Dissecting Morality

I had been involved in a discussion concerning morality. In that discussion, I identified two ways of applying morality: moral absolutism and moral relativism. At that point someone challenged me to define morality and these two ways of applying morality.

Here is my answer:

Until recently, research in cognitive studies have been based on the assumption that decision making is a self-interest utilitarian process. Choice is based on what best serves our goal.

Recently, studies by Marc Hauser, a professor of Biological Anthropology at Harvard University, point to non-utilitarian aspects of the decision making process.

In his studies, subjects were presented with scenarios like the runaway trolley scenarios that I've previously posted in the "life crisis" forum.

A trolley looses its brakes and is rolling out of control down a hill. It is about to hit five people who can not get out of the way. Between the trolley and the five people is a track switch. If the trolley is switched to the alternate track, it would hit only one person. Is it acceptable to switch the track so that the trolley hits only one person?

Almost everyone answer the question with "yes". Hitting one person is better than hitting five.

Then, the subjects were given a new scenario:

There is no switch between the trolley and the five people. However, there is a person large enough to stop the trolley if pushed in front of the trolley. Is it acceptable to push the large person in front of the trolley to save the five people?

Almost everyone answered the question "no".

The results were consistent with people of varying religious belief, culture, ethnicity, age group, and social-economic class.

Occasionally, someone may answer yes for both. However, when dug deeper, the results are consistent with the norm.

e.g., Hauser's father is a medical doctor who is a stoic thinker. His initial response was yes for both since both scenarios resulted in saving five lives instead of one. So Hauser posed a scenario closer to home (in this case closer to work).

You have five patients who are in need of organ transplants but was unable to find matching donors. A healthy person with perfect match for all five patients. Would you sacrifice the life of the healthy donor to save the lives of the five?

His answer is, "Of course, not!"

Then, how can you push the large person in front of the trolley to save the five?

With that, Hauser's father changes his position.

Both scenario involves sacrificing one life for five, yet the latter is unacceptable. The choice made is not based on utilitarian decision making.

No only that, it is not a Pavlovian behavior. i.e., It's not a learned behavior which can be positively or negatively re-enforced. Neither choice to save the five people yielded a more favorable result. This non-utilitarian behavior is not learned but biologically hard-wired.

Hauser describes the non-utilitarian process as a hard-wired moral brake against the self-interest utilitarian decision making engine.

Another example of non-utilitarian response is the test of the self interest economy, which I posted, previously on the "life crisis" forum, as "The Greed Game".

According to Adam Smith's "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", in a free market economy, the self interests of all traders would dictate the distribution of all resources.

In Professor Hauser's studies, subjects were given the roles of donor or recipient. Each donor was given a sum of money, out of which he or she must offer a portion to a recipient. The recipient can accept or reject the offer. If the recipient rejects the offer, the donor and the recipient would loose the entire sum.

If the market is driven by self-interest, all recipients would accept any offer greater than zero since the rejection would result in one not receiving anything; something is better than nothing.

The research, however, shows that if the sum is too low, the recipient would reject the offer. The posts in the "life crisis" forum yielded the same result. And like the posts in the "life crisis" forum, the research subjects identified the lack of a fair distribution as the reason for the rejection of a low offer.

For more examples scenario used in his study, take the Moral Sense Test the Harvard Cognitive Evolution Lab's web site.

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/

Subsequence research were done in several different laboratories using MRI to examine brain activities as subjects make these moral decisions. These research found that brain activities were firing in two different parts of the brain. They were firing in the part of the brain that performs logical and computational thinking. They were also firing the part of the brain that deals with emotional response.

An example of using the MRI in this research:

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0004-282X2001000500001&script=sci_arttext

When the self-interest utilitarian choice wins out, part of the brain that performs logical and computational thinking is much more active than the part of the brain that deals with emotional response.

When the non-utilitarian moral response wins out, the part of the brain that deals with emotional response is much more active than the part of the brain that performs logical and computational thinking.

This result led researchers to conclude that the hard-wired moral brake in our brain is located in the part of the brain that deals with emotional response.

In fact, MRI studies of psychopath/sociopaths show a link between morally bad behavior with diminished mass of that part of the brain. See:

http://www.crimetimes.org/06a/w06ap10.htm

The interesting part is that, in the test of the self interest economy (the greed game), everyone agrees that the fair distribution is 50-50. However, the threshold for rejection is not 50-50. Before the fair distribution level is reached, the self-interest utilitarian processes overpowers the moral brake. (Everyone has price.)

How does this research apply to moral absolutism and moral relativism?

Here is my conclusion:

Morality is hard-wired in the brain.

Moral absolutism is allowing the hard-wired moral brake to stop the self-interest utilitarian decision making processes when it crosses the line.

Moral relativism is when self-interest is so strong that it overpowers the hard-wired moral brake.

Often, people say that moral relativism is not practical. However, when they say so, they are not defining impracticality as unachievable. They really mean that they are not willing to give up their self interest.

Can stealing be right if the situation calls for it? Discussing it in a Christian Forum

Having heard the reactions to the scenario in a non-Christian forum, I was curious to hear the reactions to the scenario in a Christian forum. So I posted the scenario of Hans stealing the medicine to save his wife on some Christian Discussion groups.

This time there were equal numbers saying Hans was right as those saying Hans was wrong. However, there were a couple of women who fervently defended Hans' position.

Their main assertion is that life is precious; so precious that God would want us to steal to protect the life of our love ones.

For my part, I reiterated my two main points:

1) God's standard does not change; stealing is wrong in all circumstances.

2) While life is precious, preservation of life must not trump obedience to God.

Our discussion resulted in pages and pages of posts. Most of these two women's posts are reiteration of their main assertion and accusations of my lack of humanity.

Frustrated with my counterpoints, one of the women stated:

Discussing the right or wrongness of an action bears no fruit that I can see.

So I posted the following:

Most westerner believers think that the scenario that I posted is purely hypothetical. Having traveled through parts of central Asia, I know that Christians in the east have to face this type of decisions all the time. Choosing between pursuing holiness and facing possible death for one's self or for a love one. It is amazing to see what happens when they choose holiness. Not only does God provide (e.g., causes a doctor to change his mind or their friends and neighbors rally to support them), but also God uses their actions to win the hearts and souls of Muslim observers.

In the same way, I could choose to obey God and risk my life by traveling to a certain Muslim country or I could say God surely doesn't want me to go because my life would be endangered. I can still remember the comment of an Uzbek cab driver when I walked out the of police station (when the corrupt police officers were shaking me down for money) and no a single officers stopped me. He said in his broken English, "God with you!" God provided my freedom and provided an open door to this Uzbek man's heart.

In fact, I can personally tell you that evangelical Christians in China pray hard for Christians in the west, especially in America, to have the conviction to say this is right and I'm going to trust God to provide when I do what is right. And even if not, I'm going to do what is right because I will partake of glory on the other side of eternity.

Yes, life is precious. However, it is not to be worshipped in such a way that saving the life is more important than obedience to God. And yes, God commanded us not to steal. It applies now as well as in old testament times. So not stealing is being obedient to God.

So many believers say that they offer up their lives to God but do they truly mean it or do they really mean they offer their services as long as their lives or the lives of their love ones are not at stake.

This is the foundation of our faith. Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac. He can choose to obey God or he can say, "No, life is more precious so God must not really want me to take Isaac up the mountain to be sacrificed".

What would you do if you were in Abraham's place? How you answer that question defines of YOUR faith.*

*I'm adding this footnote just in case someone might misunderstand my last statement. I meant that if we truly believe that life on the other side of eternity is much better than this one and that when we accept Jesus as our Savior we would be saved, would we be clinging so tightly to this life that we are willing to say that it's ok to sin if our lives are at stake.

Can stealing be right if the situation calls for it? Discussion Continues

The discussion concerning Hans' theft of medication for his dying wife continued with more repetition of the same ideas.

So, I wrote the following to sum up my position on the topic:

While I sympathize with Hans' situation, I can not condone doing something wrong for the purpose of doing something right. The logic of the end justifying the means is simply bad logic.

If we apply this logic as being morally right, then Hans can rob his neighbor to get the money to pay for the medication and be morally right.

If we apply this logic as being morally right, then Hans can commit armed robbery of a bank to get the money to pay for the medication and be morally right.

My opposition is that there are too many alternative actions that can be pursued without having to resort to doing something wrong. Hans is either lazy or impatient or has no perseverance and gave up on pursuing morally right options.

My other opposition is that taking a morally wrong short cut has bad consequences. We have a legal framework for a reason. It is to minimize bad consequences. That is why we can not simply isolate our evaluation of Hans' morality to just the intent and the act.

If a metal artist steals an I-Beam from the Minnesota highway bridge over the Mississippi to build the most beautiful sculpture in the entire world. Can we simply isolate our evaluation to just the act of theft of the I-Beam from the bridge and the intent of building the most beautiful sculpture in the entire world? No, we have to consider the possibility of a bridge collapse that kills dozens of people.

In the same way, we must consider the possibility of the entire community loosing the doctor's services as a result of the theft. If the loss of $50, 000 drives the doctor out of the community, we must then consider the death of children dying from preventable diseases because of the doctor's absence.

The end can NOT justify the means!

The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the crazy anti-abortion activists who fire bomb abortion clinics.

The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the eco-terrorists who burn down homes next to wilderness areas.

The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the rioters who burn businesses in the cities hosting the G8 summit.

If you look at all the major atrocities of the twentieth century, they all started with the persuasion of an unsuspecting public that the end justifies the means.

Can stealing be right if the situation calls for it?

Lately, I have been participating in non-Christian forums concerning moral issues. Basically, I wanted to see how well I can defend the Christian perspective in a secular forum in which the contents of the Bible is irrelevant to the other members of the forum.

This week, someone started a new thread with the following post:

A man named Hans has a dying wife with a mysterious disease. It was thought that this disease had no cure until finally a doctor had created a special medicine that can save the life of Hans' wife. The problem is the doctor is charging $50,000 which is much more money that Hans can afford. At first, Hans tries to raise the money but he's still well short of the asking price. He then tries to negotiate with the doctor, but the doctor refuses to lower his price. Finally in a desperate measure, Hans steals the medicine behind the doctor's back. Was Hans wrong to do such a thing?

Immediately, someone else, posted

Nope he wasn't wrong

Another posted the following:

Sure, what Han did was wrong, but any sane human being would do the same thing. I would not equate $50,000 with an irreplaceable human life. The doctor will live and replace the lost money. The wife doesn't have the luxury of replacing her life. Also I'd rather live with the indirect death of others than live without my loved one.

The dilemma is between two moral wrongs. Which wrong is more serious is the question. Is stealing a bigger wrong than not saving a life? It is very cut and dry. The power is in your hands. The guilt and responsibility is yours and yours alone.

Instead of posting a structured argument supporting moral absolutism, I posted the following to prime the discussion:

What if it costs the doctor $50,000 to make the medicine? Let's say that the doctor purchases its ingredients with his own money with the assumption that the patient that needs it would redeem the cost that he incurs?

Now, he's out $50,000 and unable to pay his bills which includes the rent of his office space, the repayment of loan for his medical equipment (like x-ray machines, sterilizing ovens, etc.), and his medical school loan.

So, he packs up his practice to move it to an upscale neighborhood in which his patients are able to pay.

Now, the poor neighborhood, the original location of his practice, is without a doctor; many babies and children die from preventable diseases because of the lack of a doctor there.

Not so cut and dry is it?

The person who started the thread responded with the following:

You're missing the point of the question and adding irrelevent ideas to the story. I'm simply asking if Hans' action is right or wrong from a moral standpoint.

Again, I refrained from posting a structured argument supporting moral absolutism and continued my argument for considering the consequences of Hans' action. I wrote the following:

The ideas that I inject are not irrelevant. You are saying that theft stops at the loss of property and we should weigh the loss of life against the loss of property.

But too often, then it comes to health care, it does not stop at the loss of property.

In fact, the scenario plays out over and over in developing countries in which a socialist government takes over. These government would impose price control on the medical profession (as well as other parts of the economy) using the same comparisons that you specify. Whether it is the government imposing price control or Han stealing the medicine, it's still theft.

The doctors and other medical care workers have bills to pay and with the price control are not able to do so. So they leave the country and the entire nation sinks into a health care disaster. Check the news on Zimbabwe.

Closer to home, in West Virginia, people have been suing Ob/Gyn left and right. Same logic, it's only money; the doctors can re-earn the money. Unable to pay the malpractice insurance, all the Ob/Gyn left West Virginia. People there have to leave the state to get prenatal care if they are able to do so. Those, who don't have the means to travel to neighboring states, suffer. More particularly, these babies suffer.

When it comes to healthcare, theft does not stop at the lost of property.

The moral standpoint must weigh the loss of one life against the loss of many lives.

There are consequences to all our actions and moral judgment must not only account for the single act but also the consequences of that act.

Most of the posts rebutting my posts continues to rehash the argument that Hans is correct because he has chosen the lesser of two evils.

So, I asked the following two questions:

If what you said is true, then would it be ok for Hans to rob a bank to pay the doctor? Would he be right if he rob you to pay the doctor?

Then, someone posted a reply that allows me to segway to my structured argument supporting moral absolutism. He wrote the following:

Right and Wrong is personal perspective. If he were to attempt such a thing, two things can happen:

1.) I would kick his @ss and rob him of his dignity.

2.) He will be put in jail and punished by the courts.

These consequences are the results of the technical wrong he has done to me. This is negative from my perspective because it is not in my best interests to lose $50,000.

But we are speaking from his perspective now. His actions are noble and understandable. If it weren't, then we'd feel no sympathy. If he needed the money for drugs, booze, and prostitutes then I can agree with you 100% that it was totally wrong.

I'll break it down one more time. His actions are wrong because it was an act of theft (against the rules). His intensions were right because he is saving a life (protect family).

It is not black and white like you want it. "Intent" is a very important factor in morality and in law. It could mean the difference between murder and manslaughter. Sometimes judges consider the defendant's competence. This is related with the defendant's "intent" as well. We do not live in a black and white world so don't limit youself to that view.

Here is my reply:

You have misapplied the legal process of determining the defendant's intent. It is not the determination of whether he did wrong in order to help someone else or for selfish gain (the rob Peter to pay Paul scenario) as you described it. It is to determine if he intended to do wrong or was the wrong committed accidentally (the difference between murder and manslaughter).

e.g. Did the accused shoplifted a sweater or did she try it on, continued shopping and forgetting that she still had it on, walked out of the store?

Hans did not mistakenly take the medicine. He purposely took it for his wife.

You also misapplied the legal process of determining the defendant's competence. A defendant's competence is not based on intent. It is a determination of whether the defendant knows if he knows right from wrong. I think we can agree that Hans knows that stealing is wrong. Otherwise, this whole discussion is moot.

So legally, he would be convicted.

But, let's separate what is legal from what is morally right and limit our discussion to what is morally right.

You nailed our disagreement right on the head. It's a matter of whether one believes there is a moral absolute or is morality relative. I believe in a moral absolute and you believe in moral relativism (as do most other participants in this particular thread).

The problem with moral relativism is that often the criteria slips into what's best for one's self is what is right and what's bad for one's self is what is wrong. Your reply is a prime example. You wrote "Right and Wrong is personal perspective... This is negative from my perspective because it is not in my best interests to lose $50,000... But we are speaking from his perspective now. His actions are noble and understandable."

If we apply that criteria, society would fall apart.

That's why we have laws that are... well... absolute.

The scenario is framed for the purpose of supporting moral relativism.

First, it leads the readers to feel sympathetic towards Hans and unsympathetic towards the doctor. What if the doctor borrowed the $50,000 to make the medicine? What if Hans' effort to raise the money consisted of knocking one door and rejected never tried again?

Then, it leads the readers to conclude a false assertion. "Finally in a desperate measure" lead the readers to believe that Hans has exhausted all courses of action.

Hans has not exhausted all courses of action. Not that I'm advocating these actions but, Hans did not rob a bank to get the money to pay for the medicine nor did he rob an individual for the money as I had mentioned before.

Until his wife dies or Hans dies (whichever event comes first), Hans has not exhausted all courses of action. Every day brings new conditions and new opportunities for the acquisition of the medicine.

Hans simply gave up and resorted to breaking the law. And that is why Hans is wrong.

And All These Things Will Be Given to You as Well (Epilog)

At the end of last December, someone slammed into my car. (Thankfully, no one was hurt.) While my car was in the body shop, I drove a rental. A couple of days later, I caught the flu and stayed in bed the entire week. During that week, the city of Baltimore ticketed and towed my rental car that I parked in front of my own house.

I live near the stadium where the Baltimore Ravens NFL team plays. Because game spectators tries to avoid parking fees by parking in my neighborhood, the city designated my street a sticker parking street during stadium events; only cars with a particular parking sticker are allowed to park there.

Unfortunately, my rental car doesn't have a parking sticker and I had not realized that there are any NFL games at the end of the year (That's when they have the college football bowl games).

To get the rental car out of the city impound lot, I had the pay the cost of the ticket, the towing charges, and the impound lot vehicle storage fee; close to five hundred dollars.

I contested it in court and won. However, I did not receive the money back right away. The city had to process all the documents that I submitted.

This week, just as the bills started to come in (see my previous blog), I received the check from the City of Baltimore.

The Lord is faithful once again.

Matthew 6:25-34

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

And All These Things Will Be Given to You as Well

I dread it when the Holy Spirit directs me to give more sacrificially than what I've budgeted. I've already committed much more than the tithe percentage of my monthly net income. And I've also specified a couple of percentages more for discretionary giving to the homeless that I meet on the street. So, when the Holy Spirit appeals to me to help with more, I would spend several days praying about it.

O.K., I really don't spend the prayer time seeking God's guidance. It's more like several days of protesting the request of the Holy Spirit. More particularly, it's a couple of days of protesting and a couple of more asking Him to prepare me for the storm.

You see, the issue isn't about the giving of the money; I always leave some breathing room in my monthly budget.

What I dread is that whenever I give beyond what I've budgeted, without exception, a series of events/setbacks would follow and take me financially into an area that is completely out of my control.

This week was no exception.

A young woman, that I know, needed financial help with the cost of mission college training. I wrestled with the Holy Spirit concerning the amount. I offered an amount that I can afford but the Holy Spirit kept me restless. I reworked my budget and offer a little more but the Holy Spirit continued to keep me restless. Finally, I threw out my budget and asked the Holy Spirit to pick a figure; and He took away the breathing room from my budget for the next several months.

Lord, please, prepare me for the storm! Please, please, prepare me for the storm.

When my heart calmed, I unfurled the sail.

Then, the storm hit. My brother's Medicare prescription plan hit the "donut hole" and his prescriptions will cost $800 per month for the next several months. My car's air conditioner gave out during the hottest part of the summer. A lightening strike burned out the circuitry in my house's heat pump. My main sewer line backed up into my basement bathroom tub because the tree in front of my house grew its root into it.

I am, by no mean, destitute. I do have savings from which to draw. I just hate to have to dip from that fund since I don't believe that Social Security nor my company pension would be there when I retire.

Besides, in all previous times, when the Lord pushed me out from the security of my safety net, He had always provided so that I would not have to withdraw a single dime from my savings.

What I truly dread is the fear from the financial freefall that He forces me to take before catching me again.

Each time, He would whisper, "Trust me. Trust me" as I watched the earth jumped up at me at two hundred miles per hour. And just as my heart is ready to stop, He would pull the parachute.

You'd think that after so many times that He has proven that He is faithful to provide for all my needs, the fear would go away.

So, I had to learn the lesson, once again.

Matthew 6:25-34

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

My Dad, a Reflection of Our Father in Heaven

One of the blogs that I read regularly is that of an young woman named Colleen. Recently, she posted a blog entry about her dad. My dad passed away several years ago but as I read this blog entry, I was flooded with memories of my dad bringing him back to me momentarily.

So, I am remembering my dad in this blog entry and introducing him to you.

Several years ago, I gave a book to all the men in my house church. It was a book by Stu Webber called "Tender Warrior". In his book, Webber identifies four aspects of true manhood.

He is a Leader/King.

He is a Protector/Warrior

He is a Magician/Mentor

And he is a Friend/Lover

He is a Leader/King who receives his calling from the Lord, casts that vision for others, and invites others to come join the call.

He is a Protector/Warrior who fights for and provides for those the Lord puts under his care.

He is a Magician/Mentor who motivates and teaches those, which the Lord had brought to listen, by showing them the wonders and delights of what the Lord had shown him.

He is a Friend/Lover who speaks and acts with care and compassion for all those around him.

My dad, he was all four.

My dad was a leader who abandoned his lucrative teaching career in Taiwan to follow his calling to bring his wife and children to America. But most importantly, he was a leader who continues to take his family on his journey of faith.

My dad was a protector and provider for our family. He worked hard to earn a living and worked hard at attending to our needs at home. But there were always times when my dad made the decision to sacrifice the financial security of the family in following his calling and allowing the Lord to be our protector and provider.

My dad was a mentor. He was not just a teacher to his students. He wasn't just interested in dispensing information. My dad nurtured his students' growth as individuals, helping them acquire wisdom. Especially for my brother and me, my dad surrounded us with an environment for learning and character development. He exposed us to world literature while my mom exposed us to music and the arts. All the while, they encouraged us to pursue the sciences. But most important of all, he instilled in us a calling to pursue compassion and faith.

But of the four aspects of manhood that Webber identified, and my dad exemplified, the most indelible in my heart, is that last one. My dad was a man of love.

My dad was a man who loved his God, who loved his wife, his children, his students, his neighbors. During my childhood and into my adult years, my dad demonstrated every day that he was a man of love.

Although my dad was an English professor, words were not what he used most to express his love. My dad loved with action.

I remember, when I was a child, my dad would rush home from work to spend time with me before dinner. He would take me riding on his motorcycle. We would go downtown to see all the lights And we would go to the rail station to watch the trains. How I treasure those rides with my dad!

I remember one year, on my birthday, during a major ice storm, my dad insisted on going out to the store because we didn't have a cake with which to celebrate. He ended up in an automobile accident. But that day, there was a cake.

Even without action, my dad showed how much he loved my brother and me and showed how proud he is of us. No one can miss the way his face beamed whenever he presented his boys to his friends and colleagues.

My dad loved my mom. My dad loved her by being the husband who strives to build the home for his wife. My childhood images, of love in the home, were that of my mom and dad enjoying each other's company as they work around the house together. There is joy in their faces when they painted the living walls together. There is laughter when they prepared the soil for planting or when they harvested from our backyard garden.

My dad loved his neighbors. One of our neighbors was an elderly couple, Mr. and Mrs. Kaiser. I remember my dad cutting the grass in our yard and when he's done, he'd roll the lawn mower over to the Kaiser's to mow their yard. He'd rake the leaves in their yard after he raked our yard. And He'd trim their bushes after he'd trim ours. I remembered asking him why he did that, asking him if Mr. Kaiser had asked him to do their yard. My dad, he'd say, "No, they didn't ask. But they are old and have a hard time doing it themselves." And he left it at that as if the answer was self-explanatory.

My dad loved his students. He tutored them. He encouraged them. And the evidence of his love for them is their love for him. Year after year, my dad was selected by his students as their favorite professor.

Once, one, of his students, needed someone to co-sign his education loan. Evidently, the student's parents were either unable to or unwilling to co-sign the loan. My dad co-signed the loan. I don't know how often he did that for his students. I would not have known about my dad co-signing the student's loan if it wasn't for that particular student having defaulted on the loan.

My dad's income as a college professor was quite meager. My dad's income was definitely not large enough to be able to cover a student's defaulted loan.

So, early on, my dad taught me that love requires sacrifice. What better foundation than that is there for understanding scripture verses like John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God's ultimate demonstration of love through sacrifice.

But coupled with the constant reenforcement of my dad's demonstration of love through sacrifice is his demonstration of his trust in the Lord to provide when we step out in faith.

Often, my dad's spontaneous generosity would put our family's budget at risk. And each time, my dad allows the Lord to prove scripture verses like Matthew 6:33

But Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be given to you.

And indeed, the Lord provided for our family abundantly: through the time when my dad didn't have an income because he was trying to complete his Ph.D. and through times of medical crisis for my dad and my brother. The Lord even provided pretty much a free ride through college for my brother and me.

Most important of all, the Lord brought salvation to my life through my dad. My heart was hard toward the Lord until my dad's massive stroke twenty years ago. When he had the stroke, the doctor said that my dad would not live beyond the week. It was at that point I went on my knees to ask the Lord to spare my dad's life. And if He saves my dad, I would give my life to the Lord. My dad was out of the hospital before the end of week.

My dad had set for me a wonderful example of godly manhood. This legacy, that I inherited from my dad, is of greater worth than a hundred-acre estate or a multimillion dollar trust fund.

It was a priceless gift of being an apprentice to a man who had mastered the art of godly love.

No, I can't honestly say that I have acquired all that character that my dad had modeled for me. There are good days and there are bad days. On bad days, I fall flat on my face. But on the good days... On those days when I came close...

when you see me, you've seen my father.

Although my mother, my brother and I miss my dad very much, we are also very much at peace and are filled with joy for my dad. When he was a young man, my dad received the faith to accepted the Lord's gift of salvation through Jesus Christ and because of this faith my dad is now with the Lord. And because of that same faith, he was given the grace to raise a family whose foundation is firmly set in Christ.