Prayer Develops An Intimate Personal Relationship with God

Matthew 6:9–10 convincingly shows that one should not pray primarily in order to receive goods and services from God but to render service to God. Prayer is not first and foremost an exercise to vindicate the disciple’s causes, meet the disciple’s needs, fulfill the disciple’s desires, or solve the disciple’s problems. Rather, one’s priority must be the promotion of God’s reputation, the advancement of God’s rule, and the performance of God’s will. These three petitions are essentially one expression of burning desire to see the Father honored on earth as he is already honored in heaven.

- David L. Turner.

If God knows what we need, why bother praying? 

Because prayer is not like sending an order form to a supplier. Prayer develops an intimate personal relationship with an abundantly loving God, who also happens to know us deeply. His knowledge of us should encourage us toward confident and focused prayer. A child may feel an immediate need for candy; a parent considers the child’s long-term needs. Stretch that parent’s concern and perspective to an infinite dimension, and there you find God’s loving care.

Prayer does not beg favors from a reluctant shopkeeper. Prayer develops the trust that says, “Father, you know best.” Bring your requests confidently to God.

- Barton, B. B

The Lord's Prayer

 The Lord’s Prayer is a part of the Sermon on the Mount. Here Jesus teaches principles that characterize the radical kingdom he announces and the attitudes and behavior that characterize those who participate in it.
 
And so, Jesus teaches a kingdom prayer. He establishes the standards of good practice for his followers first through negative examples that teach them how they should not pray (vv. 5–8), and, second, through a model prayer that teaches them how they should pray (vv. 9–13: Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς. The context suggests that the imperative in v. 9 is best taken as a customary present, expressing a habitual action. Contrary to those whose prayers are habitually self-promoting, those whose prayers follow Jesus’s model cultivate a different habit.

This kingdom prayer has six petitions, grouped in two sets of three. The first set presents requests about God: three clauses, each [p. 21] with a third-person, aorist imperative verb, followed by a noun modified by a second-person possessive pronoun (vv. 9–10). The imperative is a natural choice in prayer, because it is the verbal form normally used when someone of lower status communicates to a superior.1 The second set of petitions presents requests about human needs (vv. 11–13). Each of these petitions contains a first-person, plural pronoun, and the second and third petitions are connected to the previous one by καί (“and”) to form one long sentence.
 
Our English translations may lead us to think that the first petition is a statement or declaration (i.e., “hallowed be your name” = “your name is holy”). We have seen that the Greek verb, however, is not an indicative but an imperative that expresses a petition. It is a request to God that his name be treated as holy because at the present time it is not always so. Essentially this is a plea for the coming of God’s kingdom, which Jesus says has drawn near (4:17). The second request articulates this plea: “May your kingdom come!”
 
The third request extends the plea for God’s kingdom to come in its fullness. Its word order in the Greek is illuminating. The emphasis is on the first clause, “as in heaven.” God’s will is done in heaven in a way not yet done on earth. The point is not simply to pray that God accomplish his will, but that God accomplish it on earth as it is [already done in heaven].
 
Through repetition and variation, the first three petitions ask God to realize his kingdom in all its fullness. Yet it is not a passive prayer. It is not a request that God act while human beings wait and watch. This kingdom prayer orients Jesus’s followers to the present revelation of God’s future reign. As a result, we may live in this kingdom by promoting God’s person, will, and ways rather than our own.
 

-  J. Scott Duvall, Devotions on the Greek New Testament: 52 Reflections to Inspire and Instruct

 

Moses and His Life Experiences

Learning how to control his violent temper and learning how to serve were only the first of many lessons that Moses learned in Midian. God is never in any great hurry to prepare his servants to do his will, especially when he has some great work for them to accomplish. There is no better example of this than the prophet Moses, who spent four decades in the wilderness before beginning his public ministry. The book of Acts explains that forty years passed between Moses’ flight to Midian and his encounter with God at the burning bush (Acts 7:29, 30). Forty years! Someone has pointed out that “Moses was 40 years in Egypt learning something; he was 40 years in the desert learning to be nothing; and he was 40 years in the wilderness proving God to be everything.” Whenever we are tempted to grow impatient with God’s timetable for our lives, we should remember Moses, who spent two years of preparation for every year of ministry.
 
During the forty long years that Moses spent in Midian, God used three experiences to prepare him for his primary calling, which was to lead God’s people out of Egypt. The first was his living situation. The precise location of Midian is somewhat uncertain. The Midianites may have lived in Arabia, but more likely they lived on the Sinai Peninsula, near the Gulf of Aqaba. The term does not refer primarily to a place, however, but to a people group—a tribe of desert nomads. Living with the Midianites meant living in the wilderness.
 
Moses’ wilderness experience was of great practical significance. One of the things he learned was the wilderness itself—its geography and topography. Later, when he led God’s people out of Egypt, he knew things like where to find water and how to find his way back to God’s holy mountain. But Moses’ wilderness experience was of even greater significance spiritually, for before he led Israel out of Egypt, Moses had an exodus of his own. It was in the wilderness that he learned what it was like to be an outcast. The people of God were strangers in Egypt, but Egypt was Moses’ home—so much so that the daughters of Reuel immediately identified him as “an Egyptian” (Exod. 2:19). It was only when he went out to live in the desert that Moses experienced alienation for himself. At the birth of his first son, he said, “I have become an alien in a foreign land” (v. 22b). The foreign land Moses seems to have had in mind was not Midian but Egypt, since he was speaking in the past tense. The verse should thus be translated as follows: “A stranger I have been there,” with Moses referring back to his upbringing in Pharaoh’s palace. It was through his wilderness experience that he learned to identify with God’s people in their suffering.
 
The second life experience God used to prepare Moses for leadership was his family situation. Not only did Moses become a husband in Midian, but he also became a father: “Zipporah gave birth to a son, and Moses named him Gershom, saying, ‘I have become an alien in a foreign land’ ” (v. 22). The name Gershom comes from the Hebrew verb garash, which means “to drive out or to expel”; thus it may refer to Moses’ own experience in being driven out of Egypt. It also sounds like the Hebrew words ger and sham, a pun that means “an alien there.” The Bible does not include these domestic details simply out of biographical interest. Moses’ family situation was part of his preparation for ministry. As a husband, he learned how to love and serve his wife. As a father, he learned how to care for and discipline his children. By settling into the life of the home Moses learned how to be a servant-leader.
 
It was in the same home that Moses grew in his relationship with God, for when he accepted Zipporah’s hand in marriage, he became a member of her clan. The Midianites seem to have worshiped the one true God, the God of their father Abraham. It seems significant that Reuel was a priest and that his name means “friend of God.” In all likelihood Moses received spiritual instruction from his father-in-law, so that by the time he saw the burning bush, he had already been reintroduced to the God of Abraham.
 
Thirdly, Moses learned how to serve God through his work situation. Job opportunities are somewhat limited in the wilderness, and since his father-in-law was a shepherd, Moses became a shepherd. We know this because the next chapter begins with him out tending his flock (Exod. 3:1).
 
This was hardly the profession Moses would have chosen because he was raised in Egypt, and the Bible says that “all shepherds are detestable to the Egyptians” (Gen. 46:34b). But the Bible also shows that many great leaders got their start as shepherds. This is because there is a lot to be learned from tending sheep. For starters, sheep are not very bright, which means they need someone to lead them to food and water. They make an easy target for predators; so they need someone to protect them. They are prone to wander; so they need someone to bring them back into the fold. In short, sheep are completely dependent on shepherds for their care, which is why the Bible so often compares God’s people to sheep. In the words of the psalmist, “we are his people, the sheep of his pasture” (100:3b). Like so many sheep, we need divine guidance, nourishment, and protection. It was by tending his flock, therefore, that Moses learned how to feed, defend, and rescue the lost sheep of Israel. Since God’s people are the sheep of his pasture, there was no better way for Moses to learn how to lead them than by spending forty years as a shepherd. When Asaph later meditated on God’s saving work in bringing his people out of Egypt, he said, “You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron” (Ps. 77:20; cf. Ps. 78:52; Isa. 63:11).

God used the experiences Moses had along his spiritual journey to prepare him in a special way for a special work. By being faithful in small things, he was prepared for something big. It is doubtful whether we will ever lead God’s people out of bondage. But even if we are not named Moses, God has a plan for us. The Bible says that “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Eph. 2:10). When the Scripture says that “we are God’s workmanship,” it means that God is at work in our lives to prepare us for his service.

Not only has he prepared good works for us to do, but God is also preparing us to do them, and he does this through the ordinary experiences of daily life. God uses our mistakes, even the kinds of mistakes that send us into the wilderness for decades. In order to become the man God intended him to become, it was necessary for Moses to go out into the wilderness and take care of sheep. Even if we are working a job that does not seem to match our gifts or our interests, God will use it for our good and for his glory.

- P. G. Ryken  & R. K. Hughes. Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory, p71–74.

Why Unleavened Bread

Unleavened bread reminded the Israelites of their hasty departure. But getting rid of the yeast had another purpose. Although it is not explicitly stated in Exodus 12, Jewish teachers have always understood yeast to represent the corrupting power of sin. Unleavened bread symbolizes holiness. What makes this comparison suitable is that unleavened bread is made of pure wheat untouched by yeast.
 
When God’s people ate unleavened bread, therefore, they were reminded to keep themselves pure from sin, and especially from the evils of Egypt. To this day, when devout Jewish families celebrate Passover they search their homes for leaven and then sweep it out the door. This symbolic act shows that they have a commitment to lead a life free from sin.
 
Yeast is an appropriate symbol for sin because of the way it grows and spreads. As yeast ferments, it works its way all through the dough. Sin works the same way, which is why the Bible makes this comparison. Sin is always trying to extend its corrupting influence through a person’s entire life. But God had something better in mind for his people. He was saving them to sanctify them; so before they left Egypt he wanted them to make a clean sweep.
 
God wanted to do something more than get his people out of Egypt; he wanted to get Egypt out of his people. He was saving them with a view to their sanctification; so he told them to make a clean sweep. He commanded them to get rid of every last bit of yeast, the old yeast of Egyptian idolatry. To further show that they were making a fresh start, God gave his people a new calendar.
 
In the case of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the New Testament teaching is perfectly clear. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:6–8).
 

- P. G. Ryken  & R. K. Hughes. Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory, p340-342.

The Second Temple Period

Israel survived under the rule of the Medo-Persian Empire from 539 to about 332 BC, when the Greek Empire, led by Alexander the Great, conquered the known world. Alexander’s rule would not last long. Following his death in 323 BC, Alexander’s territories were partitioned among his military generals, who established their own kingdoms (e.g., the Ptolemaic Kingdom in Egypt and the Seleucid Kingdom in Syria) and continued the former emperor’s systematic spread of Hellenism, or Greek culture (1 Macc 1:1 – 9; 2 Macc 4:7 – 17). These kingdoms, which were often embroiled in war with one another, also created challenges for the Jews, who were positioned geographically between them. 

The Seleucid Kingdom in particular, under the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 BC, raided Jerusalem (1 Macc 1:20 – 40), desecrated the temple (1:47, 54, 59), outlawed observance of the covenant (1:41 – 53), and prohibited possession of the Torah (1:56 – 57). In his pursuit of Hellenization, Antiochus banned the Jews’ customs (1:41 – 44) and violently forced their assimilation (1:50, 57 – 58, 60 – 64). But Antiochus’s persecution was not passively tolerated. The Jewish resistance that arose in response (the Maccabean Revolt, 167 – 142 BC) resulted in the Jews’ repossession of the land, rededication of the temple, and institution of the festival of Hanukkah (1 Macc 4:36 – 59; Josephus, Ant. 12.316 – 325). 

With the renewed national sovereignty of the Hasmoneans (the family that led the Maccabean Revolt), various groups held differing opinions about how to manage the political and temple leadership of Israel. This infighting eventually led to the weakening of the Jewish national leadership, and Pompey, a Roman general contemporaneous with Julius Caesar, seized control of Israel in 63 BC, making it a territory of the Roman republic. Although Rome largely tolerated Jewish religious practices, pressures leading toward political, cultural, and religious assimilation were ever-present. Eventually, the Zealots (a Jewish resistance group) fomented the hopes of another successful revolt. But the Romans, under the soon-to-be emperor Titus, defeated the Jews and destroyed the second temple in AD 70 (Josephus, J.W. 6.220 – 270), thus bringing an end to the Second Temple Period. 

The Second Temple Period (516 BC – AD 70) began with the Jews under the control of the Persians and ended under the control of the Romans. This was, without question, a time of crisis for the Jewish people, and devout men and women reflected on their experiences in a variety of ways. With the pressures from a consecutive transfer of foreign nations pushing the Jews toward assimilation, numerous Second Temple Jewish literary works preserve their thoughts and hopes about God and life in the covenant. These reflections survive in the numerous literary works produced during this period. We turn now to survey these texts.

--- Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich & Jason Maston, Reading Romans in Context. Zondervan Academic, 2015.

Understanding of Faith and Reason

Neglect of integration results in a costly division between secular and sacred. While few would actually put it in these terms, faith is now understood as a blind act of will, a sort of decision to believe something that is either independent of reason or makes up for the paltry lack of evidence for what one is trying to believe. By contrast, the Bible presents faith as a power or skill to act in accordance with the nature of the kingdom of God, a trust in what we have reason to believe is true. Understood in this way, we see that faith is built on reason and knowledge. We should have good reasons for thinking that Christianity is true before we completely dedicate ourselves to it. We should have solid evidence that our understanding of a biblical passage is correct before we go on to apply it. We bring knowledge claims from Scripture and theology to the task of integration; we do not employ mere beliefs or faith postulates. 

Unfortunately, our contemporary understanding of faith and reason treats them as polar opposites. A few years ago I went to New York to conduct a series of evangelistic messages for a church. The series was in a high school gym and several believers and unbelievers came each night. The first evening I gave arguments for the existence of God from science and philosophy. Before closing in prayer, I entertained several questions from the audience. One woman (who was a Christian) complained about my talk, charging that if I "proved" the existence of God, I would leave no room for faith. I responded by saying ing that if she were right, then we should pray that currently available evidence for God would evaporate and be refuted so there would be even more room for faith! Obviously, her view of faith utterly detached it from reason.

If faith and reason are deeply connected, then students and teachers need to explore their entire intellectual life in light of the Word of God. But if faith and reason are polar opposites, then the subject matter of our study or teaching is largely irrelevant to growth in discipleship. Because of this view of faith and reason, there has emerged a secular-sacred sacred separation in our understanding of the Christian life with the result that Christian teaching and practice are privatized. The withdrawal of the corporate body of Christ from the public sphere of ideas is mirrored by our understanding of what is required to produce an individual disciple. Religion is viewed as personal, private and a matter of how we feel about things. Often, Bible classes and paracurricular Christian activities are not taken as academically serious aspects of the Christian school, nor are they integrated into the content of "secular" areas of teaching.

--- David Lyle Jeffrey & Gregory Maillet. Christianity and Literature: 

Philosophical Foundations and Critical Practice. 

The General Vocation of All Christians

Two important implications flow from the nature of discipleship. For one thing the lordship of Christ is holistic. The religious life is not a special compartment in an otherwise secular life. Rather, the religious gious life is an entire way of life. To live Christianly is to allow Jesus Christ to be the Lord of every aspect of our life. There is no room for a secular-sacred separation in the life of Jesus' followers. Jesus Christ should be every bit as much at home in our thinking and behavior when we are developing our views in our area of study or work as he is when we are in a small group fellowship. 

Further, as disciples of Jesus we do not merely have a job. We have a vocation as a Christian teacher. A job is a means for supporting ourselves selves and those for whom we are responsible. For the Christian a vocation tion (from the Latin vocare, which means "to call") is an overall calling from God. Harry Blamires correctly draws a distinction between a general and a special vocation: 

The general vocation of all Christians-indeed of all men and women-is is the same. We are called to live as children of God, obeying his will in all things. But obedience to God's will must inevitably take many different ferent forms. The wife's mode of obedience is not the same as the nun's; the farmer's is not the same as the priest's. By "special vocation," therefore, fore, we designate God's call to a [person] to serve him in a particular sphere of activity.' 

--- David Lyle Jeffrey & Gregory Maillet. Christianity and Literature: Philosophical Foundations and Critical Practice. 

Song of Peace

The word for “Song” in Hebrew is shur (רושׁ), which means “song,” and the root word in Hebrew for “Psalm” is zamar (רמז), which also means “song.” Yet shur (רושׁ) is a song of peace, joy, and celebration of the power of God, while zamar (רמז) is a song of praise that comes when one is being pruned or tried by God.

Yet this psalm was written in praise to God, and then it was given to the sons of Korah, who made up the temple choir, and to the chief musician. It says it was given upon mahalath (תלחמ), which some say is a musical instrument. No English translation is provided for mahalath (תלחמ), and it is uncertain if the root word is chalah (הלח), which means “to be exhausted,” “to be diseased,” “to be weak,” “to be feeble,” or “to be afflicted,” or if it comes from the root word chul (לוח), which means “to be in pain,” “to tremble,” or “to shake.” Either way, it was given in great distress to the choir and to its director. 

The next word is leannoth (תונﬠל), which comes from the root word ’anah (הנﬠ) and means “to be humbled by affliction.” This word is in a piel* infinitive form and suggests this rendering: “He has been humbled like no other man.” The following word is maschil (ליכשׂמ), which comes from the root word sakal (לכשׂ) and means “to prosper” or “to understand.” This word is in hiphil participle* form, so we could render it as “He has caused him to understand,” or “He has caused him to prosper.”

The experience of the Heman in this psalm does not fit the profile of any other Heman in Scripture. However, in Jewish literature, I have found a description of a Heman that does fit the profile of the Heman of Psalm 88. Jewish literature and tradition teach that this Heman was a gifted musician and vocalist—but he was also a leper.

Here, then, is the picture we see in this psalm. Heman is a diseased, broken, poverty-stricken beggar. He has called out to God all his life to be healed of his leprosy, but he has not been healed. Nevertheless, God has still done a wonderful work of healing in him. He has healed his soul. Although God gave him a beautiful voice, Heman was not allowed to sing in the temple because of his affliction. However, he could sing on the street corner; and, if Jewish literature is correct, that is what he did.

- Chaim Bentorah, Hebrew Word Study, Vol 1 

三钟经（Angelus）的消失

用餐时间是很重要，但不敌工厂、办公室、商业和服务业、学校等等⋯⋯统一规划的工作时间，所有强制性的时间规划都是为了让群体和个人的生產效益能交乘成长，进而提升生產力。

欧洲人在十四世纪发明了机械式座鐘之后，日出而作、日落而息的人类生活史随之告终。第一个鐘摆式座鐘出现在1657年，之后1675年发明的螺旋弹簧更催生了个人携带式鐘表──两大技术革新的关键工匠非惠更斯家族（Huygens）莫属──一个完全社会化，不必然与大自然的时间推移自动產生连结的作息表，强势登场。到了十八世纪，拥有一座在当时象徵着创新技术的座鐘，与其说是财富的表徵，不如说是生活上的必需。进入工业化社会后，一切全都变了：慢慢的，人与人之间的活动变得必须同步进行，一个人要想融入群体，就得知道现在几点鐘。

人类的日常生活作息逐渐与日升日落脱鉤（今日脱鉤的速度更形剧烈），同时也与宗教的作息背道而驰。以往，鐘楼的鐘声是在召唤上帝的子民祈祷，所谓的三钟经（Angelus），早、午、晚各一次，由是标示出了用餐的时刻，分别是第一次颂祷之前，和最后一次颂祷之后，确切的时间当然也因日出日落的时辰而有所变动。十九世纪，先是在欧洲的城市地区，然后慢慢普及各地，上班的起迄时间，和用餐的休息时间开始建立在一个比较属於人为制定，且近乎俗世的时间表上。套用历史学家杰克‧勒高夫（Jacques le Goff）着名文章的篇名，商贾时间大胜教堂时间。

- Christian Grataloup，《百年早餐史：现代人最重要的晨间革命，

可可、咖啡与糖霜编织而成的芬芳记忆》，2018.

虚拟货币的是与非

所谓货币，其实就是一个机构（更多的时候是政府）的信誉，货币之所以能够被市场认可，是因为有政府的背书在里面。而纸币的出现，就是这种政府信誉背书的演化，政府承诺纸币是能够兑换成等价金银的，只有这样人们才会认可纸币，但如果政府不进行信誉背书，读者可以想一想，你用一张钞票用纸和几克特种墨水，拿到市场上能当100元花吗？
 
这也就是为什么政府能够发行货币，美联储能够发行货币，但你我不能发行货币。这也是为什么美元在全世界能够通行，但津巴布韦的钱却被人当作废纸，因为前者有强大的信誉而后者没有。
 
2009年，一个名为“中本聪”的人在互联网上提出了比特币的概念，根据他的思路，比特币可以成为未来的货币，开发方式是不依靠特定货币机构发行，它依据特定算法，通过大量的计算产生，并使用密码学的设计来确保货币流通各个环节的安全性。
 
比特币一经出现，立即在网络世界引起了轰动，很多热衷于网络致富的人迅速投身其中，因为比特币人人都可以制造，没有身份、信誉和技术门槛，因此一时间非常流行，但发展至今，也引发了一系列的问题和讨论。
 
互联网时代带来了新的技术，让我们生活丰富多彩的同时，也开启了另一个世界——网络虚拟世界。虚拟世界的出现，让虚拟货币也随之产生。
  

虚拟世界中的虚拟货币

 
接触网络的人大多听说过虚拟货币，如我们经常接触到的百度公司的百度币，新浪公司的微币，腾讯公司的Q币、Q点等，这些都是看不见摸不着，却能够用来在特定场景交易的一种虚拟的货币。在这些种类繁多的虚拟货币中，我们最为熟悉的应该是Q币了。当年，腾讯正是因为推出了QQ才得以在互联网行业风生水起，时至今日，QQ已经成为很多人网络生活中不可或缺的一部分。
 
对于数千万的年轻网友来说，在他们的眼中，Q币只不过就是一个能够让他们“眼前一亮”的东西。因为新鲜，所以他们才会对其感兴趣。打开电脑，登录QQ进入虚拟的网络世界，只要你有Q币，你就能够到这个虚拟的世界去消费。但问题在于，这个Q币能够成为真实的货币吗？说Q币是货币，它却不能在现实生活中存活；说它不是货币，它却具有货币的属性。说它是商品，可是它又不能吃不能穿，不具有实用性。正是因为如此，Q币成为了一个受人关注的“四不像”。
 
更重要的是，Q币的价值只有一家公司在为它背书，我们使用Q币，都是因为相信腾讯公司。但问题在于，腾讯毕竟只是一家公司而已。就像一位教授说的那样：“我今天使用1元人民币的现金购买了腾讯公司的1个Q币，明天腾讯公司又产生了数万亿的Q币来套现，那么我肯定不会做这样的储值。”
 
Q币还仅仅是虚拟世界中的虚拟货币，但比特币则更加疯狂。比特币在诞生之初只是为了对抗现有货币体系的网络工具，但是随着近几年的飞速发展已经逐渐成为一种投资甚至是投机的工具。
 

 比特币的价值何在？

 
很多人笃定比特币必将取代传统货币，因此毅然决然地投入到比特币潮流中，为此不惜花光现实货币，而成为比特币世界的富翁，但问题还是一样，比特币有信誉背书吗？时至今日，世界上有信誉的国家或经济体，还没有一家出来为比特币背书，而据笔者看来，在未来也不会有人这样做。那么，比特币的价值何在呢？
 
对于比特币的疯狂发展，如果它的购买者是真正喜欢这个产品，觉得这个产品有使用功能，那么这就是一个正常的产品。如果投资者或者是购买者的目的并不是使用，而是要把这个产品在短期内以更高的价格卖给下一个受骗者，这就是典型的庞氏骗局。
 
其实虚拟的货币始终都是虚拟的，就连现实中的货币都难以抵抗金融危机的打击，更何况是本来就不存在的虚拟货币呢？所以，对于玩家来说，这些虚拟货币就只能用来玩乐，想要依靠虚拟货币来赚取现实生活中的财富，那么一旦这个风险泡沫破裂，它也就如废纸一张了。

 

——汪继红，《恶补金融学的第一本书》，2018年。 

 

可怕的“稀缺头脑模式”

在长期资源（钱、时间、有效信息）匮乏的状态下，人们对这些稀缺资源的追逐，已经垄断了这些人的注意力，以至于忽视了更重要更有价值的因素，造成心理的焦虑和资源管理困难。也就是说，当你特别穷或特别没时间的时候，你的智力和判断力都会全面下降，导致进一步失败。
  
长期的资源稀缺培养出了“稀缺头脑模式”，导致失去决策所需的心力——穆来纳森称之为“带宽”（bandwidth）。一个穷人，为了满足生活所需，不得不精打细算，没有任何“带宽”来考虑投资和发展事宜；一个过度忙碌的人，为了赶截止日期，不得不被看上去最紧急的任务拖累，而没有“带宽”去安排更长远的发展。
  
穷人不是不努力，而是因为长期贫穷，失去了摆脱贫穷的智力和判断力，这种状况不变，再努力也是白费；而如果仅是简单地分钱给穷人，穷人的“稀缺头脑模式”也会导致无法利用好这些福利来脱贫。所以一个合理的社会流动方式应当是，建立最基本的社会安全体系，同时保有社会竞争上升通道，资源入口向全社会开放，使得个人能保持正常思维，有尊严地奋斗。

——钱伯鑫，《赚钱的逻辑》，2018.

病痛中的祷告

…...我不能单从这个病来论断我的生命，或不能单单通过这个病来察看我生命。对，我患了末期病，不过我仍然是个丈夫、父亲、祖父和牧者。而且，在处理这个病的过程中，我不经意放弃了这些角色。这是我重拾它们的时候。现在我祈祷，“神啊，提醒我，有其他东西比这个病更重要。
 
有些人以为平安就是没有冲突和争斗。其他人认为平安是没有没有烦恼和困难。不过，这并非圣经中平安的概念。平安是与神、与其他人及与你自己的整全状态(wholeness)。它是在这一刻成为神希望你处于的状态。你可以在冲突中有平安，你可以在烦恼中有平安。面对末期病的时候，你可以有平安。如可可以？单单祈求神赐给你。当中有着我不能解释的奥秘，就是神确实会在苦难中赐予平安。神的脸转向我们，平安便会临到。而我知道就算我在苦难中，神的脸也向着我，我为此感恩。
 
患病、疾病和健康是生命周期的所有部分，这些是我们每一个会面对的事情。生命不总是常常美好，生命也不总是常常糟糕。生命是好与坏、疾病与健康、笑与哭的混合。那么，我学了什么？在生命美好时，感谢神。在生命糟糕时，求神帮助你。在患病时，祈求医治。在健康时，为此感谢神。
 
我每天学习在身处的景况中感恩。我有很多事情要谢恩。因为我平常是颇悲观的，所以对我来说，学习谢恩更是无比重要。我常常集中看事情有多坏，而忽略事情有多好。我正尝试更加集中看事情好的一面，并为此谢恩。
 
选择生命是每天作选择去改善生活，而不是垂死。 

 - Edward G. Dobson, Prayers & Promises: When Facing a Life-Threatening Illness

三个孩子

 很久以前，有三对夫妇，他们在同一天结婚，也都在同一天向上帝祈祷：“伟大的上帝啊，请您赐给我们一个孩子，赐给他聪明、勇敢、爱心和健康。”第二年，三对夫妇如愿以偿，都生下了一个小宝宝。他们从此开始了快乐而忙碌的生活。

二十年过去了，这三对夫妇又来到了教堂向上帝祈祷。第一对说：“上帝啊，您为什么要这样惩罚我们？我们的孩子变成了一个残忍暴虐的人。”第二对也走上前说：“上帝啊，求您救救我们的孩子吧，他变成了一个自私、懒惰的人，我们不知道他将来能够靠什么养活自己。”轮到最后一对夫妇祈祷，他们却欣慰地说：“万能的上帝啊，感谢您给我们送来了这样一个好孩子，他热情开朗又充满爱心，他是我们生活快乐的源泉。”

这时候，教堂的穹顶上亮起一道光，洪亮的声音从光中传出：“我的子民啊，二十年前，我应你们的要求把三个孩子交给你们。正如你们当时所见，他们一样的聪明可爱，各有各的特长，每个人的潜能都足以使他们成为社会的栋梁。但是后来呢，你们之中的人，有的悉心去培养孩子，像照料一粒麦种；有的却忘记了孩子的教育，像丢弃一棵幼苗，任其疯狂生长，甚至走上歧途。那些悉心照料和培育孩子的父母，并不全是富有或有权势的，有的甚至屡遭厄运，但他们的信心和耐心使他们得到了应有的回报。而有的父母尽管富有，却早早地在教育上抛弃了自己的孩子，直至今天自吞苦果。我的子民啊，难道你们还不明白吗？”