Menu

80 Sermon Illustrations on Disability

80 illustrations Page 2 of 2

Disability in Christian preaching highlights God's care for those with physical or mental challenges, emphasizing mercy, perseverance, and the inherent value of every life (Psalm 139:14; 2 Corinthians 12:9). Illustrations often use stories of overcoming obstacles, the faithfulness of the weak, and the call to love and serve neighbors with compassion and dignity.

'Rights Talk' Run Amok

In July 2008, Ian Martin needed a place to stay. That should have worked well for Douglas McCue, the owner of the CornerStone Bed and Breakfast.

Well, maybe it would have in another place, time, and culture.

Martin is blind and uses a seeing-eye dog. That wouldn’t be a problem, except that B&B owner McCue “suffers from acute sinusitis aggravated by exposure to canines.” Thus, no matter how much he wanted to rent Martin a room, his health wouldn’t permit it. That should have ended the matter.

Except that, as Canadian columnist Mark Steyn notes, this was Ontario, home to the Human Rights Commission. Martin filed a complaint and demanded compensation that “started at two grand and quickly escalated into five figures.” Eventually, Martin paid a $700 fine, issued a perfunctory apology — and then closed his bed and breakfast.

What happened to McCue was outrageous, but it could have been worse. He could have been sued for refusing to allow a horse to stay in one of his rooms.

Earlier this year, the Chicago Tribune ran a story about a blind Muslim woman in Dearborn, Michigan, who rides the bus with a seeing-eye miniature horse named “Cali.” That’s because dogs — even seeing-eye dogs — can, quote, “violate [Muslim] ritual purity.”

What if the woman had visited Perth, Ontario, and needed a place to stay? Could McCue have refused her a room? After all, while a horse is a horse of course, of course, it’s also an expression of her rights as both a disabled person and a Muslim.

For that matter, would the fact that McCue is gay factor into the whole “rights” equation? Could she, as a Muslim, ban a homosexual bed and breakfast owner from his own home? Or what if the blind man, Martin, had shown up with his dog at the same time? Could she force him to leave?

What’s going on here is more than political correctness run amok. As Mark Steyn rightly says, it’s part of ongoing process wherein government is seen “as the only valid mediator of social relations.”

What Steyn characterizes as “invented rights of near parodic absurdity” is the logical outcome of what Harvard law professor Mary Anne Glendon calls “rights talk.” According to Glendon, the emphasis on “rights” promotes “unrealistic expectations” and “heightens social conflict.”

That’s because it condones accepting the benefits of living in a democratic society without accepting the “corresponding personal and civic responsibilities.” In a culture dominated by “rights talk,” we engage each other not as fellow-citizens or neighbors, but as autonomous rights-bearers.

When our rights inevitably come into conflict, the only recourse we have is government — the courts, human rights tribunals, or laws that favor one kind of rights-bearer over another. Coercion replaces compromise, “mutual forbearance,” and, ultimately, “peaceful coexistence.”

As Steyn notes, in the last well-publicized Human Rights Commission case involving a gay man and a bed and breakfast, a Christian couple lost their business. This time the gay man lost his.

Eventually, our dependence on “rights talk” will cost us all something much more valuable than a room to rent: our freedom.

________

Copyright (c) 2009 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database disability

No Compassion For The Mentally Ill: Canada's Obsession With The “Right To Die”

Mark 5:15

How compassionate is it to let people end their lives when they choose? That’s the wrong question.

Canadians, or at least Canadian media elites, seem intent on creating a real-life version of what novelist P.D. James, in her novel “The Children of Men,” called “quietus”: that is, state-sanctioned mass suicide of the those deemed to be a burden to the rest of society.

John Stonestreet told you about a recent article in Maclean’s magazine (think Time or Newsweek for our friends north of the border) that asked, “Should doctors be paid a premium (for) assisting deaths?” The answer was a resounding “Yes!” Without such a “premium,” what Canada calls “medical assistance in dying,” “will exist in theory only, and not in practice.”

That was just the beginning for Maclean’s. The August 15, 2017 issue told the story of a palliative care doctor who decided that, in addition to providing end-of-life care to dying patients, he would assist them with the actual dying.

Not surprisingly, the story was wrapped in gauzy haze that made everyone involved appear noble beyond words: think noted humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, instead of Jack Kevorkian.

There was no hint of where this ersatz brand of “compassion” could lead. For that, you only had to look back a few months in the magazine’s archives. A few months earlier, an article in the magazine argued that, although “It may make some people understandably uncomfortable ... extending the right to assisted dying to the mentally ill is a compassionate solution.”

I told you about the move to extend the so-called “right to die” to mentally ill people back in May. I told you back then that it was a terrible idea, and now that I’ve seen the rationale fully set forth, I’m looking for a word that’s stronger than “terrible.”

The piece was written by Daniel Munro of the Conference Board of Canada whose stated goal is to — and I’m not making this up — build “a better future for Canadians by making our economy and society more dynamic and competitive.” According to Munro, it’s “not clear why” the principle that justifies euthanasia for the terminally ill “should apply any less to people with mental illness.”

That “principle” isn’t compassion, which comes from the Latin for “to suffer with.” No, the principle Munro and others cite is autonomy — ”allowing individuals to choose the time and manner of their deaths, just as we allow people to choose how they will lead their lives.”

The New Testament Greek word for compassion is “splagchnizomai.” It means being moved in our guts, our bowels, in response to the suffering of others. But today, according to Macleans anyway, compassion means being careful not to violate someone’s autonomy.

This enshrinement of autonomy goes a long way toward explaining why the “right to die” will not and cannot be limited to the terminally ill. If you begin with the assumption that people have a right to live and die as they please, then there’s no good reason to limit lethal medical assistance to only one group of suffering people.

So we need to remember, as I told you in my earlier broadcast, that when a mentally-ill person says “please let me die,” you can never be certain whether it’s the person speaking or the mental illness speaking. What matters to Macleans is not interfering with how a person chooses to end their life. And that, my friends, is the exact opposite of a Christian worldview.

In James’ novel, state-sanctioned quietus was the product of a society literally without a future. In Canada’s case, it’s being championed by people who claim to be working for a better future. Whatever the setting, compassion is the last thing we should call it.

________

Copyright (c) 2017 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Eric Metaxas with Roberto Rivera via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database disabilitycompassion

Stop Trying To ‘Heal’ Me

Mark 6:5

Like many disabled people, I am often approached by Christians who want to pray for me to be healed. While they may be well-intentioned, these encounters often leave me feeling judged as faulty and in need of repair. So I set out to discover what Christianity has to offer disabled people beyond promises of miracle cures.

From time to time, without warning or encouragement, I get approached in the street by Christians who tell me they want to pray for me to get my sight back. Since I became blind as a teenager this has been a regular yet annoying by-product of being an independent disabled person who can walk about on the street.

The last time this happened was on the London underground. The train was packed full of people all studiously ignoring each other when a man put his hand on my shoulder and asked if he could pray for my sight to be restored. But more about that later.

I had always assumed that everyone knew these encounters are a fact of life for people who are visibly disabled. But when one day I told some colleagues about my latest brush with a would-be healer, they were variously fascinated or outraged that anyone would have the cheek to impose their beliefs on me about something so personal.

At this point I should perhaps confess that I am not religious. The message I’ve taken from the Christians who’ve offered me healing is that I need to be “fixed” - just as Jesus “fixed” disabled people in the Gospels. Far from converting me, this has put me off Christianity. So I was interested to learn that it also annoys some disabled Christians.

Reverend Zoe Hemming, vicar of St Andrews Church in the village of Aston in Shropshire, is a part-time wheelchair user who lives with chronic pain. She’s had her own encounters with strangers offering healing prayer and says she finds this approach can be “spiritually abusive”.

“I’ve been in situations where I’ve been talking to another wheelchair user in church and somebody was so determined to pray for us and we just kept ignoring them because we were in the middle of a conversation. In the end he just put his arms on both our shoulders and just prayed. It was really annoying and very disempowering. I was furious.”

Healing hands

Of course, Christians who offer healing do so because, in the Gospels, Jesus healed the sick and commanded his disciples to do the same.

At my school, we learned all about the healing miracles Jesus performed. He told a “cripple” that he was healed and should pick up his stretcher and walk. He cured a blind man or two, healed a woman with a haemorrhage and another who was bent double. He even brought his friend Lazarus back from the dead.

For Candida Moss, the Edward Cadbury Professor of Theology at the University of Birmingham, these stories can be alienating for readers who, like her, are disabled.

“I think the main problem for disabled people reading the Bible is that while Jesus does spend a lot of time with people with disabilities, every time he meets them, if they encounter him with faith, he heals them and so he’s sort of like this cathartic scourge that wanders around eradicating disability from the world.”

Another difficulty, says Prof Moss, is that disabled people are often used by the Gospel authors to beef up Jesus’ credentials, showcasing his divine powers.

“When Jesus meets people with disabilities, he fixes them and that’s a sign that he is powerful,” she says. “That relegates people with disabilities to just being there to show the power of God. They’re not really real characters or real people who have feelings and needs and personalities. That pushes them to the margins of the story.”

But Lyndall Bywater, a Christian who writes and teaches about prayer and is herself blind, says it’s important to understand the historical context of Jesus’ healing miracles. While disabled people today might bristle at descriptions of the “pity” Jesus feels for the people he heals, Ms Bywater says Jesus was operating at a time when being disabled meant being poor, unemployed and excluded from mainstream society.

“There was obviously no welfare state, so you’d have been begging on the side of the road. Your life condition would have been pretty terrible and I think pity from Jesus in that context is probably a lot about that sense of exclusion, that sense of destitution that he saw.”

Another motive, she says, was the fact that many disabled people were banned from worshipping at the temple as, under religious law at the time, they were deemed “unclean”.

“Jesus did heal physical illness a lot and I think some of that was because it did restore people to social dignity at the time.”

So if Jesus met me today, empowered as I am with my job and my guide dog, would he still think I need healing?

Lyndall Bywater is sceptical: “If Jesus was walking the streets now,” she says, “I don’t know if he would be healing in the same way. I don’t think Jesus would look at you and think ‘there is someone who needs pity’.”

God has a wheelchair

Some Christians are going even further in rethinking what the Bible has to say about disability. Among them is 16-year-old Becky Tyler, who in 2017 preached to 6,000 people at the Christian festival Greenbelt. Tyler has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and communicates using eye-gaze technology and a speech synthesizer. She tells me she talks to God every day inside her head.

“God says to me that He loves me a lot. He says that I am made in His image and that my disability doesn’t make me any less than an able-bodied person. He loves us all the same.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly for someone born with a severe disability, Becky hasn’t always believed this.

“When I was about 12 years old, I felt God didn’t love me as much as other people because I am in a wheelchair and because I can’t do lots of the things that other people can do. I felt this way because I did not see anyone with a wheelchair in the Bible, and nearly all the disabled people in the Bible get healed by Jesus - so they are not like me.”

She felt alienated by much of what she read in the Bible - until she was given new food for thought.

“My mum showed me a verse from the Book of Daniel (Chapter 7, Verse 9), which basically says God’s throne has wheels, so God has a wheelchair.

“In fact it’s not just any old chair, it’s the best chair in the Bible. It’s God’s throne, and it’s a wheelchair. This made me feel like God understands what it’s like to have a wheelchair and that having a wheelchair is actually very cool, because God has one.”

If you think this is a random moment of silliness from a teenager, Prof Candida Moss says Becky has chanced upon a fresh but perfectly legitimate reading of the Old Testament.

“We don’t get many descriptions of what God is actually like but we get one of them at the beginning of Ezekiel,” she says. “The Prophet has this vision of the Heavenly throne room, where God resides and God is sat on this throne that is pretty much on fire.

“But it’s also described as having wheels within wheels attached to it. And following this scene, if you think of all the scenes of the Bible laid out chronologically, God is always sat in this wheeled throne and in fact moves - leaves the city of Jerusalem - on the wheeled throne and returns to it later on the wheeled throne.”

Although God is depicted walking in the Bible, Prof Moss says this happens earlier - in the Garden of Eden.

“It seems like God is a wheelchair user maybe a thousand years before human beings themselves have thought about wheelchairs.”

So is God disabled? “That is certainly a way to read it” says Prof Moss, admitting that for many, this is a jaw-dropping and theologically challenging idea: “Yes, it’s very counter-intuitive to the image of divine power that we grow up with in Sunday school or Church, but that’s precisely why we should look at these passages - because they challenge us to reconsider what we think is important and what we value highly.”

Prof Moss is part of a group of academics who are carving out a new “theology of disability”. It’s a relatively new academic field, which has only really taken off in the past 10 to 15 years, inspired by pioneering texts like The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability (1994) by Nancy L Eiesland.

The body of Jesus

For the Reverand Zoe Hemming, these contemporary readings of Christian scripture have provided new ways of seeing - and coming to terms with - her own disability.

“I can’t believe it took me this long to realise it,” she says, “but when Jesus rose from the dead, his risen body still had scars,” explaining that crucifixion left holes in his hands and feet as well as his side.

“It was profound for me to realise that the most powerful symbol of the disabled body in the Christian story is His.”

She says she is glad that Jesus didn’t come back from the dead as physically whole and perfect. “He came back better than perfect,” she says. “He wore his scars because they told his story.

“That’s the Jesus that I find in Christianity, not the one that wants to normalise everybody.”

Prof Moss says the fact that Jesus retains his scars after the Resurrection suggests that disabled people might also retain their disabilities in the afterlife - something she hopes for herself.

“I think that if I’m not disabled in heaven, I’m not myself so I certainly hope I’ll still be disabled in heaven. I certainly hope that I don’t feel pain in heaven - that seems antithetical to what heaven is. But I still want to be me. And I don’t think that I would be me without the conditions that I have. It’s shaped who I am, how I think, what I do. Everything about my life involves this part of myself, which is integral to who I am.”

I understand this. My visual impairment, along with the things I’ve come to love and cherish as a result of having it, is so bound up with my identity, I would feel a bit weird if I were to suddenly not be blind. That said, I think on balance it would be quite handy being able to see.

I asked Lyndall Bywater, who is also blind, if she would like to be disabled in heaven. “Oh no I hope not,” she replies. “That isn’t because I think that there’s anything wrong with being blind and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed it thus far. I just want to be able to get in a sports car and drive a sports car. That’s really what I want to do. So I’m desperately hoping.”

But despite her personal hopes, she believes some people will retain their disabilities in the afterlife.

“The Christian message does have in it this sense of restoration,” she says. “Now what restoration looks like for each of us may well be different. I suspect there might be some surprises in heaven as to people that are like: ‘Do you know what, I have still got this disability because restoration for me was never about that.’”

Prof Candida Moss thinks disability may not have the same meaning in heaven as it does in this life: “I don’t know if you would need to see in heaven. Saint Augustine has a whole conversation about how he’s not sure it’s necessary to be able to see in heaven to love God. That might be because, when you look at descriptions of heaven, people just kind of stand around singing to God, so it might not be as necessary to be able to see because I don’t really know what it’s like. None of us do.”

Next time a Christian approaches me and offers healing, I might try to challenge their theology with some of the new interpretations of scripture I’ve learned from disabled Christians.

The notion that God and Jesus could be interpreted as being disabled may not be mainstream, but it’s a message that is more empowering for disabled people than the idea that we are all faulty and in need of repair. And who knows, maybe if we were approached with the message that God loves us as we are, more disabled people might welcome that conversation.

I was really taken by something Lyndall Bywater said to me. She said the “sighted world” might find it difficult to believe, but she thinks that being alive and at peace with yourself while being blind is a bigger miracle than having your sight restored.

And it’s true. I like me and I like the “blind person” things I do - for want of a better way of putting it.

At the start of this article, I told you about a man who spoke to me on a packed London underground train. Normally when people offer to pray for me to be healed, I say ‘No’. But this man told me that he was a recovering drug addict and alcoholic who had himself been healed by prayer. I got the sense that he really needed me to let him pray over me, so I said ‘Yes’ and let him lay his hands upon me.

I can’t claim to be cured of blindness as a result of his prayer, but I’ll never forget how happy and grateful he appeared to be.

To me it felt very much like the roles had unintentionally been reversed, and that it was the disabled man during the encounter who had given out a dose of healing. The man left the train after giving me a very big manly hug. I felt quite good too, and smiled wondering what the other people in the carriage had made of it, as I plugged my headphones back in.

________

Additional reporting by Helen Grady

When A Christmas Tree Caused Pain

Acts 5:30

Christmas Day – a day that is celebrated around the world! Believers take joy in the fact that Jesus came to earth, took on human flesh and ultimately sacrificed His life to save ours. We celebrate Christmas Day as the day our Savior entered this world on His mission to save us.

The fact that Jesus came to earth and died for me to pay the price for my sins is humbling. This brings me immense comfort and joy! I have no way to repay Him, but I can do my best to live for Him. I try to do that daily.

Part of my journey tells of a different experience of Christmas. One that is personally painful.

Our son Jimmy, who is affected by severe autism and associated disabilities, seemed not to understand the concept or didn’t have the desire to open presents. He wasn’t interested in them at all. He didn’t care about tearing through the wrapping paper to see what was inside. When his gifts were opened for him, he would be disinterested.

It may not sound like much to some, but for me, this was extremely painful. I felt Jimmy did not understand what the gifts represented and how the giving of gifts represented the gift of Jesus to us as the ultimate gift. I also felt hopeless as he seemed not to grasp such a simple act, the opening of presents.

Christmas became a reminder to me of how little the son I love could do and how little he understood. It became a day that I was visually reminded that Jimmy would struggle his entire life with the most basic of tasks. It became a day that I would find myself thinking, “If he can’t understand or embrace this, what will happen after my wife, Shelley, and I pass away?” Parents like Shelley and I face these scary thoughts often — thoughts that can capture you and bind you up if you let them.

For more than 10 years, I refused to put up a Christmas tree in my home. Shelley wanted one, but I just couldn’t. It was too painful for me. I couldn’t bear the pain of watching what wouldn’t happen when presents were under the tree. I couldn’t bear the thoughts and fears of what my son couldn’t do and what would ultimately happen to him. For me, the Christmas tree was a monument to the pain I felt as a father of a child affected by disabilities. Having no Christmas tree for me was an escape. It represented something that I could control. In a world of raising a child with complex disabilities, so much felt out of my control. I could attempt to mitigate my pain by controlling the Christmas tree. Was that weird? Maybe, but for me it’s where I landed.

Fear and worry about Jimmy’s future landed me in a place of incredible pain on Christmas morning. Holding on to that fear and worry about my son wasn’t what God wanted for my life. Many times, we hold the things we love the most tightly, and if we aren’t careful with that, we can also find ourselves holding all the associated baggage tightly.

What did my fear and worry accomplish? Nothing good. It denied my wife the joy of seeing a Christmas tree each morning and the joy of opening presents under the tree together. It created not a day of celebration of what Jesus did but instead a day of reflection on what my son could not do. My fear and worry were poison.

How did this cycle break? God gave me a gift. One day at Sunday morning worship, our church had presents under the tree. Not real presents, just empty boxes wrapped as presents. Jimmy walked up to the tree during the church service and began to unwrap the boxes ... all of them! I was amazed. There was no prompting. He just did it. He looked inside each one, obviously looking for an item. He went through all of them! Jimmy didn’t receive a gift from one of those boxes that morning, but I received a gift. I saw my son understand and do what I foolishly thought for years he couldn’t do or understand.

The Bible says in Psalm 94:19 (NIV), “When anxiety was great within me, your consolation brought me joy.” God sure did this in my life!

Now, every year, we put up a Christmas tree. Sometimes Jimmy will open presents, and sometimes he won’t. But I know he understands, and I know he can if he wants to, and that’s enough. I know that God has Jimmy in His hands and that Jimmy is far more capable than I sometimes believe!

I’m glad that we serve a God who knows that in His strength we are far more capable than we believe, for our God says, “I am able to do all things through him who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13 CSB)

I thank God for the gift of Jesus. He is truly the gift that keeps on giving.

________

Tom Stolle is executive director of the Southern Baptist Convention of Maryland-Delaware.

from Baptist Press · Tom Stolle via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

A Disabled Woman Who Responds To Mocking With Faith and Dignity

Luke 7:22

Lizzie Velasquez was born with a rare genetic disorder that leaves her unable to gain weight. Now 30, she has never weighed more than 62 pounds. The disorder has left her with deformed facial and skull bones. In 2006, a cruel YouTube video dubbed her the “World’s Ugliest Woman.”

Instead of crushing her spirit, Velasquez has used the bullying and mockery to become a champion for the disabled and for others on the receiving end of internet-enabled cruelty. After graduating from college, she has become an author, writing several books to bring hope to those who have been abused because of their looks or disabilities.

Velasquez is not shy about what is behind her remarkable response to all of this adversity. Her Christian faith, she says, has been her “rock through everything, just having the time to be alone and pray and talk to God and know that He’s there for me.”

Tragically, as our culture’s disregard for human dignity worsens, so has the ridicule and abuse. This is especially true on the internet. Velasquez confronts those who mock the disabled online, pointing out that it is not okay to mock and laugh at people with disabilities. “If you are an adult who has a young human in your life,” Velasquez said, “please do not teach them that being scared of someone who doesn’t look like them is OK, please ... Because we are humans. We have feelings.”

Velasquez is right to appeal to our shared humanity and human dignity, and, as a Christian, she knows that our human dignity is based on the fact that each and every one of us is created in the image and likeness of God. Everyone, regardless of what we look like or how able-bodied we are or not, are eternally valuable, from the moment of our conception to the moment of our natural death. Tragically, our society jettisoned that belief decades ago.

Our culture’s disdain for and impatience with the disabled is just another example of what happens when life is devalued. Sometimes, it’s overt and cruel, like the mockery and bullying Velasquez and others have endured. Other times, it takes the form of regarding those with disabilities as burdens and annoyances. Parents of children with cognitive disabilities are far-too-acquainted with the impatient looks and even hostility from people who resent the disruptions at grocery stores, movie theaters and elsewhere.

From abortion clinics to social media apps, the loss of the belief in the imago dei has resulted in the denial of the sanctity and dignity of every human person. The world, as a result, has become a crueler and less humane place. Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have victims.

Thank God for Lizzie Velasquez and people like her, whose faith and endurance show the world what true dignity looks like. In fact, let’s learn from her and never tolerate for a second the mistreatment of people with disability.

________

Copyright (c) 2020 Prison Fellowship Ministries. By John Stonestreet with Roberto Rivera; edited by David Holwick. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries. Edited by David Holwick.

from BreakPoint Commentary · David Holwick (see Endnote) via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database handicap

They'll Just Remember the View

Job 29:15

Trevor Thomas hiked the Appalachian Trail in six months. Most hikers do it in five months, at least the one of four who actually complete the journey. Trevor doesn’t apologize, though, because he is totally blind. Ten years ago he had his sight but he had a disease that doctors said would make him blind. Eight months later, he was. That eight months was a terrible limbo for him, so that by the end he was praying for his sight to go so he could start his life again.

He had had a career in corporate sales and had just completed a law degree but those wouldn’t do him much good now. He became depressed and very angry. A friend suggested that he take walks to get out of his rut. His rehabilitation therapist thought it was a terrible idea, but Trevor headed for the woods and found it helped him.

A young hiker he met at a store inspired him to do the Appalachian Trail. Believe it or not, there are almost no materials for helping blind people navigate the 2,168-mile trail. His friend spoke simple directions on his cellphone for each day of travel. Every hiker on the AT has a nickname and Trevor’s was 0/0, a reference to his level of eyesight. He finished the trail and kept going, and by now has hiked over 12,000 with his trusty dog.

Some people have accused Thomas of using hiking to run away from his disability. But he rejects this, saying that if he were given the choice of being able to see again now, he wouldn’t take it. He says THAT would feel like running away from his problems. When he completes a trail he has a sense of accomplishment and remembers the sounds, the smells and the feel of the air. Everyone else only remembers the view.

=============

Original article:

"The blind hiker who takes on the wilderness," by Lee Kumutat BBC News, Ouch Blog, September 11, 2015. .

Striking out on your own to hike the trails of America’s backcountry, with just your dog for company, would be a dream for many. But what if you can’t see the trail, and your dog is key to your survival?

Trevor Thomas, 46, had his life abruptly interrupted when he lost his sight 10 years ago through a rare eye condition. He was looking to move away from his career in corporate sales and had just completed a law degree. A self-professed “adrenaline junky”, he loved racing his Porsches and downhill mountain bikes. Now, as a blind man, he pits himself against nature, which he says, is the greatest opponent of all.

When he was in his mid-30s, he was told he would lose his sight. What he wasn’t told was how long it would take. He didn’t try to imprint visions of beautiful sunsets on his mind’s eye to carry with him throughout the rest of his life, rather he focused on remembering the faces of his loved ones and what it was like to look in to their eyes.

“It was like living in a terrible limbo,” he says. “In the end, I was praying for my sight to go, so I could start my life again.”

It took eight months for his sight to go completely.

Thomas worked hard to pick up the threads of his life, beginning with the difficult task of learning to read Braille.

There is often less sensitivity in adult fingers to feel the dots that make up the Braille code, and most struggle to learn it - but he mastered it well enough to read a novel slowly, and the labels on tins and packets in his kitchen.

He soon began to worry about what he could now do for a living. He felt he hadn’t honed the practical skills need to hold down a job in the law as he had planned.

Thomas became depressed and very angry about the loss of his sight, his former life and, as he saw it then, his independence. A friend suggested hiking might help him out of the rut in which he found himself. He had learnt to use a white cane for walking safely through suburban streets but when he wanted to learn skills that would be useful for hiking off-road, his rehabilitation worker advised against it.

Despite this, Thomas started doing short hikes on the trails of his home state of North Carolina on his own.

“Hiking alone seemed to give me some control,” he says, “and having to teach myself, though frustrating at times gave me the self reliance that I so desperately needed.

“I was able to take ownership of my successes and learn from my failures. I hated the way society viewed me as a blind person and could not accept the lessened expectations that were placed on me, so I decided early on, that however I was expected to exist as a blind person, I was going to be different.

“Had I waited for my anger to subside, I feel that things would be dramatically different for me. I fear that I would be yet another blind person, who society had convinced that blindness is a life-ending condition and any hopes and dreams I had left would have been quashed.”

One day, while shopping in a camping store for a sturdier alternative to a white cane for forging through rough country, Thomas met a teenager who had just completed the Appalachian Trail. The AT, as it is known, stretches some 2,180 miles (3508 km) through the Appalachian mountains on the eastern edge of North America. Beginning in Georgia in the south and ending in Maine in the north, it takes in 14 states along the way.

The teenager was brimful of his adventures - how he’d nearly frozen to death, had got up close to a bear - and had a deep sense of achievement for getting through and finishing. Thomas left the store with some trekking poles and the resolve to conquer the AT himself, and to do it solo.

He quickly, however, discovered that there were no resources available for a blind person. There were no tactile maps he might interpret with his fingers, no guides in Braille or in audio form at that time. He also knew that GPS was not accurate enough for a blind person to be able to pinpoint exactly where they were.

Thomas sat down with the same young adventurer he’d met at the camping store, and together they painstakingly mapped the trail. Thomas was given simple instructions of the route he would take on a daily basis. These were then entered into his smartphone, which read the information back out to him when he needed it.

When I reach the end of a trail I remember how it feels. I feel the stones under my feet. I remember the smells, the sounds and the effort I made to get there.

It took 18 months to train and prepare for the trek, and in 2006, he set off. He wasn’t too worried about the possibility of being alone for long periods of time.

“I knew that if I found myself in real trouble, all I had to do was sit by the trail and wait. Eventually someone would come along,” he says.

Up to three million people visit the trail each year, with about 2,000 attempting to “thru-hike” from end to end. Only one in four succeed.

Hikers on the AT often take a “trail name”, which describes their characteristics or experience. For Thomas, unsurprisingly, it was 0/0 - a reference to his level of eyesight.

He completed his trail in six months and two days.

But it wasn’t to end there. For the next five years or so, Thomas continued to hike different trails. By 2011, he had hiked 12,000 miles, some partnered with a sighted person and some solo. However in that year he suffered a setback when he failed to complete the Colorado Trail.

“I was supposed to hike with a partner, who did not show up,” he says. “I went as far as I could, alone, but knew I would not be able to finish because I had not prepared to go alone.

“It was that experience that led me to change everything about the way I hike, including applying for and getting my guide dog Tennille, so I would be able to hike the more technical and less travelled long trails without having to rely on a partner.”

In September 2012 Thomas and Tennille graduated from the Guide Dogs for the Blind. She is the first guide dog specially trained for long-distance hiking. She applies some of the same principles of finding the path of least resistance in urban areas to the back country. She wears a small backpack to which Thomas attaches a lead through which he feels her movements. She walks ahead of Thomas and he walks in her paw-prints.

She uses her training and her own sense of self-preservation to stop Thomas going too close to danger.

Guide dogs in cities and towns

In towns and cities guide dogs are trained to find a straight line of travel for their owners.

They avoid obstacles and traffic, navigate crowds and are usually good at finding staircases and doorways.

A handler follows the dog’s body movements through a lightweight handle lying along its back. which is clipped to a harness.

“For things such as blowdowns, large rocks and other impediments that could trip me, she will stop and hop up on them or put her front paws on them,” he says. “Anything serious will cause her to stop dead in her tracks and, if necessary pull, me away from the threat. Once we come across something that has to be dealt with, it is up to me to figure out how to deal with it.”

He taught the black Labrador-retriever to fear rattlesnakes by showing her a fake one and giving her a fright. Thomas is constantly talking to his dog to encourage and praise her, and he believes this also keeps dangerous wildlife at bay.

Every morning on the trail Thomas listens through and memorises that day’s written map. He then keeps track of how far he walks and when he thinks he and Tennille are approaching an intersection as noted on his reference, he asks her to find it.

Tennille is also trained to find signs nailed to trees or posts that provide hikers with useful information, like the number of miles to a campsite. Thomas then reads these letter by letter, with his fingers. He says they haven’t always stayed on the same trail they set out on, but they have never been totally lost either. The only explanation Thomas can think of for this is that Tennille is able to pick up the scent of other hikers who have gone before them.

In 2009, when it became clear to Thomas that this extreme form of hiking was going to be, in a sense, his life’s work, he set up a charity to encourage young blind people to pit themselves against the elements. His charity the FarSight Foundation has also provided him with a small army of volunteers who meet Thomas every five days or so when he is trekking to resupply him with food.

Some people have accused Thomas of trying to hike away from his disability. But he rejects this, saying that if he were given the choice of being able to see again now, he wouldn’t take it. That, he says, would feel like running away from his problems.

“Being alone in the backcountry is terrifying at times and to this day, still can be, but it is also invigorating,” he says “It is the one environment which does not discriminate. It treats me the same as everyone else. It will, also, not take pity on me because I am blind.”

He claims that reaching the end of a trek or summiting a mountain means more to him than it does to people who can see.

“When I reach the end of a trail I remember how it feels. I feel the stones under my feet. I remember the smells, the sounds and the effort I made to get there - those are the things that remain with me, they’ll just remember the view”.

Life, the Great Non-Negotiable: Autism and Eugenics

Autism Spectrum Disorder, which runs the gamut from profoundly disabled to high-functioning individuals capable of living fairly normal lives, affects millions of families: 1 out of every 110 births today are autistic kids.

The families of these children, like my grandson Max, don’t see these children as burdens but, instead, as blessings. Not because the parents are in “denial,” but because they love their children, and that love has helped them to see what is really important and where human worth really lies.

Unfortunately, there are many others, unlike these parents, who believe that parents and society would be better off if kids like Max were never born.

And these days, pre-natal testing allows doctors, insurance companies, and prospective parents to determine which babies in the womb will be so-called “normal and healthy,” and which will be born with handicaps. Which is why more and more of them identified with handicaps, like Down Syndrome, are being aborted.

The demonic “logic” behind targeting people with Down Syndrome can be applied to anyone with disabilities. A combination of fear, concern over the costs of caring for these kids, desires for a “perfect” child can prove irresistible. Medical technology may never enable us to “cure” things like autism, but it may enable us to identify — and target — autistic people in the womb.

If you’re thinking “this can’t happen here,” it already has. As Dr. Christopher Hook of the Mayo Clinic warns, “Eugenics is back in America.” Eugenics is the belief that we can improve the human race by eliminating undesirable genetic traits, usually, that is, the people who carry those traits. In fact, the modern eugenics movement began here in the United States. Among its proponents were people like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Margaret Sanger.

Eugenics is so dangerous and pernicious because it represents a radical disrespect for every human life — not just the life of the unborn. Adolf Hitler, an open admirer of the American and German eugenics movements, began eliminating the mentally and physically handicapped years before he started killing Jews.

The re-birth of eugenics in this country doesn’t require Nazi brown-shirts or even new laws. In fact, all it requires is for Christians not to pay attention. Then a combination of medical rationing and other economic and cultural forces will enable the forces of death to follow the demonic “logic” to its deadly conclusion.

So, how do we prevent this? We stand up for life, from conception to natural death. We make it clear to both our “leaders” and the chattering classes that respect for life is the great non-negotiable.

And it’s non-negotiable precisely because of people like Max. He will never pay taxes or hold down a job. He’ll never cure the common cold or cure the economy. But he has brought love and joy into the world in ways I never could have imagined. And I’ll talk more about that Monday.

Please, get a copy of Dancing with Max. I can almost guarantee you’ll fall in love with my grandson. And he’ll teach you exactly why we must resist every effort for humans to play God and decide who lives and who dies.

________

Copyright (c) 2010 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

A Life Unworthy of Life?

Job 3:20

The Nazi regime under the leadership of Adolf Hitler employed a policy known as Lebensunwertes Leben, which translated means “Life unworthy of life.” The practice gave the Nazi’s the right to designate segments of the population that in the eyes of the state had no right to live.

People with physical disabilities were the first to be euthanized under the policy. The mentally ill were the next to receive the designation. Eventually anyone deemed a threat to the Nazis and their stated goals were labeled Lebensunwertes Leben. The final horror of the policy was the holocaust of the Jews.

Considering the status of the unborn in the so-called developed nations of the world, it would seem one aspect of the Nazi policy of Lebensunwertes Leben is experiencing a revival.

While no country yet forces the abortion of unborn children with disabilities, the practice, while voluntary, is widely accepted by physicians and individuals alike.

For example, when a doctor recently informed a Canadian couple that the unborn child their surrogate mother was carrying was likely to be born with Down syndrome, they insisted on an abortion, according to the National Post.

The surrogate resisted and sought to take the pregnancy to term. Her decision, according to the terms of the surrogacy contract, would release the couple from any responsibility for the child. The surrogate eventually relented and had the abortion, in part because she already had two children.

The child in Canada was a victim of a growing trend toward the acceptance that some unborn children are simply unworthy to be born.

A variety of studies in the United States have found that when there is a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, 84 to 91 percent of those unborn babies suffer the fate of abortion. A 2004 study in England found that more than 90 percent of prenatal Down syndrome diagnoses ended with abortion.

When you consider that in America the vast majority of abortions take place as a matter of convenience, it should come as no surprise that unborn children diagnosed with probable abnormalities are overwhelmingly aborted.

If a normal and healthy life that is not “planned” or “wanted” can be deemed as Lebensunwertes Leben, then for certain a life viewed as “less than perfect” is going to be easy to label as unworthy to live.

There are concerns among some ethicists that the right to abortion on demand could become the expectation of abortion of the imperfect. In other words, parents might be stigmatized for choosing to give life to a child with birth defects.

The Nazis, of course, moved well beyond the termination of unborn “undesirables.” The policy of Lebensunwertes Leben included anyone that was considered problematic for the state. As a result, anyone deemed unworthy of life by the state were euthanized.

Of course developed nations are not forcibly euthanizing people. However, the idea of people determining their own death is catching on around the world.

Euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, while physician-assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland. In the United States physician-assisted suicide has been deemed legal in Oregon, Washington and Montana.

In the same way ethicists fear abortion could morph from a right into an expectation, some are concerned the same could occur with euthanasia. Some experts in ethics are concerned that the right to die could become the expectation to die.

Those who are terminally ill could feel societal pressure to simply end their lives. Why drain financial resources and put family members through emotional turmoil when you can have a doctor help you painlessly end it all?

Once the expectation to die is accepted for the terminally ill, can the same be far behind for the aged? After all, one of the arguments for physician assisted suicide is “quality of life.”

If a person’s quality of life is diminished for any reason, then euthanasia could be justified. And some would argue that quality of life does diminish with age.

The idea of life unworthy of life is certainly a slippery slope. Who determines if a live is worthy to live? The state? The individual? If an imperfect, innocent life can be deemed unworthy to live, then any life can be threatened with the same designation.

The Nazis sought to force Lebensunwertes Leben on German society. However, in developed countries around the world the concept of “life unworthy of life” is slowly but surely being embraced. The Nazis, it seems, were just ahead of their time.

Lift Up Your Heads: Von Galen and the Third Reich

Job 3:20

Recently, I told you the story of Lothar Kreyssig, the Protestant German judge who defied the Third Reich’s program to rid Germany of what it called “lives unworthy of life.” [See HolwickID #63000] But while Kreyssig was exceptional, he wasn’t alone.

Clemens August Graf von Galen was the Bishop of Muenster. He became bishop in 1933, the same year Hitler came to power, and from the start he made life difficult for Nazi officials.

He opposed Reich policies in education and its attacks on religious freedom. When others were bending over backwards to avoid provoking the Nazis, von Galen went on the rhetorical offensive: He mocked Nazi ideology and defended the authority of the Old Testament against Nazi attacks.

But von Galen’s most important confrontation with the regime came over the Action T4 program - the Nazi effort to eliminate the physically and mentally disabled. By 1941, Nazi persecution of Catholics, which included sending thousands of priests to concentration camps, had caused leading German prelates, as historian Richard Evans put it, to “[keep] their heads down.”

But as more and more disabled patients were being murdered, keeping one’s head down became tantamount to complicity with evil. What’s more, as von Galen realized, it was futile - because the Nazis were going to persecute the Church, anyway.

So, in July and August of 1941, he delivered a series of sermons that denounced the Nazi regime. He told the German people that if the disabled could be killed with impunity, “then the way is open for the murder of all of us, when we become old and weak and thus unproductive.” If a regime could disregard the commandment against murder, it could do way with the other nine commandments as well.

The sermons caused an international sensation: Copies were sent to German soldiers at the front lines; the BBC read excerpts on the air. The local Nazi leader demanded that von Galen be executed. The bishop’s sister, a nun, was arrested and locked in the nunnery basement, from which she escaped by climbing out the window.

Von Galen himself expected to be martyred. But something extraordinary happened: The Nazis backed down. The bishop’s sermons had galvanized the public: nurses and orderlies began to obstruct the program. So Hitler issued an order suspending the gassing of disabled adults.

While the Nazis did continue to kill the disabled, especially children, they killed fewer and they took pains to hide it. As Evans has written, but for von Galen’s actions, the Nazis would have continued unhindered in their quest to rid German society of “those they continued to be a burden to it.”

Von Galen outlived the Third Reich but not by much: shortly after being made a Cardinal in 1946, he died from an appendix infection. But he wasn’t forgotten: in 2005, he was beatified by the Catholic Church. In Catholic terms, that makes him the “Blessed Clemens von Galen.” But it is we who are blessed by examples like his and that of Lothar Kreyssig. They stood up for life in circumstances we can’t imagine and forced a demonic dictatorship to back down.

Imagine what we could accomplish today with their kind of commitment and courage.

Unattractiveness -- A Disability?

Proverbs 31

A professor of economics at the University of Texas has scrutinized the relationship between physical beauty and success. Daniel S. Hamermesh details the results of his study in a recently released book published by Princeton University Press.

In a column published in The New York Times, Hamermesh wrote that being blessed with pulchritude “helps you earn more money, find a higher earning spouse (and one who looks better, too!) and get better deals on mortgages.”

Those who are lacking beauty earn “10 to 15 percent less per year ... a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $230,000,” according to Hamermesh. Not only do these unfortunate souls suffer in compensation, Hamermesh says they are simply less successful in every area of life than those endowed with pulchritude.

Hamermesh believes the government should provide legal protection to those deficient in beauty “as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals.”

In Hamermesh’s book, “Beauty Pays,” the good professor documents that American culture discriminates against ugly (his word, not mine) people. Most in society, he says, prefer to interact with “attractive” people. “In our roles as workers, customers and potential lovers,” Hamermesh writes, “we are all responsible for these effects.”

The ugly, it seems, are doomed to less success than the beautiful. Thus Hamermesh makes the case that ugly people should be “protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act.”

“Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.... We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly,” Hamermesh writes.

I have long been taught that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and quite subjective, but not so says Hamermesh. “For purposes of administering a law, we surely could agree on who is ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population.”

I wish I were making all of this up, but I am not. Hamermesh’s conclusions and solutions are all too real. In his world, ugly is a disability.

American pop culture pays so much attention to so-called physical attractiveness that it often fails to recognize the essence of true beauty. Authentic beauty is much more than skin deep.

“Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting,” wrote the author of Proverbs 31 in the Bible. “But a woman who fears the Lord will be praised.” The same holds true for men.

I am not sure how one goes about defining who is or is not ugly in Hamermesh’s world.

Will a government panel be established to decide if someone is ugly or can individuals declare themselves to be unsightly? If I am declared to be ugly and disagree with the decision, can I appeal the verdict? Can my employer?

What about those who do not fit into the category of beautiful or ugly? It stands to reason that, according to Hamermesh’s conclusions, average-looking people will be less successful than the most attractive people. Do the aesthetically average also warrant some government protection as well?

The truth is that we all have deficiencies to overcome. Some are aesthetic and some are less obvious. Government intervention on behalf of those who are “looks-challenged” is not the answer and neither is plastic surgery.

“Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand in the presence of kings. He will not stand in the presence of unknown men.” This bit of wisdom, found in Proverbs 22:29, indicates that a person who becomes particularly adept at something will not go unnoticed.

The key to overcoming any deficiency, aesthetic or otherwise, is to develop a skill, a service, a product. Deliver it in a highly professional and proficient manner and you will make a name for yourself.

If you do, you won’t have to worry about the government pulchritude panel coming to your rescue -- and you will always “look good” to others.

A Life-Or-Death Situation

A Right to Die, a Will to Live: As a bioethicist, Peggy Battin fought for the right of people to end their own lives. After her husband’s cycling accident, her field of study turned unbearably personal.

________

If Margaret Pabst Battin hadn’t had a cold that day, she would have joined her husband, Brooke Hopkins, on his bike ride. Instead Peggy (as just about everyone calls her) went to two lectures at the University of Utah, where she teaches philosophy and writes about end-of-life bioethics. Which is why she wasn’t with Brooke the moment everything changed.

Brooke was cycling down a hill in City Creek Canyon in Salt Lake City when he collided with an oncoming bicycle around a blind curve, catapulting him onto the mountain path. His helmet cracked just above the left temple, meaning Brooke fell directly on his head, and his body followed in a grotesque somersault that broke his neck at the top of the spine. He stopped breathing, turned purple and might have died if a flight-rescue nurse didn’t happen to jog by. The jogger resuscitated and stabilized him, and someone raced to the bottom of the canyon to call 911.

If Peggy had been there and known the extent of Brooke’s injury, she might have urged the rescuers not to revive him. Brooke updated a living will the previous year, specifying that should he suffer a grievous illness or injury leading to a terminal condition or vegetative state, he wanted no procedures done that “would serve only to unnaturally prolong the moment of my death and to unnaturally postpone or prolong the dying process.” But Peggy wasn’t there, and Brooke, who had recently retired as an English professor at the University of Utah, was kept breathing with a hand-pumped air bag during the ambulance ride to University Hospital, three miles away. As soon as he got there, he was attached to a ventilator.

By the time Peggy arrived and saw her husband ensnared in the life-sustaining machinery he hoped to avoid, decisions about intervention already had been made. It was Nov. 14, 2008, late afternoon. She didn’t know yet that Brooke would end up a quadriplegic, paralyzed from the shoulders down.

Suffering, suicide, euthanasia, a dignified death — these were subjects she had thought and written about for years, and now, suddenly, they turned unbearably personal. Alongside her physically ravaged husband, she would watch lofty ideas be trumped by reality — and would discover just how messy, raw and muddled the end of life can be.

In the weeks after the accident, Peggy found herself thinking about the title character in Tolstoy’s “Death of Ivan Ilyich,” who wondered, “What if my whole life has been wrong?” Her whole life had involved writing “wheelbarrows full” of books and articles championing self-determination in dying. And now here was her husband, a plugged-in mannequin in the I.C.U., the very embodiment of a right-to-die case study.

An international leader in bioethics, Peggy explored the right to a good and easeful death by their own hand, if need be, for people who were terminally ill, as well as for those whose lives had become intolerable because of chronic illness, serious injury or extreme old age. She didn’t shy away from contentious words like “euthanasia.” Nor did she run from fringe groups like NuTech, which is devoted to finding more-efficient methods of what it calls self-deliverance, or Soars (Society for Old Age Rational Suicide), which defends the right of the “very elderly” to choose death as a way to pre-empt old-age catastrophes. She also found common purpose with more-mainstream groups, like Compassion and Choices, that push for legislation or ballot initiatives to allow doctors to help “hasten death” in the terminally ill (which is now permitted, with restrictions, in Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont). And she testified in trials on behalf of individuals seeking permission to end their lives legally with the help of a doctor or a loved one.

At the heart of her argument was her belief in autonomy. “The competent patient can, and ought to be accorded the right to, determine what is to be done to him or her, even if ... it means he or she will die,” she wrote in 1994 in “The Least Worst Death,” the third of her seven books about how we die.

Peggy traces her interest in death to her mother’s difficult one, from liver cancer, when Peggy was 21. Only later, when she started in order to write fiction in an M.F.A. program at the University of California, Irvine, (which she completed while getting her doctorate in philosophy and raising two young children) did she realize how much that event had shaped her thinking. Her short stories “all looked like bioethics problems,” she says, wrestling with topics like aging, mental competence, medical research, suicide — moral quandaries she would be mining for the rest of her life.

Fiction allowed her to riff on scenarios more freely than philosophy did, so she sometimes used it in her scholarly writing. In “Ending Life: Ethics and the Way We Die,” published in 2005, she included two short stories: a fictional account of an aged couple planning a tandem suicide to make way for the younger generation, until one of them has a change of heart; and a story based on an actual experience in grad school, when Peggy had to help a scientist kill the dogs in his psych experiment. The point of including the second story, she wrote in the book’s introduction, was to ground her philosophical arguments in something more elemental, “the unsettling, stomach-disturbing, conscience-trying unease” of being involved in any death, whether through action, as happened in that laboratory, or acquiescence.

When Peggy finished her doctorate in 1976, the right-to-die debate was dominated by the media spectacle around Karen Ann Quinlan, a comatose young woman whose parents went to the New Jersey Supreme Court for permission to withdraw her from life support. It helped Peggy clarify her thoughts about death with dignity and shaped her belief in self-determination as a basic human right. “A person should be accorded the right to live his or her life as they see fit (provided, of course, that this does not significantly harm others), and that includes the very end of their life,” she wrote in one of her nearly 40 journal articles on this subject. “That’s just the way I see it.”

That’s the way she saw it after Brooke’s accident too, but with a new spiky awareness of what it means to choose death. Scholarly thought experiments were one thing, but this was a man she adored — a man with whom she shared a rich and passionate life for more than 30 years — who was now physically devastated but still free, as she knew he had to be, to make a choice that would cause her anguish.

“It is not just about terminally ill people in general in a kind of abstract way now,” she wrote after the accident; “it’s also about my husband, Brooke. I still love him, that’s a simple fact. What if he wanted to die? Can I imagine standing by while his ventilator was switched off?”

Before the collision, Brooke was known for his gusto. “At parties he was the one who ate the most, drank the most, talked the loudest, danced the longest,” one friend recalls. A striking 6-foot-5, he had a winning smile and a mess of steely gray hair and was often off on some adventure with friends. He went on expeditions to the Himalayas, Argentina, Chile, China, Venezuela and more; closer to home, he often cycled, hiked or backcountry skied in the mountains around Salt Lake City. In addition, Brooke, who had a bachelor’s degree and a doctorate from Harvard, was a popular English professor who taught British and American literature with a special fondness for the poetry of Wordsworth, Shelley, Byron and Keats.

All that energy went absolutely still at the moment of his collision. When Brooke woke up in the I.C.U., his stepson, Mike, was at the bedside and had to tell Brooke that he might never again walk, turn over or breathe on his own. Brooke remained silent — he was made mute by the ventilation tube down his throat — but he thought of Keats:

The feel of not to feel it,

When there is none to heal it

Nor numbed sense to steel it.

“Those words, ‘the feel of not to feel it,’ suddenly meant something to me in ways that they never had before,” he wrote later on a blog his stepdaughter, Sara, started to keep people apprised of his progress. “My suffering was going to be a drop in the bucket compared to all the human suffering experienced by people throughout human history, but still, it was going to be a suffering nevertheless.”

Brooke took some solace in Buddhism, which he began exploring when he was in his 40s. A few weeks after the accident, a local Buddhist teacher, Lama Thupten Dorje Gyaltsen, came to his hospital room. “The body is ephemeral,” Lama Thupten declared, gesturing at his own body under his maroon-and-saffron robe. He urged Brooke to focus on his mind. At the time, it was a comfort to think that his mind, which seemed intact, was all that mattered. It meant he could still be the same man he always was even if he never moved again. But as much as he yearned to believe it, Brooke’s subsequent experiences — spasms, pain, catheterizations, bouts of pneumonia, infected abscesses in his groin — have made him wary of platitudes. He still wants to believe the mind is everything. But he has learned that no mind can fly free of a useless body’s incessant neediness.

One gray morning in February, more than four years after the accident, I met Brooke and Peggy at their home in the Salt Lake City neighborhood known as the Avenues. Brooke rolled into the living room in his motorized wheelchair. It was a month before his 71st birthday, and his handsome face was animated by intense, shiny brown eyes, deep-set under a bristly awning of brow. He was dressed as usual: a pullover, polyester pants that snap open all the way down each leg, a diaper and green Crocs. A friend was reading on a couch nearby, a caregiver was doing her schoolwork in the kitchen and Peggy had retreated upstairs to her office amid towers of papers, books and magazines. She had finally gained some momentum on a project that was slowed by Brooke’s accident: a compendium of philosophical writings about suicide, dating as far back as Aristotle.

Peggy, who is 72, still works full time. This lets her hold on to the university’s excellent health insurance, which covers a large portion of Brooke’s inpatient care and doctor bills, with Medicare paying most of the rest of them. But even with this double coverage, Peggy spends a lot of time arguing with insurance companies that balk at expenditures like his $45,000 wheelchair. And she still pays a huge amount of the cost, including nearly $250,000 a year to Brooke’s caregivers, 12 mostly young and devoted health care workers who come in shifts so there’s always at least one on duty. Peggy says she and Brooke were lucky to have had a healthy retirement fund at the time of the accident, but she doesn’t know how many more years they will be able to sustain this level of high-quality 24-hour care.

Scattered around the living room were counter-height stools that Peggy picked up at yard sales. She urges visitors to pull them up to Brooke’s wheelchair, because he’s tall and the stools bring most people to eye level. About two years ago, Brooke used a ventilator only when he slept, but following a series of infections and other setbacks, he was now on the ventilator many of his waking hours, too, along with a diaphragmatic pacer that kept his breathing regular. Earlier that morning his caregiver adjusted the ventilator so he and I could talk, deflating the cuff around his tracheostomy tube to allow air to pass over his larynx. This let him speak the way everyone does, vocalizing as he exhaled. It seemed to tire him, though; his pauses became longer as our conversation went on. But whenever I suggested that we stop for a while so he could rest, Brooke insisted that he wanted to keep talking.

What he wanted to talk about was how depressed he was. He recognized the feeling, having struggled with bipolar disorder since adolescence. “It takes a long time to get ready for anything,” he said about his life now. “To get up in the morning, which I kind of hate, to have every day be more or less the same as every other day ... and then to spend so much time going to bed. Day after day, day after day, day after day.”

Brooke has good days and bad days. When friends are around playing blues harmonica or reading aloud to him, when his mind is clear and his body is not in pain — that’s a good day. On a good day, he said, he feels even more creative than he was in his able-bodied life, and his relationships with Peggy, his two stepchildren and his many friends are richer and more intimate than before; he has no time or patience for small talk, and neither do they. Every so often he’ll turn to Peggy and announce, “I love my life.”

On a good day, Brooke’s voice is strong, which lets him keep up with reading and writing with voice-recognition software. A caregiver arranges a Bluetooth microphone on his head, and he dictates e-mail and races through books by calling out, “Page down,” when he reaches the bottom of a screen. On a good day, he also might get outside for a while.”I like to take long walks, quote unquote, in the park,” he told me. “There’s a graveyard somewhat lugubriously next to us that I like to go through,” pushed in his wheelchair by a caregiver with Peggy alongside. A couple of years ago, he and Peggy bought two plots there; they get a kick out of visiting their burial sites and taking in the view.

But on bad days these pleasures fade, and everything about his current life seems bleak. These are days when physical problems — latent infections, low oxygen levels, drug interactions or, in a cruel paradox of paralysis, severe pain in his motionless limbs — can lead to exhaustion, depression, confusion and even hallucinations. As Brooke described these darker times, Peggy came down from her office and sat nearby, half-listening. She has bright blue eyes and a pretty, freckled face fringed by blond-white hair. Most days she wears jeans and running shoes and a slightly distracted expression. She takes long hikes almost daily, and once a week tries to squeeze in a Pilates session to help treat her scoliosis. Each body harbors its own form of decay, and this is Peggy’s; the scoliosis is getting worse as she ages.

She walked over to us, bent crookedly at the waist, and gently kissed Brooke’s forehead. “Depression is not uncommon in winter,” she said in the soft voice she almost always uses with him. “It’s important to think positive thoughts.”

“Basically I dislike being dependent, that’s all,” he said, looking hard into her eyes. He spit some excess saliva into a cup.

“It’s something you never complain about,” she said. “You’re not a big complainer.”

“One thing I don’t like is people speaking for me, though.”

Peggy looked a bit stung. “And that includes me?” she asked.

“Yes,” he said, still looking into her eyes. “I don’t like that.”

She made an effort not to get defensive. “Well, sometimes that has to happen, for me to speak for you,” she began. “But ... but not always. I try not to.”

Brooke seemed sorry to have spoken up; it was clear he didn’t want to hurt her. “I’m trying to be as frank as possible,” he said.

“No, it’s good,” she assured him, her protective instincts clicking in. “It helps me for you to say that, to tell me what you would have wanted to say instead.”

All Brooke could muster was a raspy, “Yep.”

“The most important thing is to not speak for someone else,” Peggy insisted.

“Yep,” Brooke repeated. “What I want to do most right now is be quiet and read.” So Peggy and I left him in the living room, where the big-screen monitor was queued up to Chapter 46 of “Moby-Dick.” “Page down,” he called out, forced to keep repeating it like a mantra because his speech was croaky and the software had trouble recognizing the phrase. “Page down. Page down.”

For Brooke, what elevates his life beyond the day-to-day slog of maintaining it — the vast team effort required to keep his inert sack of a body fed and dressed and clean and functioning — is his continuing ability to teach part time through the University of Utah’s adult-education program. During my February visit, I sat in on one of his classes, which he teaches with Michael Rudick, another retired English professor from the university. Some two dozen students, most over 60, crammed into Brooke’s living room for a discussion of “Moby-Dick.” Conversation turned to the mind-body problem. “Melville is making fun here of Descartes, as though you could exist as a mind without a body,” said Howard Horwitz, who teaches in the English department and was helping out that day.

Brooke seemed exhausted and sat quietly, impassive as Buddha as his ventilator sighed. At one point a student called out to ask what Brooke thought about a particular passage. He responded with an oblique, “I’d much rather hear what you think,” and was silent for the rest of the class. The discussion continued with the two other professors taking charge. There was an almost forced animation, as if the students had tacitly agreed to cover for a man they loved, admired and were worried about.

When Peggy arrived late — she was at a meeting on campus — Brooke flashed her one of his dazzling smiles. His eyes stayed on her as she positioned herself near an old baby grand that hugs a corner of the living room, a memento from Brooke’s parents’ house in Baltimore. Above the piano is a huge painting that Peggy got years ago, a serial self-portrait of a dark-haired figure with a mustache — six full-body images of the same man in various stages of disappearing.

“He’s never looked this bad,” Peggy whispered to me during the break as students milled around. She went to Brooke and kissed his forehead. “Are you O.K.?” she asked softly.

“I’m fine,” he said. “Don’t worry.”

They have this exchange a lot: Peggy leaning in to ask if he’s O.K., Brooke telling her not to worry, Peggy worrying anyway. Quietly, so the students wouldn’t hear, she asked the respiratory therapist on duty, Jaycee Carter, when Brooke last had his CoughAssist therapy, a method that forces out mucus that can clog his lungs. “Three hours ago,” Jaycee said. But Brooke said he didn’t want it while the class was there: it’s noisy, and it brings up a lot of unsightly phlegm. As students started to head back to their seats, Peggy lit on a more discreet alternative: a spritz of albuterol, used in asthma inhalers to relax the airways, into his trach tube. Jaycee stood by awaiting instructions, Brooke kept shaking his head — no albuterol, not now, no — and Peggy kept insisting. At last, annoyance prickling his expressive eyebrows, he gave in, and Jaycee did as she was told. But the albuterol didn’t help.

Peggy retreated to the piano as the class resumed, her eyes brimming. “This is bad,” she murmured. “This is really bad.” Underlying her anxiety was a frightening possibility: that Brooke’s inability to teach that day was the start of a progressive decline. Up until then, his occasional mental fogginess was always explained by something transient, like an infection. But if he were to lose his intellectual functioning, he would be robbed of all the things that still give his life meaning: teaching, writing and interacting with the people he loves. If that day ever came, it would provoke a grim reckoning, forcing Brooke to rethink — provided he was still capable of thinking — whether this is a life worth holding onto.

After class, Jaycee wheeled Brooke to the dining area so he could sit with Peggy and me as we ate dinner. Brooke doesn’t eat anymore. Last August he had a feeding tube inserted as a way to avoid the dangerous infections and inflammations that were constantly sending him to the hospital. If he doesn’t chew, drink or swallow, there’s less chance that food or fluid will end up in his lungs and cause aspiration pneumonia.

In his prior life, Brooke couldn’t have imagined tolerating a feeding tube; he loved eating too much. In fact, when he updated his living will in 2007, he specifically noted his wish to avoid “administration of sustenance and hydration.” But the document had a caveat found in most advance directives, one that has proved critical in negotiating his care since the accident: “I reserve the right to give current medical directions to physicians and other providers of medical services so long as I am able,” even if they conflict with the living will.

Thus a man who had always taken great joy in preparing, sharing and savoring food decided to give up his final sensory pleasure in order to go on living. He swears he doesn’t miss it. He had already been limited to soft, easy-to-swallow foods with no seeds or crunchiness — runny eggs, yogurt, mashed avocado. And as much as he loved the social aspects of eating, the long conversations over the last of the wine, he managed, with some gentle prodding from Peggy, to think of the feeding tube as a kind of liberation. After all, as she explained on the family blog, Brooke could still do “almost all the important things that are part of the enjoyment of food” — he could still smell its aroma, admire its presentation, join in on the mealtime chatter, even sample a morsel the way a wine taster might, chewing it and then discreetly spitting it out. Maybe, she wrote, “being liberated from the crass bodily necessity of eating brings you a step closer to some sort of nirvana.”

Or as Brooke put it to me in his unvarnished way: “You can get used to anything.”

Brooke kept nodding off as he sat watching us eat — the class had really drained him — but Peggy kept him up until 9 o’clock, when his hourlong bedtime ritual begins. After Jaycee brought him to his room, she and the night-shift caregiver hoisted him from his wheelchair and into the bed using an elaborate system of ceiling tracks, slings and motorized lifts; changed him into a hospital gown; washed his face and brushed his teeth; emptied his bladder with a catheter; strapped on booties and finger splints to position his extremities; hooked him up to the ventilator; and set up four cans of Replete Fiber to slowly drip into his feeding tube as he slept. The ritual ended with what Brooke and Peggy think of as the most important part of the day, when Brooke finally is settled into bed and Peggy takes off her shoes and climbs in, too, keeping him company until he gets sleepy. (Peggy sleeps in a new bedroom she had built upstairs.) There they lie, side by side in his double-wide hospital bed, their heads close on the pillow, talking in the low, private rumbles of any intimate marriage.

Throughout the first half of last year, Brooke had severe pain in his back and legs, and all the remedies he tried — acupuncture, cortisone shots, pressure-point therapy, nerve-impulse scrambling — were useless. At one point last summer, he decided he couldn’t go on living that way. “Pain eats away at your soul,” he wrote on July 28, 2012, using his voice-recognition software to dictate what he called a “Final Letter” to his loved ones, explaining why he now wanted to die:

For many years since the accident I have been motivated by a deep will to live and to contribute to the benefit of others in my small way. I think I have done that. And I am proud of it. But as I have told Peggy over the past few months, I knew that I would reach a limit to what I could do. And I have arrived at the limit over the past couple of weeks.

He had thoughts like this before, but this time it felt different to Peggy, who proofread and typed the letter; the longing for death felt like something carefully considered, something serious and sincere. This was an autonomous, fully alert person making a decision about his own final days — the very situation she had spent her career defending. She reasoned that Brooke had the right, as a mentally competent patient, to reject medical interventions that could further prolong his life, even though he did not live in a state where assisted suicide was explicitly legal. And if he wanted to reject those interventions now, after four years of consenting to every treatment, Peggy was ready to help. She shifted from being Brooke’s devoted lifeline to being the midwife to his death.

She knew from a hospice nurse that one way to ease a patient’s dying included morphine for “air hunger,” Haldol for “delusions and end-of-life agitation” and Tylenol suppositories for “end-of-life fever, 99 to 101 degrees.” Another nurse mentioned morphine, Haldol and the sedative Ativan; a third talked about Duragesic patches to deliver fentanyl, a potent opium alternative used for pain. Peggy also tried to find out whether cardiologists would ever be willing to order deactivation of a pacemaker at a very ill patient’s request (probably, she was told). She kept pages of scribbled notes in a blue folder marked “Death and Dying.” She had also taken careful notes when Brooke started to talk about his funeral. He told her what music he wanted, including a few gospel songs by Marion Williams, and which readings from Wordsworth’s “Lucy Poems” and Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass.” On his gravestone, he might like a line from Henry Adams: “A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.” These were good conversations, but they left him, he told Peggy, “completely emotionally torn up.”

Then in early August, fluid started accumulating in Brooke’s chest cavity, a condition known as pleural effusion, and he had trouble breathing, even on the ventilator. He was uncomfortable and becoming delirious. Other people, including a few of Brooke’s caregivers, might have seen this as a kind of divine intervention — a rapid deterioration just when Brooke was longing for death anyway, easing him into a final release. But that’s not how Peggy saw it. This was not the death Brooke wanted, confused and in pain, she explained to me later; he had always spoken of a “generous death” for which he was alert, calm, present and surrounded by people he loved. So she consulted with a physician at the hospital about whether Brooke would improve if doctors there extracted the fluid that was causing the respiratory distress. In the end, she decided to ignore the “Final Letter.” She went upstairs, got dressed and, along with the caregiver on duty, put Brooke into the wheelchair-accessible van in the driveway and drove him to the emergency room.

This put Brooke back in the hospital with heavy-duty antibiotics treating yet another lung problem. During his three-week stay he recovered enough to make his own medical decisions again — which is when he consented to the insertion of the feeding tube. He also met with a palliative-care expert, who suggested trying one more pain treatment: low-dose methadone around the clock, five milligrams at exactly 9 a.m. and exactly 9 p.m., every day. With the methadone, Brooke’s pain was at last manageable. Now when he reflects on that hospitalization, he thinks of it as having a “happy ending.” In the “Death and Dying” folder is one last penciled note from Peggy dated Aug. 18, 2012: “10:37 a.m. Brooke says he wants to ‘soldier on’ despite difficulties.”

A couple of days after Brooke and Peggy talked about his not wanting anyone to speak for him, the subject came up again. Peggy raised it as we all sat in the living room. At first she did all the talking, unwittingly acting out the very problem under discussion. So I interrupted with a direct question to Brooke. Why, I asked, do you think Peggy sometimes does the talking for you?

“I think it’s because she’s concerned about me and wants the best for me,” he said. He made the gesture I’d watched him make before, lifting the tops of his shoulders, over which he still has motor control, in a resigned-looking little shrug. In light of such pervasive dependency, that shrug seemed to say, how can a loving, well-meaning wife help but sometimes overstep in her eagerness to anticipate her husband’s needs?

I asked Brooke if Peggy ever misunderstood what he meant to say.

“I don’t know, ask her,” he said. But Peggy saw the irony there and urged Brooke to speak up for himself.

“Occasionally, yes,” he said, though he couldn’t think of any specific instances.

When she makes a mistake, I asked, do you ever correct her?

“No, because I don’t want to upset her.” His brown eyes got very big.

She: “It would be O.K.”

He: “O.K.”

She: “It would help me if you would say to me — “

He: “O.K., O.K., O.K.”

She: “I think this issue is especially important.... What you’ve wanted has fluctuated a lot, and part of it is to try to figure out what’s genuine and what’s a part of response to the pain. That’s the hardest part for me, when you say: ‘I don’t want to go to the hospital ever again, I don’t like being in the hospital and I don’t want to be sick. If the choice is going to the hospital or dying, I’ll take the dying.’ “

Peggy turned to me. She wanted me to understand her thinking on this. It’s so hard to know what Brooke wants, she explained, because there have been times when she has taken him to the hospital, and he later says that she made the right call. It’s so hard, she repeated. She has to be able to hear how a transient despair differs from a deep and abiding decision to die. She believes he hasn’t made that deep, abiding decision yet, despite the “Final Letter.”

She understands him well enough, she told me, to know when his apparent urgency is just a reflection of his dramatic way of presenting things: his deep voice, his massive size, his grimaces. “Brooke is very expressive when he’s in his full self,” she said.

Watching the dependence, indignity and sheer physical travail that Brooke must live through every day, Peggy told me, she doesn’t think she would have the stamina to endure a devastating injury like his. “It seems not what I’d want,” she said when I asked if she would choose to stay alive if she were paralyzed. While she might not want to persevere in such a constrained and difficult life, she believes that Brooke does want to, and she tends to interpret even his most anguished cries in a way that lets her conclude that he doesn’t quite mean what he says. But she worries that others in his life, even the caregivers who have become so close to him, might not be able to calibrate the sincerity of those over-the-top pleas and might leap too quickly to follow his instructions if he yelled out about wanting to end it all.

Suzy Quirantes, the senior member of the caregiving team, a trained respiratory therapist who has been with Brooke since the day he came home in 2010, sees it a bit differently. “I’ve worked with death a lot,” she told me. She thinks there have been times when Peggy has been unable to hear Brooke’s heartfelt expressions of a desire to die. “Last year, right after the feeding tube, he kept refusing his therapies,” she said. “And I said, ‘If you’re really serious, if you’re done, I need you to be very clear, and you need to be able to talk to Peggy so she understands.’” He never did talk to Peggy, though — maybe because he wasn’t clear in his own mind what he wanted. “He has said, ‘I’m done,’ and then when we kind of talk more about it, he gets scared,” Suzy said. “He says: ‘What I mean is I’m done doing this stuff in the hospital. But I’m not ready to die yet.’ “

The tangled, sometimes contradictory nature of Brooke’s feelings has led to subtle shifts in Peggy’s scholarly thinking. She still believes that, whenever possible, people have the right to choose when and how to die. But she now better understands how vast and terrifying that choice really is. “What has changed,” she told me, “is my sense of how extremely complex, how extremely textured, any particular case is.” This realization is infinitely more fraught when you’re inextricably invested in the outcome and when the signals your loved one sends are not only hard to read but also are constantly in flux.

The only consistent choice Brooke has made — and he’s made it again and again every time he gives informed consent for a feeding tube or a diaphragmatic pacer, every time he permits treatment of an infection or a bedsore — is the one to stay alive. This is the often-unspoken flip side of the death-with-dignity movement that Peggy has long been a part of. Proponents generally focus on only one branch of the decision tree: the moment of choosing death. There’s much talk of living wills, D.N.R. orders, suicide, withdrawal of life support, exit strategies. Brooke’s experience has forced Peggy to step back from that moment to an earlier one: the moment of confronting one’s own horrific circumstances and choosing, at least for now, to keep on living. But the reasons for that choice are complicated too. Brooke told me that he knows Peggy is a strong person who will recover from his death and move on. But he has also expressed a desire not to abandon her. And Peggy worries that sometimes Brooke is saying he wants to keep fighting and stay alive not because that’s what he wants, but because he thinks that’s what she wants him to want. And to further complicate things, it’s not even clear what Peggy really wants him to want. Her own desires seem to shift from day to day. One thing that doesn’t change, though: She is deeply afraid of misunderstanding Brooke’s wishes in a way that can’t be undone. The worst outcome, to her, would be to think that this time he really does want to die and then to feel as if she might have been wrong.

Since Brooke’s accident, Peggy has continued to advocate for people seeking to die. She went to Vancouver in late 2011 to testify in court in the case of Gloria Taylor, a woman with ALS who wanted help ending her life when she was ready. And in 2012, she presented testimony by Skype in the case of Marie Fleming, an Irishwoman with multiple sclerosis who was making a similar request. The plaintiffs were a lot like Brooke, cognitively intact with progressively more useless bodies. But they felt a need to go to court to assure they would have control in the timing of their own deaths. Brooke has not. Perhaps that’s because he believes that Peggy will follow through on a plan to help him die if that’s what he ultimately chooses.

Those seeking to end their lives are up against opponents who say that helping the terminally ill to die will lead eventually to pressure being put on vulnerable people — the elderly, the poor, the chronically disabled, the mentally ill — to agree to die to ease the burden on the rest of us. Peggy doesn’t buy it. The scholarly work she is most proud of is a study she conducted in 2007, which is one of the first to look empirically at whether people are being coerced into choosing to end their lives. Peggy was reassured when she and her colleagues found that in Oregon and the Netherlands, two places that allow assisted dying, the people who used it tended to be better off and more educated than the people in groups considered vulnerable.

What Peggy has become more aware of now is the possibility of the opposite, more subtle, kind of coercion — not the influence of a greedy relative or a cost-conscious state that wants you to die, but pressure from a much-loved spouse or partner who wants you to live. The very presence of these loved ones undercuts the notion of true autonomy. We are social beings, and only the unluckiest of us live in a vacuum; for most, there are always at least a few people who count on us, adore us and have a stake in what we decide. Everyone’s autonomy abuts someone else’s.

During Peggy’s cross-examination in the Gloria Taylor trial, the Canadian government’s lawyer tried to argue that Brooke’s choice to keep living weakened Peggy’s argument in favor of assisted suicide. Isn’t it true, the lawyer asked, that “this accident presented some pretty profoundly serious challenges to your thinking on the subject?”

Yes, Peggy said, but only by provoking the “concerted re-re-rethinking” that any self-respecting philosopher engages in. She remained committed to two moral constructs in end-of-life decision making: autonomy and mercy. “Only where both are operating — that is, where the patient wants to die and dying is the only acceptable way for the patient to avoid pain and suffering — is there a basis for physician-assisted dying,” she told the court in an affidavit. “Neither principle is sufficient in and of itself and, in tandem, the two principles operate as safeguards against abuse.”

One morning in April, I called to speak with Peggy and Brooke. Peggy told me that when I was there in February, Brooke had an undiagnosed urinary tract infection that affected both his body and his clarity of thinking. It had since cleared up, she said. “He’s a different person than the one you saw.” The possibility that he’d begun a true cognitive decline was averted, at least for the time being.

“I’m cautiously happy about life in general,” Brooke said on speakerphone, stopping between phrases to catch his breath. “I’m getting stronger. Working hard. Loving my teaching. My friends and caregivers. My wife.”

I asked about Brooke’s “Final Letter” from last summer. I was still trying to understand why Peggy had ignored it, just days after she typed it up for him, and instead took him to the E.R. to treat his pleural effusion. Why hadn’t she just let the infection end his life?

“Brooke had always said, ‘I’m willing to go to the hospital for something that’s reversible, but I don’t want to die in the hospital,’ “ she said, as Brooke listened in on the speakerphone. So she had to “intuit” whether this was something reversible, and she believed it was. “This didn’t feel like the end,” she said, “but of course you don’t know that for sure.” In addition, there was that image in her mind of Brooke’s ideal of a “generous death.” It’s hard to say whether she’ll ever think conditions are exactly right for the kind of death Brooke wants.

The next day I learned that a few hours after my phone call, Brooke suddenly became agitated and started to yell. “Something bad is happening,” he boomed. “I’m not going to make it through the morning.” Peggy and the caregiver on duty, Jaycee, tried to figure out what might have brought this on, just hours after he told me he was “cautiously happy.” He had gone the previous two nights without his usual Klonopin, which treats his anxiety; maybe that was the explanation. Or maybe discussing his “Final Letter” with me, remembering the desperation of that time, had upset him. He was also getting ready for the first class of a new semester, covering the second half of “Moby-Dick”; maybe he was experiencing the same teaching anxiety that had plagued him his whole career.

Deciding that Brooke was having a panic attack, Peggy told Jaycee to give him half a dose of Klonopin. She did, but things got worse. Brooke’s eyes flashed with fear, and he yelled to Peggy that he was about to do something terrible to her — meaning, she guessed, that he was going to die and leave her alone. Finally he announced that he wanted to turn off all the machines. Everything. He wanted to be disconnected from all the tubes and hoses that were keeping him alive. He was ready to die.

Peggy and Jaycee did what he asked. They turned off the ventilator and disconnected it from the trach, and placed a cap at the opening in his throat. They turned off the oxygen. They turned off the external battery for the diaphragmatic pacer. They showed Brooke that everything was disconnected.

Brooke sat back in his wheelchair then and closed his eyes. There were no tears, no formal goodbyes; it all happened too quickly for that. He sat there waiting to die, ready to die, and felt an incredible sense of calm.

Two minutes passed. Three minutes passed. He opened his eyes and saw Peggy and Jaycee sitting on stools, one on either side, watching him.

“Is this a dream?” he asked.

“No, it’s not a dream.”

“I didn’t die?”

To Brooke, it was a kind of miracle — all the machinery had been shut off, just as he asked, but he was still alive. He felt refreshed, as if he had made it through some sort of trial. He asked Jaycee to reattach everything, and three hours later, after he had a nap, his students arrived to start the new semester, and Brooke began teaching “Moby-Dick” again.

But it was no miracle. “I know what his medical condition is,” Peggy told me later, out of Brooke’s earshot. “The reason he didn’t die is he’s not at the moment fully vent-dependent anymore. He can go without oxygen for a while, and he can go with the pacer turned off for some time.” She didn’t say any of this to Brooke. “It seems to have been such an epiphany, such a discovery, when he woke up and discovered he was still alive,” she said. “I don’t really want to puncture that bubble.”

If for some reason Brooke had become unconscious, she and Jaycee would have revived him, Peggy told me, because she didn’t believe he really wanted to die. She thinks what he really wanted was to believe he had a measure of control, that he could ask for an end to his life and be heard. “We showed him that we would do what he asked for,” she said, “and he thought it was real.” But it wasn’t real, I said. It all sounded like an elaborate end-of-life placebo, an indication that in fact he was not in control, that he wasn’t being heard. Peggy laughed and did not disagree.

She’s not good at keeping secrets from Brooke, though, and by the time I contacted them both by Skype later in the week, she’d told him the truth about that afternoon. In retrospect, Brooke said, the whole thing seemed kind of comical. He mimed it for me, leaning back with his eyes closed waiting for the end to come, then slowly opening them, raising his eyebrows practically to his hairline, overacting like a silent-film star tied to the tracks who slowly realizes the distant train will never arrive. He looked good, handsome in his burgundy polo shirt, mugging for the webcam. Some new crisis, some new decision, was inevitable — in fact, last month it took the form of another farewell letter, stating his desire to die in the spring of 2014, which is when he expects to be finished teaching his next course, on “Don Quixote.” But at that moment, Brooke was feeling good. “I think it will be a productive summer,” he said. And he and Peggy smiled.

Respectable Barbarism: the Logical Pro-Choice Conclusion

Luke 19:44

We’ve all been shocked by the barbarism we’ve seen committed in the name of Islam. But what about the respectable barbarism we see around us every day?

It’s pretty clear when a worldview is barbaric, because worldviews have feet. They reveal themselves in the real world. We saw it the other day when the Islamic State, or ISIS, terrorist group beheaded American journalist James Foley. ISIS then posted the video for a shocked world to see. Only the most depraved, fanatical person would label such behavior as morally correct.

But what about the respectable barbarism — you know, the kind that wears a suit, gives snappy interviews, and carries an advanced degree?

I’m speaking of the famous British atheist Richard Dawkins, who caused quite a stir the other day when he said that it would be immoral not to abort a fetus with Down Syndrome. Yes, you heard that right. Responding on Twitter to a woman who tweeted that she would face “a real ethical dilemma” if she became pregnant with a Down Syndrome baby, Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, replied: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

Fully consistent in his atheistic, utilitarian worldview, Dawkins added, “Suffering should be avoided. [The abortion] cause[s] no suffering. Reduce suffering wherever you can.”

Aside from the fact that he’s wrong on facts — the unborn certainly can feel pain at twenty weeks — he’s also wrong on his assumption, that giving birth to a baby with Down Syndrome relegates you — and the child — to a life of suffering. According to Lifesite News, 99 percent of respondents with Down Syndrome say they are “happy.” Further, 99 percent of parents say they love their child with Down Syndrome. Only 4 percent of parents who responded say they regret having the child.

However, whatever we may say about Dawkins’s barbarism, a lot of people agree with him — in fact, over 90 percent of unborn children with this diagnosis get aborted.

Later, responding to a firestorm of criticism, Dawkins callously pointed out the obvious: “What I was saying simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most of us, I presume, espouse.”

Worldview matters. Followed to its logical conclusion, the atheistic worldview says that human life has no inherent meaning or value and is therefore disposable. True to his utilitarian impulses, Dawkins makes a distinction between humans who can “contribute” to society and those who can’t. Those with Down Syndrome, Dawkins decrees, simply are “not enhanced,” and therefore expendable. In fact, he says it’s wrong to let them live.

I’m guessing that Dawkins never met Tim Harris, the owner of Tim’s Place, the amazing restaurant in New Mexico I told you about some months ago. Tim has Down Syndrome.

Dawkins, trapped in his atheistic worldview, doesn’t understand that all humans – including those like Tim – are made in the priceless image of God. And he’ll never see that those with disabilities “pull us away,” in the words of my colleague Stan Guthrie, “from our besetting narcissism.” Sometimes suffering, which Dawkins so abhors, actually makes us better people.

In “Dancing with Max,” Emily Colson’s great book about her autistic son, Chuck Colson wrote that through the huge trials of Max’s disability, the family came to a “new understanding of what love really is.”

And as we face the pressure to conform to the respectable barbarism of our times, we ought remember what Jesus said about treating those considered “the least of these.” Perhaps He had in mind the infirm, the poor, the prisoner, and the baby with genetic disorders.

________

Copyright (c) 2014 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Hawking, The Cosmos and Its Creator

Job 38:2

Stephen Hawking, perhaps the most famous scientific intellect since Albert Einstein, died March 14 at age 76 -- more than 50 years beyond his life expectancy.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Lou Gehrig’s Disease, tormented Hawking’s body from the time it was diagnosed when he was a 21-year-old graduate research scholar at Cambridge University in England. It eventually chained him to a wheelchair, increasingly motionless and later speechless without the use of a voice synthesizer.

But ALS never imprisoned Hawking’s insatiably curious mind, which roamed freely across the universe from his perch at Cambridge, where he became Lucasian Professor of Mathematics -- a chair once held by his great intellectual predecessor, Sir Isaac Newton, who first explained the principles of gravity.

His courage and persistence in the face of physical obstacles especially inspired me over the years. As a young man, I helped care for my grandmother after she was afflicted with ALS. She progressively lost the use of all her muscles until she could communicate only by blinking her eyes. She died within three years of her diagnosis.

As an astrophysicist and cosmologist, Hawking relentlessly searched for a “unified theory of everything” -- that is, a way to explain the differences between big-picture astrophysics and Einstein’s theory of relativity on the one hand and tiny-picture particle physics and quantum mechanics on the other. Such a resolution, he contended, would help us understand how the laws of physics govern not only galaxies, stars and planets but subatomic particles.

“A complete, consistent unified theory is only our first step: Our goal is a complete understanding of the events around us, and of our own existence,” he declared in “A Brief History of Time,” his renowned 1988 book. It sold more than 10 million copies worldwide and helped explain such complex topics as black holes and gravity to the masses.

Hawking seemed to relish his fame and celebrity almost as much as his scientific pursuits. He traveled and lectured worldwide, traded wisecracks with talk-show hosts and appeared as himself on “Star Trek; The Next Generation,” “The Simpsons” and “The Big Bang Theory.” Several films dramatized his own life, including the “The Theory of Everything,” which won Eddie Redmayne an Oscar for his portrayal of Hawking.

But unlike some celebrity scientists who embrace celebrity more than science, Hawking was the real thing. He made major contributions to theoretical physics over a half-century of work.

Hawking never quite achieved his “theory of everything,” or an adequate explanation of the origin of the universe, and he acknowledged in later years that it might not be achievable. However, he wrote: “If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we would know the mind of God.”

An interesting statement, since Hawking rejected the existence of a personal God.

“God is the name people give to the reason we are here,” he said in an interview. “But I think that reason is the laws of physics rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal God.”

On another occasion, he said, “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

Lest anyone doubt his non-religious views, he clarified them in a later observation on his “mind of God” comment:

“Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

Hawking, then, represented the consensus view of modern science, which sees itself as the successor to religious faith, since science supposedly sheds the bright light of reason on things only faith could explain in earlier times. He saw himself as one of the new priests of reason, having dethroned the old priests of faith and superstition.

That view saddens me, coming from such an inspiring figure. A creator was unnecessary to creation, Hawking concluded, since the universe might have had no beginning at all. Speculating about what came before the universe for him was like speculating about what is north of the North Pole. The universe is a closed system. Closed, but possibly without beginning or end.

That contradictory view requires more faith than Christianity. The shepherd king David’s awe at the vastness of the universe -- and worship of the one who created it -- stirred him to declare to the Creator in Psalm 8 that He made man “a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.... O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!”

Stephen Hawking, like every man and woman at the close of life, is now discovering which view is correct.

Inside The Country Where Down Syndrome Is Disappearing

Mark 9:37

With the rise of prenatal screening tests across Europe and the United States, the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased, but few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland. Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women -- close to 100 percent -- who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy.

While the tests are optional, the government states that all expectant mothers must be informed about availability of screening tests, which reveal the likelihood of a child being born with Down syndrome. Around 80 to 85 percent of pregnant women choose to take the prenatal screening test, according to Landspitali University Hospital in Reykjavik.

“CBSN: On Assignment” headed to Iceland with CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano to investigate what’s factoring into the high termination rates.

Using an ultrasound, blood test and the mother’s age, the test, called the Combination Test, determines whether the fetus will have a chromosome abnormality, the most common of which results in Down syndrome. Children born with this genetic disorder have distinctive facial issues and a range of developmental issues. Many people born with Down syndrome can live full, healthy lives, with an average lifespan of around 60 years.

Other countries aren’t lagging too far behind in Down syndrome termination rates. According to the most recent data available, the United States has an estimated termination rate for Down syndrome of 67 percent (1995-2011); in France it’s 77 percent (2015); and Denmark, 98 percent (2015). The law in Iceland permits abortion after 16 weeks if the fetus has a deformity -- and Down syndrome is included in this category.

With a population of around 330,000, Iceland has on average just one or two children born with Down syndrome per year, sometimes after their parents received inaccurate test results. (In the U.S., according to the National Down Syndrome Society, about 6,000 babies with Down syndrome are born each year.)

“Babies with Down syndrome are still being born in Iceland,” said Hulda Hjartardottir, head of the Prenatal Diagnosis Unit at Landspitali University Hospital, where around 70 percent of Icelandic children are born. “Some of them were low risk in our screening test, so we didn’t find them in our screening.”

When Thordis Ingadottir was pregnant with her third child at the age of 40, she took the screening test. The results showed her chances of having a child with Down syndrome were very slim, odds of 1 in 1,600. However, the screening test is only 85 percent accurate. That year, 2009, three babies were born with Down syndrome in Iceland, including Ingadottir’s daughter Agusta, who is now 7.

According to Ingadottir, three babies born with Down syndrome is “quite more than usual. Normally there are two, in the last few years.” Since the birth of her daughter, Ingadottir has become an activist for the rights of people with Down syndrome.

As Agusta grows up, “I will hope that she will be fully integrated on her own terms in this society. That’s my dream,” Ingadottir said. “Isn’t that the basic needs of life? What kind of society do you want to live in?”

Geneticist Kari Stefansson is the founder of deCODE Genetics, a company that has studied nearly the entire Icelandic population’s genomes. He has a unique perspective on the advancement of medical technology. “My understanding is that we have basically eradicated, almost, Down syndrome from our society -- that there is hardly ever a child with Down syndrome in Iceland anymore,” he said.

Quijano asked Stefansson, “What does the 100 percent termination rate, you think, reflect about Icelandic society?”

“It reflects a relatively heavy-handed genetic counseling,” he said. “And I don’t think that heavy-handed genetic counseling is desirable. ... You’re having impact on decisions that are not medical, in a way.”

Stefansson noted, “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with aspiring to have healthy children, but how far we should go in seeking those goals is a fairly complicated decision.”

According to Hjartardottir, “We try to do as neutral counseling as possible, but some people would say that just offering the test is pointing you towards a certain direction.”

Over at Landspitali University Hospital, Helga Sol Olafsdottir counsels women who have a pregnancy with a chromosomal abnormality. They speak to her when deciding whether to continue or end their pregnancies. Olafsdottir tells women who are wrestling with the decision or feelings of guilt: “This is your life — you have the right to choose how your life will look like.”

She showed Quijano a prayer card inscribed with the date and tiny footprints of a fetus that was terminated.

Quijano noted, “In America, I think some people would be confused about people calling this ‘our child,’ saying a prayer or saying goodbye or having a priest come in -- because to them abortion is murder.”

Olafsdottir responded, “We don’t look at abortion as a murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended. We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication... preventing suffering for the child and for the family. And I think that is more right than seeing it as a murder -- that’s so black and white. Life isn’t black and white. Life is grey.”

________

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Disabilities, Identity, and Healing: Should We Even Want To Be Made Whole?

Mark 10:51

Nearly twenty years ago, Chuck Colson told BreakPoint listeners the story of Gauvin Hughes McCullough. His parents, Sharon and Candace, in addition to being a same-sex couple, were also deaf [see HolwickID #17079]. Being deaf was an important, if not the most important, part of their identity. It was so important, in fact, they did everything they could to maximize the chances that their child would also be deaf. They recruited a deaf friend as a sperm donor and hoped for what they saw as the “best,” which they got: a deaf son.

Chuck’s commentary came to mind after I read a story at the BBC’s website entitled “Stop Trying to ‘Heal’ Me.” The author, BBC digital editor Damon Rose, begins by telling readers that “From time to time, without warning or encouragement, I get approached in the street by Christians who tell me they want to pray for me to get my sight back.”

Now, going up to a total stranger, especially one who cannot see you approaching, and offering to pray for them then and there without getting to know them first could reasonably be called “rude.” The same would be true if you insisted on praying with someone who told you not to.

If that were all Rose was trying to tell people, including well-meaning Christians, that would be fine. But he didn’t stop there. Bad manners were the least of his concerns.

What Rose objected to is the idea that anyone thinks that he needs “to be ‘fixed’ – just as Jesus ‘fixed’ disabled people in the Gospels.” Those are his words, not mine. What the Bible calls “healing,” which in Greek can also mean “salvation,” he views as a form of denigration.

Now if you’re thinking, “What about all the times the Bible tells us that Jesus was moved by compassion for the person He was healing?” Well, then you’re not reading the Bible through the proper modern lens. What matters most nowadays, apparently, is not what Jesus was feeling when He was moved to heal, but how it makes some contemporary readers feel when they read about those stories.

Based on this new criteria, one theologian quoted by Rose suggests that Jesus was wrong to heal those with disabilities. Even worse, she claimed that the people Jesus healed were not “really real characters or real people who have feelings and needs and personalities.” Instead, they were simply opportunities for Jesus to show off His power.

Now to be clear, this theologian quoted also argued that saints and martyrs such as Perpetua, Sergius, and Bacchus were transgender, so make of her statements what you will.

Even so, another person Rose quotes “defended” Jesus’ healings by pointing out there was no welfare state in first century Palestine. I’m not making that up. In her estimation, if Jesus were to see a blind man walking down the street today, He would not feel pity for him.

Chuck pointed out years ago that the case of Gauvin McCullough is what Cornell West called the “cultural politics of difference.” Today, as we see in Rose’s articles, it’s more commonly known as identity politics.

As with McCullough’s parents, Rose and those who agree with him are claiming that what makes them different from other people is what defines who they are. So to suggest, as in the case of cochlear implants for the deaf or divine healing for the blind, that things could be different, or even better, is a personal affront, or even worse. It’s even been compared to genocide.

How different this is than from being at peace with your or your loved one’s disabilities. Think of Joni Erickson Tada or so many parents of children with special needs who see God’s hand at work in their circumstances.

They would never regard God’s compassion or healing as “alienating.” They certainly would not let their pride get in the way of God relieving them or their loved one of their disability.

Whatever our degree of brokenness or disability, none of us are whole. Not a single one of us. That’s why we should all welcome God’s grace and kindness, and why we should long for the day when God will make all things new in Christ—even us.

________

Resources

"A World of His Own: The Sad Case of Gauvin Hughes McCullough," by Chuck Colson, BreakPoint.org, April 9, 2002; see HolwickID #17079.

from BreakPoint Commentary · John Stonestreet with Roberto Rivera via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database handicaphealing

The Rabbi and the Klansman

Luke 6

How about an angle on this Easter message from a Jew - a cantor at the Reform synagogue in Lincoln, Nebraska. His name is Michael Weisser.

When Michael moved to Lincoln a few years ago, he received numerous harassing phone calls from a man named Larry Trapp. Trapp was a neo-Nazi and the Grand dragon of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. He was also a paraplegic who had lost both his legs to diabetes and was confined to a wheelchair... a man whose father had ridiculed him for his disabilities.

At a certain point, Cantor Weisser fought back. He said to Larry Trapp: "You know, Larry, with your physical disabilities, the Nazis would have made you the first to go." And then, "You know, Larry, one day you're going to have to answer to God for all this hatred."

Not too long after that, Larry Trapp called Michael Weisser back. This time it was not to spew his neo-Nazi racist rubbish, but to talk seriously. He wanted to talk to the cantor about the real things in life. From this a relationship sprouted. Unbelievably, the entire Weisser family began helping Larry Trapp. They went shopping for him. They took care of him. Eventually, he shed his hood and gave away his weapons. Finally he resigned from the Klan.

He decided that he owed it to himself to learn about the people he had despised, and to learn about their faith, and how they survived centuries of irrational hatred. Cantor Weisser taught him. In June, Larry Trapp, the ex- Grand Dragon of the Klan, converted to Judaism, and joined the Reform synagogue in Lincoln.

When Larry Trapp became too weak to take care of himself, the Weissers took him into their home. Julie Weisser quit her nursing job to take care of him. Trapp once sent Julie flowers with this note: "Thank you for changing me from a dragon to a butterfly." It takes eyes blessed of God to see the butterfly within the dragon.

On September 6, 1992, Larry Trapp died at home in Lincoln. The Weisser family was at his bedside when he departed. A eulogy was given at the funeral by Donna Polk, a black activist whom Larry had harassed in his previous life. She said, "I do not have to tell you what this story is about. This I do know: only God gives the power to sift through the ashes of a very mean world and to find spark of truly human."

(related in sermon "To Lift Up the Sparks," by Jeffrey Salkin, The American Rabbi, August 1993.

=========================================================================== Version by Rev. Brett Blair, 1/27/02:

A few years ago a story came out in the news about two men living in Lincoln, Nebraska.

One of them, a man named Larry Trapp, was, you might say, walking in darkness. It might be more accurate to say that he was sitting in darkness, for he was wheel-chair bound, and diagnosed with a fatal disease. The darkness he was in (or that was in him) was not caused by his disease, but was the result of hatred. Larry was a Grand Dragon in the Nebraska Ku Klux Klan.

The unfortunate focus of his hatred, the other man, happened to be a Jewish cantor named Michael Weisser. Larry harassed Michael with threatening phone calls and a barrage of hate mail. His goal was to get him out of the community.

Michael decided to take a bold approach; to confront his tormentor. He decided to call Larry on the telephone.

"I just kept leaving messages on his answering machine," says Michael, "until finally one day, Larry Trapp, in a fit of anger, picked up the phone. 'What do you want?' he said. 'You're harassing me! My phone's got a tap on it.'

"I was real quiet and calm" says Michael. "I said I knew he had a hard time getting around and thought he might need a ride to the grocery store.

He just got completely quiet, and all the anger went out of his voice, and he said, 'I've got that taken care of, but thanks for asking.'"

The remarkable end of the story is that the two men eventually became friends. The Weisser's, this Jewish couple, would have Larry, former grand dragon in the KKK, over for dinner. Amazing! Someone who was so full of hate.

Eventually, Larry decided to devote the time he had left to freeing others from the destructive power of hatred and bigotry.

And the people of Lincoln, Nebraska, and other places saw a great light, the light generated by a sudden reversal, a change of heart, which in turn was caused by someone reaching out, not responding in kind.

Both love, when it is practiced, and hatred, when it is destroyed, give off a great light.

_______________

Philip S. Windsor, "This Little Light of Mine," January 21, 1996. Story taken from: Time, 2/17/92, as quoted in Word & Witness 1/21/96.

His Christ-like Love

Seven-year-old Chris Krebs was born with cerebral palsy and was profoundly retarded. One day he and his father, Greg, sat in a hospital lounge waiting for Mrs. Krebs, who worked at the hospital. Another man, shabbily dressed and emanating a peculiar aroma, was also waiting there. He looked like a bum or derelict. Greg went to the nurses' station and asked how much longer his wife would be. When he returned, he saw Chris sitting by the man. The man was sobbing, and Greg wondered what Chris had done to disturb him.

“I'm sorry if my son offended you,” Greg said.

The man replied, “Offended me? Your son is the only person who has hugged me in the last twenty years!”

Greg later said, “I realized at that moment Chris had a more Christ-like love for this man than I did.”

Although disrespect for the disabled or less fortunate is characteristic of our culture, we know there is no “junk” in God's value system. He loves every one of us the same. He sees our potential, and He uses each person to accomplish some part of His purpose. As His children, were called to look at everyone through the lens of His perfect love.

________

Source: Night Light: A Devotional for Couples, By Dobson, James C.; Dobson, Shirley Published by Multnomah Pub (September 1, 2000)

*

The Little Girl Who Dared To Wish

Job 17:2

As Amy Hagadorn rounded the corner across the hall from her classroom, she collided with a tall boy from the fifth grade running in the opposite direction.

"Watch it, Squirt," the boy yelled, as he dodged around the little third grader. Then, with a smirk on his face, the boy took hold of his right leg and mimicked the way Amy limped when she walked.

Amy closed her eyes for a moment.

'Ignore him,' she told herself as she headed for her classroom.

But at the end of the day, Amy was still thinking about the tall boy's mean teasing. It wasn't as if he were the only one. It seemed that ever since Amy started the third grade, someone teased her every single day. Kids teased her about her speech or her limping. Amy was tired of it. Sometimes, even in a classroom full of other students, the teasing made her feel all alone.

Back home at the dinner table that evening Amy was quiet. Her mother knew that things were not going well at school. That's why Patti Hagadorn was happy to have some exciting news to share with her daughter.

"There's a Christmas Wish Contest on the radio station," Amy's mom announced. "Write a letter to Santa and you might win a prize. I think someone at this table with blond curly hair should enter."

Amy giggled. The contest sounded like fun. She started thinking about what she wanted most for Christmas.

A smile took hold of Amy when the idea first came to her. Out came pencil and paper and Amy went to work on her letter. "Dear Santa Claus," she began.

While Amy worked away at her best printing, the rest of the family tried to guess what she might ask from Santa. Amy's sister, Jamie, and Amy's mom both thought a 3-foot Barbie Doll would top Amy's wish list. Amy's dad guessed a picture book. But Amy wasn't ready to reveal her secret Christmas wish just then. Here is Amy's letter to Santa, just as she wrote it that night:

Dear Santa Claus,

My name is Amy. I am 9 years old. I have a problem

at school. Can you help me, Santa? Kids laugh at me

because of the way I walk and run and talk. I have

cerebral palsy. I just want one day where no one laughs at

me or makes fun of me.

Love,

Amy

At radio station WJLT in Fort Wayne, Indiana, letters poured in for the Christmas Wish Contest. The workers had fun reading about all the different presents that boys and girls from across the city wanted for Christmas.

When Amy's letter arrived at the radio station, manager Lee Tobin read it carefully. He knew cerebral palsy was a muscle disorder that might confuse the schoolmates of Amy who didn't understand her disability. He thought it would be good for the people in Fort Wayne to hear about this special third grader and her unusual wish. Mr. Tobin called up the local newspaper.

The next day, a picture of Amy and her letter to Santa made the front page of the "News Sentinel." The story spread quickly. All across the country, newspapers and radio and television stations reported the story of the little girl in Fort Wayne, Indiana, who asked for such a simple, yet remarkable, Christmas gift - just one day without teasing.

Suddenly the postman was a regular at the Hagadorn house. Envelopes of all sizes addressed to Amy arrived daily from children and adults all across the nation. They came filled with holiday greetings and words of encouragement.

During that unforgettable Christmas season, over two thousand people from all over the world sent Amy letters of friendship and support. Amy and her family read every single one. Some of the writers had disabilities; some had been teased as children. Each writer had a special message for Amy. Through the cards and letters from strangers, Amy glimpsed a world full of people who truly cared about each other. She realized that no amount or form of teasing could ever make her feel lonely again.

Many people thanked Amy for being brave enough to speak up. Others encouraged her to ignore teasing and to carry her head high. Lynn, a sixth grader from Texas, sent this message:

"I would like to be your friend," she wrote, "and if you want to visit me, we could have fun. No one would make fun of us, cause, if they do, we will not even hear them."

Amy did get her wish of a special day without teasing at South Wayne Elementary School. Additionally, everyone at school got an added bonus. Teachers and students talked together about how bad teasing can make others feel.

That year, the Fort Wayne mayor officially proclaimed December 21st as Amy Jo Hagadorn Day throughout the city. The mayor explained that by daring to make such a simple wish, Amy taught a universal lesson.

"Everyone," said the mayor, "wants and deserves to be treated with respect, dignity and warmth."

_________

Alan D. Shultz (c) 1998, from Chicken Soup for the Kid's Soul by Jack Canfield, Mark Victor Hansen, Patty Hansen and Irene Dunlap.

from Internet: Chicken Soup Of The Day · Alan D. Shultz via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database disabilitychristmasrespect

(untitled)

She knows what people see first, and she's happy to answer their questions: They're made of carbon graphite. No, she doesn't wear them off the track. Yes, she glued on the running shoe soles herself. No, she has not yet been asked to endorse the shoe that gave up its soles. Is anyone better qualified to motivate a million TV zombies to "Just Do It" than Aimee Mullins? Born without fibulas, she had both legs amputated below the knee at age one. But she played softball as a kid and skied in high school. Now she runs for Georgetown University - she is a serious competitor, even if her times aren't competitive - the only athlete with this disability on any NCAA Division 1 track team. At a Paralympics trial, she set a record: 34.06 for the 200 meters. Still, she is uncomfortable with accolades. "You wouldn't want praise for having blue eyes, since you had nothing to do with it. Not having legs is a lot like having blue eyes. I'm not amazing."

Christopher Reeve On Perspective

Luke 7:22

"Anything can happen to anybody. In the last movie I did, 'Above Suspicion,' I played a paraplegic. I went to a rehab center and I worked with the people there so I could simulate being a paraplegic. And every day I would get in my car and drive away and go, "Thank God that's not me." I remember the smugness of that, as if I were privileged in a way. And seven months later, I was in this condition. The point is, we are all one great big family, and any one of us can get hurt at any moment... We should never walk by somebody who's in a wheelchair and be afraid of them or think of them as a stranger. It could be us - in fact, it is us."

Christopher Reeve

Actor

Cited in BITS & PIECES

No Compassion For The Mentally Ill: Canada's Obsession With The “Right To Die”

Mark 5:15

How compassionate is it to let people end their lives when they choose? That’s the wrong question.

Canadians, or at least Canadian media elites, seem intent on creating a real-life version of what novelist P.D. James, in her novel “The Children of Men,” called “quietus”: that is, state-sanctioned mass suicide of the those deemed to be a burden to the rest of society.

John Stonestreet told you about a recent article in Maclean’s magazine (think Time or Newsweek for our friends north of the border) that asked, “Should doctors be paid a premium (for) assisting deaths?” The answer was a resounding “Yes!” Without such a “premium,” what Canada calls “medical assistance in dying,” “will exist in theory only, and not in practice.”

That was just the beginning for Maclean’s. The August 15, 2017 issue told the story of a palliative care doctor who decided that, in addition to providing end-of-life care to dying patients, he would assist them with the actual dying.

Not surprisingly, the story was wrapped in gauzy haze that made everyone involved appear noble beyond words: think noted humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, instead of Jack Kevorkian.

There was no hint of where this ersatz brand of “compassion” could lead. For that, you only had to look back a few months in the magazine’s archives. A few months earlier, an article in the magazine argued that, although “It may make some people understandably uncomfortable ... extending the right to assisted dying to the mentally ill is a compassionate solution.”

I told you about the move to extend the so-called “right to die” to mentally ill people back in May. I told you back then that it was a terrible idea, and now that I’ve seen the rationale fully set forth, I’m looking for a word that’s stronger than “terrible.”

The piece was written by Daniel Munro of the Conference Board of Canada whose stated goal is to — and I’m not making this up — build “a better future for Canadians by making our economy and society more dynamic and competitive.” According to Munro, it’s “not clear why” the principle that justifies euthanasia for the terminally ill “should apply any less to people with mental illness.”

That “principle” isn’t compassion, which comes from the Latin for “to suffer with.” No, the principle Munro and others cite is autonomy — ”allowing individuals to choose the time and manner of their deaths, just as we allow people to choose how they will lead their lives.”

The New Testament Greek word for compassion is “splagchnizomai.” It means being moved in our guts, our bowels, in response to the suffering of others. But today, according to Macleans anyway, compassion means being careful not to violate someone’s autonomy.

This enshrinement of autonomy goes a long way toward explaining why the “right to die” will not and cannot be limited to the terminally ill. If you begin with the assumption that people have a right to live and die as they please, then there’s no good reason to limit lethal medical assistance to only one group of suffering people.

So we need to remember, as I told you in my earlier broadcast, that when a mentally-ill person says “please let me die,” you can never be certain whether it’s the person speaking or the mental illness speaking. What matters to Macleans is not interfering with how a person chooses to end their life. And that, my friends, is the exact opposite of a Christian worldview.

In James’ novel, state-sanctioned quietus was the product of a society literally without a future. In Canada’s case, it’s being championed by people who claim to be working for a better future. Whatever the setting, compassion is the last thing we should call it.

________

Copyright (c) 2017 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Eric Metaxas with Roberto Rivera via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database disabilitycompassion

Giving His All For Someone In Need

Mark 5:38

The man's name is Paul Partridge. He lives in suburban Chicago. Stepping on a land mine in Vietnam in 1966, he lost both legs. He lived across the street from a woman who screamed one day at the top of her voice: "My baby! My baby!" Sensing there was something seriously wrong, this veteran and his wife left their house -- he in his wheelchair, his wife running.

After 60 bumpy yards, the wheelchair stopped. He dragged himself out of that wheelchair ... and pulled himself 60 feet up steps to the deck around the swimming pool. There was a little girl. Her mother had pulled her from the pool where she had found her apparently dead ... her little heart stopped. Partridge gave the child CPR and talked aloud to her. "Little girl, you're going to live. You're going to make it. I know you're going to make it." Suddenly the child started breathing, and he screamed for medics to be called.

That's the nobility the Lord has planted in all this dust. That's why he has made us just a little lower than the angels, with the potential to risk our lives for other people - as this hero did for his country, and who with great anguish and agony dragged himself 60 feet up steps to save that little girl.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database disabilityrescue

(untitled)

She knows what people see first, and she's happy to answer their questions: They're made of carbon graphite. No, she doesn't wear them off the track. Yes, she glued on the running shoe soles herself. No, she has not yet been asked to endorse the shoe that gave up its soles. Is anyone better qualified to motivate a million TV zombies to "Just Do It" than Aimee Mullins? Born without fibulas, she had both legs amputated below the knee at age one. But she played softball as a kid and skied in high school. Now she runs for Georgetown University - she is a serious competitor, even if her times aren't competitive - the only athlete with this disability on any NCAA Division 1 track team. At a Paralympics trial, she set a record: 34.06 for the 200 meters. Still, she is uncomfortable with accolades. "You wouldn't want praise for having blue eyes, since you had nothing to do with it. Not having legs is a lot like having blue eyes. I'm not amazing."

Gratitude Is A Choice [2 Versions]

1 Thessalonians 5:18

Most of us were taught from an early age to express gratitude upon receiving something from someone. Whether it was a gift or some act of kindness, we were instructed say “thank you.”

However, as we matured our gratitude developed a measure of sophistication and eventually came to take on one of two forms.

One form I call polite gratitude. This expression of thanks occurs when you receive something that is thoughtful, but rather insignificant. This form of gratitude is declared when you receive something like underwear or a Chia Pet for Christmas. While the thought is appreciated, the gift does not significantly impact your life.

The other form of thanks I call profound gratitude. This form wells up in response to a gift so special that adequate appreciation is difficult to convey with mere words.

Profound gratitude is what I imagine a person who has received an organ transplant must feel. Someone who has escaped a brush with death might well experience this significant sense of thanks. It was a sense of profound gratitude that caused the fledgling founders of the Plymouth Bay Colony to pause for three days in the fall of 1621 to offer thanks to God.

Approximately a year earlier, 102 people had set sail from Plymouth, England, on a quest for religious freedom. After a trying journey across the Atlantic Ocean and a harsh New England winter, only 55 immigrants survived. It was those 55, joined by some 90 Indians (Native Americans for those who prefer the politically correct term), who paused to thank God for His goodness and their survival.

If you think about it, those 55 people had much to grieve over. They had watched friends and loved ones die. Hunger and pain had been a constant companion. Who could blame them if they chose to express gripes instead of gratitude?

The survivors of the first year at Plymouth Bay could have calculated their losses. They could have wallowed in self-pity. They could have nursed their grief. They did not. Instead they counted their blessings and chose to praise God from whom they flowed.

Reflecting on the Pilgrims' plight, one tremendous lesson becomes obvious. Gratitude is a choice. They chose to accentuate the positive and focus on that for which they were grateful. So significant was the first Thanksgiving that almost 400 years later we still pause to express gratitude to the Almighty.

If we are to truly experience the essence of the first Thanksgiving, it will require taking time to inventory the blessings we enjoy and realizing how profound they really are.

I haven't the space to suggest all the manifold blessings we enjoy in America. However, no matter how you came to live in the United States, you are fortunate to be a resident of a country rife with freedom. If nothing else, be grateful for the liberty you are blessed with.

Cherish freedom of speech - the liberty to freely express yourself, especially any displeasure with government. It is a foreign concept in most countries.

The ability to worship freely is another freedom not universally enjoyed. As you attend the church of your choice this week, I hope you will not experience anxiety over the prospect you might be arrested for your action. Be grateful for the freedom of religion we possess.

Economic opportunity is another blessing. You have the ability to choose your career. You even have the freedom to change your career. While your situation may not be ideal, and an adjustment might not be easy, you still have the blessing of choice.

I could go on and on counting the blessings that come from living in the United States. At the same time, I realize America is far from perfect. It even seems that some of our liberties are being encroached upon. Which is why Thanksgiving has never been more important. Unless we take time to reflect upon what is precious and profound, it is doubtful we will stand and resist if, or when, these blessings are threatened.Come for my Christmas underwear at gunpoint and I will give it to you. Demand my Chia Pet and I will probably relinquish it without hesitation. However, try take my life or harm my family and you will have a fight on your hands.

This Thanksgiving as you count the ways God has blessed you, ask yourself, “Do I view the blessings of life as underwear or Chia Pets or are they as dear to me as life itself?” Your answer to this question will determine the quality of your gratitude, and perhaps the quality of your Thanksgiving celebration. Here is wishing you a profound Thanksgiving!

======================

Version from November 2005 (republished in the Baptist Press on November 7, 2014):

"Profound Gratitude"

The vast majority of us were taught from an early age that we should express gratitude upon receiving something from someone. Whether it was a compliment or a gift, we were instructed to say “thank you” to the person that extended the kindness.

As we mature, our sense of gratitude develops and finds expression in one of two forms and is determined by the quality of the gift or kindness we receive.

One form is what I call “polite gratitude.”

Polite gratitude is reserved for those “it’s the thought that counts” gifts. If you have ever received a Chia Pet for Christmas, you probably used the polite form of gratitude. A polite “thank you” is utilized when you are less than thrilled about the gift you have received. You muster a smile as you accept the combination toilet brush/can opener and mouth “thanks,” but inside you feel like you have just been notified that you are being audited by the IRS.

The other form of gratitude that develops in our lives is “profound gratitude.” This expression of thanks occurs when you receive something significant, even life-altering. Words are woefully inadequate when it comes to conveying profound gratitude. You do your best, but your vocabulary seems shallow compared to the tremendous kindness received.

Profound gratitude is what the patient in a cardiac care unit experiences upon hearing a heart transplant soon will take place. The news “we got it all” produces the same response in the cancer patient. And “you’re pregnant” elicits a profound response from the couple once told they would never bear children.

Profound gratitude is expressed via shouts of joy and through silent contemplation. It is conveyed by contagious smiles as well as through silent tears. The practice of profound gratitude is a proactive preventative against taking anything or anyone for granted.

On Thanksgiving Day, our nation will pause for an observance of gratitude. However, for too many it will amount to nothing more than a day full of polite gratitude centered on television and food.

Morning TV is rife with the pomp of parades which eventually give way to an afternoon feast of football. Sometime around noon, television viewing is interrupted. Someone says grace, “Rub-a-dub-dub, thanks for the grub,” and everyone eats until they are more stuffed than the turkey.

It takes a conscious and concerted effort to be profoundly grateful. While there is nothing wrong with watching television and enjoying good food on Thanksgiving Day, the original purpose of the holiday was to set aside a day to express gratitude -- profound gratitude. As we make our plans for Thanksgiving, find time to express profound gratitude for the blessings God has showered upon you.

If you are reading these words, you are alive! Thank the Lord for the glorious gift of life. I don’t know many people that are in a hurry to experience the alternative.

We live in a country of unparalleled freedom and opportunity. Be grateful to God. On Thanksgiving Day you probably will be surrounded by family and friends. Thank the Lord. I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.

In the book “When God Weeps,” Joni Eareckson Tada told of traveling to Accra, the capital of Ghana, which is located in western Africa. While there, she spent time among the disabled people who populate the streets of the city. They are homeless because their culture believes their disabilities are a curse.

Tada wrote about how she was touched by the joy that radiated from these people that the world had abandoned. When she expressed amazement over the attitudes displayed by the disabled and homeless people, a boy who lived in a box by a trash heap overheard her.

“You westerners are the ones we can’t understand,” he said. “God has given you so much, you have been so blessed ... why are so many people in your country so unhappy?”

This Thanksgiving Day take time to count your blessings and be profoundly grateful.

“Give thanks in everything, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. (1 Thess. 5:18)

Building Better Babies: Engineering Our Children and Losing Humanity

A recent issue of the WEEKLY STANDARD featured an article with the ominous title “Building a Better Baby.” The article reports that a new screening process, called FASTER, will allow doctors to test an unborn child for Down syndrome as early as ten to thirteen weeks. This would mean that the child's mother “could terminate her pregnancy before it showed,” so the article says — easier and more convenient for everyone.

At the same time, some doctors are saying that all pregnant women, not just those whose children are at risk of having birth defects, should routinely be offered potentially dangerous tests like amniocentesis. As the STANDARD points out, a recent British survey indicates that women are so worried about the possibility of having a genetically abnormal child that they're willing to risk the miscarriage that amniocentesis can cause. This tallies with the statistic that “about 90 percent of women who discover their baby has a chromosomal disorder abort it.” Ninety percent! If that figure isn't shocking, I don't know what is.

Clearly, there's been a major shift in the way our society thinks about the disabled — something to which I, as a grandfather of an autistic child, am acutely sensitive. Not that the doctors advocating the testing or the women choosing the abortions would put it that way — after all, it's not politically correct to discriminate against the disabled, not after they're born anyway. But they would probably say that, in these cases, they were doing the merciful thing by ending a life of suffering before it really began. By using such euphemisms, our culture has bought into the bizarre but seductive idea that the best way to eliminate certain kinds of illnesses is simply to eliminate the people who suffer from those illnesses.

We may reach a point, as the author argues, when all mothers of children with genetic abnormalities will be EXPECTED to abort them. Already some mothers are feeling the burden of this expectation. Some time ago, I reported on the case of a man whose wife reluctantly aborted after finding out something was wrong with their child — and after intense pressure from her doctors. When the woman got pregnant again, she didn't want her child tested at all, but she finally gave in “to doctors, friends, and a husband who couldn't bear not knowing.” But even the husband had to admit, “It seems to me a plausible fear that eventually these decisions will slip more and more from our hands ... “ We already know that many do, because insurance companies often refuse to cover a costly childhood disability that has been detected in utero. Each abortion of a disabled child, besides being a tragedy in itself, brings us one step closer to just this sort of financially coerced eugenics.

It's one thing to want a healthy child. But it's another thing to refuse to let an unhealthy child to see the light of day. When we manipulate life in this way and diminish the humanity of the unborn, we become less human ourselves because we end up viewing life — all life, ours included — as a commodity that can be rejected by quality control.

Christians need to take the lead in educating people that children are gifts, as my autistic grandson most surely is. By going down the path we're currently on, we might one day get rid of genetic diseases, but only at the cost of our own humanity.

FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

• Agnes R. Howard, “Building a Better Baby,” Weekly Standard, 5 April 2004. (Subscription required, or call 1-877-322-5527 for a copy.)

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 030528, “Something to Celebrate: Faith That Goes beyond Happy Endings.”

• Bill Keller, “Charlie's Ghost,” New York Times, 29 June 2002. Reprinted by Michigan State University.

• William Saletan, “Face the Fetus,” Slate.com, 29 March 2004.

• S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (HarperSanFrancisco, 2001).

• Sign up for the free “Biotech Policy Update” e-newsletter.

__________

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database abortiondisability

Inside The Country Where Down Syndrome Is Disappearing

Mark 9:37

With the rise of prenatal screening tests across Europe and the United States, the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased, but few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland. Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women -- close to 100 percent -- who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy.

While the tests are optional, the government states that all expectant mothers must be informed about availability of screening tests, which reveal the likelihood of a child being born with Down syndrome. Around 80 to 85 percent of pregnant women choose to take the prenatal screening test, according to Landspitali University Hospital in Reykjavik.

“CBSN: On Assignment” headed to Iceland with CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano to investigate what’s factoring into the high termination rates.

Using an ultrasound, blood test and the mother’s age, the test, called the Combination Test, determines whether the fetus will have a chromosome abnormality, the most common of which results in Down syndrome. Children born with this genetic disorder have distinctive facial issues and a range of developmental issues. Many people born with Down syndrome can live full, healthy lives, with an average lifespan of around 60 years.

Other countries aren’t lagging too far behind in Down syndrome termination rates. According to the most recent data available, the United States has an estimated termination rate for Down syndrome of 67 percent (1995-2011); in France it’s 77 percent (2015); and Denmark, 98 percent (2015). The law in Iceland permits abortion after 16 weeks if the fetus has a deformity -- and Down syndrome is included in this category.

With a population of around 330,000, Iceland has on average just one or two children born with Down syndrome per year, sometimes after their parents received inaccurate test results. (In the U.S., according to the National Down Syndrome Society, about 6,000 babies with Down syndrome are born each year.)

“Babies with Down syndrome are still being born in Iceland,” said Hulda Hjartardottir, head of the Prenatal Diagnosis Unit at Landspitali University Hospital, where around 70 percent of Icelandic children are born. “Some of them were low risk in our screening test, so we didn’t find them in our screening.”

When Thordis Ingadottir was pregnant with her third child at the age of 40, she took the screening test. The results showed her chances of having a child with Down syndrome were very slim, odds of 1 in 1,600. However, the screening test is only 85 percent accurate. That year, 2009, three babies were born with Down syndrome in Iceland, including Ingadottir’s daughter Agusta, who is now 7.

According to Ingadottir, three babies born with Down syndrome is “quite more than usual. Normally there are two, in the last few years.” Since the birth of her daughter, Ingadottir has become an activist for the rights of people with Down syndrome.

As Agusta grows up, “I will hope that she will be fully integrated on her own terms in this society. That’s my dream,” Ingadottir said. “Isn’t that the basic needs of life? What kind of society do you want to live in?”

Geneticist Kari Stefansson is the founder of deCODE Genetics, a company that has studied nearly the entire Icelandic population’s genomes. He has a unique perspective on the advancement of medical technology. “My understanding is that we have basically eradicated, almost, Down syndrome from our society -- that there is hardly ever a child with Down syndrome in Iceland anymore,” he said.

Quijano asked Stefansson, “What does the 100 percent termination rate, you think, reflect about Icelandic society?”

“It reflects a relatively heavy-handed genetic counseling,” he said. “And I don’t think that heavy-handed genetic counseling is desirable. ... You’re having impact on decisions that are not medical, in a way.”

Stefansson noted, “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with aspiring to have healthy children, but how far we should go in seeking those goals is a fairly complicated decision.”

According to Hjartardottir, “We try to do as neutral counseling as possible, but some people would say that just offering the test is pointing you towards a certain direction.”

Over at Landspitali University Hospital, Helga Sol Olafsdottir counsels women who have a pregnancy with a chromosomal abnormality. They speak to her when deciding whether to continue or end their pregnancies. Olafsdottir tells women who are wrestling with the decision or feelings of guilt: “This is your life — you have the right to choose how your life will look like.”

She showed Quijano a prayer card inscribed with the date and tiny footprints of a fetus that was terminated.

Quijano noted, “In America, I think some people would be confused about people calling this ‘our child,’ saying a prayer or saying goodbye or having a priest come in -- because to them abortion is murder.”

Olafsdottir responded, “We don’t look at abortion as a murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended. We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication... preventing suffering for the child and for the family. And I think that is more right than seeing it as a murder -- that’s so black and white. Life isn’t black and white. Life is grey.”

________

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Easter Hope For An Amputee

Job 5:16

Eric Butterworth tells of a young soldier who lost his legs after stepping on a land mine while serving in Bosnia. When he awoke in the military hospital in Germany and found that he would never walk again, something died within him. He lay in his hospital bed, staring blankly at the ceiling. He refused to talk with anyone. He refused to cooperate with the doctors and nurses. All he wanted to do was to die.

One day a young man strolled into his room and sat down in the chair near his bed. Quietly he drew from his pocket a harmonica and began to play softly. The patient looked at him for a moment, then back at the ceiling. That was all for that day. The next day the harmonica player came again. For several days he continued to come and play quietly for the young soldier in the bed. One day he said, “Does my playing bother you?” The patient in the bed said, “No, I guess like it.” They talked for a while and each day their conversation went longer.

One day the harmonica player was in a jovial mood. He played a lively tune and began to do a tap dance. However the other soldier in the bed looked on, unimpressed. “Hey, why don't you smile once and let the world know you're alive?” the dancer said. The legless soldier just replied, “I might as well be dead as in the fix I'm in.” “Okay,” answered his happy friend, “so you're dead. But you're not as dead as the guy who was crucified two thousand years ago and He came out of it okay.” “Oh, that's easy for you to say,” the patient replied, “but if you were in my fix, you'd sing a different tune.”

With that the dancer stood up and said, “I know a two-thousand-year-old resurrection is pretty far in the dim past. So maybe an up-to-date example will help you believe it can be done.” And with that he pulled up the trouser legs of his pants and the young man in the bed looked and saw two artificial limbs. The tap-dancing fellow with the harmonica was not just some starry eyed Pollyanna. He himself had once lay where the young soldier lay. He, too, had faced the despair of a loss. He too had thought, “I can't go on.” But the resurrection of Jesus had turned his “can't” into a “can” and he was there to share it with the young soldier in the bed.

How Can A Simple Person Show the Love of God?

John 13:38

President George W. Bush said in a nationally televised address: "We have seen our national character in eloquent acts of sacrifice. Inside the World Trade Center, one man who could have saved himself stayed until the end at the side of his quadriplegic friend."

__________________________

Abe Zelmanowitz, an Orthodox Jew, worked with his best friend Ed Beyea, a Christian and a quadriplegic, on the 27th floor of the World Trade Center. When the WTC came under terrorist attack, Abe would not leave his friend. When the Tower collapsed, they did not make it out of the building. A lot of people, including President Bush, have cited Abe for his heroism and for the "remarkable act" of his friendship with someone who was quadriplegic. Abe, like so many that day, was a good person who behaved humanely in tragic circumstances. If his life is any example, he didn't have to think twice about his decision to stay with Ed. And he didn't think it "remarkable" that they were friends. He saw Ed as a whole person, not just as a quadriplegic, and loved him as his best friend.

http://www.halftheplanet.org/departments/newsletter/oct_2001.html

__________________________

"A few days before the terrorist attack," Yankel Zelmanowitz related at Abe's funeral, "Avremel attended a Sabbath shiur [lesson]. The rabbi spoke about sacrificing oneself for the love of God. Avremel told the rabbi: 'You speak of the great historical heroes, like Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon Bar-Yochai, but how can a simple Jew like myself show his love of God?' The rabbi made some suggestions, but Avremel was not satisfied, so he asked the same question once again. The second reply didn't satisfy him either, nor did the third. But a few days later, he got the reply."

"How can a simple Jew like myself show his love of God?" Many have striven all their lives to answer Abe's question. Abe's answer marks him as an equal of those great Jewish Rabbinical heroes he revered. He gave Issac's answer - but with full foreknowledge. He also gave Abraham's answer, as one of his relatives notes in a tribute page:

"[Like Abraham] Our Uncle Avremel was also thrown into a fiery furnace, but his supreme act proclaimed to the world, that his G-d was a G-d of kindness, and he would not forsake Him. He gave his life in a totally selfless way to help another person, and sanctified the Name of G-d before all mankind."

Posted by Joe Katzman on 8/8/2002

http://www.pathcom.com/~kat/blogs/2002_08_04_woc.html#79983232 -

*

from (various) via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database disability

Gratitude Is A Choice [2 Versions]

1 Thessalonians 5:18

Most of us were taught from an early age to express gratitude upon receiving something from someone. Whether it was a gift or some act of kindness, we were instructed say “thank you.”

However, as we matured our gratitude developed a measure of sophistication and eventually came to take on one of two forms.

One form I call polite gratitude. This expression of thanks occurs when you receive something that is thoughtful, but rather insignificant. This form of gratitude is declared when you receive something like underwear or a Chia Pet for Christmas. While the thought is appreciated, the gift does not significantly impact your life.

The other form of thanks I call profound gratitude. This form wells up in response to a gift so special that adequate appreciation is difficult to convey with mere words.

Profound gratitude is what I imagine a person who has received an organ transplant must feel. Someone who has escaped a brush with death might well experience this significant sense of thanks. It was a sense of profound gratitude that caused the fledgling founders of the Plymouth Bay Colony to pause for three days in the fall of 1621 to offer thanks to God.

Approximately a year earlier, 102 people had set sail from Plymouth, England, on a quest for religious freedom. After a trying journey across the Atlantic Ocean and a harsh New England winter, only 55 immigrants survived. It was those 55, joined by some 90 Indians (Native Americans for those who prefer the politically correct term), who paused to thank God for His goodness and their survival.

If you think about it, those 55 people had much to grieve over. They had watched friends and loved ones die. Hunger and pain had been a constant companion. Who could blame them if they chose to express gripes instead of gratitude?

The survivors of the first year at Plymouth Bay could have calculated their losses. They could have wallowed in self-pity. They could have nursed their grief. They did not. Instead they counted their blessings and chose to praise God from whom they flowed.

Reflecting on the Pilgrims' plight, one tremendous lesson becomes obvious. Gratitude is a choice. They chose to accentuate the positive and focus on that for which they were grateful. So significant was the first Thanksgiving that almost 400 years later we still pause to express gratitude to the Almighty.

If we are to truly experience the essence of the first Thanksgiving, it will require taking time to inventory the blessings we enjoy and realizing how profound they really are.

I haven't the space to suggest all the manifold blessings we enjoy in America. However, no matter how you came to live in the United States, you are fortunate to be a resident of a country rife with freedom. If nothing else, be grateful for the liberty you are blessed with.

Cherish freedom of speech - the liberty to freely express yourself, especially any displeasure with government. It is a foreign concept in most countries.

The ability to worship freely is another freedom not universally enjoyed. As you attend the church of your choice this week, I hope you will not experience anxiety over the prospect you might be arrested for your action. Be grateful for the freedom of religion we possess.

Economic opportunity is another blessing. You have the ability to choose your career. You even have the freedom to change your career. While your situation may not be ideal, and an adjustment might not be easy, you still have the blessing of choice.

I could go on and on counting the blessings that come from living in the United States. At the same time, I realize America is far from perfect. It even seems that some of our liberties are being encroached upon. Which is why Thanksgiving has never been more important. Unless we take time to reflect upon what is precious and profound, it is doubtful we will stand and resist if, or when, these blessings are threatened.Come for my Christmas underwear at gunpoint and I will give it to you. Demand my Chia Pet and I will probably relinquish it without hesitation. However, try take my life or harm my family and you will have a fight on your hands.

This Thanksgiving as you count the ways God has blessed you, ask yourself, “Do I view the blessings of life as underwear or Chia Pets or are they as dear to me as life itself?” Your answer to this question will determine the quality of your gratitude, and perhaps the quality of your Thanksgiving celebration. Here is wishing you a profound Thanksgiving!

======================

Version from November 2005 (republished in the Baptist Press on November 7, 2014):

"Profound Gratitude"

The vast majority of us were taught from an early age that we should express gratitude upon receiving something from someone. Whether it was a compliment or a gift, we were instructed to say “thank you” to the person that extended the kindness.

As we mature, our sense of gratitude develops and finds expression in one of two forms and is determined by the quality of the gift or kindness we receive.

One form is what I call “polite gratitude.”

Polite gratitude is reserved for those “it’s the thought that counts” gifts. If you have ever received a Chia Pet for Christmas, you probably used the polite form of gratitude. A polite “thank you” is utilized when you are less than thrilled about the gift you have received. You muster a smile as you accept the combination toilet brush/can opener and mouth “thanks,” but inside you feel like you have just been notified that you are being audited by the IRS.

The other form of gratitude that develops in our lives is “profound gratitude.” This expression of thanks occurs when you receive something significant, even life-altering. Words are woefully inadequate when it comes to conveying profound gratitude. You do your best, but your vocabulary seems shallow compared to the tremendous kindness received.

Profound gratitude is what the patient in a cardiac care unit experiences upon hearing a heart transplant soon will take place. The news “we got it all” produces the same response in the cancer patient. And “you’re pregnant” elicits a profound response from the couple once told they would never bear children.

Profound gratitude is expressed via shouts of joy and through silent contemplation. It is conveyed by contagious smiles as well as through silent tears. The practice of profound gratitude is a proactive preventative against taking anything or anyone for granted.

On Thanksgiving Day, our nation will pause for an observance of gratitude. However, for too many it will amount to nothing more than a day full of polite gratitude centered on television and food.

Morning TV is rife with the pomp of parades which eventually give way to an afternoon feast of football. Sometime around noon, television viewing is interrupted. Someone says grace, “Rub-a-dub-dub, thanks for the grub,” and everyone eats until they are more stuffed than the turkey.

It takes a conscious and concerted effort to be profoundly grateful. While there is nothing wrong with watching television and enjoying good food on Thanksgiving Day, the original purpose of the holiday was to set aside a day to express gratitude -- profound gratitude. As we make our plans for Thanksgiving, find time to express profound gratitude for the blessings God has showered upon you.

If you are reading these words, you are alive! Thank the Lord for the glorious gift of life. I don’t know many people that are in a hurry to experience the alternative.

We live in a country of unparalleled freedom and opportunity. Be grateful to God. On Thanksgiving Day you probably will be surrounded by family and friends. Thank the Lord. I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.

In the book “When God Weeps,” Joni Eareckson Tada told of traveling to Accra, the capital of Ghana, which is located in western Africa. While there, she spent time among the disabled people who populate the streets of the city. They are homeless because their culture believes their disabilities are a curse.

Tada wrote about how she was touched by the joy that radiated from these people that the world had abandoned. When she expressed amazement over the attitudes displayed by the disabled and homeless people, a boy who lived in a box by a trash heap overheard her.

“You westerners are the ones we can’t understand,” he said. “God has given you so much, you have been so blessed ... why are so many people in your country so unhappy?”

This Thanksgiving Day take time to count your blessings and be profoundly grateful.

“Give thanks in everything, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. (1 Thess. 5:18)

(untitled)

Romans 8

The late Dr. Donald Barnhouse told, how once he was conducting a week of services in a large church. The pastor of that church was on the "hot seat." His wife was about to have their first child. This was the source of great anxiety for the pastor, but it was a source of real humor for Dr. Barnhouse, and he joked about it throughout the week. On the last night, when he went to the podium, Dr. Barnhouse waited and waited for the pastor to introduce him.

But the pastor didn't come. So smiling, and in a knowing fashion, Dr. Barnhouse got up, introduced himself, and conducted the service. Toward the end of that service, Dr. Barnhouse noticed the pastor as he slipped in at the back of the sanctuary, and made his way silently to the podium. When the pastor took his seat, Dr. Barnhouse turned and smiled at him in a knowing fashion. All the congregation joined him in smiling.

At the end of the service Dr. Barnhouse asked the young pastor, "Everything all right?" No one had noticed the pastor's expression. "Could I see you in my study, Sir?" the pastor asked Dr. Barnhouse. "Certainly," Dr. Barnhouse said. So they made their way to the pastor's study. Then the pastor blurted out, "Dr. Barnhouse, our child is a MONGOLOID(*). I haven't told my wife, and I don't know what I'm going to tell her."

"My friend, this is OF THE LORD," Dr. Barnhouse said. And he turned to this passage, the most overlooked passage in all the Old Testament. The fourth chapter of Exodus, and he read aloud: "And the Lord said unto him, who hath made man's mouth or who maketh the dumb or deaf or the seeing or the blind, hath not I -- the Lord?" "Let me see that," the pastor said. He studied it very quietly. As he studied it, Dr. Barnhouse said, "My friend, you know in the promise in Romans 8, that all things, INCLUDING THIS MONGOLOID CHILD, work together for good to those that love the Lord."

The pastor closed the Bible. He left the study and he went straight to a telephone to call the hospital room of his wife. As he talked to her, she said, "Cap, I want to see my baby. I've asked, and they won't let me. Is anything wrong with my baby?" "WHO MAKETH THE DUMB, DUMB AND THE BLIND, BLIND AND THE DEAF, DEAF, IS IT NOT I, THE LORD?" "My precious darling," the pastor said, "the Lord has blessed us with a mongoloid child."

The young wife and mother cried, long, and hard. Then she said, "Where did you get THAT?" "From God's own Word." "Read it to me." So he read it to her. Meanwhile on the switchboard, there was an operator, not unlike so many switchboard operators in little towns that hated to convert to the dial system. Now that hospital operator could barely believe what she heard. But when she absorbed it, it made "the rounds" of the entire hospital. She told everyone she knew.

The following Sunday the pastor was back in his pulpit. In the congregation, UNKNOWN TO HIM, was the TELEPHONE OPERATOR, AND 70 NURSES from that hospital. At the conclusion of that service, as he always did, the pastor stood down front and he said, "If you've never met Jesus Christ, I want to extend to you the invitation, to come down to the altar and to receive Him as your PERSONAL LORD and SAVIOR." The pastor barely glanced up. Do you know that 30 NURSES from the hospital came to the altar that day! Can you imagine ONE MONGOLOID CHILD being patently RESPONSIBLE for GIVING ETERNAL LIFE TO 30 NURSES!

(*) Mongoloid is now considered an offensive term; Down syndrome is much preferred

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database disability

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate