Menu

22 Sermon Illustrations on Selflessness

22 illustrations

Selflessness in Christian preaching emphasizes putting others before oneself, reflecting Christ's humility and love (Philippians 2:3-4). Illustrations often depict meekness, sacrificial service, and joy found in honoring God rather than seeking human approval, encouraging believers to live peaceably and care genuinely for others (Romans 12:10).

Disinterestedness, Example of

True nobility is shown by seeking God's cause above personal gain or recognition.

Terantius, captain to the Emperor Adrian, presented a petition, that the Christians might have a temple by themselves, in which to worship God apart from the Arians. The emperor tore his petition, and threw it away, bidding him ask something for himself, and it should be granted. Terantius modestly gathered up the fragments of his petition, and said with true nobility of mind, "If I cannot be heard in God's cause, I will never ask any thing for myself." Arcine.

Self-Forgetfulness, Philanthropic

Self-forgetfulness shows love by refusing personal relief to benefit others.

A rough and dusty private soldier was picked up at the battle of Resaca, who was bleeding profusely from an awful shell-wound in his mouth. The first sensation after such a wound is one of intense thirst. He was offered a drink from a bright new tin cup, but refused it. Being asked why, he said, "My mouth is all bloody, sir; and it might make the tin cup bad for the others." Mr. Lawrence, who tells the story, says that the words that immortalized Chevalier Bayard or Sir Philip Sidney did not equal this hero's answer.

from New Cyclopaedia of Prose Illustrations · Elon Foster sacrifice

Selfishness, Abandoning

Leaving selfishness leads to a joyful, abundant life like moving to fruitful highlands.

A man who emigrates from the low country of selfishness, where are perpetual chills and fevers, to the high lands of benevolence, goes from sickness and barrenness to the realm of health and plenty and joy, where his hand can almost pluck the fruits from the tree of life itself. Beecher.

from New Cyclopaedia of Prose Illustrations · Elon Foster blessing

Sir Philip Sidney

Sir Philip Sidney gave his drink to a wounded soldier, showing selfless compassion.

This eminent man was governor of Flushing, (Neth.) and general of the horse, under his uncle, the Earl of Leicester. His valor, which was esteemed great, and not exceeded by any of his age, was at least equalled by his humanity. After he had received his death wound, at the battle of Zutphen, and was overcome with thirst from excessive bleeding, he called for drink, which was soon brought him. At the same time, a poor soldier, dangerously wounded, was carried along, who fixed his eager eyes upon the bottle just as Sir Philip was lifting it to his mouth. Sir Philip immediately presented it to him, with the remark, "Thy necessity is greater than mine."

from Cyclopaedia of Moral and Religious Anecdotes · Kazlitt Arvine compassion

The Drowning Sailors

A sailor refused rescue so another, more exhausted, could be saved first.

Two boats, some time ago, were sent out from Dover to relieve a vessel in distress. The fury of the tempest overset one of them, which contained three sailors, and one of them sunk. The two remaining sailors were floating on the deep; a rope was thrown to one of them from the other boat, but he refused it, crying out, "Fling it to Tom, he is just ready to go down; I can last some time longer." They did so; Tom was drawn into the boat. The rope was then flung to the generous tar, just in time to save him from drowning also.

from Cyclopaedia of Moral and Religious Anecdotes · Kazlitt Arvine compassion

Save Him First

A boy urged rescuers to save another man first, showing heroic selflessness.

An accident occurred in a coal pit near Bilton, in Gloucestershire, when six lives were lost. At the moment when the iron handle of the cart, in which the unfortunate men were, snapped asunder, a man and a boy, who were hanging on the rope above, made a sudden spring, and most providentially laid hold of a chain which is always hanging at the side of the pit as a guide. As soon as possible, after the accident was known at the top of the pit, and it was ascertained that some one was clinging to the side, a man was sent down with a rope and noose to render assistance. He came first, in his descent, to a boy named Daniel Harding, and on his reaching him, the noble-minded lad instantly cried out, "Don't mind me, I can still hold on a little; but Joseph Bawn, who is a little lower down, is nearly exhausted; save him first." The person went on, and found Joseph Bawn, as described by his companion, and, after bringing him safely up, again descended and succeeded in restoring the gallant boy to light and safety. When we state that the time which elapsed from the moment of the accident till the boy was brought up was from fifteen to twenty minutes, his fortitude and heroism will be duly appreciated.

from Cyclopaedia of Moral and Religious Anecdotes · Kazlitt Arvine courage

The Author And His Manuscripts

A scholar saved the sick from fire, sacrificing his precious manuscripts.

We translate the following anecdote from the Berlin Evangelische Zeitung. To a learned man, particularly if he is much of a recluse, nothing among all earthly possessions lies so near the heart, as the manuscript upon which he has spent the flower of youth and the strength of manhood. Regens, a venerable German divine, had, in the year 1809, a very learned manuscript work upon the Prophets, lying in his cloister, and with it many costly books, which he had acquired by the pains and sacrifices of almost a whole life. In another part of the town there lay, after a battle which had shortly before taken place, many persons severely wounded and dying, to whom Regens had afforded divine consolation and refreshment for the mind as well as the body. By means of a heavy bombardment, the town was set on fire in different quarters, and the monastery, in which were the manuscripts and books, was in flames at one and the same time with the buildings in which lay the sick and dying. While others were intent on their own safety and that of their property, this noble disciple of Christ soon decided what he should do; he let his manuscripts, this labor of many years, and the costly books, burn, and carried the sick and dying, upon his own shoulders, forth from the flames!

from Cyclopaedia of Moral and Religious Anecdotes · Kazlitt Arvine sacrifice

Unselfishness

True unselfishness is shown by willingly giving up one’s place for another’s benefit.

There was a party of twenty-five boys and girls going upon a picnic, and when about to get into the carry-all which was to convey them to the picnic grounds, it was found that, with the utmost crowding there was room for only twenty-four, and one little girl was left standing on the ground, and was to be left behind. The disappointment was too great for her to control her feelings, and the tears began to fall, when one of her companions, named Alice, jumped out and said, “Don’t cry, Sadie; you get in and take my place; I have been many times, and do not care so very much.” The children had a very happy afternoon, but what do you suppose they thought and said about Alice?--JAMES T. WHITE, “Character Lessons.”

from Cyclopedia of Illustrations for Public Speakers · Robert Scott and William C. Stiles compassion for others

Unselfishness

Faithful leaders prioritize workers’ welfare over profit, showing selflessness and generosity.

See PATRIOTISM, DISINTERESTED; SELF-FORGETTING.

UNSELFISHNESS, EXAMPLES OF

When Peter Cooper, who founded the Cooper Institute, New York, had completed his apprenticeship, his employer esteemed him so much that he offered to give him the capital to start in business, but Cooper refused because of his invincible repugnance to debt. At the end of three years he had saved up $500, but his father being prest with debt, young Cooper gave the entire amount for his relief. He purchased a glue factory and soon obtained the reputation of making the best glue in the country. He became interested in many successful enterprises, employing thousands of men, and conceived the idea of an educational institute for the advancement of the sciences. Abram S. Hewitt, with a son of Peter Cooper, took over the father’s iron business, and at one time over 3,000 men were employed, and for six years they ran the business at a loss of over $100,000 a year rather than bring upon their employes the distress incident to shutting down the plant. Partly for this reason the business was run for forty years with only sufficient profit to pay the men, and still by judicious foresight in buying iron the firm cleared over $1,000,000 in one year. Their policy toward their workmen was always to take them into their confidence.--JAMES T. WHITE, “Character Lessons.”

Unselfishness In Birds

Even animals can demonstrate selflessness by sharing food with the sick and needy.

Sidney Lanier tells of a mocking-bird six weeks of age being kept in a cage with another young bird who was so ill he could hardly move. One day food happened to be delayed in coming, and Bob got furiously hungry. He called and screamed and made a great row. At last it appeared, and he took in his beak the ball of egg and potato, snatching it out of the hand, and then, instead of eating it, ran across the cage and gave the whole of it to his sick friend.--OLIVE THORNE MILLER, “The Bird Our Brother.”

from Cyclopedia of Illustrations for Public Speakers · Robert Scott and William C. Stiles compassion for others

He Must Increase

John 3:29

Every young student knows of Isaac Newton's famed encounter with a falling

apple. Newton discovered and introduced the laws of gravity in the 1600s,

which revolutionized astronomical studies.

But few know that if it weren't for Edmund Halley, the world might never have

learned from Newton.

It was Halley who challenged Newton to think through his original notions.

Halley corrected Newton's mathematical errors and prepared geometrical

figures to support his discoveries. Halley coaxed the hesitant Newton to

write his great work, MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. Halley

edited and supervised the publication, and actually financed its printing even

though Newton was wealthier and easily could have afforded the printing costs.

Historians call it one of the most selfless examples in the annals of science.

Newton began almost immediately to reap the rewards of prominence; Halley

received little credit.

He did use principles to predict the orbit and return of the comet that would

later bear his name, but only after his death did he receive any acclaim.

And because the comet only returns every seventy-six years, the notice is

rather infrequent. Halley remained a devoted scientist who didn't care who

received the credit as long as the cause was being advanced.

Others have played Halley's role. John the Baptist said of Jesus, "He must

become greater; I must become less." Barnabas was content to introduce others

to greatness. Many pray to uphold the work of one Christian leader. Such

selflessness advances the kingdom.

#1879

*

from Leadership · C. S. Kirkendall via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Undaunted Courage

Job 14:5

Meriwether Lewis stood at the Continental Divide of the Rocky Mountains, more than halfway on his epic quest across the North American continent. He concluded his August 18, 1805, journal entry with an oft-quoted passage of introspection and self-criticism.

"This day I completed my thirty-first year," he began. He figured he was halfway through his life's journey. "I reflected that I had as yet done but little, very little indeed, to further the happiness of the human race, or to advance the information of the succeeding generation. I viewed with regret the many hours I have spent in indolence, and now soarly feel the want of that information which those hours would have given me had they been judiciously expended."

He shook the mood, writing that, since the past could not be recalled, "I dash from me the gloomy thought and resolved in future, to redouble my exertions and at least indeavour to promote those two primary objects of human existence, by giving them the aid of that portion of talents which nature and fortune have bestoed on me..." and here he seems to have lost his train of thought. Whatever the cause, he forgot to name those "two primary objects of human existence," and instead ended, "in future, to live for MANKIND, as I have heretofore lived FOR MYSELF."

from Book: Undaunted Courage · Stephen E. Ambrose via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database goalspurpose of life

Fragrance of Christ

Romans 15:14

I … am persuaded … that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. — Romans 15:14.

If only we are self-emptied, our every act may emit a sweet odor to God. The smallest as well as the greatest services may, by the power of the Holy Spirit, present the fragrance of Christ. The paying of a visit, the writing of a letter, the public ministry of the Word, giving a cup of cold water to a disciple, giving something to a pauper, yea, the commonplace acts of eating and drinking all may emit the sweet perfume of the name and grace of Jesus. — A. A.

Lo, from vessels, earthen only,

Shining forth in ceaseless grace,

Reaching weary hearts, and lonely,

Beams the light from Jesus’ face.

from Old Devotional Calendar, 1963 · A. A. via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database serviceselflessness

The Un-Darwinian Sacrifice of Maximilian Kolbe

Luke 6:27

New York Times Magazine has a long piece by cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker called “The Moral Instinct.” Pinker’s article is part of the Darwinian Cleanup Project. This project is an attempt to plug the holes in Darwinism which has a very hard time accounting for -- a) the origin of life, b) consciousness and c) morality. Pinker begins with an interesting comparison between Mother Teresa, Bill Gates and Norman Borlaug (the father of the Green Revolution in agriculture). Pinker argues that while Mother Teresa may have had the noblest intentions, Gates and Borlaug probably did more to help people than the saint of Calcutta. In other words, morality is not simply a matter of intention but also of what one actually does to help people. Excellent point, but what does it have to do with an evolutionary foundation for ethics? Not much.

For the past several decades, leading neo-Darwinists have labored hard to provide a Darwinian basis for morality. The basic idea here is that morality is a form of extended selfishness. The mother who leaps into the burning car to save her children is acting unselfishly from her point of view, but from her genes’ point of view, the action is entirely self-interested. The mother is simply trying to ensure that her genes make it into the next generation. Some evolutionists like Robert Trivers extend this logic to explain why we treat even strangers decently and fairly. This is called “reciprocal altruism,” which may be translated as “I’ll be nice to you, so that you can be nice to me.”

This entire framework of Darwinian analysis does not even come close to explaining morality. It confines itself to explaining altruism, and at best it explains “low altruism.” But humans also engage in “high altruism” which may be defined as behavior that confers no reciprocal or genetic advantage. A man stands up to give his seat on the bus to an old lady. She is nothing to him, and he is certainly not thinking that there may be a future occasion when she will give him her seat. He does it because he’s a nice guy. There’s no Darwinian rationale that can account for his behavior.

Consider the true story of the Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe, who was imprisoned in a German concentration camp for his anti-Nazi activities. Each day the Nazis would choose one person from the group for execution. One of the first persons they selected was a man who pleaded for his life, saying he had a wife and children who were dependent on him and he needed to live in order to look after them. Just as the Nazis were about to drag him from the room, the priest stood up and said, “Take me in his place.” The Nazis were baffled and refused, but the priest insisted. The man was equally uncomprehending, so the priest told him, “I don’t have a family, I am old and won’t be missed like you will.” The Nazis finally agreed, and the priest went to his death. The man whose place he took survived the war and returned to his family.

Now what is the Darwinian explanation for Kolbe’s behavior? It does not exist. Ernest Mayr, a leading evolutionary biologist, admits that “altruism toward strangers is behavior not supported by natural selection.” Richard Dawkins concedes that Darwinism cannot even explain why people donate blood, an action he puts down to “pure disinterested altruism.” I enjoy reading Pinker, Trivers and the others, but I don’t think that the Darwin Cleanup Crew is going to come up with a comprehensive account of morality. The simple reason is that the evolutionary project is necessarily confined to the domain of survival and reproductive advantage -- in other words, to the domain of self-interest -- while it is the essence of morality to operate against self-interest. The whole point of morality is to do what you ought to do, not what you are inclined to do or what it is in your interest to do.

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

Response by a reader:

And once again, Dinesh, you are trying to force darwinism to explain everything. It’s like pointing at the theory of gravity and saying, “Hey! Explain how you affect the geopolitical structure of the middle east! Uh huh, I thought so.”

Morality is a phenomenon exclusive to humanity, until we encounter another intelligent species face to face. We don’t ask about the morality of cows or wolves or oak trees, yet there can be no doubt that all three are under the effect of darwinist forces.

Yet darwinism has provided genetic reasons for non-sentient species to work in concert. And this is the most primal basis for morality and ethics: the ability of a species to act for the survival of other members of their species. For example, a wolf on their own is terribly limited by the amount of prey they can kill. Wolves, working in concert, can bring down much larger prey and provide enough meat for not just the individual wolf, but for all wolves.

Apes and primates, our evolutionary ancestors, were also pack animals. Each pack has an evolutionary stake in the survival of the whole. If one member thrives at the expense of the others, then that’s the genetic equivalent of putting your eggs in one basket. Using primitive altruism, the group as a whole thrives far more effectively than just the individual might.

And what about interpack relations? Why would altruism exist then? In a nutshell, sex. Without genetic colonialism, a specific gene pool is a sitting duck. It takes fifty genetically diverse females to keep a gene pool healthy and discourage inbreeding. Going out and helping another pack gives access to females of that other pack, and vice versa. Sure, you could try to do it by force, but that’s a method with far greater risks. After all, you might be killed before you have a chance to mate with the new females. Or you may drive the females off.

Morality as you are describing it, Dinesh, is the product of this entirely natural genetic phenomenon coupled with language and most importantly, records. Without records it is impossible for a culture to teach its morality. Morality becomes an invention of the moment, rather than the product of generations. And it is largely self-centered towards the betterment of the individual through the betterment of the whole.

So what about the good priest? His sacrifice, in Darwinian terms, was a bid to spare genes that he saw as valuble to the overall group of humanity: the man’s concern for his family. Somewhere in the world there were people who shared genetic commonalities with the good priest. He might not have known they were out there, or who they were, but on a fundamental level he knew that we are all interrelated. By sacrificing himself, he was actually making a genetic bid for the future.

It’s early so I’ll sum up. Morality is the evolutionary descendant of the ability of organisms to act in concert. It follows darwinist theory because related members in a group have a greater chance of their genes repeating. Purely selfless acts infact help sponsor specific genes in those that we help, and reciprocation gives us comfort knowing that if we help others then with a little luck, others will be willing to help us.

"Somber" at 9:29AM on Jan 14th 2008

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #25185]

Radiating Christ

Galatians 6:14

God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. — Galatians 6:14.

In a very large corporation, in the eastern part of the United States, there worked a young Christian whose life so radiated Christ that he bore a strong testimony to Him, and was an influence for good among all who knew him. The president of the company called this young man to him one day and addressing him by name, said: “I have been tremendously impressed by your Christian life and your influence in the factory. Although I am the head of this corporation I would give everything in the world if I could emulate you in this respect. Tell me the secret of your life.” “What you would give,” the young man replied, “is exactly what it has cost me — the whole world.” The Christian life is Christ living His life in us; the world is at enmity with Him. Therefore, if we would have Him live out His life through us, the world must be given up; we must be crucified to the world and all its attractions, and it must be crucified to us in our day-by-day experience.

And has this world a charm for us,

where Jesus suffered thus?

No! We have died to all its charms

through Jesus’ wondrous cross.

from Old Devotional Calendar, 1963 · Anonymous via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Delighting To Serve

Luke 22:27

For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. — Luke 22:27.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. — Philippians 2:5.

There was not one act for self in all Christ’s life; He was always at the service of everyone. It is difficult for us to believe in the love of Christ, we are so selfish. Love likes to serve, selfishness likes to be served. Christ was LOVE: He delighted to serve; He took upon Him the form of a servant; He took it as a man, and He never gives it up; even in that day, “He will come forth and serve.” This will ever be His delight.

Though in the very form of God,

with heavenly glory crowned,

Thou didst a servant’s form assume,

beset with sorrow round.

Thou wouldst like wretched man be made,

in everything but sin,

That we as like Thee might

become as we unlike had been.

from Old Devotional Calendar, 1963 · Anonymous via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

The Joy-Secret of Otherism

Galatians 6:10

“Let us do good unto all.” — Galatians 6:10

In one of the bedrooms of a certain Christian home there hangs a little card which bears the words: THE SECRET OF JOY — God first, Others next, Self last. Is this indeed the secret of joy? Then most of us are sadly wrong. We think that joy comes by the reverse order; and it is this mistake which lies behind the worship of wealth, the passion for power, and the pursuit of pleasure. Verily we are wrong, as we surely discover sooner or later. The first secret of joy lies in otherism — a going out of one’s heart toward others. Egoism is the supreme enemy of true joy. By many providences God seeks to break our egoism down. Indeed, the very relationships which condition human family life are designed to that end. John Oxenham thus beautifully puts it:

I, Thou, We, They,

Small words, but mighty, in their span

Are bound the life and hopes of man.

For first his thoughts of his own self are full,

Until another comes his heart to rule;

For them life’s best is centred round their love

To younger lives come all their love to prove.

The parental relationships of life are meant to break our egoism down. Henry Drummond says, “A man cannot be a member of a family, and remain an utter egoist.” “No greater day ever dawned than that on which the first human child was born.” Certainly the mother teaches the child; but in a far deeper way, is it not the child who teaches the mother? — and the little one teaches nothing sublimer than just this very thing — otherism.

OTHERISM! The supreme transition in a human heart is that from “selfism” to “otherism”. “One man,” says an old Latin proverb, “is no man at all.” A Wayside Pulpit has it: “A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small parcel!” A life which is always getting and never giving is a Dead Sea. The Lord Jesus says. “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone” — self-preservation the cause of loneliness! Then He adds, “But if it die it bringeth forth much fruit” — self-sacrifice the cure of loneliness!

OTHERISM! Let the word burn into the mind. Like a flame shot into a dark room it suddenly exposes our fundamental error. Like the white flame of a forge let it strike into the thick rust of our selfishness. Oh, if we could but believe it, if we would but receive it, the first secret of true joy lie’s just here. We miss joy because we seek it! Is not the very seeking of joy for its own sake a subtle form of selfishness? — and is not selfishness the very thing that kills joy? Joy is a will-o’-the-wisp to those who run after it; but in some self-forgetting hour when we are touched by another’s need, and we sacrifice to give relief, we suddenly find our hearts aflame with a glorious joy that has come unsought! It is thus that we come to know a like joy to that of our dear Lord. In self-sacrificing service for others we discern the marks of His sandals, and follow in the steps of His example, and share His joy. Must we roam afar to end glory? Nay, the secret of pure joy lies behind our own doors, in otherism.

from The Evangelist · J. Sidlow Baxter via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database selflessness

Live To Serve: What Matters Most (part 4)

Ephesians 2:8

Ever since I was a boy, I was driven to serve my country. As a 10-year-old at the outbreak of World War II, I could only dream that one day I could put on a uniform and fight the enemy. But I did what I could. I organized a neighborhood drive to collect scrap metal for the war effort. Before I had reached 40 years of age, I had served as a captain in the Marines and as special counsel to President Nixon.

But besides my country, there was another cause in my life that I served wholeheartedly. That cause was my self. Power, a great career, money, all were mine. I lost them all in the aftermath of Watergate.

And for that, I am profoundly grateful to God.

You see, with my world collapsing around me, I received Christ as Lord and Savior. And it was in the crucible of prison that God took my desire to serve my self and transformed it into something much greater. He gave me a desire to serve others — particularly those who are abandoned by society, prisoners. I take no credit for this. None. Zero. I might as well take credit for my hair color. It was God working His will in me, a great sinner.

I know that all too well that since my release from prison more than 30 years ago, people have been watching me, to see if the old White House Hatchet Man turned prison evangelist would prove to be a phony.

Well I’ve got news for you. People are watching you, too! A weary world is watching with great skepticism all who profess Christ.

That is one reason why we who “by grace have been saved through faith” must be about doing the “good works which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:8,10). For it is through Christian acts of loving service — especially to the most needy among us — that the world will see the power and love of Christ.

History is full of examples. As plagues swept through ancient Rome, the wealthy pagans — even doctors — fled for their lives. But the Christians stayed behind to care for the sick and dying. That witness fueled the growth of the Church. Why was Mother Teresa beloved by religious and non-religious alike? Because she cared for the utterly destitute. It’s why, even in this most secular of ages, the Salvation Army is held in such high respect.

It’s that kind of selfless service that can bring even the most powerful man on earth to the verge of tears.

Let me explain.

As you may have heard, I recently received the Presidential Citizens Medal from President Bush. I did so on behalf of Prison Fellowship and the thousands of men and women, volunteers and staff who make up this movement.

At the ceremony in the Oval Office, the President talked about what true redemption was. He told my family how he was with me when he met a prisoner — a convicted murderer — back in 1998 at our InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Texas. Then, five years later, the President received that very same man, Robert Sutton, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. I had brought him there with two other IFI graduates. Sutton told the President how the love of Christ, displayed through caring Christian volunteers, had transformed him. Bush embraced him.

As the President told that story, tears came to his eyes.

And tears came to mine. That, my friends, is why we live to serve others. So the world may know that Christ is Lord.

________

Copyright (c) 2008 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 servanthoodservicehonor

Fragrance of Christ

Romans 15:14

I … am persuaded … that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. — Romans 15:14.

If only we are self-emptied, our every act may emit a sweet odor to God. The smallest as well as the greatest services may, by the power of the Holy Spirit, present the fragrance of Christ. The paying of a visit, the writing of a letter, the public ministry of the Word, giving a cup of cold water to a disciple, giving something to a pauper, yea, the commonplace acts of eating and drinking all may emit the sweet perfume of the name and grace of Jesus. — A. A.

Lo, from vessels, earthen only,

Shining forth in ceaseless grace,

Reaching weary hearts, and lonely,

Beams the light from Jesus’ face.

from Old Devotional Calendar, 1963 · A. A. via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database serviceselflessness

The Un-Darwinian Sacrifice of Maximilian Kolbe

Luke 6:27

New York Times Magazine has a long piece by cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker called “The Moral Instinct.” Pinker’s article is part of the Darwinian Cleanup Project. This project is an attempt to plug the holes in Darwinism which has a very hard time accounting for -- a) the origin of life, b) consciousness and c) morality. Pinker begins with an interesting comparison between Mother Teresa, Bill Gates and Norman Borlaug (the father of the Green Revolution in agriculture). Pinker argues that while Mother Teresa may have had the noblest intentions, Gates and Borlaug probably did more to help people than the saint of Calcutta. In other words, morality is not simply a matter of intention but also of what one actually does to help people. Excellent point, but what does it have to do with an evolutionary foundation for ethics? Not much.

For the past several decades, leading neo-Darwinists have labored hard to provide a Darwinian basis for morality. The basic idea here is that morality is a form of extended selfishness. The mother who leaps into the burning car to save her children is acting unselfishly from her point of view, but from her genes’ point of view, the action is entirely self-interested. The mother is simply trying to ensure that her genes make it into the next generation. Some evolutionists like Robert Trivers extend this logic to explain why we treat even strangers decently and fairly. This is called “reciprocal altruism,” which may be translated as “I’ll be nice to you, so that you can be nice to me.”

This entire framework of Darwinian analysis does not even come close to explaining morality. It confines itself to explaining altruism, and at best it explains “low altruism.” But humans also engage in “high altruism” which may be defined as behavior that confers no reciprocal or genetic advantage. A man stands up to give his seat on the bus to an old lady. She is nothing to him, and he is certainly not thinking that there may be a future occasion when she will give him her seat. He does it because he’s a nice guy. There’s no Darwinian rationale that can account for his behavior.

Consider the true story of the Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe, who was imprisoned in a German concentration camp for his anti-Nazi activities. Each day the Nazis would choose one person from the group for execution. One of the first persons they selected was a man who pleaded for his life, saying he had a wife and children who were dependent on him and he needed to live in order to look after them. Just as the Nazis were about to drag him from the room, the priest stood up and said, “Take me in his place.” The Nazis were baffled and refused, but the priest insisted. The man was equally uncomprehending, so the priest told him, “I don’t have a family, I am old and won’t be missed like you will.” The Nazis finally agreed, and the priest went to his death. The man whose place he took survived the war and returned to his family.

Now what is the Darwinian explanation for Kolbe’s behavior? It does not exist. Ernest Mayr, a leading evolutionary biologist, admits that “altruism toward strangers is behavior not supported by natural selection.” Richard Dawkins concedes that Darwinism cannot even explain why people donate blood, an action he puts down to “pure disinterested altruism.” I enjoy reading Pinker, Trivers and the others, but I don’t think that the Darwin Cleanup Crew is going to come up with a comprehensive account of morality. The simple reason is that the evolutionary project is necessarily confined to the domain of survival and reproductive advantage -- in other words, to the domain of self-interest -- while it is the essence of morality to operate against self-interest. The whole point of morality is to do what you ought to do, not what you are inclined to do or what it is in your interest to do.

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

Response by a reader:

And once again, Dinesh, you are trying to force darwinism to explain everything. It’s like pointing at the theory of gravity and saying, “Hey! Explain how you affect the geopolitical structure of the middle east! Uh huh, I thought so.”

Morality is a phenomenon exclusive to humanity, until we encounter another intelligent species face to face. We don’t ask about the morality of cows or wolves or oak trees, yet there can be no doubt that all three are under the effect of darwinist forces.

Yet darwinism has provided genetic reasons for non-sentient species to work in concert. And this is the most primal basis for morality and ethics: the ability of a species to act for the survival of other members of their species. For example, a wolf on their own is terribly limited by the amount of prey they can kill. Wolves, working in concert, can bring down much larger prey and provide enough meat for not just the individual wolf, but for all wolves.

Apes and primates, our evolutionary ancestors, were also pack animals. Each pack has an evolutionary stake in the survival of the whole. If one member thrives at the expense of the others, then that’s the genetic equivalent of putting your eggs in one basket. Using primitive altruism, the group as a whole thrives far more effectively than just the individual might.

And what about interpack relations? Why would altruism exist then? In a nutshell, sex. Without genetic colonialism, a specific gene pool is a sitting duck. It takes fifty genetically diverse females to keep a gene pool healthy and discourage inbreeding. Going out and helping another pack gives access to females of that other pack, and vice versa. Sure, you could try to do it by force, but that’s a method with far greater risks. After all, you might be killed before you have a chance to mate with the new females. Or you may drive the females off.

Morality as you are describing it, Dinesh, is the product of this entirely natural genetic phenomenon coupled with language and most importantly, records. Without records it is impossible for a culture to teach its morality. Morality becomes an invention of the moment, rather than the product of generations. And it is largely self-centered towards the betterment of the individual through the betterment of the whole.

So what about the good priest? His sacrifice, in Darwinian terms, was a bid to spare genes that he saw as valuble to the overall group of humanity: the man’s concern for his family. Somewhere in the world there were people who shared genetic commonalities with the good priest. He might not have known they were out there, or who they were, but on a fundamental level he knew that we are all interrelated. By sacrificing himself, he was actually making a genetic bid for the future.

It’s early so I’ll sum up. Morality is the evolutionary descendant of the ability of organisms to act in concert. It follows darwinist theory because related members in a group have a greater chance of their genes repeating. Purely selfless acts infact help sponsor specific genes in those that we help, and reciprocation gives us comfort knowing that if we help others then with a little luck, others will be willing to help us.

"Somber" at 9:29AM on Jan 14th 2008

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #25185]

The Joy-Secret of Otherism

Galatians 6:10

“Let us do good unto all.” — Galatians 6:10

In one of the bedrooms of a certain Christian home there hangs a little card which bears the words: THE SECRET OF JOY — God first, Others next, Self last. Is this indeed the secret of joy? Then most of us are sadly wrong. We think that joy comes by the reverse order; and it is this mistake which lies behind the worship of wealth, the passion for power, and the pursuit of pleasure. Verily we are wrong, as we surely discover sooner or later. The first secret of joy lies in otherism — a going out of one’s heart toward others. Egoism is the supreme enemy of true joy. By many providences God seeks to break our egoism down. Indeed, the very relationships which condition human family life are designed to that end. John Oxenham thus beautifully puts it:

I, Thou, We, They,

Small words, but mighty, in their span

Are bound the life and hopes of man.

For first his thoughts of his own self are full,

Until another comes his heart to rule;

For them life’s best is centred round their love

To younger lives come all their love to prove.

The parental relationships of life are meant to break our egoism down. Henry Drummond says, “A man cannot be a member of a family, and remain an utter egoist.” “No greater day ever dawned than that on which the first human child was born.” Certainly the mother teaches the child; but in a far deeper way, is it not the child who teaches the mother? — and the little one teaches nothing sublimer than just this very thing — otherism.

OTHERISM! The supreme transition in a human heart is that from “selfism” to “otherism”. “One man,” says an old Latin proverb, “is no man at all.” A Wayside Pulpit has it: “A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small parcel!” A life which is always getting and never giving is a Dead Sea. The Lord Jesus says. “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone” — self-preservation the cause of loneliness! Then He adds, “But if it die it bringeth forth much fruit” — self-sacrifice the cure of loneliness!

OTHERISM! Let the word burn into the mind. Like a flame shot into a dark room it suddenly exposes our fundamental error. Like the white flame of a forge let it strike into the thick rust of our selfishness. Oh, if we could but believe it, if we would but receive it, the first secret of true joy lie’s just here. We miss joy because we seek it! Is not the very seeking of joy for its own sake a subtle form of selfishness? — and is not selfishness the very thing that kills joy? Joy is a will-o’-the-wisp to those who run after it; but in some self-forgetting hour when we are touched by another’s need, and we sacrifice to give relief, we suddenly find our hearts aflame with a glorious joy that has come unsought! It is thus that we come to know a like joy to that of our dear Lord. In self-sacrificing service for others we discern the marks of His sandals, and follow in the steps of His example, and share His joy. Must we roam afar to end glory? Nay, the secret of pure joy lies behind our own doors, in otherism.

from The Evangelist · J. Sidlow Baxter via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database selflessness

Pursue Meaning Instead of Happiness

Job 7:16

People pursue happiness, says Emily Esfahani Smith, but it’s always temporary. Pursue meaning instead.

________

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 best-selling 1946 book, Man’s Search for Meaning, Frankl concluded that the difference between those who had lived and those who had died came down to one thing: meaning.

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 the book, “the last of the human freedoms — to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

In his book, Frankl gives the example of two suicidal inmates he encountered in the camps. Like many others there, these two men were hopeless and thought 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.” 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.... 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 the Book-of-the-Month Club listed Man’s Search for Meaning as one of the 10 most influential books in the United States. Today, 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. “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. On the other hand, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about four 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. 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.

This is why some researchers are cautioning against the pursuit of mere happiness. In a new study, 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 — the researchers found that a meaningful life and a happy life overlap in certain ways, but are ultimately very different.

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 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 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.

“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,” says Kathleen Vohs, one of the study authors. 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 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.

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. Having more meaning in one’s life was associated with doing 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.

“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. “If there is meaning in life at all,” Frankl wrote, “then there must be meaning in suffering.”

The wisdom Frankl derived from his experiences in concentration camps, 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.”

By putting aside our selfish interests and serving 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 there is more to the good life than the pursuit of simple happiness.

________

Adapted from the article, "What is a good life?" in The Week magazine, February 13, 2013, which is derived from work by Emily Esfahani Smith in The Atlantic Magazine.

[see also #63932]

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

Donate