Thursday, July 26, 2007

Facing Death

I just read a very moving article by Tony Snow, press secretary for the Bush administration. In March of this year, doctors discovered that his abdominal cancer had returned, and he had surgery. Christianity Today asked him what spiritual observations he had concerning this time.
He wrote this, in part. (Read all of it at this linked site.)

Those of us with potentially fatal diseases—and there are millions in America today—find ourselves in the odd position of coping with our mortality while trying to fathom God's will. Although it would be the height of presumption to declare with confidence What It All Means, Scripture provides powerful hints and consolations.

The first is that we shouldn't spend too much time trying to answer the why questions: Why me? Why must people suffer? Why can't someone else get sick? We can't answer such things, and the questions themselves often are designed more to express our anguish than to solicit an answer.

I don't know why I have cancer, and I don't much care. It is what it is—a plain and indisputable fact. Yet even while staring into a mirror darkly, great and stunning truths begin to take shape. Our maladies define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out.

But despite this—because of it—God offers the possibility of salvation and grace. We don't know how the narrative of our lives will end, but we get to choose how to use the interval between now and the moment we meet our Creator face-to-face.

Second, we need to get past the anxiety. The mere thought of dying can send adrenaline flooding through your system. A dizzy, unfocused panic seizes you. Your heart thumps; your head swims. You think of nothingness and swoon. You fear partings; you worry about the impact on family and friends. You fidget and get nowhere.

To regain footing, remember that we were born not into death, but into life—and that the journey continues after we have finished our days on this earth. We accept this on faith, but that faith is nourished by a conviction that stirs even within many nonbelieving hearts—an intuition that the gift of life, once given, cannot be taken away. Those who have been stricken enjoy the special privilege of being able to fight with their might, main, and faith to live—fully, richly, exuberantly—no matter how their days may be numbered.

Third, we can open our eyes and hearts. God relishes surprise. We want lives of simple, predictable ease—smooth, even trails as far as the eye can see—but God likes to go off-road. He provokes us with twists and turns. He places us in predicaments that seem to defy our endurance and comprehension—and yet don't. By his love and grace, we persevere. The challenges that make our hearts leap and stomachs churn invariably strengthen our faith and grant measures of wisdom and joy we would not experience otherwise. . . .

There's another kind of response, although usually short-lived—an inexplicable shudder of excitement, as if a clarifying moment of calamity has swept away everything trivial and tinny, and placed before us the challenge of important questions. . . .

Finally, we can let love change everything. When Jesus was faced with the prospect of crucifixion, he grieved not for himself, but for us. He cried for Jerusalem before entering the holy city. From the Cross, he took on the cumulative burden of human sin and weakness, and begged for forgiveness on our behalf.

We get repeated chances to learn that life is not about us—that we acquire purpose and satisfaction by sharing in God's love for others. Sickness gets us partway there. It reminds us of our limitations and dependence. But it also gives us a chance to serve the healthy. A minister friend of mine observes that people suffering grave afflictions often acquire the faith of two people, while loved ones accept the burden of two people's worries and fears.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

And It's . . . Coulter vs. Edwards

Wednesday, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Presidential candidate John Edwards, telephoned Ann Coulter to ask her to stop her rhetoric of anger and hate—to “raise the level of political discourse in America above personal attacks.” Of course, Coulter refused and responded with more personal attacks.

Coulter is part of an alarmingly large segment of America today, a group that includes people like Rosie O'Donnell, as well as Rush Limbaugh and other “hate radio” talk show hosts. A large number of listeners pay attention; I'm sure many agree with these speakers, but probably just as many are merely entertained by watching a good fight. Apparently audiences loved seeing Rosie O'Donnell go head-to-head with Donald Trump and others. It's like a pseudo-intellectual version of a wrestling match; instead of clever twists and arm-holds, it uses loud, mean-spirited, personally injurious dialogue.

No, “dialogue” is not the correct word. By Merriam-Webster’s definition, a dialogue is “an exchange of ideas and opinions,” a discussion aimed at resolution of a problem. In the Coulter-type dialogue, the objective is to out-shout the other, to outwit him or her with the most hurtful barb, to defeat. Heightened adrenalin gives a satisfying rush. Nothing constructive or positive comes from this kind of “dialogue.” It is a down-and-dirty way of bashing ideas around, and as such, it lowers the level of political discourse, as Elizabeth Edwards said.

If we are really concerned about the direction America should go, I believe we must engage in true, rational discussion. We must try to solve problems instead of shooting each other with flaming arrows. Some people are busily trying to rid the airways of hate radio, as I found on this linked web site. Maybe it’s a good idea, but we have to be careful not to become hate-mongers ourselves in the effort!

Elizabeth Edwards should not have let herself be drawn into a harangue with Ann Coulter; that’s just the thing Coulter would most like, to fuel her fires. Why did she do it? This linked article gives Edwards’s explanation:

On Wednesday, the Edwards campaign sent out a letter to supporters written by Elizabeth which explained "why I called Ann Coulter."

"Last night I had an important talk with Ann Coulter and I want to tell you what happened," Elizabeth Edwards wrote. "On Monday, Ann announced that instead of using more homophobic slurs to attack John, she will just wish that John had been ‘killed in a terrorist assassination plot.’”

The letter continues, "Where I am from, when someone does something that displeases you, you politely ask them to stop. So when I heard Ann was going to be on 'Hardball' last night, I decided to call in and ask her to engage on the issues and stop the personal attacks. I told her these kinds of personal attacks lower our political dialogue at precisely the time when we need to raise it, and set a bad example for our children."

"How did she respond?" Edwards writes. "Sadly, perhaps predictably, with more personal attacks. John's campaign is about the issues—but pundits like Ann Coulter are trying to shout him down. If they will not stop, it is up to us cut through the noise."