change comes from the God who has set me apart for that purpose.

DR: What are your hopes for this book? How will you measure its success?

DH: My hopes have been pretty modest. First, I just wanted to finish it with my sanity intact. My wife, Kimm, and the kids have yet to rule on whether that goal was successful. But more importantly, my prayer was that Shepherd Press would make back the money they invested to publish it. They took a risk on a new author—I really appreciate that. There are also some extraordinary stories in the book; people that are real heroes to me. The idea of circulating their stories so that other people can be inspired really excited me. But mostly, as a pastor, I wanted to see married couples encounter the transformation that comes through understanding and applying the gospel. My friend and boss, CJ Mahaney, calls it “keeping the main thing the main thing.”

It’s the only hope when sinners say I do!

sfgate mojitos

The mojo in Mojitos casts its spell over a city

Amanda Berne, Special to The Chronicle

Thursday, July 31, 2003

Two Mojitos, please.

Mark Edwards, bartender at Habana in San Francisco, smiles and says, "Of course."

Behind him, rows of glasses are carefully stuffed with mint sprigs. Edwards grabs a glass and muddles the mint. The whole room smells fresh as the fragrance takes over. Next comes an entire lime and a large pour of simple syrup. He fills the glass with ice and tops it with rum -- lots of it -- and a splash of soda to finish it off.

"We sell 1,000 Mojitos in a week," said Sam DuVall, owner of Habana. "Mojitos are popular because they are strong, but they don't taste strong."

In fact, many Bay Area restaurants are finding the Mojito in high demand. The drink, one of mint's more popular incarnations, has shoved aside the Cosmopolitanas the drink a la mode. And at each bar, it takes on a noticeably different character.

The Mojito speaks of summertime; something enjoyed on a lazy Sunday afternoon with friends as you fire up the barbecue. Mojitos, as we know them, were born in Cuba in the mid-1800s. The history of the drink changes depending on who tells it, but according to Pepin Argamasilla, historian for Bacardi Global Brands, a similar drink was created by Sir Francis Drake.

MID-16TH CENTURY CONCOCTION

Drake invented the Draque, which used lime, sugar, mint and aguardiente, a sugarcane liquor similar to rum. The Draque gained popularity in Cuba during the mid-16th century when Drake used the island as a gateway to dominate other nations.

Around 1862, says Argamasilla, Don Facundo Bacardi Masso created Bacardi, a light rum, which was easier on the palate than the harsh aguardiente. Mojito, which comes from the African word mojo (a little spell), was the new name for the Draque, and the drink and its name have maintained popularity since.

Mention Mojitos and most people have an opinion on how to make it or where to find the best in the Bay Area. From dive bars in the Mission to trendy restaurants in the Castro, Mojitos are getting top billing.

The ingredients don't change, but the style does. Some places use granulated sugar while others use simple syrup. Some bartenders muddle the mint, others, such as the owners of Amber Bar in the Castro, find that mashing approach excessive.

Nikole Pearce, co-owner and bartender of Amber, tears the mint into shreds and lets the muddling occur as the mint is shaken with the ice.

"It's a much less aggressive way to handle the mint," says Pearce. "People love Mojitos. Most people see me making it and say, 'I want one.' "

Finding a decent Mojito is tough. Finding a great Mojito is near impossible.

Each place serves up an original version, but few really stand out.

"I think that making a good Mojito really shows the skill of the bartender, " says Pearce.

MOJITO HOTSPOTS

Three spots in San Francisco are known for great Mojitos: Cha Cha Cha, Amber and Habana.

At Cha Cha Cha, a Caribbean restaurant in the Mission district, the Mojito has a strong mint flavor with a heavy-handed tartness. The amount of simple syrup creates just the right balance to cut through the lime.

"On a busy night, we'll sell over 100 Mojitos," says bar manager Jeff Hanford. When Hanford put the drink on the menu five years ago, only a few, if any, would sell each night.

Amber, a bar in the Castro, serves a vibrant Mojito. It is fresh and minty, tart and sweet, and with just enough fizz to tickle the back of the tongue on the way down.

Then came Habana on Russian Hill. The mint was mashed but not obliterated, the rum was plentiful without being overwhelming and the lime was tart, but even. The tall Mojito glasses looked stunning, with jewels of mint suspended in the slightly cloudy liquid. The sugarcane swizzle sticks are the same garnish used at El Floridita in Havana.

"The reason most people don't get the taste right is that they don't take the mint off the stems," says DuVall. "The stems make it bitter."

"Ours is the original Mojito from El Floridita in Cuba," he says. "If you're over there and you drink enough of them and tip well, they'll give you the recipe."
HABANA'S "ORIGINAL MOJITO"

This is Habana restaurant's version of the Mojito from El Floridita in Cuba.

Sugarcane swizzle sticks are available online at www.melissas.com, and at some Hispanic grocers. Muddlers can be found in many kitchen supply stores; if you can't find one, simply use the handle of a wooden spoon.

INGREDIENTS

12 fresh mint leaves

Juice of 1 lime

1 ounce simple syrup

Ice

3 ounces Rom Matusalem rum, or white rum

2 ounces soda water

Sugarcane stick (optional)

INSTRUCTIONS
Muddle the mint leaves in a 14-ounce glass to release the oils. Add the lime juice and simple syrup. Fill the glass with ice and add the rum. Top off with soda water.

Pour into a shaker and close the lid tightly. Shake vigorously. Pour back into the glass, allowing the Mojito to run down the sides of the glass.

Serve garnished with mint leaves and sugarcane.

Serves 1

PER SERVING: 220 calories, 0 protein, 7 g carbohydrate, 0 fat, 0 cholesterol, 13 mg sodium, 0 fiber.
BEST MOJITO

This was deemed the Best Way Mojito by The Chronicle Food and Wine staff in Oct. 2002.

INGREDIENTS

10 to 12 fresh mint leaves

Juice of 1 lime

1 1/2 ounces simple syrup, or 2 to 3 tablespoons ultrafine sugar

Ice

2 ounces Bacardi Limon rum



Soda water

Lime wedge and sprig of mint for garnish

INSTRUCTIONS
Put the mint in a pint glass, then add the lime juice and simple syrup. Gently mash with a muddler or the handle of a wooden spoon until the mint begins to bruise and its essence rises from the glass.

Put ice in the glass. Add the rum, then fill with soda water. Stir with a long spoon, lifting the mint so it disperses throughout the drink.

Garnish with lime wedge and sprig of mint.

Serves 1

PER SERVING: 235 calories, 0 protein, 27 g carbohydrate, 0 fat, 0 cholesterol, 51 mg sodium, 0 fiber.

a look at types of people...

The main thing to realize is this: Not everyone who asks for your time should get it, or get it in equal amounts. As a pastor, you are not "First come, first served." Your role in your community, and the calling on your life is too important not to think through how and with whom you spend your time.

chinese bigwigs are quick to reach for the hair color

Chinese Bigwigs
Are Quick to Reach
For the Hair Color
Politicians and Executives
Look for Youth in a Bottle
Of Black Dye on the Sly
By JASON LEOW
December 11, 2007; Page A1

BEIJING -- Very few of China's political and business leaders these days seem to go gray.

It is possible that could have something to do with genes, but something else is involved, too. For aging men of influence here, the dye job appears to have become as commonplace as the Mao suit once was.

Though they range in age from 52 to 67, the most senior leaders in the Politburo Standing Committee include nine men with nary a white strand of hair.

President and party chief Hu Jintao, 64, still has black hair. Even his retired predecessor, 81-year-old Jiang Zemin, still turns up at major political events with a shiny black top.

"Political leaders need to go on television and are seen by the public. They need to show that they are in good health," says Wang Zhengrun, deputy chief executive of a state-owned insecticide-manufacturing plant, who colors his hair with an herbal preparation.

Some men in Japan and India dye their hair, too. But few countries are as averse to gray as China is. Japan's former prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, was famous for his salt-and-pepper locks. Current Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sports a gray beard and bushy white eyebrows below his trademark blue turban.

In America, dye jobs suggest vanity. George W. Bush has let his hair gray in the White House, as Bill Clinton had done.

The penchant for black hair also extends beyond politics to China's business world. There is barely a gray hair among the ranks of the richest. He Xiangjian, the owner of home-appliance maker Midea Group, appeared on the cover of July's China Entrepreneur, a local business magazine. Worth $1.7 billion by one estimate, he was photographed in a dark suit and smiling. His dark locks belie his age: He is 65 years old. But he won't comment. Only his hairdresser knows for sure.

Experts say that obsessing about hair color here may be rooted in modern-day social conditions. Nearly three in five Chinese citizens are under 39, making aging workers easy to replace. "In China, age is a very big factor for promotions," says Li Yinhe, a sociologist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Desire for Youthfulness

Driven by the desire for youthfulness, the Chinese are powering hair-dye sales. About $148 million in hair colorants were sold in China in 2006, up 75% since 2001, according to Euromonitor International. L'Oréal Paris and Hong Kong's Youngrace Cosmetic Group International Ltd. were among the leading providers. Still, barbers of influential politicians and businessmen say that, for discretion's sake, most men dye their hair at home.

Some in ancient China might have found the practice taboo -- there is a Chinese proverb that exhorts people to leave things alone. Confucius once compared hair and skin to inheritances "from our parents, and we must not presume to injure or wound them."

The Chinese rarely used to mess with their hair, and when they did, it was in exceptional circumstances, says Zhao Feng, an economic historian. When the Manchus conquered the Hans and established the Qing dynasty in the 17th century, the emperor ordered the front of Han men's heads shaved as a reminder of their subjugation. Earlier in Chinese history, Cao Cao, a poet and emperor, wanted to commit suicide to show accountability for breaking a rule he set for his soldiers. He was persuaded instead to settle for hair-cutting as a lesser, but symbolically potent, act of penance. Buddhist converts shave their heads as an act of renouncing worldly affairs.

Taking Control

Today's growing consumer culture -- one that tells people they can have what they want -- ignores much of the wisdom of the ages. Instead, men are taking control, turning to pills and special shampoos on top of dyes. Pharmacists tout shou wu, an herbal formula said to cleanse the liver and kidneys and thereby keep hair healthy. Jackie Chan, the Hong Kong movie star, is seen on television peddling Bawang Shampoo, produced by Guangdong B&W International Group. It claims to keep hair black and intact.

Wang Mingzhang, 65, has been dyeing his hair monthly since he discovered the first wisps of white when he was 40. "I don't want to be an old man in others' eyes," he says. Mr. Wang is close to a good source: He supervises more than 100 workers in a factory that makes hair dyes.

There are a few exceptions to the sea of black. One is Larry Yung, 65, chairman of CITIC Pacific, a Hong Kong conglomerate. In photographs, he is seen with a full head of white hair -- but he is based in Hong Kong, where perhaps there isn't the same pressure in corporate circles to go jet black.

Zhang Deming, a 53-year-old professor of Chinese studies at Zhejiang University in southeastern China, can't recall a day when his hair wasn't black. For the right look, he uses Osmun hair dye, a domestic brand, which he puts on at home once every two months. "I'm not shy being seen buying hair dye or telling relatives that I use it," he says.

Growing Anxiety

The antigray orthodoxy in China mirrors a growing anxiety about other features that accompany aging. Chen Huanran, a cosmetic surgeon, has seen the numbers of male patients pick up considerably in the past two years. Many of them had accompanied their wives for their facelifts and liposuctions, and they were taken with the results. Normally, men prefer tweaks so subtle -- a snip of the droopy eyelids or a mild face-tightening -- that no one would ever find out that they had been operated on.

But there is one thing that men will proudly keep: their beer bellies. "They see them as status symbols," Mr. Chen says.

--Bai Lin in Shanghai and Zhou Yang in Beijing contributed to this article.

Write to Jason Leow at jason.leow@wsj.com

christians in the marketplace (boundless)

How Should We Then Work?
by Jonathan Dodson

In washing windows in the towns of East Texas, managing an Italian café in a quaint neighborhood of metropolitan Minneapolis, working security for a top advertising firm in Boston (no, I didn't have to wear a goofy uniform or "get" to carry a gun), and providing online customer support for a successful bowling dot com business (and I don't even bowl), I've struggled to find my identity as a Christian in the workplace.

In all these jobs, I've faced challenges to integrating my faith with my work. Consistently, questions have pressed my faith such as: How excellent is excellent enough? Where should I draw the lines in ethical situations? Where does evangelism fit into my vocational responsibilities? Is there eternal meaning in my work? How can work become more worshipful?

When washing windows, I aimed for excellence — no streaks and clean ledges — something I never did perfectly. As a remote worker for an online company, I was trusted to manage my hours ethically; something I took seriously. Managing at D'Amico & Sons, I did my best to maintain a "good witness" among my co-workers, but found myself in the awkward position of being told I was an arrogant Christian, by a furious, foul-mouthed employee I had to fire. As a night-shift security guard, whose primary responsibility was to lock doors and turn off lights, I struggled to see the significance of my work. In all these struggles I've groped to find my identity as an employee and a Christian, a worker and a worshipper of the triune God.

A Theological Framework for Work

I currently work a 40-hour work week during the day and plant a church during lunch breaks and evenings. My weekends include writing, preaching and playing. On all days, I fight to be a wise, loving husband and father to my wife and two children. I'm not alone in the demands of work. Most Americans spend the majority of their days working. One study reports an average 46 hour work week in the United States, with 38 percent of laborers working over 50 hours a week. Chances are that if we aren't sleeping, we're working.

With all these demands, it's much easier to keep my work separate from my worship, to compartmentalize my life — family/church/work — but biblical faith won't let me, and for good reason. Is there a theological framework for work that will inspire us through the demands of the 9 to 5? If so, how should we then work?

In recognition of God's sovereign and creative work and the importance of "living before God in all of life," Francis Schaeffer sought to answer the question, "How should we then live?" In his book by the same title, Schaeffer explores the intersection of the ideas and beliefs of Western culture with those of the Christian worldview, in order to advance whole Christian living in the whole of life — in Art, Science, Literature, Philosophy and Film — to name a few.

Primarily a historical-theological reflection on the rise and fall of Western culture, How Should We Then Live? sets the philosophical stage for living Christianly in all of life. What it does not do (though Schaeffer did this elsewhere) is connect the worldview stage with the dramatic details of everyday work.

In many respects, work is the engine of civilization. Without work, societies would not perpetuate. Furthermore, if as Schaeffer argues, the rise and decline of civilization is intimately intertwined with the strength and weakness of the Christian worldview, then the labor of everyday citizens, which contributes to the quality of human flourishing, should be given serious attention. If indeed theological ideas have practical consequences it becomes us to inquire, "How should we then work?"

In response to this important question, I can think of at least four main approaches to work that should frame our theologically informed response. First, Christian work should be excellent work. Second, Christian work should be ethical work. Third, Christian work is a platform for evangelism. And fourth, Christian work should be done in reflection upon its essence, how it may or may not reflect the nature and character of God. The rest of this article will critically explore these approaches in an attempt to redemptively answer the question: How shall we then work?

Christian Work is Excellent

If the Christian worldview affects our work, what then is Christian work? Some would say it is work that is excellent. The unspoken mantra of this approach is: "God deserves my best." In other words, work in such a way that you would not be embarrassed to give it to God. Make your work quality work. Produce sturdy, long-lasting furniture, reliable reports, well-argued papers and flawless customer service. Faithfully keep the home and raise the children. In its most virtuous form, this approach to work results in significant productivity, efficiency and excellence which not only honor God, but also contribute to the stability of society.

However, dangers abound in reducing Christian work to excellent work. In a capitalistic economy God is easily substituted by competition, changing the work mantra to "do my work better than someone else." This man-centered approach to work requires that we produce better results, products, and services than others if we are to work "Christianly." With excellence as the goal, we may justify unethical means in accomplishing excellent work. We may steal a competitor's idea so we can produce a better product. In turn, we exalt the product.

In addition to exalting the product, work-as-excellence can also end up focusing praise on the person. Theologian Miroslav Volf has noted that, "shortage of power and creativity in work often leads to prayer that reduces God to a performance enhancing drug." God can easily become a means to excellence and excellence a means to our own successful performance. Left unchecked, work-as-excellence can become quite un-Christian.

Excellence does not require Christianity. In fact, non-Christian citizens may equally or more excellently perform our work. To be sure, everyone has limits in vocational aptitude, knowledge and skill. There is no perfect worker.

However, if excellence is the measure of God-honoring work, then we will never measure up. Although excellence can glorify God and, in part, qualify as Christian work, excellent work alone does not fully address how Christians should work.

Christian Work is Ethical

It is not only the quality of our work, but the way we carry out our work that can also honor or dishonor God. Perhaps the most common conception of how to work "as unto God" is to do your work ethically. Christian employees set themselves apart by being punctual, honest and faithful in their work. They do not fudge numbers, pad resumes, plagiarize, embezzle, take shortcuts or cheat the clock.

Ethical work contributes to the good of society: Less Enrons, more Googles. However, there are many ethical employees that are not Christian. So while it certainly is important and biblical to be ethical in our work, ethics alone do not set Christians apart in their work.

Moreover, if we determine that ethics is what should drive Christian work, moralism will quickly become the measure of our work. As long as we work by the rules, we'll feel satisfied with what we do. Whether or not we produce excellent products, services, results or kids may become secondary or even unimportant.

Consider the Christian employee who crosses every vocational "t" and dots its every "i." The person who doesn't build redemptive relationships with others, but instead, out of his superior work ethic, passes judgment on all his fellow employees. When he interacts with co-workers over lunch, all he can think of is their failure to do this or that correctly.

With an air of superiority, this Christian confronts his fellow employees on their ethical failures. Poised to trap them in their transgressions, he glares knowingly at the company pen in his co-workers briefcase. "A stolen pen," he thinks to himself.

This worker presents a very legalistic Christian witness. He chooses judgment over mercy. He looks for the opportunity to pin blame, never redemptively taking the heat for his team's failure. His ethical work is hardly evangelistic. If anything, his legalistic, judgmental attitude towards others distances others from Christ. Ethical work, alone, is not Christian work.

Christian Work is Evangelistic

Others consider work to be Christian when they can use the workplace as a platform for soul-winning. This approach to labor sees work primarily as the context for evangelistic contact with unbelievers. While evangelism is important, it should not take place at the expense of our employer or our work.

The movie The Big Kahuna starring Danny DeVito and Kevin Spacey comes to mind. Industrial lubricant salesmen, DeVito, Spacey and their Baptist co-worker, Bob, all host a party intended to win over an important client — the Big Kahuna. When Bob gets their only chance to pitch their product, he elects to neglect his job and just tell the client about Jesus. He chooses evangelism over work. Bob loses their only opportunity to make the deal but justifies it by saying he did the right thing, the eternal thing. There is no doubt that Christian work can and should be evangelistic, but bad or neglectful work with a soul-winning glaze will win no one to Christ. We must be careful to not compromise excellence and ethics amidst evangelistic pursuits in the workplace.

The Big Kahuna approach to work operates on a narrow view of the gospel. The gospel is not merely for soul-conversion but also for life, culture and city transformation. Jesus came to set the spiritual prisoner free as well as heal the physical paralytic. The announcement of Jesus' arrival in Isaiah 61 prophesied that he would bring a gospel for the poor, the broken-hearted, for the repair of cities and the renewal of vineyards. If we are to be truly evangelistic in our work, we will need to take into account the whole person and the whole of society, working with empathy, excellence and ethics.

Christian Work as Reflection on Vocational Essence

It is not just the way we work, but what we do for work that can glorify God. There is work that is inherently good, a product of creation, and work that is inherently bad, a product of the fall. There is society-building work, and there is society-destroying work. In short, it is good to work, but not all work is good.

Work as reflection on vocational essence is simply working with the nature and character of God in view. The attributes of God are reflected in the very warp and woof, in the essence of our work. Gardening reflects God's life-giving creativity. Computer based work relies upon binary code, a sequence of ones and zeroes that enables our computers to function. In essence, computer work reflects order, order that reflects the orderly nature of God. Orderly computers can be used to crank out pornography or care for hospital patients. Nevertheless, the essence of what computers do in our work still reflects the orderly character of God. Another word for this approach to work is theological integration.

When I was working as a security guard, I would walk the halls reflecting on how my responsibility to protect the premises was a dim shadow of the protective arms of a sovereign and loving God. This centered my thoughts on God, making work more worshipful. Serving customers in the bowling industry, I am daily reminded of my servant Messiah in my own feeble attempts to serve our consumers. I am motivated to serve in the strength that God supplies. By reflecting on the essential nature of my vocation, intentionally integrating my faith with my work, I have frequently found myself worshipping as I work. Security work pointed me to our protective Lord. Customer service reminds me of the Suffering Servant.

Theological integration is not merely a personal hobby; it is a practice celebrated by Jesus Christ. In the Gospels, a Roman centurion came to Jesus seeking healing for his servant. Jesus agreed to go with him; however, the centurion replied by saying that Christ need merely speak the word, not come to his house, and his servant would be healed.

The centurion came to this conclusion by considering the essence of his work — authority present in the military. His reflection on the essence of his work, joined with faith, led him to conclude: "For I, too, am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it" (Matt. 8:9). In response, Jesus praised the centurion for this great faith. By reflecting on the essence of his work through faith, the centurion was able to glorify God. His work must have never been the same.

How shall we then work? Consider the essence of your work and try to connect it to the nature and character of God. Consider what discipline drives or sustains your line of work — Science, Math, Language, Arts, etc. and trace it to the triune Creator. Attempt to integrate the discipline that drives your occupation with the attribute(s) of God reflected in your vocation. In doing this theological integration, work can become worship.

Working from Acceptance, Not for Acceptance

If we are to live all of life before God, how shall we then work? At the very least, work that honors God's sovereignty over all creation is work that is excellent, ethical, evangelistic, and theologically integrative. However, with the great promise of this fourfold approach to work, there remain several pitfalls.

As noted above, work-as-excellence can lead to competition-driven, Christ-belittling work. Ethical work can easily devolve into moralistic work in which we secretly congratulate ourselves for squeaky clean employment, regardless of the quality of our output. An evangelistic approach to work can be awfully narrow, neglecting our important role in contributing to the whole of society. And work as vocational essence — the attempt to theologically integrate the nature of our work with the nature of God — can lead to intellectualism, especially when it isn't coupled with centurion-like faith.

Willy Loman, the salesman and central character in Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller, boasted of a successful sales career while secretly living off of loans from friends. One evening Willy was confronted by his son, Biff. Biff called his father out, to which Willy replied: "One day you will see how successful I am. When I die, there will be thousands at my funeral." The next day Willy committed suicide. Only five people showed up to his funeral.

Finding our worth in our work, however excellent, ethical, evangelistic, or theologically integrative, is spiritual suicide. Willy Loman built his worth on his work, its failure and success. Acceptance by others and significance based on their perception of our work does not satisfy. In fact, it displaces Jesus from his rightful place as our Lord.

How shall we then work? In order to avoid the pitfalls of these approaches to work, and to participate in their promise, we must work from our acceptance in Christ, not for our acceptance in Christ. Instead of seeking the acceptance and applause of our co-workers or competition by sinfully striving for excellence, we can rest in God's acceptance and approval, working excellently to honor him (Col 3:22; 1 Cor. 15:50-58). Do excellent work, not to earn God's favor but as a faith effort, as an act of worship.

No matter how tight our work ethic, we will inevitably fail. Instead of taking comfort in our superior work ethic, Christ calls us to rest in his finished work on our behalf (Eph. 2:8-9; Heb. 9:23-28). It is by grace that we are saved, and it is by grace that we are sanctified. Our ethics are not the basis of acceptance before God; they are an expression of our new nature and love for our Creator.

Instead of trying to win God's favor with evangelistic work or neglecting the whole gospel, we can work with the whole gospel in view, which recreates souls and societies (Isa. 61 cf. Luk. 4:18-19; Ezek. 36:8-10, 26-32; Rev 21-22).

Instead of leaning upon our theological savvy or reasoning skills, God calls us to rest in the foolishness of the cross for our identity. Our work should be a love offering characterized by excellence, ethics, evangelism and theological integration, but not as a basis for finding our worth before God or our acceptance from others. We work not for God to accept us, but are accepted because of God's work in and for us (Phil. 2:12-13). This is how we should then work.
Copyright 2007 Jonathan Dodson. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
(http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001629.cfm)

Leading Biblically: Beatitudes in Business
by Bruce E. Winston, PhD

How should I live my life?

I had to face this question 15 years ago during a church service at a time in my life when I was teaching management to MBA students. I realized that morning that, while I was an openly Christian professor, I kept the Bible for Bible studies but relied on the traditional textbooks for teaching and for my own management of 20 school employees.

During the sermon the pastor stated the Great Commandment to love God and love people. I was struck by how much "love" was an action word and that it spoke of how I should live my day-to-day life. I was sure I understood how to love God, but I found myself wondering how I could love my employees and my peers in the workplace.

Finding love in all the right places

I decided that if I was going to "love" employees and peers during the work week, then I needed to start with what I had learned on Sunday. I knew of the Greek words typically translated as "love" — Eros, Phileo, and Agape — but none of these seemed applicable in the workplace.

Not seeing a workable solution from the three forms of love, I went back to the New Testament and looked for something else. I found a form of love — Agapao — that surprisingly I hadn't heard of before. It's the most common form of love in the Greek New Testament and seems to emphasize a "moral" love — doing the right things for the right reason at the right time.

I found that Agapao is derived from the same root word as Agape but the modification of the word significantly modifies the meaning. This is similar to the differences between "waterfall" and "waterway" — both have the same root but if you do on a waterfall what you do on a waterway you're in for a problem.

Now that I had discovered the right concept to help me know how to love my neighbor, I went to work trying to figure out how to apply it in the workplace.

The Beatitudes

At about the same time of my insight into Agapao I heard a presentation on the beatitude "Blessed are the meek" and how we all need to be meek. I couldn't imagine telling our MBA students to be meek — we had been teaching them to be aggressive in business, assertive, and so on. I wrestled with the dilemma: If I'm to apply Scripture to my life, then I have to put all of Scripture to all of my live. Including my work as a manager and as a business professor. I wondered if perhaps I didn't rightly understand the Beatitudes.

What I found in the years since I first started studying the Beatitudes, I'm happy to say, showed me how to love others and how I should live my life, regardless of the context. I found the Beatitudes remarkably applicable to how one manages a business, how one manages employees, but also how one walks out life outside of the workplace.

In this first article I introduce each of the seven Beatitudes and show how each relates to our lives, both in the work environment and outside of it. Subsequent articles will explore each beatitude in more depth, with more examples to help unpack how we should live. Give yourself some time to contemplate these beatitudes, for the message of the beatitudes is counter to much of what we're taught. I've struggled with the transformation for 15 years, and while I believe I've made changes in my life, I know I have a long way to go. And so I continue to wrestle with how to best to apply the Beatitudes.

Before we move into each beatitude let's look at the elements common to all. Each beatitude begins with "Blessed are." This phrase in Greek is Markaris, which is similar to the Hebrew Shalom, more fully translated as "peaceful" or "comfortable." As I worked at living my life by the beatitudes I experienced Markaris and realized the practical benefit of this peace and comfort. My level of stress, for example, has reduced over the years.

In addition, Markaris carries with it a sense of time-less-ness in that we are not to be blessed in the past, or blessed in the future, but blessed all the time without ceasing. However, it's worth noting that it doesn't carry the sense of "instantaneous" peace. Only after you're consistently living as the Beatitudes direct does Markaris occur.

One last thing before we cover the seven Beatitudes: It's notable that they're in a specific sequence. As I studied them I noticed that the most common problem I encountered in my consulting with leaders was addressed in the first Beatitude. The second most common problem was addressed in the second beatitude. And so on through the seventh beatitude. Remarkable!

Now, let's look at each of the seven.

Blessed are the poor in spirit

The term "poor in spirit" carries with it the sense of being humble and teachable. To be poor in spirit means that you understand that relative to all that there is to know in God's universe you don't know very much, and that others know more about some things than you do.

When you have the attitude of being teachable you're willing to listen. One of our MBA graduates recently told me that a major business idea came from his secretary, who didn't have a formal education but was able to see an opportunity for the company, by using the internet, to sell something that beforehand was not sold that way. The graduate told me that if he didn't have the attitude of wanting to hear from others he would've dismissed the secretary as not knowing much.

This beatitude is the most common problem I encounter in leaders today. Rather than an attitude of humility and teachable-ness I see an attitude of ego and aloofness. What a shame, especially when you consider the consequential blessing of this beatitude — one gets the kingdom of heaven. Only the humble and teachable can "see" and "understand" heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn

The Greek term translated "mourn" communicates a level of intensity of caring. It means to care for others with an intensity as if mourning for the dead. To best understand this concept you have to go back in time to the period when Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount, and note that people hired professional mourners so that there would be an appropriate level of intensity in mourning.

Caring for others in this fashion means that you make decisions that personally benefit those working for you and with you. One of our graduates told me once that he was very concerned for single mothers since his grandmother raised his mother as one. He specifically designed his company to attract and hire single moms. He paid above the local wages and arranged for employees to have time off to take care of family issues.

This beatitude is the second most common problem I encounter in leaders today. I hear employers say that their employees are their most important asset, but most of them have insufficient tools, income or workplace safety. You show how much you value your employees when you truly care for them.

Note that the benefit of this beatitude is one of reciprocity. If you care for others, then the "others" will care for you. I personally experience this blessing as employees and peers take care of me as I've taken care of them.

Blessed are the meek

What we translate as "meek" from the biblical Greek refers to "controlled discipline as a domesticated animal." Of course, this doesn't mean that we have to be horses or oxen. It does mean that we intentionally control our tempers and discipline, though.

As leaders/employers and peers in our workplaces we have the ability to harm people or to bless them. Even when it's necessary to terminate the employment of someone, we can do it with controlled discipline and help the employee leave with dignity and grace.

When leaders live by controlled discipline employees and peers are willing to tell the leader what needs to be said and people are willing to take the responsibility for problems, since everyone knows that when discipline is necessary, it is controlled.

I find many leaders who are uncontrolled in their discipline, which results in both employees and peers working in fear rather than joy. This is the basis for the benefit of this beatitude in that only those controlled in discipline can inherit the earth. God won't entrust his creation to the undisciplined.

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness

The biblical Greek translates reasonably close to the English here with the exception that what we call "righteousness" more specifically means that which is "right," "just" or "holy." What we translate as "hunger" and "thirst" conceptually exists in the Greek as a sense of being insatiable — we just can't get enough.

How often in our organizations do we spend time teaching folk what is "right," "just" or "holy"? If we lived by this, how often would we be nervous when a news crew shows up to interview us? We wouldn't. The office would be a peaceful place.

The reward for this beatitude is one of ease — all we have to do is seek it and we will find it. How easy can it be? We should live our lives seeking to do what is right, just, and holy. To hunger and thirst for righteousness.

Blessed are the merciful

The biblical Greek translates into "mercy" as we think about it today. Human "justice" can be brutal at times; mercy seasons and dampens justice to make the process more humane.

As I worked to live out this beatitude I found that I tied this to the controlled discipline concept. I realized that not every error or mistake needed punishment. People who really enjoy their work feel bad when they make a mistake, and typically seek to improve with each opportunity. I realized that unless the error was a repetitive or intentional mistake there was no reason to punish. Rather, most of time I pointed out the error and what I wanted done different in the future. Usually, the next time I got what I wanted and the employee grew in the process.

The benefit of this beatitude is reciprocal in that as we show to mercy to employees and peers we receive mercy. There is nothing sweeter than mercy when you really need it.

Blessed are the pure in heart

This concept in the biblical Greek translates as being single-minded or focused in what we are doing. We should live our lives by simply doing what God has called us to do and only what God has called us to do. There are thousands of things that we can do, but there is only one thing that matters — doing what God calls us to do.

The benefit of this beatitude is that we can see God. Only those that are single-mindedly focused on God will be able to see Him.

Blessed are the peacemakers

The notion of peacemaking implied in the biblical Greek is to create and sustain peace. This isn't a condition of the absence of conflict, but the active and intentional resolution of peace. This is the last of the seven because it's necessary to have all six beatitudes in place first. We have to be teachable, caring, controlled, righteous, merciful, and focused before we can care enough about others to want to resolve conflict.

And the benefit? To become the inheritors of God, which is the deeper meaning of the biblical Greek that we translate "sons of God." Peacemakers shall inherit the heavenly.

How then should we live?

We should live our lives with a sense of humility, knowing that others will know more about some things than we do. We should live our lives with concern for others while controlling our discipline. We should live our lives seeking what is right and showing mercy to those around us. We should live our lives with single-mindedness toward God and sustaining a climate of peace.

As we do this we'll be chastised by others because of the success that will come to us, and the sense of peace and comfort that pervades what we do. This is OK and should be expected. It's an indication that we're living our lives as we should.

Fifteen years after beginning my adventure with the Beatitudes, I'm still in church thinking about what the Bible says about living my life, realizing how much I've learned about loving my employees and peers in the workplace. While my journey of learning is not complete, my workplace is a better place to be because of the Beatitudes. I've found that life is much simpler when I consider the Bible first as a means of knowing how to live my life.
Copyright 2007 Bruce E. Winston. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

(http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001628.cfm)

the manhattan project

The Manhattan project: A bartender spills his secrets on the king of cocktails

Gary Regan, Special to The Chronicle

Friday, September 21, 2007

The dry gin martini is often heralded as the king of cocktails, but it's the Manhattan that's the true sovereign of the V-shaped glass. The martini, a mere pretender to the throne, was far more interesting prior to Prohibition - when vermouth made up a full third of the drink and it just wasn't a martini without orange bitters. The Manhattan, on the other hand, is a drink to be reckoned with.

At first glance the Manhattan looks like such a simple affair - whiskey, sweet vermouth and a few dashes of bitters. I'm the first to admit that it's not too hard to make a halfway decent version of this cocktail, but a truly great Manhattan can be made only by someone who truly understands the magnitude of what's at hand. Indeed, the mark of a bartender who is truly worth his or her salt lies solidly in his or her interpretation of the Manhattan.

Over the past century or so, while the martini has morphed into an excuse to drink straight gin or vodka, the Manhattan has stood its ground. There have been a few tweaks in the formula over the years - you might have gotten a couple of dashes of curacao and/or maraschino liqueur in the Manhattan had you ordered it in, say, 1880, and around a century later some folk started to omit the bitters, a sin for which they will no doubt pay come Judgment Day - but the vermouth in the Manhattan has remained an integral part of the drink all along.

With the notable exception of a 22-year-old newcomer to the bar in O'Hare Airport last year, to my knowledge there isn't a bartender on the face of the earth who would make a Manhattan with less than, say, 25 percent vermouth. The lad in Chicago, by the by, now understands the drink fully and is unlikely to risk boring lectures from patrons who order the drink in the future.

It is virtually a San Francisco tradition to knock back a Manhattan at the well-worn bar of the Tadich Grill, a restaurant with roots that stretch back to the Gold Rush. Mike Buich, Tadich's owner, allows his bartenders to personalize their Manhattans to a certain extent, but they must be made with three parts bourbon, one part vermouth and just one dash of Angostura bitters. (Although I'm more likely to make my Manhattan with two parts whiskey to one part vermouth, and I'm known to be a hog on the bitters front, the ratios used at Tadich can work, providing the right whiskey is used, and providing it's married to the correct vermouth.) Buich also mandates that his bartenders stir their Manhattans over ice long enough for them to be very cold when they reach a customer's lips.

That's another piece of the equation - stirring the drink for a minimum of 20 seconds is mandatory if it's perfection you seek.

The history

There are a few theories surrounding the birth of the Manhattan, including an oft-told tale about the drink being created in 1874 at New York's Manhattan Club, but the one that has a ring of truth to it, to my ears at least, can be found in "Valentine's Manual of New York." The 1923 book contains a story written by a certain William F. Mulhall, a bartender who plied his trade at New York's Hoffman House in the 1880s. "The Manhattan cocktail was invented by a man named Black who kept a place 10 doors below Houston Street on Broadway in the (eighteen) sixties - probably the most famous drink in the world in its time," wrote Mulhall. I know of no other citation that carries as much weight, and it was written by a bartender, so . . .

Who was Black? Darned if I know. How, though, you might reasonably be expected to ask, could a simple affair such as the Manhattan possibly be the benchmark of a great bartender? The answer lies in the subtleties of the drink. Let's explore its structure.
The whiskey

The base of the Manhattan is whiskey, but which whiskey will you use? Rye? Bourbon? Canadian blended? And after making that decision, which bottling will you call for? Some brands of whiskey are far bolder than others, and some pour from the bottle with hints of this herb or that spice that can't be found in any other brand. One is full of fruit and cinnamon, the next reminiscent of oak and old leather. Which one suits your palate when it comes to Manhattans? It's a personal thing.

Straight rye whiskey was the liquor of choice when the Manhattan was created and it's still the way to go if you want to experience the drink as it was meant to be sipped. Rye whiskey will bring some perfume notes into play, and it usually sports a lean backbone. Sturdy, but lean all the same. Rye stands up to vermouth very well indeed, but within the category, ryes differ one from the next. Make sure you know your chosen bottling well before you add the vermouth.

Bourbon is another ideal choice for a Manhattan, and until more ryes became available to us in recent years, bourbon was very often the whiskey of choice in a Manhattan. It's made predominantly with corn so of course it's sweeter than rye - think cornbread versus rye bread - but most bourbons have enough character to stand tall in a Manhattan. Either of these American whiskeys will serve you well in the drink, then, providing you choose the right brand for your taste and marry your whiskey to the correct vermouth. More on that shortly.
The vermouth

It's the job of the vermouth to soothe the savage soul of the whiskey in a Manhattan cocktail, but it must allow the spirit to be heard, too. And here's where the balancing act begins, where a little magic comes into play. Vermouth is an aromatized wine - wine flavored by various botanicals. Ingredients such as hyssop, coriander, juniper, cloves, chamomile, orange peel, rose petals, calamus root, elderflowers, gentian, ginger, allspice and horehound are not uncommon on the vermouth maker's shopping list. The spiced wine is then fortified with a little brandy to bring it up to about 18 percent alcohol by volume, thus adding just a little gusto to the bottle.

Recipes for vermouths, though, differ drastically from one brand to the next. Martini & Rossi offers a fine sweet vermouth. It's light, herbaceous, fairly delicate in structure, and it can be used in reasonably large quantities in the Manhattan, depending on the whiskey being used. The sweet version of Noilly Prat's brand of vermouth, on the other hand, is fairly big, round, fruity and bold, so it's important to be judicious with this brand. And Vya sweet vermouth, a California creation, is a veritable giant. Something to be used very sparingly indeed if you don't want the whiskey to drown in the glass. There are many other vermouths out there, too, each with merits all its own. Discover which one works best for you. (For mine, see "I'll make Mahattans - my way.")

Making Manhattans, then, is a mix-and-match affair. Choose this whiskey for that vermouth and change brands when necessary. Are you beginning to get the picture? Two parts whiskey to one part vermouth is nothing more than a guideline. And this is why only those with an intimate knowledge of their ingredients can hope to construct a masterful Manhattan.
The bitters

Bitters, too, are part of the equation when making Manhattans. Which style suits you best? Angostura? Orange? Peychaud's? This, I believe, is a very personal thing, and for me it's a question that's quite easily answered. Let's say 99 percent of the time, I go for Angostura. The cinnamon notes in this elixir work well with almost any whiskey you can name, and they add such complexity to the drink that it's seldom I use any other brand when I make the king of cocktails.

Orange bitters can work well in Manhattans, too, and if this is the path you prefer to tread I suggest you be liberal when shaking. I tend to double up if I use orange bitters. Peychaud's bitters are a different kettle of fish entirely. This spicy bottling from New Orleans brings anise into play, and thus drastically alters the character of a Manhattan. Peychaud's yields a cocktail that's very pleasant, but it leaves you wondering if perhaps it might be better to give this drink another name.
The garnish

As for garnishing the Manhattan, I must confess that I'm not really the garnishing type. A lemon twist doesn't work for me at all in this cocktail since the scent of citrus is the last thing I want to come between me and my beloved cocktail come five in the afternoon.

And when it comes to maraschino cherries or homemade brandied cherries for that matter, I side with Patrick Dennis' Auntie Mame, even though she was a martini drinker and was referring to olives when she said that they simply take up too much room in the glass. I'm liberal, though, when it comes to the preferences of others, and I'll happily add whatever fruit or vegetable any friend of mine desires when I whip up Manhattans at my place. From my point of view their desire for food in a drink leaves more whiskey in the bottle for yours truly.
The variations

In 2007, you can visit almost any decent cocktail bar in the country and you'll likely find new drinks that call for rye or bourbon, sweet vermouth in one form or another, and a dash of this or a tot of that, which has been added by the bartender to make his or her own variation on the Manhattan. The Manhattan is the perfect cocktail to spur ingenuity in creative souls. San Francisco boasts many such drinks, and variations on the Manhattan theme are currently crossing the mahogany in a lot of the city's top cocktail joints.

The vermouth is the variable in the Barrel No. 40 Manhattan being served at Nopa. The whiskey in this one is Nopa's very own barrel of Hancock's Reserve, a grand old bourbon. Neyah White, Nopa's head bartender, chose Carpano Antica Formula vermouth, a distinctive bottling that boasts hints of vanilla, "because the whiskey was fairly sweet by itself and didn't need all the sugar of Martini & Rossi or Vya," he says.

Perbacco, on California Street, offers Manhattans made with Carpano Antica Formula, too, but they add a splash of Cynar, an artichoke-based Italian bitter aperitif, to the glass instead of any of the more traditional bitters. It's an interesting twist on the classic.

Josey Packard, a bartender at Alembic, mixes straight rye whiskey with Angostura bitters and Punt e Mes vermouth to make the bar's signature Manhattan. Despite its spicy profile, Punt e Mes "represents one of the best expressions of the Italian style of vermouth available," she says. In barspeak, by the by, "Italian" is used when referring to sweet vermouth whereas all dry vermouth is "French," no matter where either was made. It harks back to each version being originally created in those two countries respectively.

Some bartenders have gone the other way, ditching the vermouth entirely. Duggan McDonnell at Cantina Bebidas on Sutter Street, uses Cynar instead of vermouth, and the drink is finished with two house-made products, a pomegranate molasses syrup, and McDonnell's Casablanca bitters, which include cinnamon, saffron and other North African flavors.

At Bourbon & Branch you can try a Black Manhattan made with Eagle Rare 10-year-old bourbon, Averna, another bitter Italian aperitif, and a couple of dashes of bartender Todd Smith's homemade cherry-coffee bitters. And H. Joseph Ehrmann, owner of Elixir, created the Naphattan Cocktail. Instead of vermouth, he dissolved some light brown sugar into a Shiraz, then added it to 100-proof Rittenhouse rye whiskey. A pretty novel approach, huh?
The reward

The best Manhattans slide easily down the throat. They linger on the palate, dance on the tongue and tickle the tonsils for a good long while. Manhattans, when made by a master of the craft, can produce euphoria in discriminating souls, and they've been known to tempt angels to return to physical manifestation, just for one more sip.

Martinis, on the other hand, get you drunk quickly.
Classic riffs on the Manhattan

The dry gin martini has spawned few variations over the years, but few of them are notable. Cite the dry vodka martini and you'll get no more than a smirk from me, and although the dirty martini, made with the simple addition of a little olive brine, can be a handsome affair, use two drops too little brine and there's no point to the drink, and one drop too much can kill the cocktail entirely. The Third Degree, a martini with a spot of absinthe substitute such as Pernod or Ricard, can be quite magnificent, though, so the drink can be used as a jumping-off point for decent variations. But the martini is not nearly as versatile as the Manhattan.

Consider the Rob Roy, for instance. It's just a Manhattan made with Scotch as opposed to American whiskey, but with the right Scotch this can be a glorious quaff. Peychaud's bitters, by the way, work very well indeed with Scotch, and I often add just one dash of these to the mix when I make a Rob Roy.

The Paddy cocktail is a Manhattan made with Irish whiskey; with the right bottling and with liberal dashes of Angostura, this, too, is a desirable dram. Add Benedictine to the Rob Roy and you have yourself a Bobby Burns, a drink created at the Waldorf Astoria in the days prior to Prohibition. With a small tot of Grand Marnier you can transform a Paddy cocktail into a Dubliner, a drink for which I claim responsibility.

A Manhattan made with dry vermouth is known, not surprisingly, as a dry Manhattan, but add both styles of aromatized wine and the drink becomes a perfect Manhattan, "perfect," in cocktailian terms, being the descriptor always added to cocktail names when equal amounts of sweet and dry vermouth are called for. Neither perfect martinis nor martinis made with sweet vermouth are called for at any bar I know of, but the one martini variation that's made a comeback of late, and is a very desirable drink indeed, is the Martinez, made with gin, sweet vermouth, maraschino liqueur, and a dash or two of Angostura. It's a sad day when a drink's mother outshines her at the ball.

- Gary Regan
I'll make Manhattans - my way

I typically make my Manhattans with two parts spicy bourbon - think Wild Turkey, Buffalo Trace, Evan Williams Black Label and Bulleit - one part Noilly Prat sweet vermouth, and too much Angostura bitters for most people's palates. About six dashes, if you please.

Truth be told, when it comes to Manhattans I never actually measure my ingredients. The same is not true if I'm mixing margaritas or presenting pisco sours - I'm pretty precise when making those cocktails and more. But Kevin Noone, the Irish bartender who showed me the ropes behind the bar in New York more than 30 years ago, taught me to feel my way through the Manhattan, so I throw caution to the wind and trust the universe to guide my hand when I make my daily reward. The universe has been good to me thus far.

- Gary Regan