THE AFTERMATH OF ILLNESS

Tom's diagnosis of colon cancer rocked us both.  The weeks while we waited for the processes leading up to surgery to be completed were difficult, but we tried to keep busy and distracted, and we mostly succeeded.   The news after the surgery was surely as good as could be expected: the tumor was small, and the nearby lymph nodes were cancer free, and there was joy in Butlerland when Tom came home. 

Then, within a few days, came Tom's loss of appetite and vomiting.  I knew something was very wrong when I saw the greenish-black bile, but x-rays in the doctor's office were inconclusive as to whether there was an obstruction.  The vomiting continued, and Tom was readmitted to the hospital, and it was determined that there was an obstruction, a complication that never happens, but leave it to Tom... 

Tom is recovering nicely now, probably doing a bit too much too soon, but, so far, he appears to have done no harm to himself.  I told him if he has to go back in the hospital, I will not visit, but that's not true.

All of the above took a toll on both of us, and, though Tom seems the same, I'm sure the experience changed him, but in a way I can't yet see.  What I do know is that I have not yet regained my emotional equilibrium, such as it was, since the surgery.  I've thought about why I'm not yet my old self, and, indeed, somewhat accepted the fact that I may never be my old self, because life is change.

My one conclusion thus far is that when I was diagnosed with breast cancer 29 years ago, I looked my own death in the face, and I was changed.  The word "cancer" has a way of concentrating the mind wonderfully on the reality that humans, including me, are mortal.  I've been blessed with 29 years of life after the dread diagnosis, and I'm most grateful for the years, every one of which seems a gift.

But (and it's a huge "but") I had not faced Tom's mortality in any real way until now.  The good news is that I've come to realize in a way that I didn't before how much he means to me, but the not-so-good news is that the reality is scary, and my emotions, which are almost always near the surface, are out of kilter and somewhat flattened and kept at bay.  What to do? 

When two people live together for 53-plus years, the rather minor annoying habits of the other can come to loom rather large in daily life, so I've determined not to call Tom's attention to every little annoyance and to make a general attempt to be kinder and less of a scold.  In other words, don't sweat the small stuff.  And be kind.

In time, I hope to recover emotional equilibrium, and I believe I will, but, in the meantime, I'm thankful for each day Tom and I have together, and I will try to be kind, and not just to Tom.  I will often fail, but I hope I don't give up trying.

When certain Christians ask, "Are you saved?" I answer, "Yes, every day."  And that's true, and some few days I need to be saved from just lying in bed all day.  A strength that seemed to come from beyond me carried me through the stressful period, and I trust that same source, God in Jesus, will carry me the rest of the way.  You see, I believe salvation is about here and now, for today, and not so much for the sweet bye-and-bye, because I have no idea what happens in the sweet bye-and-bye.  But I have today, for which I'm grateful, and I believe God is with me, with us, to give us healing, strength, and courage.

"THE WRATH OF GOD WAS SATISFIED?"

Bosco Peters' post at Liturgy, titled "the wrath of God was satisfied?", has received over 70 comments.  The entire discussion is worth reading.

At our recent synod meeting, one of the songs was Stuart Townend and Keith Getty’s In Christ alone with the words:

“Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied”

Those words as understood by many (if not most) in that room are heresy. The understanding of those words by many (most) who enthusiastically sing this in services around the planet is heretical.

The understanding is that God (The Father) was angry at us in our sinfulness. And that God took out this rage on Christ instead of on us. And that this now enables God (The Father) to love us.

This understanding is heresy. 

My comment at Bosco's blog is rather long, and I thought it worth quoting here, even out of context, because the words reflect some thoughts of mine on atonement theology. 

 Bosco, the hymn you mention is not in the 1982 hymnal of the Episcopal Church in the US. In all good conscience, I could not sing the words about God’s wrath being satisfied by Jesus’ death on the cross.

What an interesting discussion. I’m reminded of my words to a friend who is in deep depression. I doubt whether my friend is able to take hold of the idea in a way that will help lift the depression, but, after I read my words over, I thought to myself that they express well my living experience of God’s salvation day by day. So. The words may or may not have been helpful to my friend, but they were helpful to me.

“Do you have inside yourself a sense that you are a person of worth? You are, if for no other reason than you are God’s wonderful creation, and God declared you to be good – not for your accomplishments, nor for the work you do, nor whether you’re crazy or sane, but simply for who you are before God, who loves you. I know I’m sermonizing, and maybe because of depression, or for some other reason, what I say doesn’t seem right, and you can’t or won’t take hold of the concept, but I believe it to be true, and it’s what gives meaning to my life. When there seems to be nothing left, I hang on to the knowledge of God’s abiding love, which rescues me time after time and is my salvation.”

My theological starting point is God is love. God loves God’s own creation unconditionally. God created us with the gift to choose, which means we can choose good, or evil, or make choices that are neutral – like what color clothing to wear. When God gave us the ability to chose, did God not know that we humans would make wrong choices? The allegory of Adam and Eve tells us God knew. Humans did sin, and God sent the Beloved Son to save us by his Incarnation, the example of his life, his teachings, his crucifixion, his death, and his Resurrection. God came down and became incarnate, fully human, like us in every way. By doing so, through all of his life on earth until after the Resurrection, Jesus’s words and actions, his whole life, are efficacious in drawing us into the very life of the Trinity and saving us.

God’s will cannot be divided. Jesus freely chose to become one with us and do the Father’s will here on earth. He was obedient to the Father in the manner in which he lived his life and in what he taught his followers, with the result that the powers of the day feared insurrection, and eventually put him to death. Jesus did not need to die the horrible death to satisfy the wrath of God for our sins to be forgiven. Humans put Jesus to death, not the Father.

There is no wrath in God’s love for us. God loves us without conditions.
...

The Incarnation is the biggie for me, that God came down to be one of us to catch us up in the life of the Trinity. I was taught that the greatest feast of the life of Jesus is the Resurrection, but I’m now inclined to think the children had it right all along to see Christmas as the great feast.

Let me add that I think we all make up our own theology, to one degree or another, after reading and prayerful reflection on the Scriptures, the writings of the Fathers of the church, and the writings of the great Christian theologians and philosophers throughout the history of Christianity. Now my idea may, in itself, be considered heretical, but there it is.

VOTE REPUBLICAN, OR BE JUDGED FOR ETERNITY

Letter to the members of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Peoria from Bishop Daniel R. Jenky:

Election AD 2012

By virtue of your vow of obedience to me as your Bishop, I require that this letter be personally read by each celebrating priest at each Weekend Mass, November 3/4.

Dear Catholic Believers,

Since the foundation of the American Republic and the adoption of the Bill of Rights, I do not think there has ever been a time more threatening to our religious liberty than the present. Neither the president of the United States nor the current majority of the Federal Senate have been willing to even consider the Catholic community's grave objections to those HHS mandates that would require all Catholic institutions, exempting only our church buildings, to fund abortion, sterilization, and artificial contraception. This assault upon our religious freedom is simply without precedent in the American political and legal system. Contrary to the guarantees embedded in the First Amendment, the HHS mandates attempt to now narrowly define and thereby drastically limit our traditional religious works. They grossly and intentionally intrude upon the deeply held moral convictions that have always guided our Catholic schools, hospitals, and other apostolic ministries.
....

For those who hope for salvation, no political loyalty can ever take precedence over loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ and to his Gospel of Life. God is not mocked, and as the Bible clearly teaches, after this passing instant of life on earth, God's great mercy in time will give way to God's perfect judgment in eternity.

The headline of the post at the National Catholic Reporter is "Peoria bishop orders Catholics to the polls".   Since I've long admired the reporting at NCR, I hope the headline is irony.  What the bishop orders is that Roman Catholics go to the polls and vote for Mitt Romney and Republican candidates for the US Senate.

 In 1954, Congress saw the need to separate charities and churches from politics. An amendment was offered on the floor of the Senate by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson.

The Johnson amendment is found within the well-known section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In its present form, the law states that charities, including churches, are not allowed to “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

Freedom of speech and religious liberty are essential elements of our democracy. But the Supreme Court has in essence held that tax exemption is a privilege, not a right, stating, “Congress has not violated [an organization’s] First Amendment rights by declining to subsidize its First Amendment activities.”

The rule against intervention by charities and churches in political campaigns has been entrenched in the law for over a half-century. Congress enacted the law. The Courts upheld it. Our job at the IRS is to educate the public and charities about the law and to enforce it in a fair and evenhanded manner.

Perhaps the powers-that-be at the IRS might be moved to investigate the Diocese of Peoria's tax-exempt eligibility. The bishop stepped outside the boundary of advocating issues to advocating candidates. I know the IRS is not likely to do as I suggest, but it should.

The bishop's heavy-handed order to the priests in the diocese demonstrates desperation and a lack of confidence in his own authority.  He speaks of the "Catholic community" as though all Catholics think alike and speak with one voice, which is (excuse my language) bullshit, as is Jenky's claim of "assault upon our religious freedom", on which basis he orders the faithful to vote Republican, or risk their very salvation.  Will Roman Catholics pay attention to the gospel according to Jenky when they vote? I hope not.

In an earlier post I quoted another letter from Bishop Jenky in which he compared President Obama to Hitler and Stalin. 

Note: I was going to take a pass on posting on the the bishop's odious letter, but Rmj at Adventus inspired me otherwise.  Keep in mind that the thoughts and words here are my own, and Rmj bears no responsibility.