Menu

62 Sermon Illustrations on Fulfillment

62 illustrations Page 2 of 2

Fulfillment in Christian preaching often explores the tension between earthly desires and true spiritual satisfaction, emphasizing that ultimate contentment comes from God rather than worldly pleasures (Psalm 16:11, Philippians 4:11-13). Illustrations commonly use images of longing, emptiness, and the search for meaning to reveal how faith transforms unfulfilled hearts into ones at rest in Christ.

Happynomics: How Happy Are You?

John 13:17

Starting in April, Britain’s Office for National Statistics will begin asking subjects the following questions: How happy did you feel yesterday? How anxious did you feel yesterday? How satisfied are you with your life nowadays? To what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? People will be asked to respond on a scale of one to ten.

As Roger Cohen notes in The New York Times, “now that most people have enough -- or far more than enough by the standards of human history” -- it’s time to start measuring “what’s going on inside their heads.” It’s an interesting idea, because research indicates the truth of that old saw, “money can’t buy happiness.”

I’ll be intrigued to see what policy prescriptions the British government comes up with if it finds people are not happy enough. Will it urge them to go out and smell the roses, get more sleep or get a dog?

If people refuse to do these things, will the government force them to -- for their own good? I’m reminded of the phrase commonly photocopied and placed on office bulletin boards: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

Humor aside, I think the Brits are onto something. Life is indeed much more than a sum total of the economic data we look at every month.

Even so, the government really is missing the point. The “happiness” questions they’re asking go beyond the material world, which is great. But they all rest on a wrong-headed premise: that we can measure happiness by subjective feelings. That’s only partly true.

The larger truth is that happiness is not the pursuit of thrills or gratification of sensual desires. It is, instead, the pursuit of virtue.

America’s founders recognized this: When they talked about “the pursuit of happiness,” they didn’t mean going out and having a good time at the local pub. They were relying on the Greek teaching that happiness was a life of virtue.

If the Brits really want to measure happiness, they should be asking such questions as “Did you act honorably yesterday?” “Are you living a life of integrity?” “Do you help your neighbors?” “Were you faithful to your spouse?” “Did you take care of your family?”

If we live our life this way, we will experience happiness on a much deeper level, and I know this from personal experience. There are plenty of days when I feel miserable -- like in 2008, when the stock market crashed and I lost a big chunk of my retirement plan. And yet, when I go into a prison and see men come to Christ, I feel like a million dollars.

If the Brits define happiness as a mood, they will be missing the point. Moods are an unreliable measure of happiness. But if you spend your life doing things, and behaving in ways that are objectively good, then no matter how bad a day you have now and then, you will find happiness at a deep and satisfying level.

I hope that when the British government begins asking people how happy they are, the church will step in with a reminder of the real and enduring source of happiness: Faith in Christ.

As the Lord Himself said in the Gospel of John: “For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you...If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.”

________

Copyright (c) 2011 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #27620]

"Does Your Job Matter? "

God sees our job as an important part of His work on earth.

1. God is a worker.

2. God created people to be his coworkers.

a. Through work we love people by serving them.

b. Through work we meet our own needs and those of our family.

c. Through work we earn money to give to others.

d. Through work we love God.

from Discipleship Journal · Doug Sherman & William Hendricks via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database fulfillmentgenerosity

Too Close For Comfort

1 Corinthians 7:33

Ever since the Census Bureau released figures last month showing that married-couple households are now a minority, my phone has been ringing off the hook with calls from people asking: “How can we save marriage? How can we make Americans understand that marriage is the most significant emotional connection they will ever make, the one place to find social support and personal fulfillment?”

I think these are the wrong questions -- indeed, such questions would have been almost unimaginable through most of history. It has only been in the last century that Americans have put all their emotional eggs in the basket of coupled love. Because of this change, many of us have found joys in marriage our great-great-grandparents never did. But we have also neglected our other relationships, placing too many burdens on a fragile institution and making social life poorer in the process.

A study released this year showed just how dependent we’ve become on marriage. Three sociologists at the University of Arizona and Duke University found that from 1985 to 2004 Americans reported a marked decline in the number of people with whom they discussed meaningful matters. People reported fewer close relationships with co-workers, extended family members, neighbors and friends. The only close relationship where more people said they discussed important matters in 2004 than in 1985 was marriage.

In fact, the number of people who depended totally on a spouse for important conversations, with no other person to turn to, almost doubled, to 9.4 percent from 5 percent. Not surprisingly, the number of people saying they didn’t have anyone in whom they confided nearly tripled.

The solution to this isolation is not to ramp up our emotional dependence on marriage. Until 100 years ago, most societies agreed that it was dangerously antisocial, even pathologically self-absorbed, to elevate marital affection and nuclear-family ties above commitments to neighbors, extended kin, civic duty and religion.

St. Paul complained that married men were more concerned with pleasing their wives than pleasing God [1 Corinthians 7:33]. In John Adams’s view, a “passion for the public good” was “superior to all private passions.” In both England and America, moralists bewailed “excessive” married love, which encouraged “men and women to be always taken up with each other.”

From medieval days until the early 19th century, diaries and letters more often used the word love to refer to neighbors, cousins and fellow church members than to spouses. When honeymoons first gained favor in the 19th century, couples often took along relatives or friends for company. Victorian novels and diaries were as passionate about brother-sister relationships and same-sex friendships as about marital ties.

The Victorian refusal to acknowledge strong sexual desires among respectable men and women gave people a wider outlet for intense emotions, including physical touch, than we see today. Men wrote matter-of-factly about retiring to bed with a male roommate, “and in each other’s arms did friendship sink peacefully to sleep.” Upright Victorian matrons thought nothing of kicking their husbands out of bed when a female friend came to visit. They spent the night kissing, hugging and pouring out their innermost thoughts.

By the early 20th century, though, the sea change in the culture wrought by the industrial economy had loosened social obligations to neighbors and kin, giving rise to the idea that individuals could meet their deepest needs only through romantic love, culminating in marriage. Under the influence of Freudianism, society began to view intense same-sex ties with suspicion and people were urged to reject the emotional claims of friends and relatives who might compete with a spouse for time and affection.

The insistence that marriage and parenthood could satisfy all an individual’s needs reached a peak in the cult of “togetherness” among middle-class suburban Americans in the 1950s. Women were told that marriage and motherhood offered them complete fulfillment. Men were encouraged to let their wives take care of their social lives.

But many men and women found these prescriptions stifling. Women who entered the work force in the 1960s joyfully rediscovered social contacts and friendships outside the home.

“It was so stimulating to have real conversations with other people,” a woman who lived through this period told me, “to go out after work with friends from the office or to have people over other than my husband’s boss or our parents.”

And women’s lead in overturning the cult of 1950s marriage inspired many men to rediscover what earlier generations of men had taken for granted -- that men need deep emotional connections with other men, not just their wives. Researchers soon found that men and women with confidants beyond the nuclear family were mentally and physically healthier than people who relied on just one other individual for emotional intimacy and support.

So why do we seem to be slipping back in this regard? It is not because most people have voluntarily embraced nuclear-family isolation. Indeed, the spread of “virtual” communities on the Internet speaks to a deep hunger to reach out to others.

Instead, it’s the expansion of the post-industrial economy that seems to be driving us back to a new dependence on marriage. According to the researchers Kathleen Gerson and Jerry Jacobs, 60 percent of American married couples have both partners in the work force, up from 36 percent in 1970, and the average two-earner couple now works 82 hours a week.

This is probably why the time Americans spend socializing with others off the job has declined by almost 25 percent since 1965. Their free hours are spent with spouses, and as a study by Suzanne Bianchi of the University of Maryland released last month showed, with their children -- mothers and fathers today spend even more time with their youngsters than parents did 40 years ago.

As Americans lose the wider face-to-face ties that build social trust, they become more dependent on romantic relationships for intimacy and deep communication, and more vulnerable to isolation if a relationship breaks down. In some cases we even cause the breakdown by loading the relationship with too many expectations. Marriage is generally based on more equality and deeper friendship than in the past, but even so, it is hard for it to compensate for the way that work has devoured time once spent cultivating friendships.

The solution is not to revive the failed marital experiment of the 1950s, as so many commentators noting the decline in married-couple households seem to want. Nor is it to lower our expectations that we’ll find fulfillment and friendship in marriage.

Instead, we should raise our expectations for, and commitment to, other relationships, especially since so many people now live so much of their lives outside marriage. Paradoxically, we can strengthen our marriages the most by not expecting them to be our sole refuge from the pressures of the modern work force. Instead we need to restructure both work and social life so we can reach out and build ties with others, including people who are single or divorced. That indeed would be a return to marital tradition -- not the 1950s model, but the pre-20th-century model that has a much more enduring pedigree.

________

Stephanie Coontz, a history professor at Evergreen State College, is the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.”

Inflated Expectations: How Not To Treat Your Spouse

In a 1999 film titled “Music of the Heart,” a character named Roberta begins a relationship with a man named Brian. At one point, Roberta — whose husband had left her — asked Brian a question: If you ever met a woman who fulfils your needs better than I can, would you leave me for her?”

Brian’s answer: “Theoretically, yes.”

June is the traditional month for weddings, and in my view, every engaged couple ought to watch this film, and discuss it with marriage advisors in their church. As Robin Phillips notes in a BreakPoint article titled Generous Love, it’s all-too-common today for brides and grooms to seek to have all their needs met in the person they are about to marry.

Certainly, marriage does satisfy many of our needs, Phillips writes, but “at best it does so partially and imperfectly. At some point, our marriage partners will always let us down.”

Are we wrong to seek personal fulfillment in our spouses? Of course not. The problem is that, in expecting our marriage partner to meet all our needs, we are seeking fulfillment in the wrong place. No mere human can possibly meet all our needs. Only God can do that.

Phillips quotes Augustine, who said in his Confessions, “Seek what you seek but not where you seek it.” Interestingly enough, the Bishop of London made the same point in his outstanding homily during the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.

As the bishop noted, “As the reality of God has faded from so many lives in the West, there has been a corresponding inflation of expectations that personal relations alone will supply meaning and happiness in life. This,” the bishop said, “is to load our partner with too great a burden.”

He’s right.

And when we do this, it’s not surprising that we are often tempted to move on to someone else whom we think can do a better job of meeting our needs. This is why we must ground both our lives and our marriages in Christ. When we do this, “a deeper type of love can kick in,” Phillips writes -- a “generous love rooted in the other-centeredness of Christ.”

Again, quoting the Bishop of London’s marriage homily: “Faithful and committed relationships offer a door into the mystery of spiritual life in which we discover this; the more we give of self, the richer we become in soul; the more we go beyond ourselves in love, the more we become our true selves...In marriage we are seeking to bring one another into fuller life.”

Are you on the verge of getting married? What are your expectations of your spouse?

To dig deeper into issues like these, I highly recommend that you undergo the kind of marital preparation recommended by Marriage Savers, a ministry created by my friend Mike McManus.

________

Copyright (c) 2011 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Somebody Else Is Running the Show

The August 1996 edition of Senior Magazine carried an interview with an actress by the name of Loretta Young. In the article, Young offered an honest appraisal of her life. She spoke of the mistakes she had made, of her “boo-boos” as she called them. Through many a hard knock, she was forced to sort out the priorities of her life and admits that she finally came to the conclusion that the only wellspring of happiness in life comes from God. Not fame, not success, not glamour or material wealth.

“If you’re wise,” she said, “you’ll realize that Somebody Else is running the show and that Somebody Else is smarter than you are.”

Through many a winding turn in her life, this star of television and more than 100 movies, found herself returning home ANOTHER WAY and it’s a good thing she did. For on August 12, 2000, thanks to her faith in Christ Jesus, she returned home to her Heavenly Father.

*

from Sermon #16688 by Rev. Lee Griess via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database fulfillmentfamesuccess

This Is Your Life

Galatians 2:20

Who of us has not succumbed to the mistaken notion that our real life has not yet begun? We wouldn't say so out loud, but the belief works its way into our thought lives. We find ourselves thinking, “If I can just finish school....” “If I could just find someone to love me....” “When I get married....” “Once we have kids....” “When we finally get out of debt....” “If I could only get a promotion....” Although we may not finish these sentences, the implied ending is that once we enter that desired phase of life, we will be happy; our real life will begin.

This kind of thinking reminds me of playing in the ocean as children. Whenever we decided to “ride” a wave into the shore, we'd look for a great big one that would take us the whole way. As we watched the oncoming waves, the ones that looked big and promising would diminish a bit before they reached us. But there was always one following right behind that looked large and powerful, so we'd wait for it. This could go one for hours as we waited for “just one more wave” that would be as big and fast as it looked from far away. We're just the same as adults, looking ahead to the next phase as the one that will finally live up to its promise.

The Scriptures give us a clear answer to the question of when our real lives start. Paul writes, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20). “For me, to live is Christ,” he says in Philippians 1:21, and he is echoing the teachings of Jesus, who proclaimed, “I AM the resurrection and the life.” Our real life begins when we begin to live in Christ and he in us. It doesn't have anything to do with the American dream or an academic degree or finding a soul mate.

Of course, there is the possibility that your real life really hasn't begun yet, if you haven't yet begun to live in Christ. If there's been a nagging realization in the back of your mind that all the things you thought would bring fulfillment haven't quite been enough, or maybe they haven't lasted, maybe you haven't met the right person yet. Jesus made claims that no ordinary human being in his right mind would make, to satisfy needs that no ordinary human could. You don't have to climb one more rung on the ladder to meet him. Whether you've never reached for the life he offers or you've tasted it once and hunger for more, he stands before you, ready to take your hand.

________

Copyright © 2005 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

Freud's Children: the A P a and Same-sex 'Marriage'

The primary mission of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is to “promote the highest quality care for individuals with mental disorders ... and their families.” To that end, it provides its nearly 36,000 members with continuing education on the latest treatments. It also represents the interests of psychiatrists before the various federal and state agencies that might affect their practice.

This is what you would expect from a professional organization. What you wouldn't expect is for doctors to recast one of the most important moral and cultural issues of our time as a medical issue. But that's what has happened.

At the recently concluded APA meeting in Atlanta, delegates approved a statement calling for the legal recognition of same-sex “marriage.” The measure is expected to be approved by the Association's directors in July.

The measure, which passed on a voice vote, didn't stop at the usual argument: “Gay men and lesbians are full human beings who should be afforded the same human and civil rights.” After all, you hear that argument every day.

Instead, they spun legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” into a health issue. They called same-sex “marriage” a way of “maintaining and promoting mental health,” because of the “positive influence of a stable, adult partnership on the health of all family members.”

That being the case, I await the APA's taking a stand against cohabitation and no-fault divorce. After all, the ill effects of these things on both children and adults are well documented. If marriage is the best way to create “stable, adult partnerships” for homosexual couples, it should also be prescribed for heterosexual ones.

Something tells me that I'll be waiting a long time. To state the obvious, the APA isn't being driven by medicine but by ideology and politics. And to understand the politics involved, we need to understand the worldview of the father of modern psychiatry, Sigmund Freud.

Armand Nicholi tells us in his great book The Question of God that for Freud, what people call “happiness” is the result of a sudden satisfaction of those sexual needs that have been bottled up. Likewise, a failure to satisfy those needs can lead to unhappiness. For Freud, cultural restrictions that limit an individual's pursuit of sexual pleasure are “repression,” and they're to be opposed.

In contrast, C. S. Lewis, whose worldview Nicholi compares with Freud's, spoke of what he called “suppression,” the conscious effort to control our desires and impulses. We suppress our desires, not because they're necessarily bad, but because something more important is at stake. That's a good thing.

What happened in Atlanta clearly illustrates the difference between these two worldviews. The heirs of Freud are seeking to maximize sexual fulfillment and personal autonomy. Little thought is given to whether something might be more important than those things — in this case, raising a generation of children that's as healthy as possible. The APA's decision will affect what is taught in schools about homosexuality and same-sex relationships — and it will be to the detriment of our kids. The APA decision sides with the high-profile few — and lets the faceless many, including our kids, fend for themselves. That's medicine?

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database happinessfulfillment

Finding Happiness

John 10:10

Someone has said that the “pursuit of happiness” is our national pastime. Everybody in the world wants happiness in life, but this especially true for us Americans. In our Declaration of Independence, we're promised “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

You can see this when you watch commercials on TV. We're encouraged to buy products and services not simply because they will fulfill a particular need, but because they will satisfy our ultimate desire -- the desire to be happy. Buy a new Toyota Camry, and you'll be happy. Take a Vacation to Mexico, and sit in the sun, and you'll be happy. Go on Ultra Slim Fast and lose 10 pounds, and you'll be happy.

But will we really? Or will we just be thinner, tanner, unhappy people, who happen to be driving around in a new car? So many of the things we do to find happiness are ultimately unsatisfying. They give us moments of satisfaction, temporary relief, but they don't deliver the happiness that we thought we'd get.

In New York City, there are 8 million cats, and 11 million dogs. Lots of pets. And since the city is basically just concrete and steel, what does a person do when their pet dies? It's not like you can go bury it in the back yard. The city authorities step in at this point, and they will - for a fee - dispose of your deceased pet for you. Now at the time of this story, they were charging $50 for this service.

An enterprising woman came up with a plan. She thought, “I can render a service to people in the city and save them money.” She ran an ad in the newspaper that said, “If your pet dies, I will come and dispose of it for you for $25.” Here's how she did it:

When she got a call to pick up a pet, she'd make a stop at the local thrift shop, and pick up an old suitcase for $2. Then she'd go to the person's home who'd called her, and put the deceased pet in the suitcase. Then she would take ride on the subway.

Now things have changed somewhat today, but there used to be lots of thieves working the Subways in New York. She'd set the suitcase down next to her and pretend to not be paying attention to it. It wouldn't be long before a thief would come by and steal the suitcase. She'd look up and say, “Stop ... thief.”

My guess is that the people who stole her suitcase got a real surprise when they got home and opened it up. Not quite what they expected!

That's what happens for lot of us when we go after happiness. We grab what we think will give us happiness; yet when we get it, it doesn't quite deliver.

The Bible promises that knowing God, and following God's guidance will lead to ultimate happiness in this life, as well as life in the hereafter. I recently studied Psalm 1, in preparation for a message I gave at our church, and was surprised at how clearly we're promised fulfillment in this life - not just hope for heaven after this life is over. The psalmist says is that following God's ways will lead to a “blessed,” fruitful, and fulfilling life. Jesus said in John 10:10, “I have come that you might have life, and life to the full.”

Of course there are no promises of freedom from suffering and frustrations in life. The promise of happiness is based on a long-term view that focuses more on fruitfulness and fulfillment than the life of ease that we often associate with happiness. This idea is brought into sharper focus when you compare the life of devout belief with its alternative. Both Psalm 1 and John 10:10 establish contrasts. Psalm 1 is about the contrast between the way of the righteous person and the way of the unrighteous. John 10:10 is about the contrast between Jesus' agenda and Satan's (called “the thief” in this verse). One way brings fulfillment and life, the other futility and death.

After seeing the results of the pursuit of happiness apart from God, it seems like an easy decision to me. Every week I encounter people who are coming back to the church after trying to “do life” and find happiness on their own terms. Such a life never seems to deliver on its promise of freedom and happiness. The really happy person is the one who loves God, and follows God's ways.

*

Happynomics: How Happy Are You?

John 13:17

Starting in April, Britain’s Office for National Statistics will begin asking subjects the following questions: How happy did you feel yesterday? How anxious did you feel yesterday? How satisfied are you with your life nowadays? To what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? People will be asked to respond on a scale of one to ten.

As Roger Cohen notes in The New York Times, “now that most people have enough -- or far more than enough by the standards of human history” -- it’s time to start measuring “what’s going on inside their heads.” It’s an interesting idea, because research indicates the truth of that old saw, “money can’t buy happiness.”

I’ll be intrigued to see what policy prescriptions the British government comes up with if it finds people are not happy enough. Will it urge them to go out and smell the roses, get more sleep or get a dog?

If people refuse to do these things, will the government force them to -- for their own good? I’m reminded of the phrase commonly photocopied and placed on office bulletin boards: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

Humor aside, I think the Brits are onto something. Life is indeed much more than a sum total of the economic data we look at every month.

Even so, the government really is missing the point. The “happiness” questions they’re asking go beyond the material world, which is great. But they all rest on a wrong-headed premise: that we can measure happiness by subjective feelings. That’s only partly true.

The larger truth is that happiness is not the pursuit of thrills or gratification of sensual desires. It is, instead, the pursuit of virtue.

America’s founders recognized this: When they talked about “the pursuit of happiness,” they didn’t mean going out and having a good time at the local pub. They were relying on the Greek teaching that happiness was a life of virtue.

If the Brits really want to measure happiness, they should be asking such questions as “Did you act honorably yesterday?” “Are you living a life of integrity?” “Do you help your neighbors?” “Were you faithful to your spouse?” “Did you take care of your family?”

If we live our life this way, we will experience happiness on a much deeper level, and I know this from personal experience. There are plenty of days when I feel miserable -- like in 2008, when the stock market crashed and I lost a big chunk of my retirement plan. And yet, when I go into a prison and see men come to Christ, I feel like a million dollars.

If the Brits define happiness as a mood, they will be missing the point. Moods are an unreliable measure of happiness. But if you spend your life doing things, and behaving in ways that are objectively good, then no matter how bad a day you have now and then, you will find happiness at a deep and satisfying level.

I hope that when the British government begins asking people how happy they are, the church will step in with a reminder of the real and enduring source of happiness: Faith in Christ.

As the Lord Himself said in the Gospel of John: “For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you...If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.”

________

Copyright (c) 2011 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #27620]

A Psychiatrist Who Survived the Holocaust Explains Why Meaningfulness Matters More Than Happiness

Mark 7:10

“It is the very pursuit of happiness that thwarts happiness.”

In September 1942, Viktor Frankl, a prominent Jewish psychiatrist and neurologist in Vienna, was arrested and transported to a Nazi concentration camp with his wife and parents.

Three years later, when his camp was liberated, most of his family, including his pregnant wife, had perished -- but he, prisoner number 119104, had lived. In his bestselling 1946 book, Man’s Search for Meaning, which he wrote in nine days about his experiences in the camps, Frankl concluded that the difference between those who had lived and those who had died came down to one thing: Meaning, an insight he came to early in life. When he was a high school student, one of his science teachers declared to the class, “Life is nothing more than a combustion process, a process of oxidation.” Frankl jumped out of his chair and responded, “Sir, if this is so, then what can be the meaning of life?”

As he saw in the camps, those who found meaning even in the most horrendous circumstances were far more resilient to suffering than those who did not. “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing,” Frankl wrote in Man’s Search for Meaning, “the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

Frankl worked as a therapist in the camps, and in his book, he gives the example of two suicidal inmates he encountered there. Like many others in the camps, these two men were hopeless and thought that there was nothing more to expect from life, nothing to live for. “In both cases,” Frankl writes, “it was a question of getting them to realize that life was still expecting something from them; something in the future was expected of them.” For one man, it was his young child, who was then living in a foreign country. For the other, a scientist, it was a series of books that he needed to finish. Frankl writes:

This uniqueness and singleness which distinguishes each individual and gives a meaning to his existence has a bearing on creative work as much as it does on human love. When the impossibility of replacing a person is realized, it allows the responsibility which a man has for his existence and its continuance to appear in all its magnitude. A man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears toward a human being who affectionately waits for him, or to an unfinished work, will never be able to throw away his life. He knows the “why” for his existence, and will be able to bear almost any “how.”

In 1991, the Library of Congress and Book-of-the-Month Club listed Man’s Search for Meaning as one of the 10 most influential books in the United States. It has sold millions of copies worldwide. Now, over twenty years later, the book’s ethos -- its emphasis on meaning, the value of suffering, and responsibility to something greater than the self -- seems to be at odds with our culture, which is more interested in the pursuit of individual happiness than in the search for meaning. “To the European,” Frankl wrote, “it is a characteristic of the American culture that, again and again, one is commanded and ordered to ‘be happy.’ But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason to ‘be happy.’”

According to Gallup, the happiness levels of Americans are at a four-year high -- as is, it seems, the number of best-selling books with the word “happiness” in their titles. At this writing, Gallup also reports that nearly 60 percent all Americans today feel happy, without a lot of stress or worry. On the other hand, according to the Center for Disease Control, about 4 out of 10 Americans have not discovered a satisfying life purpose. Forty percent either do not think their lives have a clear sense of purpose or are neutral about whether their lives have purpose. Nearly a quarter of Americans feel neutral or do not have a strong sense of what makes their lives meaningful. Research has shown that having purpose and meaning in life increases overall well-being and life satisfaction, improves mental and physical health, enhances resiliency, enhances self-esteem, and decreases the chances of depression. On top of that, the single-minded pursuit of happiness is ironically leaving people less happy, according to recent research. “It is the very pursuit of happiness,” Frankl knew, “that thwarts happiness.”

***

This is why some researchers are cautioning against the pursuit of mere happiness. In a new study, which will be published this year in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Positive Psychology, psychological scientists asked nearly 400 Americans aged 18 to 78 whether they thought their lives were meaningful and/or happy. Examining their self-reported attitudes toward meaning, happiness, and many other variables -- like stress levels, spending patterns, and having children -- over a month-long period, the researchers found that a meaningful life and happy life overlap in certain ways, but are ultimately very different. Leading a happy life, the psychologists found, is associated with being a “taker” while leading a meaningful life corresponds with being a “giver.”

“Happiness without meaning characterizes a relatively shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life, in which things go well, needs and desire are easily satisfied, and difficult or taxing entanglements are avoided,” the authors write.

How do the happy life and the meaningful life differ? Happiness, they found, is about feeling good. Specifically, the researchers found that people who are happy tend to think that life is easy, they are in good physical health, and they are able to buy the things that they need and want. While not having enough money decreases how happy and meaningful you consider your life to be, it has a much greater impact on happiness. The happy life is also defined by a lack of stress or worry.

Most importantly from a social perspective, the pursuit of happiness is associated with selfish behavior — being, as mentioned, a “taker” rather than a “giver.”

The psychologists give an evolutionary explanation for this: happiness is about drive reduction. If you have a need or a desire -- like hunger -- you satisfy it, and that makes you happy. People become happy, in other words, when they get what they want. Humans, then, are not the only ones who can feel happy. Animals have needs and drives, too, and when those drives are satisfied, animals also feel happy, the researchers point out.

“Happy people get a lot of joy from receiving benefits from others while people leading meaningful lives get a lot of joy from giving to others,” explained Kathleen Vohs, one of the authors of the study, in a recent presentation at the University of Pennsylvania. In other words, meaning transcends the self while happiness is all about giving the self what it wants. People who have high meaning in their lives are more likely to help others in need. “If anything, pure happiness is linked to not helping others in need,” the researchers, which include Stanford University’s Jennifer Aaker and Emily Garbinsky, write.

What sets human beings apart from animals is not the pursuit of happiness, which occurs all across the natural world, but the pursuit of meaning, which is unique to humans, according to Roy Baumeister, the lead researcher of the study and author, with John Tierney, of the recent book Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength. Baumeister, a social psychologists at Florida State University, was named an ISI highly cited scientific researcher in 2003.

The study participants reported deriving meaning from giving a part of themselves away to others and making a sacrifice on behalf of the overall group. In the words of Martin E. P. Seligman, one of the leading psychological scientists alive today, in the meaningful life “you use your highest strengths and talents to belong to and serve something you believe is larger than the self.” For instance, having more meaning in one’s life was associated with activities like buying presents for others, taking care of kids, and arguing. People whose lives have high levels of meaning often actively seek meaning out even when they know it will come at the expense of happiness. Because they have invested themselves in something bigger than themselves, they also worry more and have higher levels of stress and anxiety in their lives than happy people. Having children, for example, is associated with the meaningful life and requires self-sacrifice, but it has been famously associated with low happiness among parents, including the ones in this study. In fact, according to Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert, research shows that parents are less happy interacting with their children than they are exercising, eating, and watching television.

“Partly what we do as human beings is to take care of others and contribute to others. This makes life meaningful but it does not necessarily make us happy,” Baumeister told me in an interview.

Meaning is not only about transcending the self, but also about transcending the present moment -- which is perhaps the most important finding of the study, according to the researchers. While happiness is an emotion felt in the here and now, it ultimately fades away, just as all emotions do; positive affect and feelings of pleasure are fleeting. The amount of time people report feeling good or bad correlates with happiness but not at all with meaning.

Meaning, on the other hand, is enduring. It connects the past to the present to the future. “Thinking beyond the present moment, into the past or future, was a sign of the relatively meaningful but unhappy life,” the researchers write. “Happiness is not generally found in contemplating the past or future.” That is, people who thought more about the present were happier, but people who spent more time thinking about the future or about past struggles and sufferings felt more meaning in their lives, though they were less happy.

Having negative events happen to you, the study found, decreases your happiness but increases the amount of meaning you have in life.

Another study from 2011 confirmed this, finding that people who have meaning in their lives, in the form of a clearly defined purpose, rate their satisfaction with life higher even when they were feeling bad than those who did not have a clearly defined purpose. “If there is meaning in life at all,” Frankl wrote, “then there must be meaning in suffering.”

***

Which brings us back to Frankl’s life and, specifically, a decisive experience he had before he was sent to the concentration camps. It was an incident that emphasizes the difference between the pursuit of meaning and the pursuit of happiness in life.

In his early adulthood, before he and his family were taken away to the camps, Frankl had established himself as one of the leading psychiatrists in Vienna and the world. As a 16-year-old boy, for example, he struck up a correspondence with Sigmund Freud and one day sent Freud a two-page paper he had written. Freud, impressed by Frankl’s talent, sent the paper to the International Journal of Psychoanalysis for publication. “I hope you don’t object,” Freud wrote the teenager.

While he was in medical school, Frankl distinguished himself even further. Not only did he establish suicide-prevention centers for teenagers -- a precursor to his work in the camps -- but he was also developing his signature contribution to the field of clinical psychology: logotherapy, which is meant to help people overcome depression and achieve well-being by finding their unique meaning in life. By 1941, his theories had received international attention and he was working as the chief of neurology at Vienna’s Rothschild Hospital, where he risked his life and career by making false diagnoses of mentally ill patients so that they would not, per Nazi orders, be euthanized.

That was the same year when he had a decision to make, a decision that would change his life. With his career on the rise and the threat of the Nazis looming over him, Frankl had applied for a visa to America, which he was granted in 1941. By then, the Nazis had already started rounding up the Jews and taking them away to concentration camps, focusing on the elderly first. Frankl knew that it would only be time before the Nazis came to take his parents away. He also knew that once they did, he had a responsibility to be there with his parents to help them through the trauma of adjusting to camp life. On the other hand, as a newly married man with his visa in hand, he was tempted to leave for America and flee to safety, where he could distinguish himself even further in his field.

As Anna S. Redsand recounts in her biography of Frankl, he was at a loss for what to do, so he set out for St. Stephan’s Cathedral in Vienna to clear his head. Listening to the organ music, he repeatedly asked himself, “Should I leave my parents behind?... Should I say goodbye and leave them to their fate?” Where did his responsibility lie? He was looking for a “hint from heaven.”

When he returned home, he found it. A piece of marble was lying on the table. His father explained that it was from the rubble of one of the nearby synagogues that the Nazis had destroyed. The marble contained the fragment of one of the Ten Commandments -- the one about honoring your father and your mother. With that, Frankl decided to stay in Vienna and forgo whatever opportunities for safety and career advancement awaited him in the United States. He decided to put aside his individual pursuits to serve his family and, later, other inmates in the camps.

The wisdom that Frankl derived from his experiences there, in the middle of unimaginable human suffering, is just as relevant now as it was then: “Being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone, other than oneself -- be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself -- by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love -- the more human he is.”

Baumeister and his colleagues would agree that the pursuit of meaning is what makes human beings uniquely human. By putting aside our selfish interests to serve someone or something larger than ourselves -- by devoting our lives to “giving” rather than “taking” -- we are not only expressing our fundamental humanity, but are also acknowledging that that there is more to the good life than the pursuit of simple happiness.

________

Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/theres-more-to-life-than-being-happy/266805/?single_page=true#ixzz3H4NE45iz

The Brevity of Life

James 4:14

What is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. — James 4:14

As the second millennium was drawing to a close, the publishing industry poured out a flood of books about the end—not just the conclusion of a thousand-year period, but the ending of everything imaginable.

James Gleick has pointed out that analysts of our culture have been prophesying the end of acting, aging, the alphabet, architecture, art, beauty, bureaucracy, capitalism, certainty, Christendom, … well, the list is far too long for us to reproduce here in its entirety. While Gleick doesn’t concern himself with biblical prophecy, he writes that all these publications “suggest a kind of destiny in human affairs, a one-way path toward fulfillment or climax.”

Scripture, of course, has much to say about endings, especially the end of history. Jesus Christ promised to return and bring an end to the present order of things (Matthew 24).

Important as it is to study what the Bible reveals about the endtimes, it’s even more important for us to pray as David did: “Lord, make me to know my end, and what is the measure of my days, that I may know how frail I am” (Psalm 39:4). We are to ask God to give us an understanding of the vapor-like brevity of life. This can motivate us to seek God’s will and to put His interests first (Matthew 6:33). — VCG

Life’s fleeting day will soon be gone

And we will pass away;

So teach us, Lord, to know Your will

That we may choose Your way. — D. De Haan

It’s never too soon to invest in eternity.

from (unknown) · V C G via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database fulfillment

Quotes On the Heart

"One thing that I want to tell you that only a non-doctor can tell you and that is: That the headbone is connected to the heartbone. Don't ever let them come apart."

Alan Alda

Actor

=========================

"Occasionally in life there are those moments of unutterable fulfillment which cannot be completely explained by those symbols called words. Their meanings can only be articulated by the inaudible language of the heart."

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

Civil rights leader

*

from Internet: Bits & Pieces · Editor, Lawrence Ragan via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database fulfillment

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate