The Difference that Jesus the Temple Makes (Ezra 6:13-15)

This is a sermon I recently preached at BBC chapel. Listen and enjoy Jesus with me.  http://vimeo.com/8270155
.

Carson’s Counsel to a Young Church Planter on Marriage Situations

The following post was first an email to a young church planter seeking counsel. He is planting a church in a rough area. Not a few of those who are getting converted have been living together, sometimes with children, sometimes for years, without getting married. His question, then, is what should be said to these couples where one of the pair gets converted, and the other, so far, does not. Should the advice be to get married? Or is that encouraging people to be unequally yoked?

Read the entire article
.

The "Goodness" of Demonic Accusations

“Neither let your own accusing conscience, nor Satan the accuser of the brethren, hinder you any longer from Christ. For what though they should accuse you of pride, infidelity, covetousness, lust, anger, envy, and hypocrisy? Yea, what though they should accuse you of whoredom, theft, drunkenness, and such like?

Yea, do what they can, they can make no worse a man of you than a sinner, or chief of sinners, or an ungodly person; and so, consequently, such a one Christ came to justify and save; so that in every deed, if you do rightly consider it, they do you more good than hurt by their accusations.”

—Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus, 2009), 150-51
--------------------

Fill Your Affections With the Cross of Christ

“When someone sets his affections upon the cross and the love of Christ, he crucifies the world as a dead and undesirable thing. The baits of sin lose their attraction and disappear. Fill your affections with the cross of Christ and you will find no room for sin”–– John Owen

.

Is it Biblical to direct thanks to men?

One of the most common phrases I hear today is “thank you” directed toward people who have done some thing for another person. The question I am attempting to address is this, “Is there any Biblical basis for giving thanks to people for what they have done?” The Bible is replete with thanksgiving to God, but almost never is thanksgiving directed to man. It seems that the early church and the Old Testament saints recognized that every little act of goodness done towards another was ultimately God at work, so these saints learned to direct their gratitude to God and not to man. A few examples: 

In The Old Testament, it seems that thanksgiving is always directed to God

“And it was the duty of the trumpeters and singers to make themselves heard in unison in praise and thanksgiving to the LORD, and when the song was raised, with trumpets and cymbals and other musical instruments, in praise to the LORD, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever”” (2  Chr 5:13).

“For long ago in the days of David and Asaph there were directors of the singers, and there were songs of praise and thanksgiving to God” (Neh 12:46). (see also Lev 7:12–13, 15; 22:29; 1  Chr 16:7; 25:3; 2  Chr 5:13; 33:16; Neh 12:8, 46; Ps 26:7; 50:14, 23; 69:30; 95:2; 100:4; 107:22; 116:17; 147:7; Isa 51:3; Jer 30:19; Amos 4:5; Jonah 2:9; 1  Chr 16:8, 34–35, 41; 2  Chr 7:3, 6; 20:21; 30:22; 31:2; Ezra 3:11; Neh 11:17; 12:24, 31, 38, 40; Ps 7:17; 9:1; 28:7; 30:4, 12; 33:2; 44:8; 54:6; 57:9; 75:1; 79:13; 86:12; 92:1; 97:12; 100:0, 4; 105:1; 106:1, 47; 107:1; 108:3; 109:30; 111:1; 118:1, 19, 28–29; 122:4; 136:1–3, 26; 138:1–2, 4; 140:13; 142:7; 145:10; Isa 12:1, 4; 38:19; Jer 33:11; Dan 2:23; 6:10)

In the New Testament, it seems that thanksgiving is always directed to God

“But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruitsto be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2  Thess 2:13).

“We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing” (2  Thess 1:3).

“I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus” (1  Cor 1:4).

“But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed” (Rom 6:17). (See also Matt 15:36; 26:27; Mark 8:6; 14:23; Luke 2:38; 17:16; 22:17, 19; John 6:11, 23; Acts 27:35; Rom 1:21; 6:17; 7:25; 14:6; 1  Cor 1:4; 10:30; 11:24; 14:16–17; 15:57; 2  Cor 1:11; 2:14; 8:16; 9:15; Eph 1:16; 5:20; Col 1:12; 3:17; 1  Thess 1:2; 5:18; 2  Thess 1:3; 2:13; Rev 4:9; 11:17; 1  Cor 14:16; 2  Cor 4:15; 9:11; Eph 5:4; Phil 4:6; Col 2:7; 4:2; 1  Thess 3:9; 1  Tim 4:3–4; Rev 7:12; Heb 12:28; Luke 18:11; John 11:41; Rom 1:8; 1  Cor 1:14; 14:18; Phil 1:3; Col 1:3; 1  Thess 2:13; 1  Tim 1:12; 2  Tim 1:3; Phlm 1:4)

Thanks to Men?

There are three texts in the New Testament where thanksgiving is seemingly directed towards men. The first is in Luke 17:1–10, and according to 17:10, the point Jesus is making is that masters do not thank their servants. Servants are unworthy of thanksgiving because they only do what is required of them, thus they don’t deserve thanksgiving for something that’s already expected of them. So it is with all Christians since every good work we do was prepared beforehand by God for us (Eph 2:10). 

The second instance is Acts 24:3 where Tertullus deceitful expresses gratitude (by flattery) to Felix in order to have Paul killed. However, Tertullus is a God–despiser who is seeking to kill God’s servant and should not be a model for us to follow. 

The most significant text to consider in this section is Romans 16:4. The ESV renders it as “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well.” (Rom 16:3–4). Based on the ESV, it seems Paul and the churches are expressing thanks to Prisca and Aquila. But given the overwhelming evidence of Paul’s rendering of thanks only to God for people and never to people, it is possible that the thanks in Romans 16:4 is directed to God as well. I propose that the use of the dative relative pronoun oi[v is what Wallace calls “dative of reference” (Wallace 144). If it is a dative of reference then the verse should be rendered “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, about whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles as well.” With this reading, it means that Paul and the Gentile churches are giving thanks to God in reference to the work of Prisca and Aquila. James Dunn renders it as “for whom  not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles” (James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 892-893.) If Dunn and I are correct, then we can conclude that Paul always direct thanks to God for what He is doing in and through the churches and her members.  
Proposal 

If, as shown above, the Bible is replete with thanksgiving only to God and if my data is correct, how then should we express gratitude today? Here’s what I propose: since we know that whatever good we do is done with the power that God supplies (1 Pet 4:21), and all that we are and have is a gift of God (John 3:27; 1 Cor 7:4), we should rather thank God for each other instead of thanking ourselves. Maybe we should say like Paul, “I thank God for you.” If all things are from God, then thanksgiving should be directed to God. 

Therefore, we should not be peeved if people do not express thanksgiving to us because we are not worthy to be thanked. God intends for all praise and gratitude to culminate in him and not in us “for from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever Amen” (Rom 11:36).

Thanking God for you all


..............................................

Chuck Swindoll: 10 Leadership Lessons Learned in 50 Years of Leadership

Chuck Swindoll, accepting a Lifetime Achievement Award at Catalyst 09, offered the following lessons he has learned:

1. It’s lonely to lead. Leadership involves tough decisions. The tougher the decision, the lonelier it is.
2. It’s dangerous to succeed. I’m most concerned for those who aren’t even 30 and are very gifted and successful. Sometimes God uses someone right out of youth, but usually he uses leaders who have been crushed.
3. It’s hardest at home. No one ever told me this in Seminary.
4. It’s essential to be real. If there’s one realm where phoniness is common, it’s among leaders. Stay real.
5. It’s painful to obey. The Lord will direct you to do some things that won’t be your choice. Invariably you will give up what you want to do for the cross.
6. Brokenness and failure are necessary.
7. Attitude is more important than actions. Your family may not have told you: some of you are hard to be around. A bad attitude overshadows good actions.
8. Integrity eclipses image. Today we highlight image. But it’s what you’re doing behind the scenes.
9. God’s way is better than my way.
10. Christlikeness begins and ends with humility.

The Two ‘Courts’

“There are two ‘courts’ we must deal with: the court of God in Heaven and the court of conscience in our souls. When we first trust in Christ for salvation, God’s court is forever satisfied. Never again will a charge of guilt be brought against us in Heaven. Our consciences, however, are continually pronouncing us guilty. That is the function of conscience. Therefore, we must by faith bring the verdict of conscience into line with the verdict of Heaven. We do this by agreeing with our conscience about our guilt, but then reminding it that our guilt has already been borne by Christ.”

- Jerry Bridges, The Discipline of Grace (Colorado Springs, Co: NavPress, 1994), 54.

Do not Starve Yourself Any Longer

"What has exceedingly hurt you in time past, nay, and I fear, to this day, is lack of reading. I scarce ever knew a preacher who read so little. And perhaps, by neglecting it, you have lost the taste for it. Hence your talent in preaching does not increase. It is just the same as it was seven years ago. It is lively, but not deep; there is little variety; there is no compass of thought. Reading only can supply this, with meditation and daily prayer. You wrong yourself greatly by omitting this. You can never be a deep preacher without it, any more than a thorough Christian. Oh begin! Fix some part of every day for private exercise. You may acquire the taste which you have not; what is tedious at first will afterward be pleasant. Whether you like it or not, read and pray daily. It is for your life; there is no other way; else you will be a trifler all your days, and a pretty, superficial preacher. Do justice to your own soul; give it time and means to grow. Do not starve yourself any longer. Take up your cross and be a Christian altogether. Then will all the children of God rejoice (not grieve) over you, and in particular yours."

John Wesley, writing to a younger minister, quoted in D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, Letters Along The Way, page 169.

"In Praise of Feeling Bad About Yourself"

Wislawa Szymborska, "In Praise of Feeling Bad About Yourself"

The buzzard never says it is to blame.
The panther wouldn’t know what scruples mean.
When the piranha strikes, it feels no shame.
If snakes had hands, they’d claim their hands were clean.

A jackal doesn’t understand remorse.
Lions and lice don’t waver in their course.
Why should they, when they know they’re right?

Though hearts of killer whales may weigh a ton,
in every other way they’re light.

On this third planet from the sun
among the signs of bestiality
a clear conscience is Number One.

"Discipling God"

"We have the idea that God could not reign if he did not have wise and understanding people to help him. . . . [The wise and understanding] are always exerting themselves; they do things in the Christian church the way they want to themselves. Everything that God does they must improve, so that there is no poorer, more insignificant and despised disciple on earth than God; he must be everybody's pupil, everybody wants to be his teacher. . . . They are not satisfied with what God has done and instituted, they cannot let things be as they were ordained to be. . . . These are the real wiseacres, of whom Christ is speaking here, who always have to have and do something special in order that the people may say, 'Ah, our pastor or preacher is nothing; there's the real man, he'll get things done!' . . . Should God be so greatly pleased with these fellows who are all too smart and wise for him and are always wanting to send him back to school? . . . Things are in a fine state indeed when the egg wants to be wiser than the hen."

Martin Luther, preaching his last sermon, on Matthew 11:25-30, quoted in Luther's Works: Sermons I, pages 383-384.

The Mature Man: Biblical Perspectives on Being a Man in Our Time By Thomas Bjerkholt

The mature man, who is he? He is responsible. He takes responsibility for his own life and that of others. The mature man is responsible and grown up, in contrast to the one who is irresponsible and childish. He takes personal and moral responsibility – in his home, at his work-place, in the church and in society. The Bible calls us to realize this mature man. And I am deeply convinced that the exhortations that are addressed to men and fathers in the New Testament will contribute to this taking place. Many are obviously skeptical to that today. Because question-marks are being put to the validity of the exhortations, both to those that are directed to the man, but, not least, to those directed to the woman. But let us approach the subject by listening first to some voices from our own time.

A Modern, Insecure Man

What do today’s people think about being a man or a woman? The answers are not unambiguous. One can sense insecurity. Men especially have become more insecure about what it means to be a man and a father. The ideal of equality can lead to the blurring of the differences between the sexes. But the thoughts and emotions are not always in accord. Listen to what the well-known Norwegian author Erlend Loe says in an interview:

We have grown up in a time of fundamental changes. Not of the kind ‘the nation must be built up, we’re threatened by an external enemy’, but of something as important as what is a man and what is a woman. Boys and girls were meant to be so very identical. Even as a child I realized this was rubbish … And so they (the parental generation) have upset the gender role pattern, which is good, completely necessary, but it has had some consequences. I believe my generation will experience long term effects with relation to something as big as daring to believe in love. You only have to speak to people who have been the victims of divorce; they struggle for years afterwards … The number of possibilities and amount of information means you have to be a rock to see what is important. There is so much garbage. I think many get lost there. And when the responsibility for your life only depends on you, I think the development will leave many disappointed and half-bitter destinies behind in the ditch (from the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet 06.02.04).

This is thought-provoking! Loe sees the necessity of questioning the traditional gender-roles. But at the same time he sees that the extreme equality principle is what he calls ‘rubbish’. The question of what it means to be a man or a woman is for him ‘fundamental’. But then there is also the problem that ‘the responsibility for your life only depends on you’ … It’s here that we Christians can answer : No, God has created us as man and woman, each with our own identity. And the responsibility for our lives doesn’t rest on us. We have a divine word that points to a design for being a man and for being a woman!

Longings in Our Own Time

Are we who want to follow the apostle’s words about men and women promoting an old-fashioned and reactionary masculine ideal? When we still want to claim that God has given the man a special responsibility in the home and the church, are we then upholding a masculine ideal that is oppressive and outdated? No way! For there are many voices in our time that express a longing for this mature man who takes responsibility.

In an interview with Dagbladet (The Magazine 12.01.02) the well-known Norwegian journalist Åsne Seierstad says this among other things:

I dream of a "Carl Larsson home". A large, white house at Vindern (a place in Oslo) with garden furniture, a jug of fruit juice here and a bunch of flowers there. And then I stick my head out to the children on the veranda and call out that the buns are ready …

What does your future husband look like? He must be someone who wants something. Who has a project that is greater than himself. And greater than me (!) One who pulls me along with him and has drive. If not I get exhausted. Since I am so self-willed he has to be someone who stands up for himself and says: "Yes, Åsne. We’re doing it" I don’t think it’s so easy to find him.

No, he isn’t so easy to find! But perhaps we can help her by boldly building up men of authority in the image of Christ through our preaching and teaching! Because it is after all thought-provoking to read what Åsne Seierstad says. She wants a strong and mature man who desires something. Thus she confirms something that I’ve always claimed: No woman wants soft men they can manipulate how they want. They want kind, but mature men.

Listen to another voice of the time, the well-known Norwegian crime writer Fredrik Skagen. He has helped to start an organization called ‘Men against violence’. The main aim of the organization is to work towards men behaving with respect and courtesy towards women, respecting boundaries and refraining from any kind of violence. In an article in Adresseavisen newspaper (15.04.02) he says the following : "Some people think that this [the work of the organization] is going to be an affair for soft men. They’re wrong, completely wrong. It’s a part of the very most important aspect of a man’s identity to take care of women and children. That’s what it’s about, that and nothing else" (My italics).

What else are these voices other than a cry for mature, adult men who will be both strong and mild, firm and sensitive? The way is not far to what the Bible calls us men to be. No these voices are in fact confirming what the Bible says.

A last example. Let me take a detour to something that happened in my student days at theological college, in the beginning of the 70s, when the feminist movement seriously hit our society and lead to the college altering its view on women priests. "Man and woman" was strenuously debated. Professor in Systematic Theology, Leiv Aalen, took part actively in the debate. I remember that many laughed at him when he once said something along the lines of "the man represents to a greater degree the active and persistent principle, the woman the more passive and receptive". This was really to speak "against the current", and as I’ve said, the old man was laughed at. But look : At Aruna Development and Culture Centre in Son in Norway the couple Lisbeth Lind and Øivinn Øi work with courses on living together. In an interview with the newspaper Aftenposten (22.01.95) they say: "We try to accentuate and not least to enhance the typical gender differences. And because in our culture we’ve been so preoccupied with smoothing over them, that in itself becomes an important thing. – While the woman in her foundation is love itself and constitutes its passive principle, the man is created to love, to be the practicing part. Because he constitutes the firm, unshakeable principle, it matters more for the woman to find a man she likes the ‘direction’ of and whom she can stretch herself after, than to influence him to see things differently. Otherwise she can quickly end up with a weakling or the negative cold shoulder". This couple would scarcely have laughed at professor Leiv Aalen! But theological students did. Now those who’ve been quoted here will scarcely rejoice over a view that leads to a No to female pastors, But my claim is that what we read here about man and woman is closely tied up with the masculine ideal that we find in the Bible, yes, amazingly close to the Bible’s thoughts about men and women and their differences.

The Need for Positive Manliness

Today’s men are often insecure about their own identity. The reasons can be many. But one of the main reasons is undoubtedly the fact that so many boys grow up alone with their mother, or experience difficult situations when a new partner moves in with her. The absence of a good man is a fundamental problem for all too many young boys. The fact that so many boys today grow up without a faithful and good father at their side is, according to the Norwegian social anthropologist Jan Brøgger "without historic parallels". The results of this are among other things an increase in violence, because male energy isn’t being channeled in a healthy way. The police inspector Arne Danne in Stockholm said therefore in an interview several years ago, "The reason for the violence is that men no longer bring up men. In the whole of the western world the need is the same : positive manliness".

Jesus of Nazareth : The True Man

Eivind Berggrav, who was a bishop in Norway, wrote the book The Man Jesus in 1921. He characterizes Jesus with these qualities : wise, manly, strong and free. He stresses the balance in Jesus’ personality : "In Jesus’ character there is a remarkable interaction between the authoritarian and the mild", he says. Jesus has power and strength in himself. He is the man of action who wants to improve, change, lift and ennoble. Berggrav compares Jesus to the male figures within Buddhism and Islam : "When we think about Buddha’s crossed arms and place him next to Jesus whose hands are always active, then in spite of all its spiritual refinement and beauty Buddhism nevertheless becomes a bed-ridden religion". On the other hand in Islam the man appears as one-sidedly cold and oppressive. "He may have a certain fire, but lacks depth and warmth", writes Berggrav. In the book The Wild Man Richard Rohr is preoccupied with similar ideas. The man’s energy has to be tamed, he says. The man’s authority must be a compassionate authority. Manliness implies action, responsibility, decisiveness.

It is this we find in perfect balance in Jesus. He is the Lion of Judah. He is the Lamb. He grasps the whip and clears out the temple court. He cries at the grave of Lazarus. He had the courage to reprimand the Pharisees and the scribes. He dared to show weakness when the trial was at its hardest—in Gethsemane. We see that love and strength, tenderness and firmness, mercy and truth are in perfect balance in him. Therefore Jesus is in a special way the true model for all men.

Ephesians 5:25-33

The Christian man is obliged to live in the same way that Jesus did in relation to his bride, the church. There is no text in the whole Bible that will protect women and children better than a brave and practical preaching of this passage. For this is how the husband must live, says Paul : Just as Jesus invests his whole life in service for his bride, so shall the husband’s life be a continuous service for his wife and his children. We sing about Jesus : "He walks by my side, he leads me along, he doesn’t grow tired as I do. And in mercy he guards me the whole day long, he never lets me down". As men we can feel a great inadequacy in relation to such an ideal. Who of us does not get tired? No, we are only human beings. None of us can be wholly and completely like the Master. But what a marvelous picture to aim at! The man Paul portrays for us is the one of authority and maturity who takes responsibility. He is a servant. He wants to lift and protect his bride, love like Christ, forgive, comfort, listen, lead. God has laid on him a responsibility that every husband should be aware of—in Jesus’ name.

C.S. Lewis has some interesting observations on this: "Christian law has crowned the husband. It has given him—or should I say ‘inflicted on’ him—a kind of leadership. The perfect embodiment of this leadership is not in the husband we all wish to be, but in him whose marriage is more like a crucifixion. The anointing for this dreadful coronation is not seen in the joys of a man’s marriage but in its sorrows. The husband who has a leadership that is Christ-like—and that is the only kind that is allowed—will never give up". Lewis is thinking here of the difficult marriage where the partner is difficult, demanding, unloving—and whatever it may be. As Christ loves sinners and endures, so will the husband’s Christ likeness become extra distinct when he remains faithful during "the bad times".

To Call the Man to Responsibility and Give Him Courage

In Isaiah 32:2 we find a beautiful picture of the good man: He shall be "like a shelter from the wind and a refuge from the storm, like streams of water in the desert and the shadow of a great rock in a thirsty land." This is a picture that is wholly in line with what modern psychology has said about the ideal relationship between the man, the woman, and the child : The woman must embrace the child, the man must embrace both the mother and the child! The man as protector and guardian, as life-giver and as the firm rock. Again: We will never manage it fully. We need God’s grace and power. But is there a more lovely picture to paint for our time?—A young couple visited me in church a while ago. They were living together. "I don’t know if I dare get married", he said. No, this lack of courage to take on commitment and responsibility marks more and more people. The young of today can "bungee jump", seek the challenges of extreme sport and set off for remote corners of the world in search of adventure. But the courage for commitment and responsible love "in good days and bad" is being lost by steadily more and more. The Church of Christ and we who preach God’s word must give them that courage and call them to their true image, in Jesus Christ!

Jesus Jr By Ray Ortlund

"Our local deity is not Jesus. He goes by the name Jesus. But in reality, our local deity is Jesus Jr.

Our little Jesus is popular because he is useful. He makes us feel better while conveniently fitting into the margins of our busy lives. But he is not terrifying or compelling or thrilling. When we hear the gospel of Jesus Jr., our casual response is “Yeah, that’s what I believe.” Jesus Jr. does not confront us, surprise us, stun us. He looks down on us with a benign, all-approving grin. He tells us how wonderful we really are, how entitled we really are, how wounded we really are, and it feels good.

Jesus Jr. appeals to the flesh. He does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him. He is not able to understand them, much less impart them, because Jesus Jr. is the .magnification of Self, the idealization of Self, the absolutization of Self turning around and validating Self, flattering Self, reinforcing Self. Jesus Jr. does not change us, because he is a projection of us.

It is time to tear down Jesus Jr. It is time to rediscover the real Jesus. Still today, even to us, his invitation stands: “Come to me” (Matthew 11:28)." Ray Ortlund blog

Exultation In God

“Christian exultation in God begins with the shamefaced recognition that we have no claim on him at all, continues with wondering worship that while we were still sinners and enemies Christ died for us, and ends with the humble confidence that he will complete the work he has begun. So to exult in God is to rejoice not in our privileges but in his mercies, not in our possession of him but in his of us.”

John Stott

C. S. Lewis on True Love

"When I have learnt to love God better than my earthly dearest, I shall love my earthly dearest better than I do now. Insofar as I learn to love my earthly dearest at the expense of God and instead of God, I shall be moving towards the state in which I shall not love my earthly dearest at all. When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed but increased."

- C. S. Lewis, Letters of C.S. Lewis (8 November, 1952)

All in One

"When the Lord divided Canaan among the tribes of Israel, Levi received no share of the land. God said to him simply, “I am thy part and thine inheritance,” and by those words made him richer than all his brethren, richer than all the kings and rajas who have ever lived in the world. And there is a spiritual principle here, a principle still valid for every priest of the Most High God. The man who has God for his treasure has all things in One. Many ordinary treasures may be denied him, or if he is allowed to have them, the enjoyment of them will be so tempered that they will never be necessary to his happiness. Or if he must see them go, one after one, he will scarcely feel a sense of loss, for having the Source of all things he has in One all satisfaction, all pleasure, all delight. Whatever he may lose he has actually lost nothing, for he now has it all in One, and he has it purely, legitimately and forever."

A.W. Tozer, "The Pursuit of God"

Lord I want to want You

From A.W. Tozer's The Pursuit of God:

    O God, I have tasted Your goodness,

    and it has both satisfied me and made me thirsty for more.

    I am painfully conscious of my need of further grace.

    I am ashamed of my lack of desire.

    O God, the Triune God,

    I want to want You;

    I long to be filled with longing;

    I thirst to be made more thirsty still.

    Show me Your glory, I pray,

    so I may know You indeed.

    Begin in mercy a new work of love within me…

    Give me grace to rise and follow You up from this misty lowland

    where I have wandered so long.

    In Jesus’ name. Amen.

The Lord's Prayer as Answers to the Lord's Questions

From J. I. Packer's Praying the Lord's Prayer:

    We need to see that the Lord's Pray is offering us model answers to the series of questions God puts to us to shape our conversation with him. Thus:

    What do you take me for, and what am I to you?

    Our Father in heaven.

    That being so, what is it that you really want most?

    The hallowing of your name; the coming of your kingdom; to see your will known and done.

    So what are you asking for right now, as a means to that end?

    Provision, pardon, protection.

    How can you be so bold and confident in asking for these things?

    Because we know you can do it, and when you do it, it will bring you glory!

Invitation to the Pain of Learning

Mortimer J. Adler

(1941)

In Adler's view of education, learning is not something one acquires externally like a new suit. It is, in his own words, "an interior transformation of a person's mind and character, a transformation which can be effected only through his own activity." It is as painful, but also as exhilarating, as any effort human beings make to make themselves better human beings, physically or mentally. The practices of educators, even if they are well-intentioned, who try to make learning less painful than it is, not only make it less exhilarating, but also weaken the will and minds of those on whom this fraud is perpetrated. The selling and buying of education all wrapped up in pretty packages is what is going on, but, Adler tells us, it is not the real thing. This essay was published in The Journal of Educational Sociology (February1941.)

G.V.D.

ON E of the reasons why the education given by our schools is so frothy and vapid is that the American people generally-the parent even more than the teacher-wish childhood to be unspoiled by pain. Childhood must be a period of delight, of gay indulgence in impulses. It must be given every avenue for unimpeded expression, which of course is pleasant; and it must not be made to suffer the impositions of discipline or the exactions of duty, which of course are painful. Childhood must be filled with as much play and as little work as possible. What cannot be accomplished educationally through elaborate schemes devised to make learning an exciting game must, of necessity, be forgone. Heaven forbid that learning should ever take on the character of a serious occupation-just as serious as earning money, and perhaps, much more laborious and painful.

The kindergarten spirit of playing at education pervades our colleges. Most college students get their first taste of studying as really hard work, requiring mental strain and continual labor, only when they enter law school or medical school. Those who do not enter the professions find out what working at anything really means only when they start to earn a living-that is, if four years of college has not softened them to the point which makes them unemployable. But even those who somehow recover from a college loaf and accept the responsibilities and obligations involved in earning a living-even those who may gradually come to realize the connection between work, pain, and earning-seldom if ever make a similar connection of pain and work with learning. "Learning" is what they did in college, and they know that that had very little to do with pain and work.

Now the attitude of the various agencies of adult education is even more softminded-not just softhearted-about the large public they face, a public which has had all sorts and amounts of schooling. The trouble is not simply that this large public has been spoiled by whatever schooling it has had-spoiled in the double sense that it is unprepared to carry on its own self-education in adult life and that it is disinclined to suffer pains for the sake of learning. The trouble also lies in the fact that agencies of adult education baby the public even more than the schools coddle the children. They have turned the whole nation-so far as education is concerned-into a kindergarten. It must all be fun. It must all be entertaining. Adult learning must be made as effortless as possible-painless, devoid of oppressive burdens and of irksome tasks. Adult men and women, because they are adult, can be expected to suffer pains of all sorts in the course of their daily occupations, whether domestic or commercial. We do not try to deny the fact that taking care of a household or holding down a job is necessarily burdensome, but we somehow still believe that the goods to be obtained, the worldly goods of wealth and comfort, are worth the effort. In any case, we know they cannot be obtained without effort. But we try to shut our eyes to the fact that improving one's mind or enlarging one's spirit is, if anything, more difficult than solving the problems of subsistence; or, maybe, we just do not believe that knowledge and wisdom are worth the effort.

We try to make adult education as exciting as a football game, as relaxing as a motion picture, and as easy on the mind as a quiz program. Otherwise, we will not be able to draw the big crowds, and the important thing is to draw large numbers of people into this educational game, even if after we get them there we leave them untransformed.

What lies behind my remark is a distinction between two views of education. In one view, education is something externally added to a person, as his clothing and other accoutrements. We cajole him into standing there willingly while we fit him; and in doing this we must be guided by his likes and dislikes, by his own notion of what enhances his appearance. In the other view, education is an interior transformation of a person's mind and character. He is plastic material to be improved not according to his inclinations, but according to what is good for him. But because he is a living thing, and not dead clay, the transformation can be effected only through his own activity. Teachers of every sort can help, but they can only help in the process of learning that must be dominated at every moment by the activity of the learner. And the fundamental activity that is involved in every kind of genuine learning is intellectual activity, the activity generally known as thinking. Any learning which takes place without thinking is necessarily of the sort I have called external and additive-learning passively acquired, for which the common name is "information." Without thinking, the kind of learning which transforms a mind, gives it new insights, enlightens it, deepens understanding, elevates the spirit simply cannot occur.

Anyone who has done any thinking, even a little bit, knows that it is painful. It is hard work-in fact the very hardest that human beings are ever called upon to do. It is fatiguing, not refreshing. If allowed to follow the path of least resistance, no one would ever think. To make boys and girls, or men and women, think-and through thinking really undergo the transformation of learning-educational agencies of every sort must work against the grain, not with it. Far from trying to make the whole process painless from beginning to end, we must promise them the pleasure of achievement as a reward to be reached only through travail. I am not here concerned with the oratory that may have to be employed to persuade Americans that wisdom is a greater good than wealth, and hence worthy of greater effort. I am only insisting that there is no royal road, and that our present educational policies, in adult education especially, are fraudulent. We are pretending to give  them something which is described in the advertising as very valuable, but which we promise they can get at almost no expense to them.

Not only must we honestly announce that pain and work are the irremovable and irreducible accompaniments of genuine learning, not only must we leave entertainment to the entertainers and make education a task and not a game, but we must have no fears about what is "over the public's head." Whoever passes by what is over his head condemns his head to its present low altitude; for nothing can elevate a mind except what is over its head; and that elevation is not accomplished by capillary attraction, but only by the hard work of climbing up the ropes, with sore hands and aching muscles. The school system which caters to the median child, or worse, to the lower half of the class; the lecturer before adults-and they are legion-who talks down to his audience; the radio or television program which tries to hit the lowest common denominator of popular receptivity-all these defeat the prime purpose of education by taking people as they are and leaving them just there.

The best adult education program that has ever existed in this country was one which endured for a short time under the auspices of the People's Institute in New York, when Everett Dean Martin was its director, and Scott Buchanan his assistant. It had two parts: one consisted of lectures which, so far as possible, were always aimed over the heads of the audience; the other consisted of seminars in which adults were helped in the reading of great books-the books that are over everyone's head. The latter part of the program is still being carried on by the staff of St. John's College in the cities near Annapolis; and we are conducting four such groups in the downtown college of the University of Chicago. I say that this is the only adult education that is genuinely educative simply because it is the only kind that requires activity, makes no pretense about avoiding pain and work, and is always working with materials well over everybody's head.

I do not know whether radio or television will ever be able to do anything genuinely educative. I am sure it serves the public in two ways: by giving them amusement and by giving them information. It may even, as in the case of its very best "educational" programs, stimulate some persons to do something about their minds by pursuing knowledge and wisdom in the only way possible-the hard way. But what I do not know is whether it can ever do what the best teachers have always done and must now be doing; namely, to present programs which are genuinely educative, as opposed to merely stimulating, in the sense that following them requires the listener to be active not passive, to think rather than remember, and to suffer all the pains of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps. Certainly so long as the so called educational directors of our leading networks continue to operate on their present false principles, we can expect nothing. So long as they confuse education and entertainment, so long as they suppose that learning can be accomplished without pain, so long as they persist in bringing everything and everybody down to the lowest level on which the largest audience can be reached, the educational programs offered on the air will remain what they are today-shams and delusions.

It may be, of course, that the radio and television, for economic reasons must, like the motion picture, reach with certainty so large an audience that the networks cannot afford even to experiment with pro grams which make no pretense to be more palatable and pleasurable than real education can be. It may be that the radio and television cannot be expected to take a sounder view of education and to undertake more substantial programs than now prevail among the country's official leaders in education-the heads of our school system, of our colleges, of our adult education associations. But, in either case, let us not fool ourselves about what we are doing. "Education" all wrapped up in attractive tissue is the gold brick that is being sold in America today on every street corner. Everyone is selling it, everyone is buying it, but no one is giving or getting the real thing because the real thing is always hard to give or get. Yet the real thing can be made generally available if the obstacles to its distribution are honestly recognized. Unless we acknowledge that every invitation to learning can promise pleasure only as the result of pain, can offer achievement only at the expense of work, all of our invitations to learning, in school and out, whether by books, lectures, or radio and television programs will be as much buncombe as the worst patent medicine advertising, or the campaign pledge to put two chickens in every pot.