The title of our sermon this morning is Spend and Be Spent, and we are in 2 Corinthians chapter 12. We're looking at this passage that begins in verse 14 and runs through verse 18. Spend and Be Spent from 2 Corinthians chapter 12, 14 to 18. The Methodist minister, William Booth, painted a picture of Christian ministry. Here's what Booth said. I saw a dark and stormy ocean over it. The black clouds hung heavily through them every now and then vivid lightning flashed and thunder rolled while the winds moaned and the waves rose and foamed, towered and broke, only to rise and foam, tower and break again. In that ocean, I thought I saw myriads of poor human beings plunging and floating, shouting and shrieking, cursing and struggling and drowning. And as they cursed and screamed, they rose and shrieked again and then some sank to rise no more. And I saw out of this dark, angry ocean a mighty rock. It rose up with its summit towering high above the black clouds that overhung the stormy sea. And all around the base of this great rock, I saw a vast platform. Onto this platform, I saw with delight, number of the poor struggling, drowning, wretches continually climbing, continuing being pulled out of the angry ocean. And I saw that a few of those who were already safe on the platform were helping the poor creatures still in the angry waters to reach the place of safety. On looking more closely, I found a number of those who had been rescued. They were industriously working and scheming by ladders and ropes and boats and other means more effective to deliver the poor struggleers out of the sea. Here and there, there were some who actually jumped into the water, regardless of the consequences and their passion to rescue the perishing. And I hardly know which gladdened me the most, the sight of poor drowning people climbing onto the rocks, reaching a place of safety or the devotion and self-sacrifice of those whose whole being was wrapped up in the effort for their deliverance. But what puzzled me most was the fact that though all of them had been rescued at one time or another from the ocean, nearly every one of them seemed to have forgotten all about it. It seemed that the memory of its darkness and danger no longer troubled them at all. And what seemed equally strange and perplexing to me was that these people did not even seem to have any care, that is, any agonizing care about the poor perishing ones who were struggling and drowning right before their very eyes. Some of them were absorbed day and night in trading, in work, in business, in order to make gain. They were absorbed in storing up their savings in boxes and safes and the like. Many spent their time absorbed in amusing themselves with growing flowers on the side of the rock, others in painting or playing music. Then the author goes on to describe that, which most amazed him, that those who had been rescued by the rock, who was plunged beneath the depths for them, stood on the platform, so taken up with their trades, their professions and their pleasures, that they ignored his calls to them to labor with him in the water. So that illustration pictures well the sin of complacency that so easily ensnares the professing church, that so easily ensnares us, doesn't it? Tasked with a good work of eternal importance, tasked with a good work of eternal significance with heaven and hell in the balances, so to speak. We find ourselves too often, don't we, so easily absorbed day and night with the affairs of this life, trading in business, amusing ourselves in pleasure, finding all matter of distractions, saving in boxes and safes and the like. But if you look more closely, if you look more closely, you'll find that many of those who claim to have been rescued out of the sea, you'll find that they're standing on a platform there around the rock, now fallen in among thorns, standing there unmoved by the perishing in the water. They're taken in among thorns and the thorns, the cares, the riches, the pleasures of this life choke out the seed that was sown in their heart and they simply have traded now one path to hell for another. So here's what Paul would say then. Here's what Paul would say. Therefore, brother, therefore, sister, listen, if there is any consolation in Christ, if there's any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the spirit, if any affection, if any mercy, Paul, please fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord of one mind. Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind, let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out, not only for his own interest, but also look out for the interest of others. Let this mind be in you, this mind that Paul has just described. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. Consider his example. Consider for a moment that this was his mind toward his ministry, who, being in the form of God, he did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but he made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond-servant and coming in the likeness of men, being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death in the cross. So if the Lord has saved you out of the ocean of your sin by dying in your place, then brother, sister, you have been saved into a ministry. Praise God that you've been saved. Praise God that he has redeemed you through his blood, but you've been saved to ministry. If he's reconciled you to himself through Jesus Christ, if he has become sin for you so that you might become the righteousness of God in him, and he has reconciled you to himself through Jesus Christ, then he has given you the ministry of reconciliation. We've been called to ministry. Much has learned about this ministry from the example of the Apostle Paul, particularly in our study of 2 Corinthians. Follow the example of the Lord Jesus Christ. Following his example, we see Paul's sacrifice. Following the example of the Lord Jesus Christ, we see Paul's labor. We see his care. We see his concern for the Lord's church. We see how he suffers on their behalf, how willing he is to enter suffering on their behalf, giving up the pleasures of this life for treasure and the life to come, for their eternal benefit, for the good of their soul, for their spiritual well-being, for treasure in heaven, Paul labors, Paul suffers, Paul loves. We see his great love for them in Christ, even when they don't love him back, right? Even when they don't love him back. Paul says, I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls, even though the more abundantly I love you the less I'm loved, even to that degree. Paul would then call us to follow his example. That's what I think texts like this do. They teach us many things. We learn much from the example of Paul. We learn much from texts like this. But aren't we exhorted to Paul's example here? Aren't we challenged by Paul's love for the Lord, by Paul's love for the Lord's church, love for the Lord's people? Paul calls us to imitate him as he imitates Christ. He would call us to spend and be spent in ministry. Only one life will soon be passed. It's only what's done for Christ that will last, amen? To spend ourselves and to be utterly expended, to exert the greatest effort in the cause of Christ, not to be ensnared by the passing pleasures of this life. And what does this look like? What does that look like? We see that largely in the example of Paul, don't we? We see that illustrated in the example of our Lord Jesus Christ who gave himself for us, but then in the ministry of the Apostle Paul, as Paul works out that in the life of these dear beloved people in Corinth, works out that ministry among them. I want us to consider three points from Paul's example in 2 Corinthians chapter 12 verses 14 through 18. Three points from Paul's example there. One, the aim of our effort. If we were to consider what we should spend, what we should be about in this life, we should consider the aim of our effort from the example of Paul in verse 14, the aim of our effort. Secondly, the extent of our effort, what Paul would spend. The extent of our effort in verse 15, and lastly the sincerity of our effort verses 16 through 18, the aim of our effort, the extent of our effort, and the sincerity of our effort. Consider with me point one on your notes, the aim of our effort from verse 14, the aim of our effort. If we are to spend and be spent for the Lord Jesus Christ, on behalf of the Lord, for the Lord's church, for the Lord's people, then consider the aim of that effort from verse 14, where Paul says, now for the third time, I'm ready to come to you, and I'll not be burdensome to you, for I do not seek yours, but you, for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. On verse 14, Paul explains both a plan and a purpose, a plan and a purpose. The word that begins at verse 14 is look or behold.  That's Paul's plan. I'm going to stick to my commitment. In other words, Paul is saying here in verse 14, I'm not going to take any financial support from you that's been my pattern. I'm going to stick with it. He gives them fair warning that he's about to make another visit, giving them opportunity to get their thinking straight, giving them opportunity to repent of sin, to turn back to him, as he said to them in 1st or 2nd Corinthians, Chapter 6, for them to open their hearts to him, to show their affection. And then Paul says he's not going to change his pattern. He's not going to be lumped together with the false teachers who are ministering incorrents for money, peddling the word of God for profit. He's not there to fleece the flock as they are doing, as his opponents are. And unlike others who have infiltrated the church for personal gain, Paul isn't there for that purpose. He wants there to be no misunderstanding about this. What is Paul's purpose in Corinth? What is he there about verse 14? I do not seek yours but you. Third time I'm ready to come to you. I will not be burdensome to you. I do not seek yours but you. I don't seek what is yours. We know what he's saying, right? I'm not seeking your possession. I don't want your money. I'm not after your stuff.   I want the eternal blessing of your soul, the eternal good of your soul. I want your heart fully devoted to the Lord. I want your heart fully devoted to the Lord's cause, to the Lord's work. I don't want everything that you have. I want everything that you are. I don't want yours. I want you. And I don't want anything to get in the way of that. I'm willing to sacrifice for it. I'm not going to take support from you. It's most important to Paul that they understood what he was there for. And it was most important to Paul that nothing got in the way of that. Nothing got in the way of that. I do not seek yours but you. The Paul was being accused by the false apostles of not being worthy of payment for his services. So even in this sacrificial work that Paul does, this sacrificial blessing that he gives the church at Corinth, Paul is accused. Paul stands accused by the false teachers. Paul stands accused even amongst the Corinthians themselves as if he wasn't worthy of payment for his services. And at the same time, we'll look at it later, Paul's being accused of taking advantage of the Corinthians through the collection that he's taking up for poor saints in Jerusalem. Even accused with regard to the money through that collection, it appears as though the Corinthians, in addition to all this, to add insult to injury, it appears as though the Corinthians thought that Paul didn't love them. That Paul didn't love them as much as Paul loved the other churches because Paul, being closer to them, would accept financial support from them but wouldn't accept financial support from the church at Corinth. They turned it entirely on its head, do you see? The fact that Paul would take support from poor Macedonians and refuse support from the Corinthians somehow in the mind of the Corinthians meant that Paul didn't love them the way that he loved the Macedonians. It was an honor culture, right? And they viewed it as a dishonor. It's amazing, isn't it? The way that we get things twisted up in our heads, twisted up in our minds. And we just address these issues in chapter 11. Put the page back and look at chapter 11, verse 7. He addresses the very same issue here in chapter 11, verse 7 where Paul says, did I commit sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted because I preach the gospel of God to you free of charge? You see how in chapter 11, verse 7, he's answering the accusation. This accusation comes again and again and again. Paul is addressing it again and again and again. It's filthy, lucre, right? This issue of money continues to come up. Listen, for that reason, if for no other, to honor the Lord Jesus Christ, we have to be careful and faithful about the way that we deal with money. Because that, the enemy gets more mileage out of that wicked temptation. It seems that he does most others. Here it is again, the apostle Paul being raked over the coals about money. Did I commit sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted because I preach the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches taking wages from them to minister to you. When I was present with you and in need, I was a burden to no one. For what I lacked, the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied, and in everything I kept myself from being burdensome to you, and so I will keep myself. Now, there's a couple of reasons for doing that. One certainly is for their benefit. He loves them and he doesn't want this issue of money to be a stumbling block in their mind. But he's also going to mention another reason in just a moment. He says in verse 10, as the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of a chaos. Why? Because I do not love you. That was the accusation, right? Somehow Paul doesn't love them. God knows I love you, he says in verse 11. But here's why I do it verse 12. What I do, I will also continue to do so that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. I want to cut off the boasting and the opportunity for boasting amongst these false teachers in Corinth. Such are false apostles, deceitful workers transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. They are ministers of Satan. Paul says, listen, it's not about the money. It's not about the money. It's not about what you have. How many times are we out witnessing, right? And inevitably, it comes up on a routine basis. I go to church and all I hear is how much are you given?  What a wicked, deplorable caricature of the Lord's church and the Lord's motives and the Lord's work and the Lord's cause. Paul says, it's not about the money. I'm not here for that. I do not seek what is yours, but you. I love you as a father. Paul says, I love you as a father. Verse 14. The children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. They told him in the first letter in his first letter, first Corinthians, he said, for though you might have 10,000 instructors in Christ in chapter four, yet you do not have many fathers for in Christ Jesus, I have begotten you through the gospel. Paul views them as his spiritual children, so to speak, as if he had begotten them himself through the gospel. Paul loved them as a father loves his own children. He loved them in chapter 11. He sees himself as the protective father of the bride. He betrothed them to the Lord Jesus Christ. He is now jealous for their purity, jealous for the bride's devotion to her bridegroom, jealous for her love for the bridegroom. And then here in chapter 12, he sees himself as the providing father, the providing father of the bride. It's his joy to provide for them and not the other way around. Paul says, look, I'm not your employee. I'm not your employee. I'm not a stranger. I'm not a guest speaker. Paul didn't just bop in to preach a sermon, get an honorarium and take off again. He's not a guest speaker. He says, I'm like a spiritual father to you. And you're like my spiritual children. This is the aim of all of Paul's ministerial effort among them. This is Paul's heart. I do not seek what is yours but you. Maybe you've experienced this before, right? I've been out to dinner many times with my parents.  I've just gotten a little older, right? I've gotten a little older. Got a little older. I earn an income for myself now, praise the Lord, by God's grace. That comes from the gracious and faithful giving of God's people. And I'm blessed to be able to work in ministry. Thank you for that. And but I can, I can pay for my dinner. I can pay for the dinner of our family. So have you ever experienced that, right? When now you're out with your parents, you've gotten a little older, you have your own income, and at the end of the meal, there's this argument, this fight over who's going to pay the bill, right? No, no, I'll take it. It feels weird for them to continue to pay, but it feels weird to them. So the same thing happens when we're out with our kids, and I'm sure always will. I'm going to be old and decrepit by that point. They're going to have gainful employment, and I'm still going to feel the responsibility, the desire I want to pay for their dinner, right? Even though I'm a, you know, at that point, who knows what, there's not going to be any social security left folks. So, I mean, need them to pay for my, for my meal. We understand the, the responsibility involved with that, right? Parents give to their children. They provide for their children. Children don't lay up for their parents. Paul is invoking his parental rights here, so to speak, in verse 14. As if to say, I don't seek what is yours. I want you. I seek you. This is illustrated really well in First Thessalonians. Turn with me to First Thessalonians chapter two. A really good picture of this from Paul's letter to this dear church, First Thessalonians chapter two, and beginning there in verse one, First Thess, chapter two, verse one.  His work among them, his integrity, his honesty, his life, his character, evidenced clearly among them.  Even after we had suffered before and were spitefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we were bold in our God to speak to you, the gospel of God, in much conflict. Why? Because we love you. We love you. For our exhortation did not come from error or uncleanness, nor was it in deceit. I wasn't wily and crafty to try to deceive you, to get my long arm in your short pocket. I came to you in love. Our exhortation did not come from error or uncleanness, nor was it in deceit. But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so then we speak, not as pleasing men, but as pleasing God who tests our hearts. Paul later asked, are you seeking the favor of men or of God? Whose favor are you seeking? The favor of men or the favor of God? Are we striving to please men? If you are laboring to please men, then you are not a bond servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, right? We are not here for that. We are here for you, Paul says. Verse five, for neither at any time did we use flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak for covetousness. God is witness. We are not here for what is yours. We are here for you. We didn't labor among you for money. Verse six, nor do we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, when we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. Paul says elsewhere, in particular 1 Corinthians chapter nine, that those who minister with the gospel should earn their living by the gospel. It's axiomatic. It's a rule, right? But Paul, even though he has that right, didn't make demands of them. According to that, he wanted to have them understand that he was there for them. Verse seven, how did that look?  That picture of a nursing mother, right? So affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you, not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives. Why? Because you'd become dear to us, because we love you. Paul told them, essentially, I will very gladly spend and be spent for you. I will very gladly love you in that way.  Laboring night and day that we might not be a burden to any of you. We preach to you, you could say, free of charge, the gospel of God. Paul is saying, we want not what is yours, but we want you. Do you see? Could he make it any more evident in the way that he lives his life and the way that he conducted himself in ministry and what he's done, what they saw among them from Paul? We want not what is yours, but you. You are witnesses, verse 10, and God also how devoutly, how justly, how blamelessly we behaved ourselves among you who believe.  And notice there what the loving father does. Notice what the loving father does. First, he's a good example. We see that in verse 10. You saw, you are witnesses to how we devoutly and justly and blamelessly conducted ourselves. He's a good example of integrity, of honesty, of righteousness, of blamelessness. But also notice what the father does in verse 11. He exhorts, he comforts, he charges, or he implores, he pleads for what purpose? For the purpose of patting his wallet? For the purpose of getting at their stuff? No. But, verse 12, that you would walk worthy of God who calls you into his own kingdom and glory. You would walk worthy of him. You see how this expresses love, right? For the Lord Jesus Christ. A love for the Lord's church, a love for the Lord's example, a love for the Lord's work, a love for the Lord's cause, and also a love for these dear people willing to pour himself out for them. So that's Paul's point then. Back in 2 Corinthians chapter 12, verse 14, he is treating them as a father in the same way. Fathers don't take from their children. Fathers give in love. I'm after the well-being of your soul, Paul says. Now, Paul, elsewhere, actually took support from some of his spiritual children. Paul actually exercised that right on occasion, not seeking the gift as he told the Philippians, but seeking the fruit that abounds to your account. Where Paul believed that it was right, good, and just to do so, Paul does. Here in Corinth, he refrains. Why did he refrain in Corinth? Love. He refrains because of love. It was simply better for them if he refrained so that he could say to them with evidence to back it up, listen, I'm not here for what is yours. I'm here for you. Can you see how in the mind of these waffling, vacillating, often simple, compromising Corinthians, it could have been easily twisted. Paul's not here for us. They look at the money that we're giving him. It was already being twisted. Paul was already being accused. Paul is saying, look at the evidence. Look at the evidence. You see how devoutly, unjustly, and blamelessly we have conducted ourselves, how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you as a father does his own children.  We seek not what is yours, but you. That must be the aim of all of our ministry. Your in ministry for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the glory of God, to love him supremely by obeying his commandments, by serving his church, by loving his people, right? The aim of our efforts in ministry must be you, must be the Lord's people, must be your spiritual well-being, your good, your health, your perseverance, your faithfulness, right? Preaching the gospel to the lost, to a lost person. You should be able to say, I'm not after what is yours. I'm here for you. Why would you do that? Why would you go to that door that could very likely get slammed in your face? Why would you have that conversation? Why would you put yourself out like that? Because I'm not here for what is theirs. I'm not out for me. I'm out for them. I'm out for the Lord Jesus Christ. Ministering in the Lord's church, I seek not what is yours, but you. And if that's truly your heart, right? If that's your heart, as it is the Apostle Paul's heart, then you will let them have you as well, right? Goes along with the territory, doesn't it? I'm not here for what is yours. I'm here for you. That presupposes that you're there for them. They're going to have you as well. The Lord doesn't seek what is yours. He owns it all. Amen. The Lord seeks you, your heart, your devotion, your love. Let him have you. Amen. And let them have you. That should be the extent, the aim of our effort should be to let them have it. This is true of every God honoring relationship, right? When you become a Christian, you're given a stewardship. You're giving a, you're given a responsibility for those relationships around you. Husbands, let your wife have you. At the end of the day, a godly wife is not out for what's in your bank account. She wants you. And you can say, I neglect her. It's a necessity because I have to work. I've got to work. I've got to work. I'm going to neglect her. She wants you. Wives, your husband should have you. He's not out for what is yours. He's not trying to run your life for, right? You've got a godly husband. Let him have you. Parents, let your kids have you. It's certainly true in the Lord's church. Certainly true in the Lord's church.  And as Paul thinks about all that, Paul himself, knowing what the Lord Jesus Christ gave for him, Paul says, I'll give it all. I'm going to give it all. Knowing that the Lord gave his life for Paul. Paul now says, turns and says, I'll no longer live for myself, but for him who died and gave himself for me. I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls. And Paul does that in the context of ministry, ministry among the Lord's people, ministry in the Lord's church. I don't know how much more clearly I don't think it can be made any more clearly. It's been made, the case has been made perfectly by the infinitely wise spirit of God through the word of God, that the Christian life is not merely showing up for church on a Sunday morning. That is not the Christian life. Certainly you should show up for church on Sunday morning. The Lord Jesus Christ isn't simply after your time. Do what you're supposed to do, fill out the form, check the box. You were there on Sunday from 11 to 1130. Right?  Whole soul, whole hearted devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. We're to give it all. Paul says I will very gladly spend and be spent for your soul. Paul said that first of Lord Jesus Christ, didn't he? Lord, what would you have me do? What would you have me do? I will very gladly spend and be spent for you, Jesus Christ. And certainly now he turns to the Lord's people, the Lord's church, the Lord's cause. And he says the same, I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls. That speaks to point two on your notes then, the extent of our effort, doesn't it? The extent of our effort. He says in verse 15, I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls, even though the more abundantly I love you the less I'm loved. This speaks of the length to which Paul is willing to go in love for these people. Paul, this describes his ministry. This describes Paul's ministry. Paul says I will very gladly spend and be spent. The word most often used there for spending, most often used for spending actual resources, actual money, actual time. But here in verse 15, it means that and far more. He said, I'll very gladly spend, in other words, spend his time, spend his money, spend his resources, spend his energy. And then Paul adds and be spent, be utterly expended. I will give everything I have and I will give everything I am for your souls, for your good, for your eternal benefit.  That's what Paul is saying. He says something similar in Philippians chapter 2, verse 17. Paul says, there, yes, and if I am being poured out as a drink offering on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. Paul says, be glad with me, rejoice with me in that. Paul is saying, regarding the extent of his ministry, he will spend, utterly spend, and he will be utterly spent for the sake of these Corinthians. He says, listen, if it means your salvation, if it means your salvation, your eternal well-being, if it means the good of your soul, if it means your perseverance in the faith, if it means your joy in the Lord, if it means your growth, if it means your maturity, if it means your knowledge of him, if it means your wisdom, if it means your spiritual understanding, if it means your faithfulness, if it means your fruitfulness in the work, if it means that you may know him and the power of his resurrection, if you may know the fellowship of his suffering, if it means comforting you when you're faint-hearted, right? If it means warning you when you're unruly, if it means confronting you in your sin, if it means strengthening you in the battle against him, if it means upholding you in your weak, if it means fighting off false teachers, Paul says, I will gladly spend and be spent for you. I don't seek what is yours, I seek you. Do you see? I'll do what it takes, Paul says, if it means staying up all night making tents, so I don't have to take money from you and be a burden to anyone here, so that I don't get accused falsely and risk putting a stumbling block in your mind over this whole money deal. Paul says, I'll do what it takes, I'll make tents if it takes that to get help from other churches if it takes that, so that I won't be a burden to you. I'm not here for what is yours, I'm here for you. I will gladly spend and be spent. And listen here, he's not reluctant to do it. He's not resistant. Paul doesn't have to be pledged with and cajoled and argued into this. Paul says, of course I get tired, right? In weariness often, in toil often, in sleeplessness and hunger and thirst. Paul says, of course there's difficulty. Of course it requires great sacrifice, but my joy, Paul says, is in serving the Lord's church, serving the Lord's people, ultimately serving the Lord, right?  Do you see? Why? Why is that the case? Because I love you. I love the Lord. Loving the Lord like that has authored a love within Paul for the Lord's people. That's why love for the brothers is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. Love for the brothers is a spirit wrought fruit, genuine saving faith and a new heart in Christ. It's a fruit of the spirit. Paul says, I long for your eternal well-being. It's for your soul, not here for what is yours, but for you, even though, even though, verse 15, the more abundantly I love you the less I'm loved. This is how Paul feels, right? His heart is laid bare. The more and more and more Paul feels that I pour out love that I have for you, the more distant and cool and disaffected you become toward me. The ESV, the NASB trains like this is a question, I think rightly so. If I love you more, am I to be loved less? Same basic meaning is intended, right? One translation presents the reality as a statement of fact, and it's true. The more I love in this situation in Corinth, even though the more I pour out love toward you Corinthians, you seem to love me less. The rhetorical question is convicting and piercing, isn't it? Even though the more abundantly I love you, right? If I love you more, am I to be loved less? The reality in Corinth is this. The more that Paul poured himself out in love for the Corinthians on the sacrifice and service of their faith, the less and less they seemed to love him in return, chose the extent of Paul's love for them, the extent of Paul's effort. He continues to pursue them, makes his sacrifice and love for them even more worthy of imitation, doesn't it? Demonstrates his sincerity, demonstrates his sincerity. It's not conditional in that sense on them reciprocating his love. I'm not doing it anymore until you do something for me, right? It's not a quid pro quo. Points of the sincerity of our effort. Point three on your notes, verse 16. Be that as it may, Paul says, even though I may be loved less, the more I love you, even though the more that I love you, the less it seems that I'm loved by you. Be that as it may, I did not burden you. I'm not going to burden you. Nevertheless, nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you by cunning. Now, we've seen Paul be sarcastic before. This is another example of Paul's sarcasm. Paul is answering the accusation about money again, again. The accusation is basically this. He refuses to take support from you so that he can look like he loves you. So he can look like he's running a ministry of honesty and integrity. He looks like he refuses support from you so that he can fake sincerity. But all the while, what's Paul doing? Paul has his minions in Corinth, taking up the collection for the poor in Jerusalem while he skims off the top to take money for himself. That's the accusation. He has, through his minions in Corinth, he has his long arm in your short pocket, and he's getting your money by being crafty. He's getting your money by being cunning. These are words for deceitful, deceitful. Where does this accusation come from? Calvin says this. It is customary for the wicked impudently to impute to the servants of God whatever they themselves would do if they had it in their power. In other words, where do the accusation come from? It came from the false teachers who thought to themselves, that's exactly what we would do if we could. If I could get away with it, that's what we would do. That's what Paul's doing when they accuse Paul. So Paul then points to the sincerity, the integrity of his ministry among them. Verse 17, did I take advantage of you by any of those whom I sent to you? Titus or the other brothers that came? Did I take advantage of you through them? I urged Titus and sent our brother with him. Did Titus take advantage of you? How did Titus conduct himself among you when he was there? Did we not walk in the same spirit? Not capital S, right? Did we not walk in the same steps? In other words, Corinthians, you know Titus, you know those brothers, how they conducted themselves. They evidenced a ministry of integrity and honesty and love among you in the same way that I did. Did we not walk according to the same spirit? Did we not have the same mind, right? Did we not walk in the same steps? Titus's love for the Corinthians was well attested. Titus was the one who delivered the severe letter, pleaded with them to repent of their sins, sought to convey Paul's heart and love for them. Titus himself being willing to go, Paul said, because of the love he had for them. Paul's asking them, did he take advantage of you? Does he not have the same heart toward you that I have? Did we not walk in the same spirit? Did we not walk in the same steps? Did we not have the same mind toward you? In other words, our ministry among you is tested and proven, found to be sincere, found to be earnest, found to be in love. You know, just like Paul told the elders from Ephesus in Acts chapter 20 when he saw them, listen to Acts chapter 20 verse 17, Paul sent to Ephesus, called for the elders of the church to come. When they had come to him, Paul said this, you know, you know from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you. Paul, his example is tested and proven, serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials, which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews, how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, taught you publicly and from house to house, testifying to Jews, also to Greeks, repentance toward God, faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. That's what our ministry was about among you. Nothing else. We weren't there to catch you by cunning to be crafty, to steal from you. The sincerity of Paul's ministry and frankly, the sincerity of Titus and the brothers that were sent with him is evident. It's observable through his labor among them. It's earnest. It's unassailable. Paul is blameless among them. Paul has a good reputation among them. Titus is blameless among them. No accusation against him can stick. It's reminded of this thinking of the qualifications for an elder or the qualifications of deacons in 1st Timothy chapter three. Those qualifications there are the qualifications that every Christian man and every Christian woman should aspire to, right, to be faithful, faithful to the Lord. Paul says, if a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless. Accusations against him won't stick. His reputation among them is proven and tested and sincere and earnest. He must be the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, right, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle as a nursing mother, right, not quarrelsome, not covetous, one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence. If a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? Not being puffed up. He must have a good testimony. So Paul is saying here, you know us. It is, it's astounding to me, absolutely amazing that when a godly brother comes under assault, when someone fixes it in their mind, in their heart, they're going to attack or sail or accuse a godly brother that they will take everything that they can lay hold of, twist for their own use for the purpose of tearing down that brother, tearing down that sister, and will twist it every chance they get, every opportunity they have. They'll take Paul's love for them and turn it into an accusation against him, and the very accusation that they use against him is that he doesn't love them because he won't take support from them, right. Amazing, amazing. But that's what the wicked do. Paul says our ministry among you is sincere. Paul could say that he maintained a clear conscience before God with respect to his ministry among the Corinthians. Brothers and sisters, we must do the same. Labor, labor, labor, spend and be spent doing it in love, doing it in love for the Lord and love for the Lord's people, be earnest, be sincere, have a good reputation among God's people. What about you this morning? You know, Booth describes those who had been rescued, had been saved out of the ocean of their sin, and there were those who industriously worked, scheming by ladders, ropes, boats and other means more effective to deliver the poor struggleers out of the sea. Someone may object and say, that's that's that's legalism, but we don't have to work like that. You were saved by grace through faith and we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works. Here and there, Booth says, there were some who actually jumped into the water regardless of the consequences in their passion to rescue the perishing. I hardly know which glanned me the most. The sight of the poor drowning people climbing onto the rocks, reaching a place of safety, praise God, that is entirely the work of God or the devotion and self-sacrifice of those whose whole being was wrapped up in the effort for their deliverance. Or does that describe you? Does that describe your work, your labor among the Lord's people, your labor in the Lord's church? That's what we should aspire to. That's what we should endeavor to do. Amen? Paul says, imitate me as I imitate Christ. This is Paul's example. Spend and be spent for the souls of your brothers and sisters. Spend and be spent for the souls of the loss and preaching the gospel. Spend and be spent.  The Lord would say, repent and do the first works. Repent and do the first works. We've been saved to a ministry, a ministry in the Lord's church, a ministry among the Lord's people, a ministry in this world for the lost to preach the gospel. Let's follow Paul's example. Let's endeavor to display the heart earnestness that Paul does here for these dear people. Let's spend and be spent for their souls. Amen? Paul prays honor and glory to him who sacrificed himself in love for us. Let's pray. We don't do this in our own strength. It is impossible. Apart from him, we can do nothing. We want to serve the Lord faithfully, fervently in the ministry that he's called us to. Let's go before the Lord and ask for his strength, his power, his grace to make us sufficient for this good work. You're here this morning and you don't know the Lord Jesus Christ. Turn from your sin. He calls out to you with a free offer of his grace to save you from the ocean of your sin against him. Turn to him in faith and be saved. Your sins may be blotted out. And when you're done praying, you're dismissed. Let's pray.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we are going to discuss the following question which says that sign the area of the triangle formed by the point A with the coordinates 12, 1, 5, B with the coordinates 0, 9, 1, C with the coordinates minus 4, minus 3, 9, vector area of any triangle C, A, B, C is given by 1 by 2 into cross product of vector A and B plus cross product of vector B and C plus cross product of vector C and A. With this key idea let us proceed with the solution. We are given point A with the coordinates 12, 1, 5, point B with the coordinates 0, 9, 1, point C with the coordinates minus 4, minus 3, 9, are the three vertices of triangle A, B, C. Let A, B, C be the position vectors of vertices A, B and C respectively. Then we have position vector of A is equal to 12 i cap plus j cap plus 5 k cap, position vector of B is equal to 0 i cap plus 9 j cap plus k cap, position vector of C is equal to minus 4 i cap, minus 3 j cap plus 9 k cap. Let us find cross product of vector A and B, vector A is given by 12 i cap plus j cap plus 5 k cap and vector B is given by 0 i cap plus 9 j cap plus k cap. Cross product of vector A and B is given by i cap into 1 minus 45 minus j cap into 12 minus 0 plus k cap into 108 minus 0 which is equal to minus 44 i cap minus 12 j cap plus 108 k cap. So, cross product of vector A and B is given by minus 44 i cap minus 12 j cap plus 108 k cap. Next we shall find cross product of vector B and C, vector B is given by 0 i cap plus 9 j cap plus k cap and vector C is given by minus 4 i cap minus 3 j cap plus 9 k cap. So, cross product of vector B and C is given by i cap into 81 plus 3 minus j cap into 0 plus 34 plus k cap into 0 plus 36 which is equal to 84 i cap minus 4 j cap plus 36 k cap. Therefore, cross product of vector B and C is given by 84 i cap minus 4 j cap plus 36 k cap. Now we shall find cross product of vector C and A, vector C is given by minus 4 i cap minus 3 j cap plus 9 k cap and vector A is given by 12 i cap plus j cap plus 5 k cap. Cross product of vector C and A is given by i cap into minus 15 minus 9 minus j cap into minus 20 minus 108 plus k cap into minus 4 plus 36 which is equal to minus 24 i cap plus 128 j cap plus 32 k cap. Therefore, cross product of vector C and A is given by minus 24 i cap plus 128 j cap plus 32 k cap. Now we have got the value of the cross product of vector A and B, the cross product of vector B and C and the cross product of vector C and A and from the key here we know that vector area of triangle ABC is given by 1 by 2 into cross product of vector A and B plus cross product of vector D and C plus cross product of vector C and A. Therefore, vector area of triangle ABC is given by 1 by 2 into cross product of vector A and that is minus 34 i cap minus 12 j cap plus 108 k cap plus cross product of vector B and C that is 84 i cap minus 4 j cap plus 36 k cap plus cross product of vector C and A that is minus 24 i cap plus 128 j cap plus 32 k cap which is equal to 1 by 2 into 16 i cap plus 12 j cap plus 176 k cap which is equal to 8 i cap plus 56 j cap plus 88 k cap. So, vector area of triangle ABC is given by 8 i cap plus 56 j cap plus 88 k cap therefore required area of triangle ABC is given by modulus of 8 i cap plus 56 j cap plus 88 k cap which is equal to square root of 8 square plus 56 square plus 88 square which is equal to square root of 64 plus 3136 plus 7744 which is equal to square root of 10944 which is equal to 24 into square root of 19. Therefore, the area of triangle ABC is given by 24 square root of 19 square units which is the required answer. This completes our session hope you enjoyed this session.


1. Jackson Carlaw Those calling for the Prime Minister's deal to be supported included the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Scottish Whiskey Association, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the CBI. First Minister, are they traitors too? First Minister, the Prime Minister's deal is a bad deal, a bad deal for the UK and certainly a bad deal for Scotland. Let me just recap. It would take Scotland out of the EU against our will, out of the single market, out of the customs union, with no clarity about the future relationship with the EU. I do not think that any MP with the best interests at Scotland at heart should vote for that proposition, but I would say gently to Jackson Carlaw that even if every single SNP MP had voted for the deal early on the week, it would still have been heavily defeated, because the Prime Minister failed to persuade so many in her own side—indeed, she is failing to persuade those in her own cabinet. Jackson Carlaw mentioned the National Farmers Union. Here is what he said yesterday about the tariff schedule that was published by the UK Government. He said that it undermines the food security of the UK. What an appalling set of circumstances. Of course, he also wrote to every Scottish MP urging them to take no deal off the table. Perhaps Jackson Carlaw would like to explain to the chamber and to the public today why, with just one exception—and I am not talking about David Mundell—none of the Scottish Tory MPs voted last night in the House of Commons to take no deal off the table. That is what was utterly shameful, and perhaps Jackson Carlaw would care to explain it. Jackson Carlaw, on Tuesday of this week, the SNP cabinet secretary, Michael Russell, just next to her, accused those who backed the Prime Minister's deal as being traitors to Scotland. As ever, he thought that he was being clever. He hid the accusation behind a hashtag, but that is the charge that he made. Surely the First Minister will disassociate herself from this inflammatory smear, and it is telling that she is not. However, there is an important point here. There are many of us in Scotland in politics and outside who do back the Prime Minister's deal. Will the First Minister at least accept that we think that it is what is best for our country, and we do so in all good faith? I genuinely am struggling to believe that Jackson Carlaw is coming here to talk about a Twitter hashtag, when the Government-led by his party is in meltdown, is a shambles and is taking this country ever closer to the cliff edge. On the question of the historical ragman role, however, he might be interested to know that Robert the Bruce actually signed it. If David Mundell ever wants to get any of the spirit of Robert the Bruce, then I am sure that all of us would warmly welcome that. The fact of the matter is that, with the honourable exception of Paul Masterton, Scottish Conservative MP has chosen to put loyalty to the Prime Minister ahead of the interests of the Scottish people. I am afraid that that is a fact, and I will give Jackson Carlaw another opportunity to explain why all of them refused, with one exception last night, to vote to take no deal off the table. Businesses such as the one that I was visiting in Glasgow yesterday, the Farmers Union, were interested in the length and breadth of the country. It wanted all Scotland's MPs to take no deal off the table. Why did Scottish Tories refuse to do that? Jackson Carlaw. I am asking her to enhance the dignity of her office. She has chosen not to do so. Many joined the business organisations that I mentioned in backing the deal earlier this week, because we believe that it is a good deal that offers certainty for business in the country. I respect the views of those who disagree, but they now have a duty to spell out their alternative way forward. The First Minister's preference is to support a second UK Brexit referendum, but it begs many more questions. What would be the options? When leave or remain wins this time, shall we make it best of three? How would this delay guarantee people and businesses the certainty that they need and which the First Minister talked about last night? Would she accept the result, or is all of this, as many of us suspect, just a prelude to yet another referendum, the one that she really wants? The First Minister. I think that the result of the 2016 Brexit referendum in Scotland should have been accepted because Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. I remind him again that this is where Jackson Carlaw is really struggling here, not surprisingly, given the mess that the Tories are making, not just a Brexit but the entire UK right now. If every single SNP MP had voted for the Prime Minister's deal on Tuesday night, it would still have gone down to a heavy defeat because she has not managed to persuade those in her own party, let alone anyone else. I spent more than two years suggesting compromise to the Prime Minister's single market customs union. That was cast aside, ignored and dismissed, as every vote in this Parliament on the issue has been cast aside, ignored and dismissed by the Tory Government. The way forward now is to put back to the people. Parliament has failed to resolve the issue. If Parliament cannot decide, the people should. That is what I think is the way forward. It is a better way forward than the Prime Minister trying to bully the House of Commons into accepting a bad deal. She should accept defeat, change course and open her mind now to the right way forward. Jackson Carlaw Not that this First Minister has ever sought to bully this Parliament when they have been defeated on issues. However, we have accepted the result of all referendums. The First Minister has accepted the result of none. The blunt truth is that the First Minister will only accept the result of a referendum—any one—if it goes her way. I back a deal that gives our fishing communities the sea of opportunity that they want, a deal that is supported by our whisky industry, giving them frictionous trade across the continent, a deal that our farmers say will ensure that there are no hard barriers to our biggest market. All those Scottish organisations and many all across Scotland are telling us to back the deal and get this done. Isn't it time to respect the result back in orderly Brexit? The whole country gets a chance then to move on. I respect the outcome of the 2016 referendum. Scotland voted to remain in the EU. That is the best outcome for Scotland. If the Tories, for once in their life, could ever find it within themselves to stand up for Scotland rather than standing up for our beleaguered Prime Minister, then they would also recognise that it is the best future for Scotland. Frankly, it is deluded for anyone to suggest that there is majority support across Scotland for the Prime Minister's deal. There is not support for leaving the EU. There is certainly not support for leaving on the basis of such a profoundly bad deal. The Prime Minister's deal has been defeated overwhelmingly in the House of Commons, not just once but twice. It is time for her to accept that defeat and open her mind now to an alternative way forward. Let's get no deal properly off the table. Let's seek a lengthy extension to allow this issue to go back to the people. If the Conservatives were listening, not to their bosses in Westminster but if they were listening to majority opinion across Scotland, that is exactly what the Conservatives would be arguing for. I think that it is to their great discredit that they are failing to do that, that they are failing Scotland. Last night, the House of Commons voted to oppose a no deal Brexit, but, as the law stands, we will still be leaving the European Union on 29 March with no deal. The First Minister and I agree that no deal would be a disaster.  Does the First Minister agree with me that, despite last night's vote, no deal remains an immediate and a very real danger? Yes, I do. Richard Leonard is right to point out that notwithstanding the vote in the House of Commons last night, the legal default is no deal on 29 March, which is why I think that the Government should be coming forward now with a proposition to change the law so that the UK does not crash out of the EU on 29 March with no deal. I hope that he would support that proposition. However, I also think that it is important for those who oppose the Prime Minister's deal, for those of us—which I think includes Richard Leonard—who oppose Brexit to come together now to find a better way forward. I say to him that I hope in a constructive spirit that I ask him if he can use his influence with Jeremy Corbyn to get Jeremy Corbyn firmly behind the option of a second EU referendum. If he would come off the fence, I think that that option would become not just the best one but the most likely next step. Will he, perhaps this afternoon, get on the phone to Jeremy Corbyn and ask him to, at long last on the issue of Brexit, start showing some leadership? Mr Leonard, can I just ask you not to use the term lie, even particularly about people outside this chamber? Can I just remind the chamber that, last week in this Parliament, all parties voted to reject no deal in all circumstances with the sole exception of the Tories? What does it say about the Tories in here that every single one of them, without exception, voted for something that neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor Jackson Carlaw's own MP could support last night? But the reality is that, without a majority in the Commons for an alternative, no deal remains a threat. Does the First Minister agree with me that tonight, members of Parliament must vote for article 50 to be extended long enough to allow for a majority in Parliament to be formed in favour of a different approach? Yes, and SNP MPs have been laying amendments to that effect and will vote for exactly that. In fact, I think that it is time for the House of Commons to take control of this out of the hands of the Prime Minister and the Government and to make sure that a sensible way forward is found. I agree wholeheartedly with Richard Leonard about the Scottish Conservatives. He is right to say that this Parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject no deal last week, and this Parliament, again, is being ignored not just by the Government but by Scottish Tory MPs. I think that it is to his credit that Paul Maslaton did the right thing last night. The Secretary of State for Scotland, though, cannot even manage to rebel properly. He pathetically opted for an abstention to save his own job rather than properly standing up for this country, and that, I think, is a disgrace. On the issue of the way forward, I say again to Richard Leonard, because I think that we probably agree more than we disagree on this issue. Jeremy Corbyn surely has to start showing real leadership here, because it is, even at this stage, not entirely clear to me what would be different about the situation that the UK is in just now if Jeremy Corbyn was leading the Brexit negotiations rather than Theresa May. The way to break the parliamentary deadlock is to put this issue back to the people. I hope that Richard Leonard will seek to persuade his leader that that is the option that should be backed, and then we can build a majority around that and find a better the right way forward, not just for Scotland but for the whole of the UK. Well, Jeremy Corbyn has made it clear that the House of Commons has got two options. It has got the option of securing a better deal or taking it back to the people. That is the Labour Party position. We know that the House of Commons does not want two things. It does not want no deal, and it does not want Theresa May's deal. However, the Prime Minister still is not listening, and she says that she wants to bring back her deal back for a third time, even though the deal is dead. Does the First Minister agree with me that the Prime Minister cannot keep asking the same question until she gets the answer that she wants? I agree with that. One of the favourite catchphrases of the Tories is that we said no and we mean it, perhaps they should start applying it to the Prime Minister and the Government in London. I said to Richard Leonard about the two options that he says the House of Commons has, one of which, according to him, is a better deal. There is no good Brexit deal. A Labour Brexit will not be better or less damaging to Scotland than a Tory Brexit. It is Brexit that will do the damage to Scotland, and that is why we should be seeking to honour the vote of the Scottish people and reverse Brexit if we possibly can. I hope that we will be able to put a majority behind a second EU referendum so that people—not just in Scotland but across the UK—knowing everything that is now known about Brexit can take that opportunity to keep the UK and to keep Scotland where it belongs, which is within the European Union. We have some constituency supplementaries. The first one is from Tavish Scott, to be followed by Bob Doris. The internationally recognised Fair Albert observatory was destroyed by fire last weekend. Thankfully, no one was injured. Despite the valiant efforts of firefighters from across Shetland and the Fair Al team led by Fiona Mitchell, the home that is David and Susanna Barnaby's was completely destroyed. Would the First Minister accept that Fair Al is the kind of island that gets on and wants to move forward and their intention is to rebuild the observatory? Will her Government please provide every assistance towards that? Will she also ensure that lessons are learnt from the Fair Al fire for the emergency services in supporting fires in islands where there is no full-time fire cover? Finally, would she recognise that three out of the nine local firefighting team are French? Those brave women are having to apply to stay in Fair Al because of the omnisharmals that is Brexit. On that last point before I come on to the substantive issue, I agree wholeheartedly with Tavish Scott. It is outrageous in my view that any EU national who has made Scotland any part of Scotland, their home, is having to apply for the right to stay here. However, the circumstances that he has outlined underlines just how shameful that situation is. More generally, I thank Tavish Scott for raising the issue and saying that my thoughts are very much with all those who are connected with the Fair Al bird observatory trust at this very sad time, particularly the Wardens family, who, of course, sadly lost their home in the fire. As Tavish Scott said, we must be thankful that there were no casualties. Incidents like that remind us of the bravery and professionalism of our firefighters. I note Tavish Scott's point, and we will reflect on the point about the island with no full-time fire cover. That was a good example of an effective multi-agency response. The Coast Guard Chetland Isles Council were both assisting firefighters in reaching the scene. Obviously, investigations into the cause of the fire are under way, and we must await the outcome of those inquiries. Thankfully, the wealth of bird census data collected since 1948 are digitised and backed up safely. Lastly, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Fair Isle community, who I understand have raised almost £20,000 in crowdfunding support for the Wardens family to help them to get back on their feet. However, let me give an assurance to Tavish Scott and his constituents today that the Scottish Government stands ready to do anything that we reasonably can to help in this very tragic situation. Bob Doris will be followed by Mark Ruskell. Presiding Officer, my constituents, the Dallas family, have had their appeal for asylum refused. I understand that they fled to the UK in December 2017 after Mrs Dallas escaped a gun attack in Karachi, fuelled by Afatwa against her because she simply could not agree to convert from Christianity to Islam. It would appear that the Home Office may place an undue weight on local police reports in making such determinations. Does the First Minister share the concern of the European Centre for Law and Justice over police torture in Pakistan of Christians? Is it something that makes victims nervous of reporting incidents such as in this case? Will the Scottish Government make representations to the UK Home Office asking for them to take into account such concerns when cases such as the Dallas family are being considered? I thank Bob Doris for raising the issue. First, I share the concern of the European Centre for Law and Justice. I strongly condemn, as I am sure that everybody in the chamber does, any persecution of people from minority communities. Nobody should ever feel at risk because of their faith or beliefs. The Scottish Government will always seek to champion human rights, and we strongly support international processes such as UN scrutiny of individual member states. Of course, sadly, asylum is a matter reserved to the UK Government and handled by the Home Office, but the Scottish Government has consistently urged the Home Office to adopt fair and humane asylum policies and to ensure that full account is taken of all the individual circumstances in every case. We will continue to do that. If there is any assistance that we can offer to the Dallas family, we would be happy to discuss that with Bob Doris. I have been inundated this week with messages from constituents who are, quite frankly, disgusted—absolutely disgusted—that the image is appearing on social media of a fox being ripped apart by the dogs of the Fife fox hunt last weekend. Can I ask the First Minister a very simple question? Should dogs ever be used to hunt a fox? I can absolutely understand the distress that people feel at the images that Mark Ruskell has referred to. I share that feeling. As Mark Ruskell knows, the Government has announced proposals and has brought forward proposals following Lord Bonamy's review for further restrictions around fox hunting. Those proposals now will rightly be debated by Parliament. I know that Mark Ruskell and others, including many on my own benches here who feel very strongly about the issue, will make sure that they make their views known as those proposals go through Parliament. I think that that is now the right way for Parliament to proceed, and I look forward to the debates that will follow. Thank you. The First Minister will be aware of the tragic loss of life on Ben Nevis earlier this week in one of the worst climbing accidents in recent history. Will the First Minister join me in expressing condolences to the family of those who died and also in paying tribute to the volunteers of Lochaber and Glenco mountain rescue teams and the Coast Guard, who work so courageously in atrocious conditions to rescue the casualties? I thank Donald Cameron for raising the issue. I, of course, joined with him in conveying my deepest condolences to the bereaved, to those injured and, of course, to express my deep gratitude echoed, I am sure, across the whole chamber, to our emergency services, to those in our mountain rescue teams, to the Coast Guard, to all those people who put their own lives on the line trying to rescue people who get into trouble on our mountains. It is hard to adequately express the depths of gratitude that I think all of us owe to those people. This tragic event and a deeply tragic event is a reminder of, no matter the joy and the beauty of our mountains and our landscape, we can also be dangerous places and that has to be taken into account at all times. For now, my condolences go particularly to the bereaved and, yes, my grateful thanks go to all those who took part in the rescue. The Scottish National Party Government passed a law that bans sending biodegradable waste to landfill by 2021. According to an astonishing report by the Office of Budget Responsibility, published yesterday, the Scottish Government has admitted that it can only meet this legal deadline by dumping the waste in England. Is this environmentally responsible? I am not sure that I would agree with Willie Rennie's characterisation of this. I think that I had an exchange, not him and I, him and me and someone else had an exchange on this last week or the week before. We are committed to the 2021 target. Some councils already have plans in place to meet that. Other councils require greater work, and we are working with councils to responsibly and appropriately deal with waste, which is what everybody would expect us to do. I would be very happy to ask the Environment Secretary to discuss further with Willie Rennie the precise plans that are required to be in place so that all of us can get behind and see this target met. I think that she should check out the OBR report, because it is all very clear in there. This Government is making a bit of a habit of breaking its own laws. The SNP NHS waiting times law has been broken for 190,000 patients. The SNP class sizes law has been broken for four and a half thousand children, and now we find that the SNP Government is about to break its own law on waste. The First Minister is right to be appalled by the chaotic Conservative Government over Brexit, but her smugness about the incompetence of the Conservative Government cannot hide her incompetence in her own backyard. Law after law, broken by this failing Government, what sums up her Government best? Thousands of pupils overcrowded, hundreds of thousands of patients waiting or a million tonnes of rubbish? I urge all colleagues to try to be more respectful and not personal in their questions. I think that ship has sailed with Willie Rennie, Presiding Officer, but keep trying. On the issue of landfill, I would say to Willie Rennie that it is hard to understand how we could stand here, accused of breaking a law, as he puts it, that it is not due to even being forced until 2021. We are working towards delivering that with our local authority partners. It is a very important objective and important responsibility. It is difficult and complex as many things are, but we will continue to work with our local authority partners because it is the right thing to do. On waiting times in the NHS, the health secretary recently published the waiting times reduction plan. We were investing £850 million to make sure that waiting times are reduced in the areas where there is significant pressure. Pressure, of course, is coming from an ageing population and greater demand on our national health service. In education, which he also mentioned, we see more teachers in our schools now. There are more teachers in our primary schools now than at any stage since I was at primary school in 1980. There are, I think, 1,200 more teachers in our school since I became First Minister. So we, unlike the UK Government that has completely ceased to govern in any meaningful sense, we are getting on with the important issues in our environment, in our health service, in our education system, and that is exactly what we will continue to do. The First Minister will be aware of the devastating floods that have hit many parts of Malawi in recent days, resulting in 45 deaths, 577 injuries and at least two missing people, and 150,000 households have been affected or three quarters of a million of the population. Over 15,000 households have been totally destroyed, resulting in 187 camps being established throughout the country, a horrifying situation, I am sure that you will agree. Given Scotland, the Parliament and the Government's very close links with Malawi, what can the Scottish Government do to help the people of Malawi at this dreadful time? Thank you, Maureen Watt, for raising the issue.  Our thoughts are with the people of Malawi at what is an incredibly difficult time for them. I am pleased to tell the chamber today that we have just announced the provision of £175,000 to support efforts to ensure safe water supplies in southern Malawi. Funding will be provided through the Climate Justice Fund and delivered by our hydro-nation partners, who are already working on the ground in southern Malawi to secure water resources affected by the floods. The Scottish Government officials will also work closely with partners on the ground to support the relief efforts. Scotland, of course, as Maureen Watt has alluded to, has a historic relationship with Malawi going back 150 years. They are our friends. We do a great deal of work in and for Malawi. We benefit a lot ourselves from that work with Malawi. We stand with them at this difficult time, and we will do everything possible to help them. Following the pay deal with teachers, I and some other MSPs were contacted by a serving police officer from East Kilbride last week. He wrote this, "...whilst I appreciate that teachers have worked hard and do deserve a pay rise, why is it that NHS staff were given 9 per cent and police officers only 6.5 per cent? Does the Scottish Government place the value of police officers as only half? These are the words of a serving police officer. Does the Scottish Government place the value of police officers as only half that of school teachers? Is it that the Government knows that because police officers cannot strike or take any real industrial action that they are an easy target? What would the First Minister say to that police officer and thousands of others? First Minister. Parts of those comments were quite disgraceful. I value all public sector workers, and I thank them for the work that they do. On the police pay award, that is the best award for police officers anywhere in the UK. The Scottish Police Federation described it as the best pay award in 20 years. If the member thinks that 6.5 per cent is not good enough, I would love to pay all our public sector workers even more than we are, but if he thinks that that is not good enough, I wonder what he makes of the 2 per cent that has been awarded to police officers in England by his Tory colleagues in the Westminster Government. Described by the head of the Met as a punch in the nose for police officers. Many NHS workers of course get higher pay in Scotland than they do in England because of the value that we attach to the work that they do. In terms of teachers, they were previously offered a very good pay deal, but they have now been offered an exceptionally good pay deal. I think that that is a recognition of the good work that they do. I hope that that is now accepted, but I value all public sector workers. If you look at any group of public sector workers, you will find that the value that is attached to them by the Scottish Government is much greater than the value that is attached to their counterparts in England by the Tory Government at Westminster. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the spring statement. The spring statement underlines again the chaos at the heart of the UK Government. It showed that the chancellor has billions of pounds available that he could be investing in public services but has instead had to set aside to pay for the self-inflicted mess that is Brexit. The UK Government's chaotic approach to Brexit is already undermining the economy. The OBR forecasts that the UK growth will slow and that, in 2018 and 2019, business investment will contract. That would represent the weakest period of business investment since the 2008 financial crisis. That, bluntly, is the cost of the UK Government's economic mismanagement. Sadly, there is no sign that it is about to change course, or at least no sign that it is voluntarily about to change course. Bruce Crawford The First Minister should welcome the chancellor's recognition of the strategic importance of Adam University and the requirement to invest in the borderlands. However, the First Minister also shared my deep disappointment that the chancellor failed to take the opportunity to guarantee all EU funding to Scotland worth more than £5 billion in the current EU budget round that will be replaced in full or, indeed, to announce any amount of funding whatsoever—simply not good enough—from the Tory UK chancellor. I agree with Bruce Crawford's comments about Adam University and the borderlands. The Scottish Government confirmed yesterday that we will invest up to £85 million in the borderlands growth deal over the next 10 years. However, it is deeply disappointing that the UK Government has yet to provide any clarity on future arrangements for EU funding, proposals in agriculture, fisheries and structural funding are vague and they provide no certainty for the future. The position on the proposed shared prosperity fund is particularly concerning, with no sign of the consultation that was promised in autumn of last year, nor any meaningful engagement with the devolved administrations on this matter. It is crucial that the UK Government urgently commits to replacing all funding streams in full and that we receive our fair share of that to ensure that decisions can be taken in the best interests of Scotland. Funding decisions that are currently being made by Scottish ministers should continue to be made by Scottish ministers. Rachael Hamilton to be followed by James Kelly. As the First Minister has just said, yesterday's spring statement set out funding of £260 million from the UK Government and £85 million from the Scottish Government for the borderlands growth deal, delivering a manifesto commitment from the Scottish Conservatives. The deal shows what can be achieved when both of Scotland's Governments work together. Cross-border links with the south of Scotland and the north of England are integral and must be enhanced to promote inclusive growth. Does she agree that an extension of the border's railway from Tweedbank to Carlyle would bring transformational change to that area? I want to come on to substantively agree with the sentiments of the question, but I feel obliged to inject a bit of a clarification into the figures that were used at the start of the question. The member said that the UK Government had confirmed that it was investing up to £268 million in the borderlands deal compared to the £85 million from the Scottish Government. That is true, but it is important to point out that of the UK Government's £260 million, only £65 million of that is for the Scottish side and the rest of it is for England. It just puts us slightly. Nevertheless, by the very nature of borderlands, it is important that the investment is on both sides. I am a long-standing supporter of the borderlands work and the borderlands growth deal. I also have a lot of sympathy with that, which is why the Government has been doing feasibility work around that. We will continue to support that initiative. I am glad to see yesterday that the UK Government is prepared to support it as well. James Kelly The recent SNP Green budget resulted in councils being forced to make cuts and pass them on to local communities. We have job cuts in Dundee, the ending of support to the Citizens Advice Bureau in Clackmannanshire and the action of free school bus travel in Moray. If any Barnett consequentials are available from yesterday's spring statement, will they be allocated to local councils who have had to inflict pain on local communities? On the issue of Barnett consequentials, we have no clarity yet on whether there are any Barnett consequentials or what the amount of any Barnett consequentials would be. When we know that, we will share that information with Parliament. James Kelly talks about budget decisions. I thought that the decision of the Labour group yesterday to vote against an increase in the carers supplement was absolutely and utterly shameful. The only ones, as I understand it, in the Parliament that did that. More broadly, on local government funding, as he well knows, the budget for local government has increased, and that is a positive thing. We do not pretend that life is easy for local councils in the current climate. However, if James Kelly is as concerned as he claims to be about the budgets of local government or any other part of the public sector or about cuts or anything like that, is it not about time that he started to direct some of that anger at the Tory Government who are the architects of those cuts? I remind him that the budget of the Scottish Government between 2010 and the end of this decade will be cut by £1.9 billion in real terms. That is the reality. Frankly, that is the consequence that we are living with as a result of his partnership with the better-together Tory partners in the 2014 referendum. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that people are financially ready for their retirement. Matters relating to pensions, unfortunately, remain reserved to the UK Government. However, we are committed to doing what we can within our current powers to ensure that people are financially ready for retirement. We support the development of a labour market that offers good quality and rewarding jobs for everyone, no matter their age. We are also supporting older people through our financial health check service, which offers free advice to help older people to maximise their incomes. We do that in the face of continuing attacks from the Tory Government on people reaching retirement age, such as the scandal that thousands of waspite women are facing with delays in getting their pensions and the disgraceful cuts to pension credit for mixed-age couples. I do not know what Michelle Ballantyne's follow-up question will be, but let me warn her that I will take no lectures from the Tories on pensions. Given that I was asking a question and not lecturing, I think that that is quite a sad response. I am heartened to hear that you are trying to do things for older people who are nearing retirement. However, I found in my conversations with younger people that most have only a very basic understanding of how their pension works or how to contribute to it during their lives. Back in 2015, there was some action down south of actually creating teaching materials to explain financial planning to youngsters. Following Minister Steve Webb's research that found that teenagers had an expectation of a state pension that stretched from between £800 per week to £9 per week. Can the First Minister tell me if any other steps have been taken by the Scottish Government to educate school pupils around the importance of their pension and learning within the curriculum? It is a reasonable question to be fair. I covered in some of my original answers at the work that we are doing to make sure that people are financially ready for retirement. It is a reasonable proposition that we should also be looking at how we educate young people. Of course, that is a reserved matter, but we will take our responsibility to ensure that we are contributing to it. To Michelle Ballantyne, I am going to say this seriously and I would ask her to reflect on it. If we are going to say that we need to educate young people more to save further retirement, we should wonder what example it sets to young people when over two million women paid their national insurance contributions in full in the expectation that they would receive their state pension at a certain age, only for that pension entitlement to be robbed from them by the UK Government. If we want to encourage young people to save for their retirement and convince them that it is worth doing so, we have to start treating our current pensioners with more dignity and respect than the current Government in charge of pensions is doing. I would hope that that is a case that Michelle Ballantyne will make forcibly to her colleagues at Westminster. As the First Minister, what action the Scottish Government has taken following the recent meeting between the health secretary and mesh survivors? Last week, the health secretary and the chief medical officer met mesh campaigners and Neil Findlay to discuss their concerns over access to specialist services for mesh removal. As the health secretary set out in an answer on Friday, we are listening carefully to those concerns. We have asked a group of senior medical managers to look at a range of options to see how the care and support for these women can be improved drawing on international expertise in transvaginal mesh surgery. The group will draw on academics and other advisers, as well as advocates for the women who have been affected. The first meeting of the group will be held as soon as possible, and Jane Freeman has committed to writing to the campaigners within one month to set out the probable timescales for the work. At the meeting, Scottish mesh survivors made a very emotional appeal for the Government to take up the offer to bring top US surgeon to Scotland to carry out pioneering mesh removal and train surgeons here. On Friday, the Government issued an ambiguous press release that hinted at progress but lacked any clarity. Can I see a clear and straightforward answer on their behalf? When will Scottish mesh survivors have access to the highest global standard of mesh removal procedures? Will the Scottish Government now accept the offer from Dr Veronica to come to Scotland to help mesh injured women here? Neil Findlay raised an important issue. Jane Freeman listened carefully to those that she met on Friday and has done since then everything that she told the campaigners that she would do. As I said in my original answer, she has asked a group of medical directors and senior clinical managers to look at a range of options to improve care and support. That is the right way forward. In terms of the answer to the question, when will there be more detail, she will write to campaigners within a month, setting out the next steps in this work. That is the proper way to take this forward. Decisions to remove mesh will be made by a patient in consultation with a clinical specialist who will share all relevant information and provide support. There is a real commitment to taking forward the proposals that were made on Friday but to doing that in a proper way. I hope that we will have Neil Findlay's support as we do so. Question 7, John Finnie. I have to ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in response to the reported increasing number of drugs deaths. Our national alcohol and drug strategy, which was published last November, set out a range of measures to prevent drug-related harm. The strategy's focus is on improving how we support those who need it and treat the wider issues affecting them. It outlines how we will work with and fund partners to strengthen links between traditional addiction services and initiatives in housing, mental health and the such sector. That is back with an additional £20 million a year for drug and alcohol services. The investment has been allocated to supporting new approaches that respond to the needs of those who are most at risk in a more joined-up and person-centred way. John Finnie. I thank the First Minister for that response. The current approach clearly is not working, First Minister. There were 934 deaths in 2017 and, sadly, everything suggests the figure for 2018 may be significantly higher. First Minister, we are faced with a public health crisis. Scottish ministers have the power to establish a public inquiry into any matter when there is a large loss of life and or serious health and safety issues, and this situation clearly meets both those criteria. Will the First Minister urgently establish a statutory inquiry into Scotland's drug death crisis and commit to acting on its findings in order to end the on-going tragedy? First Minister, I absolutely agree with the seriousness of the issue. I am not immediately persuaded that that would be the best way forward, but, of course, we will consider any proposal that has been made. Any death from drugs is one too many. Of course, many of the people that we sadly see dying from drugs are people who have lived with alcohol and drug use for a long time and become more vulnerable as they grow older. The 2018 drug death report showed fewer deaths in under-25s than in the previous year, and, of course, recent reports also highlight falling heroin use, particularly in the under-25 age group. There is absolutely no room there for complacency, but it is an important contextual point to make. We want to look at different ways of addressing those issues. That is why, for example, we have supported Glasgow City Council in its request to set up medically supervised safer drug consumption facilities. We want to treat those issues much more as public health issues, bringing different agencies together. As we do that, we are, of course, prepared to consider any proposal that is made, and I will do that with the one that John Finnie has made today. Thank you. That brings us to an end of First Minister's questions. Can you say to colleagues that, despite making good progress in the last couple of weeks, the questions and the answers were too long this afternoon? Can we please revisit that, or else I will have to cut off members? That concludes First Minister's questions. Rather unfortunate pun, I think. Exactly, yes. Typical for the press to pick up on that. Okay, we are going to move to members' business. Members' business. Thank you very much, Pascunnigum, in the name of Lee MacArthur. Before we do, we are going to have a short suspension to allow the chamber and the gallery to change for members to change seats.