Have you seen the pictures? Have you read about the “Miracle on the Hudson” River in New York City? The pilot of an airplane whose engines were destroyed by a flock of birds, did his job just as he was supposed to do it, and 150+ people are alive today who could easily have died without his skill, his presence of mind and his courage.
A “hero” is defined as “a person who commits an act of bravery or who has shown great courage…” We like to hear such stories, for they remind us that such selfless acts of heroism still take place. Many books and stories have been written with such heroes at the center.
Last week’s events remind us of a similar event in New York City several years ago. An airplane crashed into a body of water in the heart of the city. In the midst of obvious danger, a man swam in icy water to the downed plane and helped several people to safety.
What is it that makes a person do such things? Why do they risk their lives in dangerous situations that present serious peril to their life? In so doing they must have a motivation, a reason for doing so.
Some have responded following such events that they realized they could not have lived with themselves had they not acted.
Philosophers have dealt with these issues for years. Man has something within him that cannot be explained by contemporary evolutionist views that deal with man’s source of life. Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Practical Reason, stated:
Two things fill the mind with admiration and awe: the starry heavens above and the moral law within man.
I would probably disagree with Kant in many areas, but he raises a very interesting issue here. As have many others, he approached the question–whence came that moral law–that “sense of ought” within man? What makes a man act in a way that is opposite to his own best interests, or that presents a danger to himself?
The man in New York years ago risked his life to rescue people that he did not even know. Why did he risk his life in so doing? Why would any man, under any circumstances, take such a risk voluntarily? Man has referred to this element within us as a “sense of ought.” Perhaps that man did not want to risk his life but knew that he “ought” to do so. While there are weaknesses in all of us, many people do exercise this “moral law” and think nothing of it. Sometimes in the midst of danger, while at other times they simply see a need and feel the “ought” in their own conscience.
How and from what source did that sense of ought arise in man? An animal, when in a dangerous situation, usually reacts in the direction of his strongest instincts – it flees! Humans, on the other hand, often act in the direction of their weakest instincts, perhaps even placing themselves in a more dangerous situation. In other words, there is a significant difference in the way an animal reacts to danger and the way a human reacts to danger.
Why does a man often rush to the aid of another human – or even a wounded animal – risking his/her own life instead of fleeing the danger? There is something within man that is not present in the animal world. Yet, if all arose from dead “matter”, as Darwin claimed, how did
this “sense of ought” develop in man but not in animals? By evolution? Not a chance!
Why does a human not react to perceived danger in the direction of his/her own “best interests”? Why do “heroes” do what they so often do? What would happen if they failed to do so – would they feel guilt? Would they not be “able to live with themselves”?
The answer to these questions rests in the fact that man is part of God’s creation (Genesis 1:26-28), and a realization that mankind is responsible to “love one another” (John 13:34 and eleven other sites). The root of that word “love” is the Greek word agape, and is described by W. E. Vine this way: “…is not an impulse from the feelings, it does not always run with the natural inclinations, nor does it spend itself only upon those for whom some affinity is discovered. Love seeks the welfare of all, and works no ill to any; seeks opportunity to do good to all.” See both Romans 15:1 and 1 Corinthians 13:1-8.
There are many who do just that without the usual ingredients of heroism. They may not rescue someone from a burning building or land an airplane with one hundred and fifty people on board. They may not protect a baby from a molester or foil a bank robbery. They may just do what is best for those with whom they associate and for whom they have opportunities to help, to sympathize, a means to encourage and to share their pain.
For many, that is the real definition of a hero today, and each Christian has the opportunity to be such a hero. Why don’t we all apply for that job?
