Self Sacrifice

Transcript

where some of the ideas came from for my x class uh today um my myself and and my x girl friend sister uh x Vanessa um we've been participating or x or had been participating in a a free x program that's run by some of the Ivy x League schools um where you can x essentially sign up for a for a free x course as a as a auditor so to speak so x you don't get the credit for it um but x you can you can sit in on the classes x and you get the materials and everything x so that's kind of neat so we signed up x for a a Phil a philosophy course on the x um the philosophy of justice and it it x tackled uh elements of of moral x philosophy and it kind of got the wheels x turning a little bit and uh some some of x the ideas here are um they sprung from x from that course that we were sitting in x on and and a couple other resources as x well and then I sort of looked at things x from a Biblical perspective and and uh I x think kind of flushed out some some x pretty interesting things x here so x I am going to I'm going to start with a x story this is a real life story uh that x happened in the summer of x 1884 so in the summer of 1884 four x English Sailors were stranded at Sea in x a small Lifeboat in the South Atlantic x uh South Atlantic about a thousand miles x from land their ship which was called x the Minette had gone down in the storm x and and they had escaped to the Lifeboat x with only two c of preserved turnips and x and no fresh x water Thomas Dudley was the captain x Edwin Stevens the first mate and Edmund x Brooks was a a sailor and they were all x later called uh men of excellent x character the fourth member of the crew x was the cabin boy uh whose name was x Richard Parker and he was 17 years old x and if if any of you have read the uh x the book life of pie you might recognize x that name from uh one of the characters x in that book which was based on this on x this true story uh he was an orphan uh x and on his first long Voyage at Sea he x had signed up against the advice of his x friends in the hopefulness of youthful x ambition thinking that the journey would x make a man of him sadly that was not to x be from the Lifeboat the four stranded x Sailors watched The Horizon hoping a x ship might pass and rescue them for the x first three days they ate small rations x of turnips on the fourth day they caught x a turtle and they subsisted on turtle x and the remaining turnips for the next x few x days then for eight days they ate x absolutely x nothing uh by now Parker the cabin boy x was lying on the in the corner of the x Lifeboat um he had drunk sea seawater x against the advice of the others and he x become ill he appeared to be dying on x the 19th day of their ordeal Dudley the x captain suggested drawing lots to x determine who would die so that the x others might x live uh Brooks refused so they did not x draw x Lots the next day uh still no ship in x sight Dudley told Brooks to avert his x gaze and motioned to Stevens that Parker x would be killed Dudley offered a prayer x told the boy his time had come and then x killed him with a pen x knife Brooks emerged from his x conscientious objection to share in the x gruesome Bounty for four days the three x men fed on the body and blood of the x cabin boy and then they were rescued x Dudley describes their rescue in his x diary with a kind of a staggering x euphemism he says on the 24th day as we x were having our breakfast a ship x appeared at x last the three survivors were picked up x and upon their return to England they x were arrested and tried Brooks turned x States witness Brook was Brooks was the x the one who had Pro protested the the x casting of a lots x initially and uh dud Dudley and Stevens x went to x trial they freely confessed that they x had killed an eaten Parker and they x claimed that they had done so out of x necessity the strongest argument for the x defense is that given the x circumstances it was necessary to kill x one person in order to save three had no x one been killed and eaten all four would x likely have died Parker weakened and Ill x was The Logical candidate since he would x soon have died anyway and unlike deadle x and Stevens he had no dependence his x death deprived no one of support and x left no grieving wife or x children this argument is open to at x least two objections first it can be x asked whether the benefits of killing x the cabin boy taken as a whole really x did outweigh the x costs even counting the number of lives x saved and happiness of the survivors and x their families allowing such a killing x might have bad consequences for society x as a whole for example weakening the x norm against murder or increasing x people's tendency to take the law in x their own hands are making it more x difficult for captains to recruit cabin x boys secondly even if all things x considered the benefits do outweigh the x costs uh don't we have a nagging sense x that killing and eating a defenseless x Cabin Boy is wrong for reasons that go x beyond the calculation of social costs x and x benefits isn't it wrong to use a human x being in this way exploiting his x vulnerability taking his life without x his consent even if doing so benefits x others to anyone appalled by the actions x of Dudley and Stevens the first x objection seems x tepid uh it accepts the assumption that x morality consists in weighing costs and x benefits if the killing of the cabin boy x is worthy of moral outrage the second x objection is more to the point it x rejects the idea that the right thing to x do is simply a matter of calculating x consequences and it suggests rather that x morality means something more something x to do with the proper way for human x beings to treat one x another these two ways of thinking about x the Lifeboat uh this this um historical x case illustrate two rival approaches the x first pro approach says the morality of x an action depends solely on the x consequences it brings about x the right thing to do is whatever will x produce the best State of Affairs all x things x considered the second approach says that x consequences are not the only thing to x care about morally speaking certain x duties and rights should command our x respect for reasons independent of x social x consequence so that little blurb that I x just shared with you was taken from the x moral philosophy course that uh that we x were working x through so I want to hit a a the pause x button on that for for a moment keep x that story in mind we will be circling x back to x it um I want you to hang with me uh for x for a little while here as we explore x some passages that will kind of help to x tie things together so um feel free to x look these up as we go but I'll probably x go through them relatively quickly and x I'll I'll read them out for you um so x it's it's entirely up to you so I'm x going to start with uh Romans x 3 and I'm going to read from 21 to x 26 x so Romans 3 beginning at verse x 21 but now apart from the law the x righteousness of God has been made known x to which the law and the prophets x testify this righteousness is given x through faith in Jesus Christ to all who x believe there is no difference between x Jew and Gentile for all have sinned and x fall short of the glory of God and all x are justified by free excuse me all are x Justified freely by his grace through x the Redemption that came by Christ Jesus x God God presented Christ as a sacrifice x of atonement through the shedding of his x blood to be received by faith he did x this to demonstrate his righteousness x because in his forbearance he had left x the sins committed beforehand unpunished x he did it to demonstrate his x righteousness at the present time so as x to be just and the one who justifies x those who justifies Those Who Have Faith x In x Jesus so Paul writes here about God x putting forth Christ as a sacrifice of x atonement x and Paul could have said something along x the lines of um you know God punished x Christ for having sin um but he x certainly doesn't say that uh he could x have had said that Christ death was a x substitute for us and he doesn't say x that uh either um Paul prescribes the x appropriate response to this x self-sacrifice and and sort of um ties x this into uh the example we were given x in the Old Testament um but he ties this x into for us in in Romans 12 x where he recommends a commitment of x reciprocity with Christ Sacrifice by us x as x Believers so in Romans 12 the first x couple of verses he says therefore I x urge you brothers and sisters in view of x God's mercy to offer your bodies as a x Living Sacrifice holy and pleasing to x God this is your true and proper worship x do not conform to the pattern of this x world but be transformed by the renewing x of your mind then you will be able to x test and approve what God's will is his x good good pleasing and perfect x will righteous self-sacrifice includes x obedience in response to God and that is x giving our giving or presenting x ourselves including our will um to God x in response and and certainly against x any contrary will of our own so the x sacrifice is not just it's not a ritual x or an external practice or a x demonstration of physical suffering um x but rather a spirit of sacrifice x um we have the example of of Jesus in x Gethsemane as a model of of righteous x self-sacrifice to God in line with x Paul's focus on on Jesus's self-giving x obedience to God in his in his willing x death where we're told in in Phil x Philippians x 2 just to kind of back up a little x further and look at look at the origin x of sacrifice the idea of like what is x sacrifice in the first place um I'm just x going to read from Exodus 3:18 and in x one of the earliest sort of mentions um x of this sacrifice after the the x garden um the the Elders of Israel so x this is Exodus x 318 the Elders of Israel will listen to x you then you and the elders are to go to x the king of Egypt and say to him the x Lord the god of the Hebrews has met with x us let us take a three-day Journey Into x the Wilderness to offer x sacrifices so this is the original x request that Moses made to Pharaoh for x Israel to be set free and I think x there's some really interesting x parallels here considering we're talking x about um Egypt um and and God's uh x requirement for them to to leave Egypt x and and go and x sacrifice uh the reason was that they x might be free to be able to sacrifice to x their God and the same principle applies x to us this is why God has freed us um x from from Egypt recall that Romans 121 x charges us with the responsibility once x we are free of our slavery to sin uh to x be living x sacrifices the blessing of our god-given x calling makes available to us the x opportunity to dedicate our lives in x service to him and its potential opens x the door to to positive motivation to x counterbalance maybe the somewhat x negative sense that obligation to Christ x may may otherwise seem to x impose because he first gives us x evidence of his love for us it enables x us to believe in him to live by faith uh x to to live a life of self-sacrifice and x and to glorify x him the just shall live by faith because x they know him in his loving character x this causes any lingering negative sense x or or can cause um not not in every case x uh the the negative sense that H that x Human Nature has toward being required x to keep God's commands to to sort of x Fade to the background freeing us to x obey from the heart in sincere gratitude x and joy x Deuteronomy chapter 8 verses 2 and x 3 says remember how the Lord your God x LED you all the way in the wilderness x these 40 years to humble and test you in x order to know what was in your heart x whether or not you would keep his x commands he humbled you causing you to x hunger and then feeding you with Mana x which neither you nor your ancestors had x known to to teach you that man does not x live on bread alone but on every word x that comes from the mouth of the x Lord so there's an example here of the x fact that God presented difficulties for x the Israelites to face and a good x parallel to to show us that the real x tests um never come at a at a convenient x time so if we're if we're being tested x in terms of our our willingness to x sacrifice ourselves and to participate x in Christ sacrifice um those those tests x are not going to come at the at the easy x times the more difficult choices seem to x come in times of hard hardship when our x loyalty is really in question and when x it's much easier to to serve x ourselves and and obviously we can x connect that to the to the initial story x here um however God wants us to x sacrifice ourselves x instead Psalm 51 tells us that as a x converted Man David understood that an x animal sacrifices were really not doing x anything other than setting a pattern x certainly they were tutors to those who x understood and but the Israelites could x sacrifice thousand animals and not get a x thing out of it as David understood he x he writes for you do not desire x sacrifice or else I would give it you do x not Delight in burnt offering the x sacrifices of God are a broken Spirit a x broken and a contrite x heart that really costs us something x what David is talking x about a person sacrifices of himself x when human nature is being cut away when x by the exercise or the the exercise of x his will due to Faith determines not to x do something or to do something against x every fiber of his being uh even as x Jesus x did by the force of will and through x faith by relying on God um by dedicating x ourselves in servitude to him um we can x make ourselves to to to do something x just to stay in line with him when when x every part of our natural selves is x telling us it's going to be much easier x for us if we go this other x way it says these oh God you will not x despise okay so having just kind of x scratched the surface on the idea of um x sacrifice and x self-sacrifice uh I'm sure you're seeing x some connection with the beginning story x but I'm gonna tie it in a lot more as we x go along um I'd like to look at another x real life moral dilemma as well but x first I want to examine an ethical x belief system that influence both our x our opening story and the story I'm x going to share next um and I think it x also has a huge influence on our modern x society and certainly for myself I can x speak for myself but I think I can speak x for a lot of us um that this is a x philosophy that is really pervasive um x and is is difficult to to avoid in our x our modern society particularly in the x Western x World um and this is the the philosophy x of of x utilitarianism um so for for those who x don't know um utilitarianism is is an x ethical theory that determines right x from wrong by focusing on outcomes so x it's a it's a form of x consequentialism and it holds that the x most ethical choice is the one that will x produce the greatest good for the x greatest number essentially it amounts x to that so it kind of doesn't sound bad x right off the bat um but we might see x some flaws when we start digging into it x a little x bit so one of the one of the big issues x with it is that in order to be able to x assess what the right thing to do is in x a in a given situation since it's based x on outcomes we must have some way of x knowing what the possible outcomes are x going to be um since we're not x Clairvoyant we can't see the future we x don't have all the factors at all times x and we are fallible uh this opens us up x to Major possibil for miscalculation um x and mistakes and we can't factor in um x anything else that that that might come x along this philosophy also requires us x to be able to evaluate what is the x greatest good for the greatest number x and in order to be able to determine x what is the greatest good or the x greatest benefit we have to have a way x of quantifying and qualifying degrees of x of good and less good um so there has to x be some sort of um univers L accepted x measurement system uh to be able to to x quantify the the the various Goods um x for a x society this uh as you you're probably x already kind of thinking about this x piece of it um what this ends up doing x as well because it depends on people's x views of what is a benefit and what is x not a benefit in society um that it's it x creates a sort of fluid or relative x morality since the right or wrong thing x to do changes Chang based on other x variables it changes on the the thoughts x of the time it changes on can change on x the on the weather can change based on x where the income is is distributed um x all kinds of different x things so it creates a little bit of a x catch22 since it makes it impossible to x quantify in certain terms therefore what x is good and what is evil or what is less x good and therefore what is better or x worse for the x majority so kind of digging into all x those flaws and and these are accepted x flaws of of the x philosophy um we might think it's kind x of easy to avoid to a certain extent but x I I I think that we would be be wrong if x we think that um it is absolutely x pervasive in in our modern x world basically the whole idea of x democracy as a political system is based x on utilitarian ideals the the greatest x good for the greatest x number um Wars throughout history have x been justified through the lens of x achieving or defending the greatest good x for the greatest x number atrocities have been committed in x the name of protecting the majority from x perceived dangers of a a x minority or a smaller group um and it's x easy to fall into this way of thinking x on everyday minor things as well um so x for example the the thought you know x maybe this thing that I'm doing is wrong x but you know what it's not hurting x anyone that's that's kind of a x consequentialist um form of thinking x uh it can come up even just when we're x trying to figure out how to aot our time x so if we're looking at you know maybe x this will benefit uh or or this will get x out to a larger number of people rather x than me spending all this time trying to x help this one person who is maybe really x a difficult person to work with um so x we're looking at sort of what the the x greater number of people who are x affected by it there's it can come up in x all kinds of different ways and it's I x think it's really x pervasive x so just to dig in a little bit further x on this and compare it to I guess what x we could call um biblical x ethics utilitarianism is a purely x consequentialist moral theory where x other kinds of moral consideration x matter only to the extent that their x adoption has good or bad x consequences scriptural ethics on the x other hand routinely make use of x Concepts relating to duty and virtuous x character independent or uh independence x of possible x consequence so we have numerous um x biblical texts and and particularly in x the Old Testament that speak about x ethical rules being established by God's x Commandments and about the importance of x obedience to God's x laws routinely acts are portrayed as x evil without any reference to their x consequences uh often we're told that an x action is evil and we don't even know we x don't know the rest of the story we x don't know if it led to anything um bad x or not so it wasn't clearly important x for for God to get that across to x us in Romans 3:8 Paul seems to take it x for granted uh that it's problematic to x reason let us do evil so that good may x come so that's a pretty good argument I x think against the uh the idea of x consequentialism and if it seems like x there's a a Chasm between uh the Bible x and the utilitarian ethic forgiveness x can serve as a as a particular x particularly clear casee and x point for x utilitarians uh acting wrongly means x acting in a way that reduces the total x benefit to a society or a community uh x one can thus act wrongly but one can't x necessarily wrong an individual per se x uh and without such directed duties the x Central Christian idea of forgiveness is x hard to x incorporate since utilitarians do not x con uh consider duties to be about right x relations between individuals um except x maybe as it applies to Justice and and x part of that would be tied to precedent x and making sure that the society as a x whole has rules to follow um rather than x really trying to sort out the the issues x between two x individuals um but rather it's it's x about the relation of the individual to x the x benefit um so forgiveness would not be a x practice in which a wrong party has the x moral power really to wave rights uh for x compensation or retribution um or to x eliminate guilt x in other words there's no room for x forgiveness and if we if we kind of um x extrapolate that a little x bit x um we think of it in terms of if if the x moral right under the util utilitarian x idea is whatever will benefit the most x people the most then if we x um if if we do something that that x causes a a benefit to a smaller number x of people or causes a a deficit to x larger group um the right thing then for x that larger group to do in response is x whatever benefits the greater ho again x so in What scenario is it going to x benefit the the greater whole to forgive x the individual who who committed the x first x crime another point that connects us x back to the the idea of x self-sacrifice is that the the Bible x references The Familiar concept of going x beyond the Call of Duty x um so going above and beyond the letter x of the law and really adhering to the x spirit of the law and you know Jesus x talks about how basically under the Old x Law it says Thou shalt not murder but he x he implores us to to not even um have x that have that hate for for a brother x it's it's that it's that the spirit of x the x law and it's it's acknowledged both in x in the the scriptural teaching as well x as in common sort of moral intuition x the Bible seems to draw a contrast x between merely avoiding wrongdoing uh x and going above and beyond uh and sort x of the minimum x calling when Jesus criticizes the x legalism of the Pharisees he contrasts x it with Justice and and mercy and x faithfulness in in Matthew 23 um x reminiscent of similar contrast to the x Old Testament um in in Micah 6 for x example and perhaps most pointedly in x this case uh in 1 Corinthians 13 uh 1 x Corinthians x 13:3 sees something lacking in a kind of x altruism that gives all possessions to x the poor but doesn't exhibit the virtue x of x Love um so this seems to indicate that x the result of the actions uh does not x necessarily make the action itself a x moral x one now it's interesting to to look at x at consequentialism in the Bible because x despite all of these sort of x non-utilitarian features that I've just x shared with you um there are many cases x where consequences do have of course a x role in determining the rightness of of x actions so there are some there's some x interesting examples in the Bible um x many key cases such as for example the x the prohibition of um killing or the x injunction to help the needy uh where x clearly the consequences are considered x and the relevance of these consequences x may be most obvious in in cases where x rules seem to be approvingly broken uh x so you know they're they're spoken of as x as righteous people for example um when x they have broken some of these these x rules God has put in place in order to x affect a better consequence uh so the x the Egyptian midwives who lied to the x pharaoh to save Hebrew infants are x praised um David and his men break an x explicit commandment of the Torah by x eating the showbread when while fleeing x Saul x uh which Jesus uses as an argument later x to to defend his his disciples plucking x Grain on the x Sabbath and it's notable in that case uh x that the good consequence in question x here is is nothing more than essentially x a satiating x hunger uh we know of course that Jesus x heals on the Sabbath numerous times and x uh and even tells a healed man to carry x his sleeping mat he criticizes the x Pharisees disapproval of his actions by x appealing to a verse from Hosea uh that x again hearkens back back to what we read x in Psalms before from David um that I x desire mercy and not x sacrifice in fact a strict and um x superficial focus on rule observance is x given uh really critical treatment x throughout both the Old and New x Testament x however love is at the center of x biblical morality so while love does x fall in line in some in some regards to x utilitarian ethics love goes beyond x promoting the welfare of of loved ones x and of those around them in addition x even if um if Universal love is is x directed at at individuals as x well and so therefore an ethic with love x and self-sacrifice at its Center is x really hard to reconcile to to x utilitarianism and there's some some big x gaps x there it's interesting to note x that many attempts to explain why x certain destructive actions of God in x the Bible like the flood of uh you know x the the flood or the um annihilation of x the Canaanites for x example x um maybe from from certain perspective x from a temporal perspective in some x cases it's hard to to say you know that x was morally right um if and we can sort x of fall in some cases into x consequentialist x reasoning um so the actions will be x justified and compatible with God's x benevolence because ultimately they had x good effects such as stopping the spread x of evil um but the Bible's attention to x consequence doesn't make it uh doesn't x give it a consequentialist Outlook um x and the distinguishing feature of x consequentialism is the exclusive x attention to x consequences um which makes it x susceptible to change as the perception x of good evolves in a society for example x furthermore and this is the big key and x I'll I'll hammer this a little bit later x as well any seeming consequentialism in x the Bible is based on God's omniscience x rather than on our best guesses so when x we're talking about God making a um a x decision or or taking action based on x what the consequences are going to be x it's entirely different than when we try x to do so ourselves because we don't know x the end from the beginning and we are x not omnicient and uh x omnipresent so I told you I had share x another real life story and I'm going to x uh launch into that here and there was x actually some of you may have seen there x was a movie made about this this story x um true story that happened in in x 2005 x um there was a a special forces team x made up of petty officer Marcus lutrell x and three other US Navy Seals uh and x they set out on a secret reconnaissance x mission in Afghanistan near the Pakistan x Border in search of a Taliban leader who x was a close associate of Osama bin x Laden according to intelligence reports x their target commanded 140 to 150 x heavily armed Fighters and was staying x in a village in the forbidding x mountainous x region shortly after the special Force's x team took up a position on a Mountain x Ridge overlooking a village two Afghan x Farmers with about a 100 bleeding goat x goats happened upon x them with them was a boy of about 14 x years old x the Afghan farmers were unarmed the x American soldiers trained their rifles x on them motioned them to sit on the x ground and then tried to decide what to x do on the one hand the goat herds x appeared to be unarmed x civilians on the other hand letting them x go would would run the risk that they x would inform the Taliban of the presence x of the US x soldiers as the Four soldiers x contemplated their options they thought x about tying them up and they didn't they x didn't have any rope or any means to do x so um they they looked at some other x options and they basically determined uh x that they they they really only had uh x two choices one one was to kill them and x one was to let them go x free one of lr's comrades argued for x killing the goat herds what he said was x we're on active duty Behind Enemy Lines x sent here by our senior commanders we x have a right to do everything we can to x save our own lives the military decision x is obvious to turn them loose would be x wrong the trell who was in charge x was more torn in my soul I knew he was x right he wrote in retrospect we could x not possibly turn them loose but my x trouble is I have another soul my x Christian soul and it was crowding in on x me something kept whispering in the back x of my mind it would be wrong to execute x these unarmed Men In Cold x Blood in the end his conscience didn't x allow him to kill the curs he cast the x deciding vote um so there was four of x them one voted for one abstained or x excuse me uh yeah one abstained one had x voted in in favor of letting them go so x he was the deciding vote uh it was a x vote that he came to x regret about an hour and a half after x they released the goat herds the Four x soldiers found themselves surrounded by x 80 Taliban fighters armed with AK-47s x and rocket propelled grenades in the x firefight that followed all three of L x tril's comrades were killed the Taliban x fighters also shot down a US helicopter x that sought to rescue the seal the x sealit killing all 16 soldiers on x board Latrell who was severely injured x managed to survive by falling down the x mountain side and crawling seven miles x to the nearby x Village and in an interesting turn um x that I think illustrates more to the x point um the residents of that Village x then actually risked their own lives to x to save x him and then he he was eventually x rescued in retrospect trell condemned x his own vote not to kill the goat hers x he said it was the stupidest most x southern fried lamebrain decision I ever x made in my life I must have been out of x my mind I had actually cast a vote which x I knew could sign our death warrant at x least that's how I look on that now the x deciding vote was mine and it will haunt x me till the rest of my x days so returning to Romans 12 again I I x think there's a a very nice contrast x here to to this the thinking we're x hearing from him and again I think it's x it was it's interesting to see his x philosophy now looking back on this x clearly taking a consequentialist view x of this he's saying that it turned out x this was the wrong thing to do because x people x died um if we look at the what the x villagers did um he may be viewing that x as you know they they risked um their x lives and they risked Calamity in order x to help him but again it worked out so x maybe that that was why was the right x thing to do in their x case so I want to I want to use Romans x 12 for some x contrast uh we'll pick up at verse x n love must be sincere hate what is evil x cling to what is good be devoted to one x another in love honor one another above x yourselves never be lacking in Zeal but x keep your spir spiritual fervor say x serving excuse me serving the x lord be joyful in Hope patient in x Affliction faithful in prayer share with x the Lord's people who are in need x practice x Hospitality bless those who persecute x you bless and do not curse Rejoice with x those who Rejoice mourn with those who x mourn live in harmony with one another x do not be proud but be willing to x associate with people of low position do x not be conceited do not repay anyone x evil for evil be careful to do what is x right in the eyes of everyone if it is x possible as far as it depends on you x live at peace with everyone do not take x revenge my dear friends but leave room x for God's Wrath for it is written it is x mine to avenge I will repay says the x Lord on the contrary if your enemy is x hungry feed him if he is thirsty give x him something to drink in doing this he x will Heap burning coals on his x head I I think it's clear that God does x not prescribe consequential morality in x scripture um we have all kinds of x examples in the Bible people who made x difficult decision difficult decisions x for righteousness sake and there and x those decisions led to hardship and x suffering and I'm sure we can all think x of a different example of x that in some sense it can be argued that x ultimately we are instructed by God to x act morally in a way that does work x towards the greatest cumulative good so x for example if we turn back a couple of x pages to Romans x 8 um starting at verse 28 we're told we x know that all things work together for x good to them that love God to them who x are the called according to his purpose x for whom he did Forno he also did x predestinate to be conformed to the x image of his son that he might be the x firstborn among many x Brethren moreover whom he did x predestinate them he also called and x whom he called them he also Justified x whom he justified them he also x glorified what shall we then say to x these things if God be for us who can be x against us he that spar not his own son x but delivered him up for us how shall he x not uh how shall he not with him also x freely give us all x things and and here we are by the way as x an aside back at the idea of x self-sacrifice um I'm not going to delve x into the predestination aspect here I x think that's a topic for another day um x but we are told here that our moral x decisions are directed by a greater x final cause um just as proponents of x utilitarian ethic would argue however as x I mentioned before the major difference x is that the actual directive as to what x is right and what is wrong in a given x moment comes from our creator as opposed x to some kind of best guess on our part x based on unknowable x variables um Matthew x 10 I'm going to read Matthew 10 ver x 32 through about x 39 whoever acknowledges me before others x I will also acknowledge before my Father x in heaven but whoever disowns me before x others I will disown before my Father in x Heaven do not suppose that I have come x to bring peace to Earth I did not come x to bring peace but a sword for I have x come to turn a man against his father a x daughter against her mother a x daughter-in-law against her x mother-in-law a Man's enemies will be x the members of his own household x anyone who loves the father or mother x more than me is not worthy of me anyone x who loves their son or daughter more x than me is not worthy of me whoever does x not take up the cross and follow me is x not worthy of me whoever finds their x life will lose it and whoever loses x their life for my sake will find x it I I wanted to read these verses to x illustrate something that I think that x that that I struggle x with uh and that is that the the x sacrifice of Christ for us can mean x certainly both the if for the the x Forgiveness part um and can represent x Christ's own example of self-denial and x then losing his life for greater purpose x um which is really to to Great personal x cost uh Paul writes in 1 Corinthians x 1:18 for the message of the Cross is x foolishness to those who are perishing x but to those who are being saved it is x the power of x God I I think this second part of it can x be kind of hard to swallow sometimes so x we we have an example of complete x surrender which which we are called to x imitate um and I think if if we're if x we're not following that uh we can x easily become tolerant of sin or or x increasingly human centered and less x inclined to actions that might involve x um great discomfort or or x inconvenience we can appreciate what x what Christ sacrifice means for us while x simultan simultaneously boing at the x cost to follow in his x footsteps uh but for those of us who x have answered God's God's calling that x message an example of total surrender of x of carrying whatever is placed upon us x until we die uh is is x powerful and consider the power x unleashed when Jesus surrenders to this x completely um we know that God not only x raised him back to life but he has put x all things under x him following that example of of x self-sacrifice is um what what could x have allowed we're told it could have x allowed the Corinthians to be reconciled x to each other uh the the carnal mind x says that the surrender is folly because x it creates a vulnerability or the x possibility of loss or or great hardship x but the same carnal mind is blind to the x reality that God is on his throne x overseeing the outcome um he he uses his x power on our behalf and and he calls us x to trust him with our x lives uh the message of sacrifice is not x just about forgiveness of sins it's also x about our response to God um after we've x been forgiven what we give of x ourselves I want to Circle back to the x first story that we had so the the four x guys on the Lifeboat um and I I thought x this was really cool when I when I read x through the the result of the trial um x I'm not sure that it would go the same x way today but I was impressed with the x jury of x 1884 um so it's it's pretty neat I'm x going to share you the the results of x the trial here so this is x um The Dudley and Stevens the the two x accused uh the defense argued on behalf x of them as x follows the facts found on the special x verdict show that the prisoners were not x guilty of murder at the time when they x killed Parker but killed him under the x pressure of x necessity necessity will excuse an act x which would otherwise be a crime the law x as to compulsion by necessity is further x explained uh has precedent in the case x of two dring men on a on a plank large x enough to support only one and one x thrusting the other off the Survivor x could not be subjected to legal x punishment in the American case of the x United States versus homes the x proposition that a passenger on board a x vessel may be thrown overboard to save x the others is sanctioned the essence of x the crime of murder is x intention and here the attention of the x prisoners was only to preserve x lives here's the x verdict from these facts stated with the x cold Precision of a special verdict it x appears sufficiently that the prisoners x were were indeed subject to terrible x temptation to sufferings which might x break down the bodily power of the x strongest man and try the conscience of x the best but nevertheless this is clear x that the prisoners put to death a weak x and unoffending boy upon the chance of x preserving their own lives by feeding x upon his flesh and blood after he was x killed and with a certainty of depriving x him of any possible chance of x survival the verdict finds in terms that x if the men had not fed upon the body of x the boy they probably would not have x survived and that the boy being in a x much weaker condition was likely to have x died before them they might possibly x have been picked up the next day by a x passing ship or they might possibly not x have been picked up at all in either x case it's obvious that the killing of x the boy would have been unnecessary and x profitless act in these x cases it's found by the verdict that the x boy was incapable of resistance and in x fact made none and it is not even x suggested that his death was due to any x violence on on his part uh attempted x against or even so much as feared by x those who killed him in other words x self-defense is not an x option there remains to be considered x the real question in the case whether x killing under the circumstances set x forth in the verdict be or not be murder x under the law and this is where I think x it gets really good uh temptation to the x ACT which existed here was not what the x law has ever called necessity to x preserve one's life is generally x speaking a duty but it may be the x plainest and the highest duty to x sacrifice it war is full of instances in x which it is a man's Duty not to live but x to die for those around him the duty in x case of shipwreck of a captain to his x crew of the crew to the passengers of x men to women and children these duties x impose on men the moral necessity not of x the preservation but of the sacrifice of x their lives for others from which it is x to be hoped men will never x shrink it is not correct therefore to x say that there is any absolute or x unqualified necessity to preserve one's x life it is enough in a Christian country x to remind ourselves of the great example x uh whom we profess to follow it is not x needful to point out the awful danger of x admitting the principle which has been x contended for who is to be the judge of x this sort of necessity by what measure x is the comparative value of lives to be x measured is it to be strength or x intellect or or x what in this case the weakest the x youngest the most unresisting was chosen x was it more necessary to kill him than x one of the grown men the answer must be x no it is not suggested that in this x particular G case the Deeds were x devilish but it is quite plain that such x a principle once admitted might be made x the legal cloak uh the legal cloak for x unbridled passion and atrocious crime a x man has no right to declare temptation x to be an excuse though he might himself x have yielded to it it is therefore our x duty to declare that the prisoners act x in this case was was willful murder x murder that the facts as stated in the x ver in the verdict are no legal x justification of the homicide and to say x that in our unanimous opinion the x prisoners are upon this special verdict x guilty of x murder um so at the time um the the x sentence or excuse me the the the result x of of murder um was was to be put to x death um however that the court because x of the special circumstances um sort of x went back on that and and they commuted x the sentence to six months imprisonment x um for those two two x gentlemen so circling back to some of x the stuff from from Romans 12 that we x looked x at um Paul's exhortation is especially x interesting in in light of what precedes x it I think chapter 11 concludes a x lengthy dissertation on the sort of x doctrinal foundation of Christianity x showing the central importance of faith x and Grace x instruction in the pr practical aspect x of of Christian Living begins with x chapter 12 and the two sections are x linked by the word x therefore so Paul's demonstrating that x the way we are to live is insep x inseparably bound to what we believe x faith without works is dead and works x without a correct belief system is x Vanity wrong thinking uh essentially x cannot lead to to right x doing x uh if if we drink in the spirit of of x Paul's doctrinal teaching in the first x 11 chapters then we are called to x present our bodies as living sacrifices x and to renew the spirit of our minds so x outwardly and inwardly um we're on our x way to God's ideal for human conduct and x and in in so doing are sacrificing x ourselves for for the greater x good Paul uses the metaphor of sacrifice x throughout verse one of chapter 12 to x reinforce both similarities to uh with x and and contrasts between Israel's old x Covenant sacrificial system and um and x our sacrifice or or the Christian x sacrifice of of our lives and service to x God under the old Covenant the offerer x gift was presented to God and became x God's Property similarly the gift of our x life is set apart for God to use as he x determines when we are bought with a x price we belong to ourselves no x longer we're told uh that the old the x old test sacrifices brought produced a x sweet smell that do that God declares in x Leviticus um in a number of different x places to be a fragrant Aroma to his x nostrils in the same way the gift of our x life is acceptable to x God Paul says that giving our lives is x the way in this way is reasonable is of x sound judgment is moderate sensible and x some of the modern translations actually x say x rational the outward acts of a Son of x God spring logically from what has x changed in the Inner Man our minds are x being renewed and therefore we are um x submitting to God's will rather than our x own and and certainly than to the to x sort of the Conformity of the insanity x of of this x world the last word in in verse one is x service and it's uh as important as any x words in the verse um and in this x context it describes the service not of x a of a domestic slave um but but of a x priest in in complete self-surrender x before performing his duties before x God's altar we're told that in 1 Peter x 2 it it means that we must first of all x be priests by our inward Consecration x and then we have to lay our outward life x on the altar in God's x service almost from the beginning of the x Bible sacrifice is one of the great key x words of of God's whole whole plan and x purpose God clearly alludes to to Christ x sacrifice as early as Genesis 3 um and x the first animal sacrifice occurs in x genes genis 4 so this principle of x sacrifice is woven into the fabric of of x every every x book um one of the keys is sacrifices x are inherently costly to to The Giver or x there is no real sacrifice in the x offering um David explains in in 2 x Samuel x 24:24 x um he uh he responds to Arona no but I x will surely buy it from you for a price x nor will I buy burnt offerings to the x Lord my God with that which costs me x nothing Jesus amplifies this principle x with a statement um where he says x greater not love has no man than this x than has no man than this than to lay x down one's life for his x friends uh it requires a decision that x will from time to time bring intense x pressure on us to control ourselves x against our strong drives and and and go x with x God if we do however um God's promises x to us are are powerful and we can be x freed from not only from our from our x nature freed from Egypt Egypt to to x choose to live a life of servitude to x God um but also freed from the sort of x ethical muck um that we can see x otherwise where we we're I think it's a x scary place to be when we're trying to x figure out for ourselves what what's x right and what's wrong based on x variables that we have no control over x and no knowledge of um if we turn to God x and we follow um what he has put out for x us it it really x sort of clears a lot of the the greyness x up and and um I think can provide great x comfort so I'm just going to conclude by x reading uh a few verses here from Romans x chapter 8 that I think wrap things up x well Romans 8 starting at uh verse x 33 who shall lay anything to the charge x of God's elect it is God that justifieth x who is he that condemneth it is Christ x that died y rather than that is risen x again who is even at the right hand of x God who also maketh intercession for us x who shall separate us from the love of x Christ shall tribulation or distress or x persecution or famine or nakedness or x Peril or x sword as it is written for thy sake we x are killed all the day long we are x accounted as sheep for the slaughter nay x in all these things we are more than x conquerors through him that loved us for x I am persuaded that neither death nor x life nor angels nor principalities nor x powers nor things present nor things to x come nor height nor depth nor any other x creature shall be able to separate us x from the love of God which is in Christ x Jesus our x lord