The Not So Happy Anniversaries

While serving on a church leadership team about five years ago, I was attending a dinner meeting. I had mentioned that my husband’s and my anniversary was the following week. One of the members of the group asked how many years we had been married. I said, “I’m not sure; I think six…?”

My wedding anniversary is a happy anniversary to celebrate, even though I couldn’t remember the year on that one occasion. It provides us with another laugh to add to the many we’ve shared over the past ten years, on our way to eleven on May 13th.

Sometimes anniversaries are less than happy though, and sometimes the happy intersects with the heartbreaking.

On February 11th, my parents anniversary – 45 this year, I often think of Rachel, my friend of nearly 30 years, because her mom lost her battle with leukemia on February 11th as well.

People often remember the anniversary of the passing of a parent, a spouse, or a child – especially if that child was particularly young.

While completing observation hours for my exercise science degree, I learned during an educational presentation made to the cardiac rehabilitation patients at Michigan Heart and Vascular Center that heart attack survivors remember the anniversary of their event very vividly, particularly the first anniversary.

It was on Tuesday, March 21st that I received an email from my sister Lesley, the mom of my niece Rebekah and her siblings. Rebekah is the oldest of three at age 18; her brother David is 16; and her sister Cynthia is six. At the age of eight, Rebekah was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, the only one of the three siblings, thus far, to share the metabolic disease that her dad was diagnosed with at age 16.

This past Tuesday was the 10th anniversary of Rebekah’s diagnosis. I will share a part of Lesley’s email with you now. The email was written to “The Aunts,” me, our other two sisters, and Lesley’s two sisters in law.

“It has been ten years in the fight against diabetes for Rebekah, and today marks the 10th anniversary of her diagnosis of diabetes, exactly a month after her 8th birthday!  She has had over 16,000 insulin shots in her life of living with diabetes for the past ten yrs, in addition, about 40 blood tests and two or three IVs.  On the positive note, Rebekah has not ever had to face an unconscious low blood glucose nor an ER visit due to extremely low blood glucose.  She has made sure of this!  I am relieved to have not had to face that scary moment with my own child.”

Lesley has had to face that moment with her husband several times over the past 20 years though, too many times to remember. The lowest blood glucose reading of his that I remember her mentioning was 36. He was unconscious of course, and his daughter Rebekah gave him the emergency glucagon injection to raise his blood glucose to safer levels.

Back to Lesley’s email:

“As you all know living with diabetes is a not the normal life and is challenging, yet the advancements have made it so much better than in the past and one can lead a closer to normal life because of recent research and technology.  I’m thankful for that. I’m so thankful that Rebekah has a wonderful tolerance to needles not that the being poked by a needle doesn’t hurt, but that she has endured it with courage. 

I think back to all that we’ve been through along the road of living with diabetes: diabetes education courses for several months, logging info, weekly consultation with diabetes educators and the insulin adjustments that followed, counting carbs,  insulin shots, a year long trial with the pump, (Rebekah’s) never being able to eat without checking blood glucose and getting insulin, stopping to give Bek insulin on road trips or doing it in the moving car and watching for curves or sudden stops, checking blood glucose in the night, phone call to Jody (Rebekah’s diabetes nurse-educator) at late hours, learning how to manage ketones at home and when an ER trip is needed, knowing how to adjust Bek’s insulin myself, sitting in ER while Bek received intravenous due to moderate ketones from having the stomach flu, refilling meds, and taking along that pink, camo case – always being covered with the diabetic necessities everywhere she goes, and having to inform those she’s with (about her having diabetes), exercise and lows, public embarrassment in the beginning days, always being a diabetic, and so much more. 

It’s a sentimental anniversary date so I’m not sure what one actually does so I gave her a gift just because of her living with diabetes for ten years, not to celebrate her having diabetes.  I’m proud of her so I’d guess it’s a “Congrats” and “Keep up the good fight. So send her a message to let her know she’s not alone, and you’re rooting her on in her fight for life. Pray for her health.”

There is a good chance that each person who reads this blog post has an anniversary in their life and/or in the life of their family that is not a happy one because life has its challenges.

Lesley mentioned the anniversary of Rebekah’s diagnosis being an emotional one. It was a bit emotional for me as I read the email. I’m not a parent, but I remember holding Rebekah just a few weeks after she was born. Rachel and I took a road trip to northern Michigan to meet Rebekah.

I remember Rebekah’s first Christmas too. Her parents lived in a small but cute log house; they were both sleeping one December morning just after Christmas, but she and I were awake. I fed her a bottle as we watched the snow fall on the pine trees – you may recall this memory from my blog post a few weeks ago. Now she’s just two months from her high school graduation.

I wouldn’t have been aware of this anniversary if Lesley hadn’t emailed us. I’m not likely to remember it in the coming years in the way she does. I haven’t spent the past 10 years living with a daughter who has diabetes.

My experiences have shown me that her life is challenging. We know that, and she knows that. What I think of most as I ponder the 10th anniversary of the diagnosis is the courage and the fight Rebekah showed last June when she and I rode together in the American Diabetes Association’s Tour de Cure. She rocked the fundraising, exceeding the minimum required to ride by double, and she did well on the ride on a ridiculously hot day too – better than I did.

While we’re not exactly celebrating this anniversary, I think we can celebrate Rebekah and those who face the challenges that their DNA has given them, those who fight on and live the best life possible in spite of those challenges.

(To learn more about the fight against diabetes, and to make a donation if you are so inclined, visit either http://www.diabetes.org/ or http://www.jdrf.org/)

 

 

 

 

 

The Evolution of a Voter

Do you remember your first voting experience, the people you voted for, the reasons you voted?

The actual details surrounding the casting of my first vote in 1992 were not all that exciting. I cast that vote by absentee ballot since I was away at college.

I voted for George H. W. Bush, and everyone else who was a Republican because I voted straight party.

The reason that I voted straight party in favor of the republicans was that I believed, as I had been taught, not so much at home but in parochial school and now college, that it was the right party for which to vote – or should I say the correct party, though the republicans have been traditionally known as the “right.”

At the parochial college, we were all in complete agreement that the Republican candidate, the incumbent George H. W. Bush, was the only one who would preserve the American way of life, the American values, and the American dream. We talked about the election. We shared our support for the Republicans in whatever ways we could,  and I would guess we were doing the proverbial “preaching to the choir” on our cloistered little campus. A bunch of us girls even got passes to go off campus and attended a red, white, and blue clad Dan Quayle rally at the county fairgrounds.

In reality, attending the rally was fun. We were actually off campus, with friends, out in the sun on a beautiful Florida day. That alone was reason enough to celebrate.

Returning to my point, we believed that our candidate was the one who would win the election and continue to move the country in the right direction. We knew it would happen.

You may remember that Bill Clinton defeated the incumbent President Bush in the 1992 election.

I was shocked. I was concerned. I was disillusioned.

If you were in the position of having awakened the morning after the election of President Trump and were shocked and disillusioned – and if you’re still even reading this after reading that I had once voted straight party Republican – I have to tell you that I do have some empathy for your position. I remember what its like to once have had a messianic view of a candidate and/or a party and to have awakened the day following the election to find out that the candidate had failed.

I’m glad I learned my lesson at a young age.

The 1992 election had been the first time I had voted, but it would be the last time as well, not the last time that I voted by any means, but the last time that I voted straight party,  voted without doing my own research on candidates and on ballot issues, and finally the last time that I became emotionally invested in the outcome of an election.

Pledging allegiance to a party is not my style. When it comes to politics, I definitely choose “Independent.” I do not need, nor do I want, a party nor those in it to do my thinking for me. I don’t want a party to determine that I need to support every one of their candidates nor do I desire to feel obliged to agree with the party position on every issue.

I have for quite some time tended to lean a bit more toward Libertarian party platforms. While I believe government has its place in a society, I prefer less federal government involvement in issues that should be left to states to decide, and I prefer less government involvement in general in areas that should be left to citizens to decide.

The Libertarian party, like all of the others, has its weaknesses, its problems, and its extremists who present the worst image of the party. Still, I liked the 2016 Libertarian candidates’ message of “fiscal responsibility and social inclusion.” And I found that I could support the alternative that presidential candidate Gary Johnson presented in “not having to vote for the lesser of two evils.”

Before anyone takes that out of context, I am calling neither Trump nor Clinton evil, but poor options to hold the office of POTUS, in my opinion, yes.

Though Clinton likely had the best resume, I believed that she would have allowed for far more government interference than I believe is acceptable. As I said, I’m a fan of government taking a lesser role. While I definitely believe several aspects of government are no longer working, I was not convinced that Trump was the right person for that job given the reputation he has established for himself.

Having said that, I do not hold that absolute disdain for him that many do. He’s new to the job of being President. I like to think I am an open minded person who makes decisions based on the facts that are available, and that being the case, I am waiting to evaluate him until I see how he performs in the role. I think one positive is that he is attempting to make changes very early in his presidency – though some may be a little hasty. That being the case, he will have time to evaluate the changes while he is still in office, as will we the people, and perhaps some good can come from that.

My choice for POTUS in the 2016 election may be clear to you by now, if it you hadn’t been aware of it prior to reading this post. I made my choice based on my beliefs and values; my own research, by visiting the websites of all five candidates that were on the ballot in my state and by reading their own words, positions, and plans; my desire to see positive change in the election process and in the way the government operates, even if it takes time; and my freedom to cast my vote for the person who I believe is the best choice given the options presented to us.

I don’t know who will get my vote in 2020. What I do know is that it will not be given based on party affiliation, popular opinion, or misplaced, messianic hopes.

It is my goal to try to cast my vote, whether for POTUS, governor, mayor, ballot proposals, or millage increases, based on my own research through which I attempt to gather information from looking as close to the actual source as possible.

And once I have made my decisions and have cast my vote, it is then time to allow for democracy to take its course, to accept the fact that each person has the same right that I do to cast their one vote, and to continue after the election to do the very best that I can to make a difference for the better where I am. I believe that the difference in our communities will come from those of us living in our communities, not from the politicians in office, and to an extent it must be that way if the government adheres to an appropriate role.

After that first election experience, I began working to better understand government. This area is certainly not my area of expertise, but I attempt to remain informed and active in the process. Those of you who read my blog, or who know me, know that I am still a person of faith, however, I do not believe that God has a political party, that the role of POTUS is that of a spiritual leader, nor that America should become a government with a state religion. I do believe that morality matters in a candidate, because as Samuel Johnson said, “Integrity without knowledge is weak…, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.”

 

 

Of Faith & Fairytales

What question weighs most heavily on your mind?

We’ve all heard the expression, “They say….” While I was in college in my early 20s, I had a roommate who would often ask, “Who are they, and how do they know?”

We used to have a lot of fun with that and with the other silly questions of life: Why do fools fall in love? Where have all the flowers gone – where indeed? Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego, and why are we stalking her? Who in the — let the dogs out? And seriously, does anybody really know what time it is, and will someone actually tell me?

While many questions have been asked through song and other avenues of pop culture, many of the questions that intrigue, frustrate, and concern us the most are far more serious and complex.

While I run on the treadmill, often called “the dreadmill” by runners, I like to engage in the common practice of listening to music, but lately I have gravitated toward more intriguing and complex listening material.

It was after watching a debate between Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University and Professor John Lennox from the University of Oxford entitled “Is There a God?” during two consecutive runs late last week that I began to think more about the subject of faith, perhaps ironically, from the point of view of an atheist.

Professor Lennox is a professor of mathematics at Oxford and is a Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College and is a Christian who debates on behalf of the Christian worldview. Professor Singer, with whom I was not familiar, is an Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne, according to his website http://www.petersinger.info/.  Professor Singer debates from an atheist perspective.

Throughout the debate, Singer made it clear that his primary cause for rejecting the Christian worldview is the issue of suffering in the world,  both “moral” and “natural” suffering. Singer posed the question, a very commonly asked question, why would an all-powerful God allow suffering when he has the power to prevent it?

Why indeed.

If you are reading this and do not adhere to a Christian worldview, you should know that Christians ask that question as well.

Near the end of the debate, Singer referred to Lennox’s belief in the hope of life after death as “a fairytale” and made the point that there are certainly psychological benefits in such beliefs for those who cannot face the realities of their mortality or that of others.

After the run while I was stretching in the quiet of the room, I began to ponder Singer’s statement further, and, though I would say that I have neither the intellectual prowess nor the ability to debate that either of these two men have, I found that I was offended by the statement.

The “fairytale” philosophy minimizes all of the realities and the suffering of life, and death. We all face suffering whether or not we adhere to a Christian worldview that includes a belief in some kind of life after death. The Christian God himself never promised the fairytale philosophy that Singer presented that would excuse people from suffering and death.

It was 11 years ago that I sat in a hospital room with my grandma. I watched the monitors, saw the data, and knew that her body was failing. I knew she was dying. I knew that she would never talk to me again; that she wasn’t going to miraculously regain consciousness, open her eyes, get out of bed, get dressed, and drive home. Though I believe that God could produce that kind of result, I also understand the reality that humans are mortal. Grandma passed away about 1:00 the following day.

I believe she is in heaven, though I have to admit I cannot truly process what that experience is like for her, and, honestly, I find it a bit weird to think that she does still exist in some form and in a place we call heaven.

Singer’s statement about such beliefs being a fairytale fails to account for reality in that I still had to experience my grandma’s death and had to face the grief that comes from losing a loved one. It is likely that I will lose other people who I love as I have lost my grandpa and several of my husband’s family members, and I will ultimately face my own death one day.

My Christian worldview, that can and should give us peace in the trying times of life and hope for the further here and in the life to follow, does not excuse me from human suffering nor does it give me the glitter dusted, prince-to-the rescue, happily ever after that Singer intended by his witty comment.

As I listened to Singer dismiss a God who would allow suffering, I started to think that atheists really want to take the god role, to see suffering only when they feel like it is justified and to prevent it in all other cases. But then I realized that whatever our worldview, from atheist to polytheist to deist, it is likely that we all want that.

To humankind, suffering, particularly in the vast majority of cases where it is deemed by us as unjust suffering, seems simply without explanation, at least beyond one that would satisfy our intellect, and certainly beyond one would heal our hurting hearts and calm our fears.

In response to the specific question of why God allows suffering, Lennox said that he must approach that topic with great care and sympathy. He cited incidents of suffering from his own life and family. Ultimately, Lennox said that he could not answer the question of why God allowed suffering, but that he could find comfort in knowing God understands because he could look to Jesus, God in human form, on the cross and know that God understands suffering because He has experienced suffering.

Singer holds the very common view that suffering is just part of the universe, a view that is common to Christian as well as other world views, though the underlying reasons are vastly different. Singer also politely stated that he appreciated Lennox’s honesty in not being able to provide a satisfactory reason for God allowing suffering.

If you think that a satisfactory reason for suffering exists, from any worldview, for one who is actually enduring suffering, let me tell you, it doesn’t.

The question of suffering carries with it an enormity that seems beyond answers. I certainly will not tell you that I can answer that question.

Journalist and author Philip Yancey closed a presentation for the University of Virginia CAPPS Lecture Series with the following statement, and it is with his statement that I will close this post, because it resonated with me as I too struggle with the questions that suffering raises.

Following descriptions of injustices ranging from sanctioned racism in the United States to Coptic Christians facing execution at the hands of ISIS terrorists, Yancey concluded his talk by saying, “Is the God who allows such suffering on earth worthy of trust? Is that thin, fragile gift of grace able to stand against our violent world? Is the power that is within me truly, as Jesus promised, greater than the power that is within the world? Both themes (grace and suffering) are wrapped in mystery, and both continue to haunt me, and always will. I cling to them against all reason, and pray that the church does as well.”

Both presentations that I cited in this post are included below.

 

 

Where’s the Outrage – Everywhere

I opened my computer the Monday following the 2017 Grammy Awards and found that the annual awards show had sparked a great deal of outrage.

According to the various headlines that flowed following the show, there was “Outrage Over Beyoncé’s Grammy Snub,” and “Natalie Cole’s Family Outraged Over ‘Disrespectful’ Grammys,” and then that timeless question “Grammys – Where’s the Outrage?”

While I have to admit to not having watched the Grammys, that seemed like a lot of outrage for an awards show.

Outrage is defined as “an extremely strong reaction of anger, shock, or indignation.” Indignation is a great word; it’s not used enough. Indignation is defined as “anger or annoyance provoked by what is perceived as unfair treatment.”

Beyond the Grammys, outrage seems to be all the rage.

Simply look at this sampling of headlines I found very easily by using Google: “Where’s the Outrage Over the Russian Hack?” from CNN; “The Limits of Outrage: Liberal Journalists Coming to Grips with Trump’s Win, Hillary’s Loss,” from Fox News; “‘Sexy’ Melania Trump Article in Inquirer Sparks Outrage,” from the Philadelphia news and opinion page; “Church Cancels ‘Charlie Brown’ Over Atheist Outrage,” from Christian News; and finally this from the BBC, “Outrage Over Moscow Restaurant Name.”

Looking at the first two titles in the list, and better yet at the sources, one can fairly quickly identify the reason for the supposed need for outrage. On one hand a media outlet often identified as more liberal is asking for outrage from what they believe would be a largely anti-Trump audience, while on the other hand a media outlet defined as equally conservative is calling out certain media outlets for their outrage at Trump’s victory.

Every four years, a candidate will win an election, and others will lose the election for the office of President of the United States. Certainly disappointment, frustration, even occasional anger follows, but outrage over one’s victory, or over one’s defeat?

The “sexy” article was prompted by a tweet from that stellar news source the Inquirer: “Is @FLOTUS Trump the most sexy first lady?” President Trump reportedly responded to the tweet to which the “tens of thousands of Philadelphia women (who) were just starting to recover from Saturday marches of solidarity against Donald Trump” then responded with outrage.

My first thought on this particular incident of outrage is that one might want to consider the source of the information – the Inquirer. It seems akin to being outraged because a seventh grader said something juvenile, particularly if she were trying to provoke a reaction. It’s what Inquirer, and unfortunately now even some formerly reputable news organizations, do.

Regarding the headline about the “Atheist Outrage” over the Charlie Brown Christmas show, Terry Public School students were planning to attend a performance of “Merry Christmas Charlie Brown” hosted by Agape Church, according to the article; “However, a parent objected and contacted the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, a self-described community of atheists, agnostics and humanists. ”  The article went on to report that Agape Church determined it was best to cancel the matinee that was to be held for the school. “It is not our desire to put hard-working, sacrificial teachers and cast members in harm’s way,” Pastor Caldwell told the reporter.

As it relates to this article, the use of the word “Outrage” in the title appears to be for dramatic affect, as is often the case. The less than free thinking actions of one parent hardly connotes outrage on the part of the entire atheist community.

The Moscow restaurant that sparked “outrage” chose the name “NKVD – the name of the Stalin-era Soviet secret police,” according to the BBC News. The report further stated that citizens view the NKVD as a “criminal organization,” and cited its history of terror and murder. The NKVD letters were removed from the restaurant according to the report, but the staff would like to see the name replaced on the building. The report concluded without our finding out the reasoning of the staff for wanting to see the letters returned to the building.

It is in this particular case that I see the most likely case for rational outrage. Even so, it seems like we might be missing relevant information. Understanding why the staff would like to see the letters return to the building might help to address the outrage. Perhaps they feel like those who forget history are destined to repeat it, or perhaps it is their intention to honor the victims by making something good out of what was once perceived as quite evil. But then again, it may not.

It would be hard to fathom anything to do with the Holocaust as a name for a restaurant or entertainment venue as producing a reaction other than outrage, and very likely justifiably so.

Many things occur in this world that most people would agree are cause for concern, sorrow, or even anger, but it seems that we are often too quick to become “outraged” when a rational approach would dictate that such a strong, emotional outburst is not warranted – like following an awards show with all of its perceived snubs and slights.

You may believe it’s not my right to decide when someone else should be outraged. I would certainly agree, to an extent.

As I mentioned, we can agree that many things are wrong in the world. Expressing outrage over any one, or several, of those things is easy. but if you, if we, are truly moved to a place of outrage by something, I would ask, what are you actually doing to bring justice, healing, and peace to that situation.