Earlier this year, I wrote a post about the benefits of breastfeeding. My intent was to educate readers who might criticize women who breastfeed in public, and to encourage those women who have had to deal with ignorant comments from strangers. Even though I tried to make the point that breastfeeding isn't necessarily always the best choice for every family, I still wondered if maybe I was still conveying a condescending attitude toward mothers who use formula to feed their babies, especially considering all the potential (and sometimes unproven) drawbacks I mentioned about using formula. I have been feeling badly about that for a while, despite positive comments on the blog, and so I'd like to apologize--I'm sorry!--and try to make up for what was lacking in the other post.
I think the best way to do that is to share a post written last month by a friend of mine about how she became a formula-feeder. She does a remarkable job communicating her struggle with breastfeeding and has an inspiring and balanced perspective. So, please take a few minutes to go read Summer's article on Fearless Formula Feeder, and give her some love in the comment section. You might enjoy browsing through the rest of the site as well.
Ok, it has been seriously a long time since I've done anything with this blog. For the past month or so, there has been some form of illness in my household, and it's hard to keep up with the little hobby when busy taking extra care of everyone else. So, I'm planning to keep this one short and pretty simple. Also, after doing a little re-writing, Blogger had an "error saving [my] changes." So, I'm not even planning to revise anymore. My apologies in advance if it's too unorganized.
Recently, a relative reminded me of something I learned a few years ago, but that most people probably aren't aware of: Susan G. Komen for the Cure [of Breast Cancer] ("Komen") gives money to Planned Parenthood ("PP").
Komen claims to award grants to PP because in some areas, PP is the only organization that offers health-screening services to low-income women. Grants from Komen are earmarked for use only for mammography and breast cancer screening, and Komen claims to check records and investigate the usage of their funds at least twice a year, to ensure that they are being used as intended. They have devoted a section of their website to defending their choice to affiliate themselves with the abortion provider, which includes an article by Roman Catholic ethicists who argue that Komen does more good than harm and that it is okay for a Catholic to support them, despite their ties with PP, since moneys are not supposed to be used to fund abortions. (Personally, I completely disagree that PP is a morally acceptable business to associate with, but that is a topic for another post.)
Even if it is just "damage control" after a whirlwind of criticism from those opposed to abortion or PP, I appreciate Komen's willingness to make this information available and visible to the public. I wish every organization that provides other groups--PP or not--with funds would do this. As it is, it's pretty much impossible to tell exactly where your money goes after you donate, unless you're willing to spend a lot of time contacting each group directly.
On a related front, Komen is also forthcoming about its support of embryonic stem cell research. A great many other organizations that are looking for cures to disease fund this kind of research as well. I think most of us who support the rights of the unborn don't usually even think about this possibility because the idea of helping eliminate disease just sounds so good--especially if we have watched someone we love suffer because of it. Most of these "cure" organizations, like Komen, are willing to state publicly what kind of research their dollars support, even if they don't want to tell you where other grant money goes. My personal policy is to ask first before supporting a research foundation, though I admit, I have forgotten to do this before.
Personally, I don't see how anyone in the "pro-life" camp--especially a Catholic like the ethicists mentioned above--could continue to justify supporting Komen or other groups that fund this research. I suppose the only way it might be possible for such a donor would be if he is able to designate that his funds be used for another program, such as detection or prevention, and if he would not object to PP being granted money to do the detecting or preventing.
Have you ever thought about where your charitable contributions end up? What are your thoughts?
Someone I’ve never met passed away last month. She was a friend of a friend, was close to my age, a mother to three young children, and had served as a missionary with her husband overseas. When my friend asked for prayers for this young woman just a few days before her death, she included a link to the family’s blog.
Her husband had been updating the blog since the spring, just after her terminal cancer diagnosis. What first struck me was the depth of his grief--I cannot even begin to imagine it--but, as I continued reading older posts, something else also stood out. In the week before his wife’s death, he enthusiastically shared that he had gotten “confirmation of [her] healing.” Several people left comments that were, well, truthful, even if not completely tactful, trying to save him from self-delusion. His response was markedly defensive. He wrote that they simply did not have enough faith, and that he would enter into discussion with anyone about it because he believed it was part of a spiritual warfare.
As I read older posts, I could see that this husband’s thinking had been consistent ever since the cancer diagnosis. He first wrote that “God will be glorified [by her miraculous healing], and the world will be watching.” A month later, after a scan showed the tumor was still there, he expressed disappointment because he “truly believed the scan would be clear.” Again, not long before her death, another scan showed a larger tumor. He “truly believed it would be gone this time,” and seemed to have trouble coming to grips with the fact that all his prayers, and the prayers of his children, and the prayers of his friends, still hadn’t saved his wife. But he still never lost faith in the idea that she would live, and held out clear and confident hope that she would receive a last-second miracle. After all, God had confirmed it. “Sure, it might look bad right now,” he seemed to be saying, “but God is just waiting to perform an even more miraculous miracle than any He could have already done so far.”
Denial is the first stage of the grieving process, and it is understandable that anyone facing an impending and devastating loss would participate in denial to some degree. But I think this example is part of something bigger than just grief; it is an example of a particular religious culture that says God WILL heal you IF you have enough faith. Most of the people leaving comments on the blog seemed to support that thinking. They wrote not just that they were praying for this family, but that they, too, believed she would be healed. Anyone who questioned this was accused by the husband and other visitors to the blog of not having enough faith. Christ Jesus told his disciples that they needed faith-even just a tiny bit--for miracles to be possible (Matthew 17:20). But reading these comments gave me the impression that this group believes the reverse to be true: that even a mustard seed of doubt or dissention would make a miracle impossible. It was as if the husband feared that questioning God’s willingness to heal her would seal her fate. God wanted to heal her, he claimed, and it seemed like he thought it was our job to believe that--or else. He fought fiercely to believe hard enough to save his dying wife, and to convince any dissenters that they needed to believe harder, too.
There’s certainly nothing wrong with believing God can heal, or that miracles can and do happen every day. I think the husband was right to have faith, and right to urge everyone else to. What I don’t understand about the religious culture he is a part of is how someone can “receive confirmation” that a healing will occur. How does someone arrive at that conclusion? There have been many recorded instances of people who have actually been directly contacted by a visible, audible messenger of God, but, in those cases, whatever God promised to do, He did. Here, people claim to have “confirmations” that this woman will be healed, but, in the end, her body is still overcome by cancer. How did they decide that they knew what God planned to do? Did they just “feel” it? Whatever it was that brought them so much confidence, it seems to have misled them.
Reliance on whimsical and fleeting emotion to determine what God wants seems like a really dangerous idea, but in the religious culture we’re discussing, it happens all the time. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard someone make some kind of decision and say, “I just really feel like God is leading me to do this.“ (I can even remember saying this sort of thing myself.) And, inevitably, it doesn’t take long before the person claims God is “calling” him to something else entirely. When a person in this culture becomes dissatisfied and restless, God can be the perfect excuse to move on to the next thing. Now, I don’t think most people who behave this way are really conscious at all that they are trying to use God to justify their own will. It’s just that so much emphasis is placed on God’s individual plan for each individual person about each individual detail of his life, that the individual himself becomes the actual focus of attention. In effect, he is established as the god. There‘s also a lot of pressure on him to be able to hear what God is saying to him at any particular moment, so it’s easy to see how he could confuse the Divine voice with his own.
I think it’s pretty clear that God didn’t tell anyone this young woman would escape death. If it had been God who promised them she would be healed, then He would be a liar. Or, if His agreement to heal her was contingent on whether they had perfect faith, then He would have set them up to fail, which would mean He is cruel. Neither of those options sounds like the Most Holy Trinity to me. So, the lie had to have come from some other source--ultimately, from the Deceiver himself. In this case, I think people who have already gotten used to the idea that their thoughts and emotions are evidence of divine communication would be easily deceived into believing that their desperate hope for their friend’s survival is the same thing as God’s assuring them of it.
In any case, now that she has died, what are they supposed to think? As I mentioned above, they could choose to blame themselves or call God a liar. Or, they could recognize their error and question their ability to discern the will of God on their own. But several people who had believed so strongly that the young woman would live seemed to have difficulty accepting that they were mistaken. As news got out about the young mother’s departure from this life, a new kind of comment started popping up on the blog. One person wrote: “Praise God! She is finally HEALED!”
This person, and several others, still believing that God had promised to heal this young woman, and knowing He keeps his promises, decided that this healing was accomplished through her death. This is simply absurd.
Clearly, she is not “healed.” If she were healed, she would still be able to sit down to dinner with her family and tuck her children into bed. Now, I understand what the person meant: that this young mother was no longer suffering bodily; that she is believed to be in a place with no more pain or sorrow. But that’s not even almost the same as healing. Death is no miracle. It is a tragedy each and every time it happens.
While thankful for an end to his wife‘s agony, the husband seems not to have been misled by the “death as healing“ camp. He is dealing daily with the reality of her absence, struggling to comfort and parent his children and learn to live without his best friend. He seems to have recognized that he was in denial that she could really die, and has not abandoned his trust in God. He continues to hope--no longer for a temporary miracle, but for an eternal one.
He knows that because God the Son raised up and glorified this body after submitting Himself to an agonizing death (Philippians 2:8), He will likewise raise us up on the last day. "He hath trampled down Death by death and become the Firstborn from the dead" (Resurrection troparion in tone 3). We have good reason to hope, knowing that our soul’s departure from this body is not everlasting. For the day will come when all of creation will be transformed, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and all corruption will have passed away (2 Peter 3:13).
In the end, I think the husband was right about one thing: The miracle that is coming truly will be bigger and better than any we could yet have imagined. And, it won’t be just a temporary fix for one young lady--the entire cosmos will be freed. Death and corruption will be no more.
While writing this post, I kept hearing this hymn from the end of Sunday Orthros in my head, and I thought it would be appropriate to share along with an icon of the Anastasis (Resurrection):
"Most blessed art thou, O Virgin Theotokos, for through Him that was incarnate of thee is Hades despoiled, Adam is recalled from the dead, the curse is made void, Eve is set free, death is slain, and we are endowed with life. Wherefore, in hymns of praise, we cry aloud: Blessed art Thou, O Christ our God, Who is thus well pleased, glory to Thee."
The first week in August was World Breastfeeding Week. I started this post then, but a few unexpected things came up, so it took a while to finish. I have since learned that the entire month of August is National Breastfeeding Month--so I am not too late to put it up!
Every once in a while, when there’s nothing better on the DVR, my husband and I have found ourselves watching “What Would You Do?” on ABC. It’s a little bit contrived, and host John Quiñones makes some rather ridiculous comments, but, still, it’s a somewhat interesting look at social psychology. The show hires actors, stages some uncomfortable situations in everyday social settings, and waits with hidden cameras to see how people will react. In the first episode we watched, a café manager quite affrontingly insists that a breastfeeding patron “get out of [his] restaurant” because he doesn’t want to have to see her “jugs.” The response to the heated exchange between these two actors is probably the most divergent of any we’ve seen so far on the show. Of the patrons who spoke up, a few came to the mother’s defense--one even pointed out that the law was in her favor--but several others sided with the manager, despite his belligerent tone, saying they would never do that in public and suggesting that she go sit against the wall where no one could see.
Unfortunately, scenarios like this actually happen rather frequently. As an example of the situation that inspired the segment, “What Would You Do?” interviewed one mom who was forced to leave a restaurant after breastfeeding there. Another memorable incident occurred several years ago when a woman was told she couldn’t nurse her infant in the changing room at Victoria’s Secret. (Yup, that’s the same store that fills its window displays with practically naked and provocatively posed women.) Both of these women filed lawsuits. Once the business owners figured out that what their employees had told these women was against the law, they were quick to offer settlements and public apologies. That‘s right--most states have laws that allow a woman to breastfeed her child anywhere she is allowed to be.
But, isn’t it indecent to be pulling your hooters out in public? Turns out, more than half of the states with laws protecting a woman’s right to breastfeed also exempt her from any indecency laws. But most mothers don’t expose anything at all when they breastfeed in public. They are either self-conscious enough about displaying their nipples or considerate enough of other people’s insecurities that they cover up with a blanket or use their shirt to hide any exposed breast tissue. But it should be reassuring to mothers that even in the (likely) event that their squirmy babies kick off the cover, or pull up the shirt, or unlatch suddenly to look around, that we are legally protected almost everywhere in the country. Furthermore, if we want to, we have the right to pull out and expose our entire breast while nursing. Anywhere we want to. (Here's the law in Texas, and a handy little card you can print out to show anyone who asks you to move or cover up.)
Even with the law on our side, though, a lot of people will still have a problem with mothers who breastfeed in public. We are often asked why we can’t just prepare a bottle instead. Well, here’s why, plain and simple: it’s not as good for babies, and it’s also just a pain in the ass. Many babies who breastfeed refuse artificial nipples, first of all. And, even if they’ll take a bottle, it can be really difficult to pump enough milk to fill one for a public outing. Milk production self-adjusts to meet baby’s demand, so occasional pumping in-between regular feedings isn’t likely to yield very much. The fattier hindmilk can take considerably longer to let-down when pumping as opposed to allowing baby to suckle, so pumped milk might not have the calories and fat baby needs. But even if a mother is able to make a bottle for an outing, then there’s the issue of how to keep it properly chilled and how to warm it so that it’s not too cold when the baby is ready to drink it. Then, there’s the issue of the mother’s health and comfort as well. Mothers who breastfeed need to empty their breasts when it’s time for their babies to eat. Otherwise, they can become painfully engorged with milk--which could increase the risk of mastitis. And, skipping a feeding can tell the breasts to slow down on milk production, so baby might not get enough the next time he feeds.
So, if pumping isn’t the answer, why don’t we just use formula when we’re out-and-about? First of all, despite the improvements made to infant formula over the years, it still just isn’t as good for our babies as breastmilk. The American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends that all babies be exclusively breastfed--that means no formula, cereal, or other solids--for a minimum of six months and that nursing should continue until at least the first birthday. If 90% of moms complied with these guidelines, the AAP claims, over 900 babies’ lives and $13 billion dollars in health care costs could be saved annually. (Currently, only about 40-50 percent of moms breastfeed at all up to the six-month mark). The Texas Department of State Health Services has launched a campaign calling breastfeeding “nature’s health plan“ and urges hospitals to do everything they can to encourage mothers to breastfeed by following the “Texas Ten Step” guidelines. Most of these 10 Steps are a drastic change from the standard hospital procedure of recent decades. The World Health Organization doesn’t even want formula makers to distribute samples to new mothers, or advertise to the general public. Why such a strong push to get mothers to breastfeed, and to protect us legally when we choose to do so?
The more we study babies and mothers, the more we understand how beneficial breastfeeding is to both groups. Though there are many advantages to breastfeeding, here are a few: Breastfed babies receive passive immunity from their mothers, and come down with far fewer illnesses; many never get sick at all until after they are weaned. They are less likely to develop allergies or eczema. Fewer breastfed babies die in the first year of life. They tend to develop social and psychomotor skills before their formula-fed peers. Children who were breastfed as infants have been shown to have slightly higher IQ scores, and they have lower incidence of obesity, diabetes, and leukemia. Adults who were breastfed as infants have decreased risk of heart disease. Additionally, mothers who breastfeed have a decreased risk of developing breast cancer later on. They take less than half as many days off work to care for sick children.
Conversely, while formula makes it possible for many infants to survive, it has definite drawbacks. One of the most common reasons proponents of breastfeeding give is that formula is expensive. Even the cheapest formulas run about $100 per month; if a baby needs a special one, it might be as much as $350. But besides financial cost, there may be some deleterious effects on health with formula as well. There are some who suggest that infant formula is not only unable to provide the natural benefits of breast milk, but that it might actually cause harm. Dairy cows are frequently injected with hormones to artificially increase their milk production. These excess hormones make it into the milk, and when that milk is used to make infant formula, those hormones are ingested by babies. In China, babies started developing breasts after drinking formula made with hormone-laden cow's milk. Many formulas also contain soy, either as a supplement to or a replacement for cow’s milk. Although soy has been heavily advertised as a healthy food, it actually contains high levels of phytoestrogens. One estimate puts the amount of estrogens ingested daily by an infant who is exclusively fed soy formula at amounts equivalent to that in five birth control pills. These effects of soy are still largely hypothetical, but worth considering. Excess estrogen levels are known to be causing menstruation in girls as young as three years old, and can also adversely affect boys’ development as well. The Texas Department of State Health Services website says: "The WHO Code recommends that all women choosing to feed formula to their infants, first be informed of the hazards associated with artificial feeding and be instructed in how to properly use it."
For working moms, it might still seem easier to just switch to formula, since it can be difficult to pump and store milk at work. But those who do choose to continue providing breast milk for their babies now have a right to do so under federal law. Employers are required to give moms “reasonable time” to pump milk during the workday as often as they need to do so, for at least a year. The law does not require employers to pay workers for time spent pumping, but they have to provide a space for women to do so other than a restroom.
I think it’s important to point out that breastfeeding isn’t possible for everyone, nor is it always easy to do. Many times, moms who feed their babies formula come under just as much scrutiny as those of us who don’t. I don’t want to make anyone feel as if I judge her for her choice not to breastfeed; I do want to provide as much information as possible to help other women evaluate the choices they make. If, knowing as much as possible about the benefits of breastfeeding over formula feeding, a woman still needs to choose formula for her child, then she should have my support. I think it’s important to utilize as many resources as possible to help establish breastfeeding, starting with hospital lactation consultants, La Leche League, and experienced mothers and grandmothers. It is rare that a woman actually cannot breastfeed or that a baby cannot learn to latch, but it does occasionally happen. It is probably more common that a mother would need to take medication that would pass through her breast milk to her child and cause him harm.
What if you can't breastfeed but don't want to use formula? Milk banks exist for babies who are born prematurely or have other special needs, but banked milk is ridiculously expensive. Wet nurses still exist, too, but I imagine the average mom would not be able to afford their services, either. A dear friend of mine was disappointed to realize she would not be able to breastfeed, and knowing how important it is for her baby, she asked friends if we would be willing to give her any extra milk. She also found a Craig’s List-style website where mothers who need milk can connect with mothers who are willing to donate their extra milk. Even a little, she said, would be better than just formula. And I think she is right. I admire another friend who struggled to get her second baby to nurse, and pumped milk for him for an entire year. Even though these efforts might seem Herculean, I think they are just moms who want to provide the best for their babies, and they are willing and able to go above and beyond for them.
To close, I’ll share this video from The Bump that inspired this post’s title. I hope that if you’re able, you’ll whip ‘em out, too, and feel supported when you do.
My husband keeps asking me when I’m going to post again. I keep telling him I’ve got a post half-written--which is true, I do--but since it’s taking me longer than anticipated to finish, I want to share with you a post from a much, much more important blog.
I first found ViolenceUnsilenced in the blogroll of a friend’s personal blog. It is a place where survivors of all kinds of abuse--especially sexual or domestic--can share what happened to them, a place where they can be empowered to speak up and speak out, often for the very first time. Even if you have never been abused, the survivors’ stories are difficult to read; I can rarely make it through more than two or three at a time. In the archives, I found this question-and-answer post that I think is a must-read.
If you don't want to click all the way over--even though I urge you to--here is the most important excerpt:
"...Yes, from the outsider’s perspective, there can be a wide, muddy line between a relationship that is abusive and one that is simply unhappy. Some of the signs may be similar, but at their roots, they are very different.
Below is a starter list of some of those subtler signs of abuse. This list is not exclusive, nor do any of these signs necessarily mean abuse is occurring. But these are signs to watch for, characteristics that should snag your attention and make you think:
■A need to make the relationship appear perfect to friends and family
■Worry over saying the wrong thing
■Needing to get permission from one’s partner before taking action
■Unease over making decisions on one’s own
■Excessive excuse-making for the partner’s behavior
■Unwillingness (or inability) to disagree with one’s partner in public
■Any exhibition, however subtle, of fear or anxiety in the presence of one’s partner
■Any statement like, “My partner would never let me do that,” or “Oh no, my partner is going to be really angry,” or “My partner doesn’t let me [fill in the blank].”
■Excessive canceling of social engagements, paired with excuses that strike you as off
■Flinching easily; regularly appearing distracted or overly anxious
■Disengaging from activities or hobbies they once enjoyed
■Being regularly late to work; making mistakes or forgetting things in a way that is out of character
■Suddenly becoming overly private or withdrawn"
Many of these qualities are present in a friend of mine. I haven't seen her or heard from her in a long time; the last two times we made plans to get together, she simply didn't show up. I'm planning to try to see her again soon, and I'm hoping to find an opportunity to talk to her about this. If you suspect someone you know might be a victim, there is also a great post about how to help her or him, and the site also has a great Resources tab.
If you're like me, you used to bookmark webpages and blogs that you liked to read, and individually click on each page every so often to see what was new. Or, maybe you even take the time to commit the url to memory and type it in every time.
Ever wish there was one place you could go to see all the new updates from all of your favorite weblogs? Apparently, this has been possible for, like, practically a decade. Ever see that little orange icon that says "RSS" (There's one at the bottom of this page if you need a reminder.) There's a neat-o video by a company called CommonCraft that opened my eyes to the world of RSS and feed readers called RSS In Plain English. I definitely recommend it and look forward to watching their other videos. Especially this one.
Now, one reason I'm sharing this with you is that I'm not very likely to update this blog every day. Maybe not even every week. So, if you like it, and don't want to keep clicking back here to see the same old page, you might consider subscribing. That way, you'll know when things get updated, and you can either read the post in your feed reader or click on back over here.
Or, if you use Google or check Blogger regularly, you can click at left to be a Relishing Crumbs "Follower." Somebody out there reading this will know better than me what the difference is, but essentially it seems like this is Blogger's way of providing its own little feed reader. Plus, we can see all of the other people who are followers of the blog. Everybody can congratulate my good pal Susy for being the very first Follower! Thanks, Susy!
It surprises me a little bit that I'm entering the blog-o-sphere. There is already such a cacophony of voices out here, and I don't really need to contribute to the noise. But, the idea of having a place to write a little and have some focused conversations with friends is appealing, so I decided to take the plunge.
To kick things off, I'll try to explain why I chose this blog title. I was racking my brain for inspiration when I thought of the passage from St. Matthew's gospel that I quoted at the top of the page. It describes a woman of remarkable faith and humility. She was filled with compassion for her child, probably desperately fed-up with and exhausted by her daughter's condition, and knew Christ Jesus had the power to help her. I want to be like her--the kind of person who perseveres in prayer; the kind who is patient enough to let the Lord work in His time; the kind who sees herself as completely unworthy and undeserving of miracles but who can persist in the battle against the demons anyway. I want to be the kind of woman who trusts Christ Jesus with all of her own pain and problems, and who loves others enough to pray for them consistently and fervently.
This Gentile woman was begging even for the Jews' "leftover" miracles. And that got me to thinking a little about prosphora (the bread we offer at the Divine Liturgy, our Eucharistic service). The whole loaf is blessed, but only a very small portion actually makes it into the chalice. After communion, the priest and the deacon take the chalice back into the altar and eat up all that is left. They do this with great care, making sure none is spilled or left behind. The rest of the bread, the antidoron--the part that did not become the Lord's body--is distributed to the faithful at the end of the Liturgy. Extra antidoron might be sent home with a person who needs extra blessings during the week, such as a pregnant woman or someone in poor health. Even though it is still bread, it is blessed bread, and it is important not to let any crumbs fall to the floor; ideally, it should be eaten outdoors so that any crumbs that do fall may be consumed by the birds or other creatures. Even the leftovers of the leftovers are important when it comes to such miracles and blessings, and should not be taken lightly. I think I need the reminder to treasure even the smallest ones.
The online journal my priest kept several years ago has recently been published in book form. (You can order a copy online at www.conciliarpress.com/aidans-song.html.) I used to look forward to reading the new posts every month, and now that I have it in my hands, it is easy to remember why. There are a couple of passages on suffering that have stood out especially so far. Like this one on the transformation of our sufferings, written on the eve of Theophany (all emphasis in the quotes here is mine):
“In the presence of the Most Holy Trinity, it is always Today; it is always Now. So, in the fullness of time, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit behold the entire history of humanity and my whole life… . But this experience of time’s plentitude doesn’t shield us from pain or sorrow. If anything, pain and sorrow are intensified by this experience…..So the fullness of time is not a refuge. It’s not a pain-free zone that we can step into in order to escape from this life. If anything, it’s where we can take on the full significance of sorrow and the raw agonies of pain. And I think that is one of the greatest gifts we Orthodox can give to the world. We can take upon ourselves all the horrors and heartaches of this world without minimizing any of it, without attempting to explain it away, without holding it at arm’s length through abstraction or argument. We can take it upon ourselves, and we can take it all, through prayer, into the fullness of time, into the presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and it will all be healed. It will all be transformed just as surely as the waters were Today made holy.”
And just precisely how do we do that? Why does he say this is something that Orthodox do? One of the most significant ways we can do this is by praying at the Divine Liturgy. When we step through the doors of the nave, it’s like entering a different time zone. We are stepping into Heavenly Time, the “Today” Father Aidan mentions above. And when we offer to God the Father the fruits of our labors, our crudely transformed version of creation (His wheat in the form of bread, His grapes in the form of wine), The Most Holy Trinity offer them back to us perfectly transformed (the body of Christ Jesus broken for us, His blood shed for us). When we present, through prayer, our hurts and our joys and our despondency and our hopes alongside our gifts at the Divine Liturgy, The Most Holy Trinity transfigures them for us, too; they also become filled with the work of Divine Grace.
Here is how Father Aidan describes this work in a passage on preparing the gifts:
“Thus, what the offering of bread and wine symbolizes is our opportunity to be united with Christ Jesus in His birth and His death, an opportunity to unite our suffering with His and thereby join with Him in redeeming the world….But the service becomes even more compelling and even more poignant when we begin the commemorations. We pray for hundreds of people at this point in the service, and each time, with each name, as I thrust the spear into the soft crust of the bread, I physically evoke the suffering of our Lord and Master, and I pray that the life of each person may be united with the Life of the One who is ‘alive for evermore and who holds the keys of Death and Hades.’
“But--and this is the most wondrous thing of all--it is precisely through suffering that this union takes place. It’s through our suffering--and there’s hardly anything noble about it. It’s ordinary, everyday misery. A lot of it is self-inflicted; hardly any of it makes sense. But as I remember each person and every situation--the girl who just survived her second suicide attempt, the woman who’s so worried that she’s having trouble sleeping, the man who’s not sure he can continue to stay married, the young man who can’t stop looking at pornography, the woman who’s just now coming to grips with how abusive her mother is; as I place crumb after crumb on the diskos plate--for the woman who isn’t sure how much longer her husband is going to hang around, for the father who is going to be traveling abroad this week, for the widowers who miss their wives, for the grandmother who wonders what will happen to her autistic granddaughter, for the man who’s recovering from a stroke and scared that he’s going to have another one, for the women who have cancer, for the young woman who is waiting for someone to tell her what she does have--all of it is transformed. It’s transformed because it has become an offering, an offering that we make in union with the sacrifice Christ Jesus has made to God the Father on behalf of each of us. “And through this offering, we are also transformed. Through this offering, we become the Church…And with that, a new creation, an new heaven and a new earth called the Church is present in the world, and Fr. Deacon and I finish the prayers; we bless this new world and offer it back up to the Most Holy Trinity….It’s the same day, but it’s also different. It’s Sunday morning, but it’s also the Eighth Day. It’s Cedar Park, but it’s also the Kingdom of Heaven. Because we are the Church, and the bread and the wine are ready, and we are about to join together in the Great Marriage Supper of the Lamb.”
So if any of you have asked for prayers, know that this is what I mean when I say I will pray for you: Not only will I remember you at home, but I will take your needs with me when I step into the fullness of time at the Divine Liturgy. You are not suffering alone; your pain will be mystically united to the suffering of Christ Jesus, and transformed by His glorious Resurrection.
