My friend, Rita, is sitting at the bedside of her mother. It has been Rita’s great joy and blessing to have Gladys as her mom. Now, as mother battles life-threatening infection, daughter wants to serve as she’s been served. She is doing that by faithfully remaining at her mom’s side… reading to her, praying with her, and re-counting treasured memories.
It is at such times, however, that even the most faithful believers ask, “God, where are You? Why do you allow our loved one to endure this?” Gladys has lived a full and good life. “She has been faithful, Lord. Isn’t her work done? Dear Jesus, why don’t You just take her home with you?”
Our family asked similar questions not long ago when my father-in-law battled bacterial brain infection. We were given opportunity to hang on to and put into practice every pro-life conviction on which we stand. For years, I had been speaking to others about the value of one life — the life in the womb and the life in a hospital bed. So, I had to ask myself, what value was I going to put on the life of my husband’s father? After all, he was 80 years old. (Gladys is 91.) His life was blessed. Full. Active. He knew Jesus as His Savior and I knew my father-in-law, Max, would be taken to heaven when he died. I knew I would forever appreciate the wisdom he had shared and the lessons he had taught.
I remember days and nights when Max, almost catatonic, could only thrash fitfully in bed. I remember spoon-feeding him and begging him to swallow before a feeding tube was inserted. Without really meaning to, Max pulled it out three times. Three antibiotics were flowing into his bloodstream by IV. No one knew for sure what the side-effects of those toxic chemicals might be. So, when the brain surgeon said there was no more she could do, and the infectious disease team told us the odds of beating this infection were not good, and the social worker encouraged us to “take your dad home to hospice,” we could have said, “It has been a good fight. We did all we could.”
But, God wasn’t through with Max — and He wasn’t through with me or my family either. There were so many more lessons yet to be taught and learned. From a bed not of his choosing, Max challenged his family to make words real in deed. Not by accident he became my teacher, model, and witness. My journal is filled with lessons taught by a man who was ready to meet Jesus; yet so desperately clung to the life he loved. Here are a few of those lessons:
SERVICE: How can we make a difference when we are helpless? Max had always been a hard worker. His hands tilled the soil and planted the seed. But God does not need our hands or anything else we have to offer. His work is accomplished in spite of us. God said to Max Bartlett, “My power is made perfect in your weakness.” This power was witnessed by family, friends, and the medical community.
DETERMINATION: Although we were willing to let Max be with Jesus, we weren’t ready to give up. Nor was a man named Ravi Vemuri, a physician who seemed to have developed a personal interest in Max and his ever-present family. Dr. Vemuri, a practicing Hindu, loved life too, and he had one more antibiotic to try. In addition, perhaps moved by our involvement, he granted our request to compliment his chemical approach with nutritional supplements. The determination of doctor, family, and the patient Max was not lost on those who watched.
CONTROL: Desiring some kind of control, I wanted to work with a plan. On the days when we nearly lost Max, I planned for death. On the days when he rallied, I planned for life. But, through Max Bartlett, God showed me that He has a plan not like my own. He asked me only to trust.
INCONVENIENCE: If asked how I would handle sometimes 15-hour days in a hospital room and shared sleeping quarters with assorted family members, I’m not sure how I would have responded. But God did not ask me how I felt about such things. Through Max, He simply asked me to be faithful.
SELF: During my first long stay at the hospital, my thoughts turned to self. Does anyone appreciate what I am doing or realize what I’m giving up? In a private moment I will never forget, God used the patient, Max, to help the caregiver, Linda, adjust her attitude.
WORSHIP: One evening, alone with my father-in-law, I asked, “Sometimes, when you appear to be sleeping, you are really talking to God, aren’t you Max?” Squeezing my hand even tighter, he simply said, “Yes, you know, don’t you?” What soul work was being done. A frightening brush with death brought a humble man of God named Max Bartlett into an even closer relationship with His Heavenly Father.
So, what is the price of one life? Is it the price of helplessness or suffering? Is it the price of sleepless nights and frightening days? Is it the price of inconvenience?
The price of one life is what God puts on it. He planned that life. He knit that life together in the secret place of a mother’s womb. He promised to be with that life whether dependent on bottle-feeding or tube feeding. He loves that life. The greatness of that love is evidenced by the Cross on which His own dear Son, Jesus Christ, was sacrificed for one life — yours, mine, a preborn child, Max, and Gladys.
God wants us to love one life, too. He wants us to protect one life and speak up for one life. Early in my pro-life ministry days, I predicted that the generation that ushered in abortion would be ushered out by euthanasia. This culture has been shaped to value human life only if it is wanted. Convenient. Not a threat to our own. But, the value God places on the life He creates and redeems is priceless. God wants us to be an advocate for each life. To leave ourselves open and willing to learn every lesson taught by the “least of these.” To trust.
If God gives us one life to love, He will also give us what we need — for as long as we need it — to care for that life.
Ezerwoman's Blog 
Sexual Menu?
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Commentaries of others, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Life issues, Parenting & Education, Relationships, tagged children, faithfulness, future of marriage, generations, harm, infidelity, Iowa, man, Mercatornet, monogamy, New York, parenting, same-sex marriage, sexual menu, social trends, suffering, woman on July 16, 2011| Leave a Comment »
I disagree. So does Michael Cook, the editor of Mercatornet. In his article of July 11, he asks: “Anything else on the menu?”
He offers three reasons why the legalization of same-sex “marriage” will, indeed, affect our culture. All come from authors featured in the New York Times. First, Michael Cook notes the commentary of Katherine M. Franke, a Columbia University law professor. She confessed that she really didn’t want to marry her long-time lesbian partner anyway. Why lose the flexibility and benefits of living as domestic partners? Cook quotes professor Franke, saying as far as she was concerned, “we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security.”
“One choice in a menu of legally supported relationships?” Cook asks. “How long is the menu?”
Cook offers a second reason why legalizing same-sex “marriage” will impact society by highlighting another article in the Times by Ralph Richard Banks. Banks is a professor at Stanford Law School. What comes after gay “marriage”? Banks “puts his money on polygamy and incest” because legal prohibitions on either practice are losing strength. Society forbade them in the past because they were seen as “morally reprehensible;” therefore, society felt “justified in discriminating against them.” I follow Banks’ reasoning. Just as homosexual advocates are working hard to shift our thinking and normalize the behavior God calls a sin, so will advocates of polygamy and incest.
Two more behaviors, Cook notes, are added to the “menu of [sexual] options.”
The third reason why legalized same-sex “marriage” will have a domino affect on the culture is voiced by Dan Savage. The Times describes Savage as “America’s leading sex-advice columnist.” He is syndicated in at least 50 newspapers. Here’s what Cook writes about Savage. “Savage, who claims to be both ‘culturally Catholic’ and gay, thinks that gay couples have a lot to teach heterosexual couples, especially about monogamy. Idealising monogamy destroys families, he contends. Men are simply not made to be monogamous. Until feminism came along, men had mistresses and visited prostitutes. But instead of extending the benefits of the sexual revolution to women, feminism imposed a chastity belt on men. ‘And it’s been a disaster for marriage,’ he says. What we need, in his opinion, is relationships which are open to the occasional fling — as long as partners are open about it.”
Cook continues, “Traditional marriage — well, actually real marriage — is and has always been monogamous and permanent. There have been and always will be failures. But that is the ideal to which couples aspire. They marry ‘for better or worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part’. The expectation is exclusivity in a life-long commitment.”
Cook believes that legalization of same-sex “marriage” will most assuredly “affect the attitudes of young couples who are thinking of marriage a decade from now . . . it will be one of a number of options . . . they will have different expectations . . . marriage will include acceptance of infidelity, will not necessarily involve children, and will probably only last a few years.”
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” in New York say it’s good for marriage. Cook concludes:
“In a way, they’re right. Just as World War II was good for Germany because out of the ashes, corpses and rubble arose a heightened sense of human dignity and a democratic and peaceful government, same-sex marriage will heighten our esteem for real marriage. But in the meantime, the suffering will be great.”
Amen.
Mercatornet: Navigating modern complexities
Check it out!
Read Full Post »