From the Battlefield: The Peace of Christ Is Greater than Russkiy Mir
The Lamb that was slain is also the lion who has conquered (Rev. 5:5–6). Christ’s death on the cross is at the same time his victory over death, evil and sin. Thus, we know that even through suffering and death, God’s children one day will partake in that glorious victory of our Lord over everyone who worships the beast.
On February 24, at 5:00 AM I woke up in my Kyiv apartment. “What were those sounds? Lord, I hope it’s not missiles. Please Lord, let it be something else.” I jumped out of bed, opened a window and listened. A few minutes of silence calmed me down a bit. Maybe I had just imagined it? I picked up my phone to read the messages. My colleague Valeriy from Odessa wrote: “I hear the launch of missiles from the sea. I may be wrong, but that’s what it sounds like.” One minute later at 05:12, the silence was broken by a series of sounds that shook the building. I wrote him back, “I hear explosions here in Kyiv. I hope I am wrong, but my building is shaking.” A few more explosions, this time much louder. There was no longer any doubt Russia had begun a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
I tried to call my wife, praying that she and the kids were fine. By God’s providence and mercy, just a week before I had taken my family to Uzhgorod in the west of Ukraine because of the possibility of escalation. I did not know if her city was also under attack. Thankfully, she did not even know what was happening. My biggest desire at that moment was to see my family’s faces and hug them once again. I could only pray that it would happen. Fear, confusion, pain, and anger invaded my heart and I have been fighting against them ever since.
Should I try to find the closest bomb shelter, or is it better to stay in the building? I knew that it was highly unlikely that any nearby bomb shelter was open and ready to accept people now. I knew that ninety-five percent of the population of Kyiv had no idea what was going on and were not prepared. I wasn’t ready either. Is it even possible to prepare yourself for something like this? After another series of loud thumps, I decided to go to the closest metro station to shelter underground.
As I walked outside, I met another man who looked very confused. I asked him if he had a family and if he could give me a ride to the closest metro station. “What is going on?” he asked. I answered, “The Russians are shelling Kyiv.” He could not believe it, how could our “older brother” act so treacherously towards us? Dmytro (as I learned later) needed a few more minutes to process the information and figure out what to do next. Finally, we jumped in the car to find a better place to hide.
The Beginning Of The War?
Even though US intelligence had warned about the possibility of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, it still came as a surprise to many people in the world, including Russians and Ukrainians. No wonder Dmytro was not ready to hear my answer. How could I even be so sure? This was not the first time I heard the “knocking” of Russkiy mir on my door.1 Back in 2014, Putin’s Russia visited my hometown, Donetsk, bringing its bombs and bullets and shells. It forced me, my pregnant wife, and children to flee. I was familiar with its real face and recognized its footsteps.
The war did not start on February 24, 2022. It started 8 years earlier when Russia annexed Crimea and occupied two eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. In the spring of 2014, Donetsk was flooded with foreigners who spoke with a distinctly Russian accent. These people organized protests against the Ukrainian government. The city was overwhelmed with waves of violence. They burned buildings and beat peaceful, Ukrainian demonstrators. Not long after this, they brought in stockpiles of weapons and so the war came to Donetsk.
The Russians were filled with hatred, but they especially hated Protestant believers. Russkiy mir is proudly Russian Orthodox. It wears a cassock, not a collar. Protestant pastors were beaten in Donetsk and its regions; some were tortured to death. While they were able, many evangelical believers gathered for prayer meetings by the Kalmius river. While pro-Russian protestors attacked and threatened us, evangelical Christians prayed for peace in Ukraine.
You Might also like
-
Forgiveness
If, following careful consideration (Prov. 14:15), it is reasonably clear that the non-collection of a large debt or non-prosecution of a great evil, holds unique promise of achieving greater ends, Christians must be ready to extend unimaginably forgiving gestures. As Paul prevailed upon Onesimus to forgive his fugitive servant Philemon, by setting him free (Philem. 1:10); as Barnabas prevailed upon the Apostles to forgive Paul for his former hostility to Christians (Acts 9:26-27), by eventually extending him the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:9); likewise, all Christians must be open to the Holy Spirit’s reasonable persuasion to remit truly great debts of others, with a view to advancing the Kingdom of Heaven.
All Things Forgiveness
Forgiveness is central to the Christian ethic. D.L. Moody once said: “The voice of sin is loud, but the voice of forgiveness is louder.” As a forgiven people the glory of the children of God is to be a forgiving people. But, important as forgiveness is, it’s also misunderstood, trivialized, and in the hands of some even weaponized.
The following is a guest essay from Rev. Dr. Brant Bosserman. This essay biblically and pastorally addresses the subject of forgiveness. Even if it takes a little longer to read than a normal blog post, I highly encourage it to every reader!
Forgiveness: Objective DeedsForgiveness: Subjective DispositionForgiving the UnrepentantKinds of ForgivenessFalse RepentanceForgiveness and ConsequencesForgiveness and ImprecationRadical Forgiveness
Jesus taught us to pray, “forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12; cf. Lk. 11:4). It is fascinating that the only fact that the Savior asked us to mention about ourselves in prayer is that we practice forgiving. However, exactly what forgiveness is, to whom it is due, and how it relates to correction and punishment are not widely understood. Critics of the Faith have alleged that Jesus’ lofty ideal of forgiveness is either dangerously liberal, at odds with other details of His ethic, or laudable, but widely disregarded by Christians. Given the central significance of forgiveness to the Gospel of how God saves sinners by faith in Jesus Christ; and given that a forgiving attitude is a fundamental mark of those who have been forgiven by God in Christ, believers can only benefit from sustained meditation on the topic. Jesus, after all, set forth the following promise and warning as the grounds making forgiveness central to prayer: “if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions” (Matt. 6:14-15; cf. Mk. 11:25; Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13).
Below, we will advance the following points. As to essence of forgiveness, it is the non-collection of a debt (or non-application of a penalty) accompanied by the expulsion a vengeful disposition. Christ’s ethic emphasizes the importance of a forgiving disposition, without neglecting the necessity of forgiving deeds, for two reasons. Outward forgiveness can be exercised hypocritically, apart from the more difficult work of a reformation of heart. Also, those who have forgiven a neighbor from the heart may, nevertheless, seek the application of a penalty out of love for the same party. The potential objects of Christian forgiveness are all people, but in different fashions. Even toward unrepentant offenders, Christ’s disciples must be prepared to repay evil with genuine kindness, entertaining a more hopeful vision of their enemies than their deeds deserve. However, only repentant believers can be forgiven in the fullest sense, by being treated and confidently acknowledged as brothers who enjoy mystical union with Christ and oneself. To scrutinize whether another’s repentance is genuine, and to enforce ongoing consequences for egregious sins and heinous crimes is perfectly consistent with forgiveness. For, to forgive a party is to will their good, and to facilitate rather than impeded what is best for them (and others). Finally, believers must be prepared to perform radical acts of forgiveness, especially in situations where one is powerless to pursue justice and/or the total forgiveness of a significant debt is likely to advance (rather than hinder) the kingdom of God.
FORGIVENESS: OBJECTIVE DEEDSWhen most people talk about forgiveness, they tend to have in mind feelings and subjective dispositions toward others. However, the Greek and Hebrew words for “forgive” often refer to objective actions. For example, the most frequent sense of the verb in the Gospel of Matthew is simply “to leave” something tangible behind, like fishing nets (4:20), crowds (13:36), stones (24:2), etc. In the context of monetary debts and criminal offenses, “forgiveness” involves foregoing the right to exact a payment (Matt. 18:23-34) or pardoning rather than prosecuting and punishing a crime (Ex. 34:9; Rom. 12:17). In His “Sermon on the Mount,” Jesus enjoins a radically forgiving disposition, setting forth the example of one who foregoes his right to retain basic property—“If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also” (Matt. 5:40); and again, “whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back” (Lk. 6:30). Of course, Jesus’ directives on the topic of forgiveness are not entirely new. The Mosaic Law required objective remission of debts every seventh year toward all of one’s Israelite neighbors (Deut. 15:1-6), regardless of whether they had squandered a loan by vice or simply fallen on hard times.
It is noteworthy that the objective forgiveness of a debt and/or penalty may be extended in greater and lesser degrees. For example, in the Mosaic economy, the convicted thief of livestock normally had to make restitution by returning the stolen animal, and paying retribution by returning four or five times its value (Ex. 22:1). If, however, he confessed his theft and offered the requisite “guilt offering” at the tabernacle (Lev. 6:1-6), his crime would be significantly, but not entirely, forgiven. The thief who confessed prior to being caught only had to return the stolen property to the victim, plus a mere one-fifth of its value. But even under the Law, direct victims could forgive certain criminal offenses entirely by foregoing legal proceedings altogether. Well before Jesus’ ethical discourses, His father Joseph showed himself to be a “righteous man” by choosing not to prosecute, and thereby significantly forgiving, Mary for her apparent adultery (Matt. 1:19). And yet, Joseph seems not to have initially extended the fullest objective forgiveness that could be imagined. Although he forewent civil prosecution of Mary, he still resolved to “send her away secretly,” breaking off their plans for marriage. This clearly indicates that an offense can be forgiven in certain objective respects, even though other consequences may be retained (for more on this point see “Forgiveness and Consequences” below). What renders the Sermon on the Mount unique in relationship to the Mosaic Law is not that Jesus’ commands His followers to forgive in various ways. Rather, its novelty resides in how clearly Jesus sets forth the imperative to more than forgive; that is, to remit material debt and even extend additional favor to one’s debtors. Still, Jesus understood the substance of His ethic to have always been implied, even if not so expressed, in the Law itself (Matt. 5:17-20; Lev. 19:18).
FORGIVENESS: SUBJECTIVE DISPOSITIONParallel to the non-collection of a debt and non-prosecution of a crime, forgiveness is a determination from within not to seek personal vengeance, and to expel the ill-will that we harbor toward offenders. Everyone knows, after all, how unpleasant it is to be despised and hated, even when disdain isn’t expressed in overt acts. When he denounced the human tendency to regard certain men as “good for nothing” (Matt. 5:22), Jesus meant to censure an unforgiving attitude that writes-off a person forever. Positively, subjective forgiveness must involve crediting an enemy with a better estimation of his person than his deeds deserve. Without this constructive effort, our best attempts to expel hateful feelings will be to no avail. If our estimation of our neighbor were a sculpture, we could think of his misbehaviors and sins as chipping away at and reducing his effigy to something distasteful that elicits ire. Forgiveness entails an active effort to reform our image and estimation of those who have sinned against us. This forgiving attitude is often described, figuratively, as “forgetting” or no longer “counting” a person’s crimes (Jer. 31:34; 1 Cor. 13:5; Ps. 103:12). This is because the non-resentment that one harbors after extending forgiveness resembles the attitude he might have had if the sin had never been committed in the first place (see “Forgiveness and Consequences” below). In its most robust expression, subjective forgiveness is not a mere disposition of indifference toward an offender as if his image were merely undeformed. Paralleling His demands for radical deeds of forgiveness—not just remitting debt but extending undeserved credit to defaulters (Matt. 5:40-42)—Jesus requires an equally robust disposition of heart. Christian forgiveness entails entertaining a better vision of our enemies than their deeds deserve, with the result that we are able to gladly heed the command: “bless those who persecute you” (Lk. 6:28; Rom. 12:14; cf. Matt. 5:44; 1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Pet. 3:9). Practiced properly, subjective forgiveness is neither an exercise in fantasy nor a surrender to naivete about just how evil and dangerous certain foes may be. Rather, there are objective grounds for crediting all men with a better estimation than their sins deserve, and unique grounds for esteeming repentant brothers the most highly of all.
The objective and subjective dimensions of forgiveness have a paradoxical relationship that forces us to appreciate the central significance of the latter. On the one hand, it is possible to forgive another person’s financial debt begrudgingly (perhaps, for example, out of a desire to be perceived as gracious), without expelling a hateful disposition toward him from within. Jesus denounces this sort of forgiveness as disingenuous, not being “from the heart” (Matt. 18:35). Such forgiveness is as displeasing to God as alms given under compulsion rather than cheerfully (2 Cor. 9:7). As pleasant as it might be to have a large monetary debt forgiven, even if not from the heart, it is far more dangerous (and potentially costly) to incur for oneself a life-long enemy. That is why Christians are called to make peace (Rom. 12:18), and to make friends so far as they are able (Matt. 5:25). On the other hand, one might deny a criminal complete objective forgiveness (by remitting a debt partially, or seeking a reduced penalty for a crime), and yet extend to him the fullest sort of subjective forgiveness (genuinely seeking his well-being). God’s discipline of His people epitomizes this combination. He often applies objective penalties with the most holy intention to bless and to sanctify His people, rather than to finally harm and destroy (see “Forgiveness and Consequences” below). Another curiosity is that at first glance the extension of a forgiving deed may appear rather more difficult than cultivation of a forgiving heart. Initially, one may be greatly disinclined to forgive, outright, a neighbor’s financial debt for backing into his car, but surprisingly willing to restrain the tendency to despise and/or hope the worst for that neighbor. However, in the course of time, feelings of resentment for the car-incident may resurface again and again. Thus, the conscious resolve to forgive from the heart may need to be repeated many times for one and the same crime. In that respect, subjective forgiveness often proves to be rather more difficult than the one-time deed of remitting or reducing a debt. Moreover, if one finds it difficult to renew his forgiving disposition, say, seven times, for one offense, he will find it even more challenging to expel contempt for his neighbor after seven similar offenses. Recognizing that repeated forgiveness from the heart is profoundly difficult, Jesus nevertheless requires that His disciples be prepared to forgive their brethren “seven times in a day” (Lk. 17:4), and “seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:22).
BELIEVERS ARE REQUIRED TO FORGIVE THE UNREPENTANTHaving discussed forgiveness as both deed and disposition, we turn to the controversial question, are Christians are obligated to forgive the unrepentant? And if so, what is the rationale? That Christ requires his disciples to forgive unrepentant foes is clear from His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. It is impossible that in commanding His disciples to lend your coat to “anyone” who “wants to sue you and take your shirt” (Matt. 5:40), Jesus meant to limit the prescribed response to repentant aggressors. The picture Jesus paints is that of a heartless enemy seeking to take the very shirt off our backs. Toward this kind of person, even in his state of aggression, Jesus requires what we might call a “super-forgiving” disposition. This conclusion is reinforced by the imperatives that precede and follow Matthew 5:40. To “not resist an evil person” (5:39a), to “turn the other [cheek]” to the person who slaps you (5:39b), to go a second mile with the person who “forces you to go one mile” (5:41a), and to “love your enemies” (5:42) all imply that the offending party is still yet evil, an enemy, and unrepentant when the radical forgiveness is extended to him. Most importantly, Jesus grounds His imperatives in the character of God. The Father extends profound gestures of kindness to all men without exception (Matt. 5:45-48; Acts 14:16-17), repaying their offenses with longsuffering patience (Rom. 2:4; 3:25; 2 Pet. 3:9), rather than immediate retribution.
When we survey other Scriptural imperatives that require a forgiving posture toward all, we can begin to see the practical wisdom of this feature of a Biblical ethic. We are told that the wise man seeks to “overlook an offense”—that is, to forgive rather than prosecute—wherever they can without aiding or encouraging evil (Prov. 19:11). Evidently, this is because in a fallen world we are bound to be victims of so many sinful behaviors that it is not even so much as possible to seek tangible recompense for them all. Biblical calls to generosity (1 Tim. 6:18; Eph. 4:28), some of which explicitly encompass our enemies (Lk. 6:35; Matt. 5:42), prescribe a super-forgiving stance, in part, because it garners respect and kindness in return (Lk. 16:1-9). Moreover, there are “weightier provisions of the law” about which we are obligated to correct our neighbor lest he suffer the terrible consequences in this life, not to mention the life to come (Prov. 26:5; 2 Tim. 3:24-25; Gal. 6:1; 1 John 5:16-17). On account of these, we must be prepared to simply forgive lesser debts, lest we become overbearing and lose the opportunity to gently address more serious ones. Sometimes monetary debts must be forgiven, and loss accepted, because our debtors are so financially destitute that collection is futile (Deut. 15:1-6; Lk. 7:42). Others are in such a calloused state of mind, that it would be folly on our part to enter upon any course of correction whatsoever for mere interpersonal slights (Prov. 9:8; 26:4; Matt. 7:6). This non-corrective stance toward committed fools, rebels, and belligerents is the very lowest sort of forgiveness that one can exercise in this life. For, in not collecting on his debts or seeking a corrective penalty, the hard-hearted man is being surrendered to the consequences of his own self-destructive behaviors. Even in handing the unrepentant “over to Satan,” the disposition of a believer’s heart is not to be one of cruelty, but of tough-love and hope that the evil fruits of his rebellion might be a means through which he is brought to final repentance (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20). This is also one reason why Biblical prayers for another person’s judgment are compatible with forgiveness. (See “Forgiveness and Imprecation” below.)
If Jesus positively requires that believers forgive the unrepentant, and there is manifest wisdom in doing so, what compels many to conclude that forgiveness ought to be reserved for the repentant? To begin, we have already seen that the Mosaic Law only prescribes a reduced penalty for theft if the criminal confesses and repents of his crime. In keeping with this provision of the Law, Jesus explicitly taught, “If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him” (Lk. 17:3-4). Although God is, in many concrete gestures, “forgiving” to all of humanity through the course of history (Matt. 5:45-48), He withholds eternal forgiveness and imputation of righteousness (what the New Testament frequently calls “justification”) from all but those who repent and believe in Jesus Christ (Matt. 11:20-24; Lk. 10:13-15). Indeed, the point of the “Parable of the Forgiving King” (Matt. 18:23-35) is that those who experience God’s forgiving patience in history but fail to repent of their own merciless disposition will assuredly not be forgiven in eternity.
DIFFERENT KINDS OF FORGIVENESSJohn Calvin solved the apparent contradiction between Jesus’ calls to pardon everyone (even the unrepentant) and His limitation of the same to those who repent, with reference to the objective and subjective dimensions of forgiveness (see Calvin’s comments on Matt. 18:21-35). First, Christians must forgive unrepentant sinners (especially for non-criminal, personal offenses) by “laying aside the desire of revenge,” and repaying their evil with objective deeds of “kindness” (Matt. 5:43-48; Rom. 12:14, 17; Prov. 20:22; 24:29). However, it is appropriate, according to Calvin, “to entertain an unfavorable opinion” of unrepentant parties. Second, a more robust “kind of forgiving” must be reserved for the repentant brother. Upon confessing and turning from his evil, Christians must not only treat that brother kindly but “think favorably” of him. Calvin’s solution, although basically correct, is not entirely adequate. Whereas the extension of kind deeds and the suspension of personal vengeance must be extended to the repentant and unrepentant alike, Calvin denies that one aspect of subjective forgiveness may be extended to the latter, namely the development of a higher estimation of his person than his deeds deserve. We agree with Calvin that there is a qualitative difference between the forgiveness extended to the unrepentant and the repentant. However, we submit that in all its expressions, forgiveness must entail an alteration of our very thoughts and opinions of our fellow man. In short, we forgive the unrepentant by entertaining higher thoughts of what they may become, while we forgive a repentant brother by upholding a confident vision of the character that he presently has on account of Christ’s dwelling in Him
Read More
Related Posts: -
“You’ve Got Self:” How the Internet Cultivates Expressive Individualism in All of Us
Written by Samuel D. James |
Sunday, April 10, 2022
As Christians remind each other of the gospel, we will build in one another the capacity for richer joys, deeper identity, and lasting meaning that digital technology promises but never delivers. The permanence of the gospel, revealed in a book, proclaimed by a community, and demonstrated through love, is more than enough ballast for screen-weary souls.Christopher Nolan’s 2010 film Inception tells a story about a technology called “dream-sharing,” invented at some indeterminate point in the future, that allows participants to enter into one another’s dreams via their subconscious. The main character, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, assembles a team of dream “hackers” to invade the mind of a billionaire business heir and convince his subconscious to break up his father’s commercial empire. In one of the film’s mostly subtly metaphorical scenes, the team visits a chemist who can make an especially potent sedative to allow for vivid and prolonged dream-sharing. The chemist takes the team downstairs, where they’re led to a dimly lit room where dozens of people are sleeping, connecting to dream sharing devices. The chemist explains that these people come to spend hours every day dreaming together, as their subconscious selves construct an alternative life in their dreams. Stunned, the team asks, “They come here to fall asleep?” “No,” the chemist replies. “They come here to wake up.” The dream has become their reality.
There are no real-world dream sharing devices, but there is one real-world technology that connects billions of people in a dream-reality: the Internet.
As Carl Trueman brilliantly lays out in The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, expressive individualism has its origins in a complex collision of history, philosophy, and politics. Today, however, the most powerful vehicle for shaping people in its image is not the classroom or Supreme Court, but the Internet. To see this more clearly, we need to think of the Internet less as a singular tool or hobby, and more like what it is now: an immersive epistemological habitat in which hundreds of millions of people have regular, active membership. The Internet has transformed the way humans read, learn, communicate, labor, shop, recreate, and even “worship.” No other technology is as disruptive to traditional forms of human activity.
Membership in the online commons has formative effects on us, just like membership in a local church. The liturgies of assembled, embodied, gospel worship point us toward one set of beliefs and values, while the liturgies of Internet membership point us toward a different set.
While secular technology critics have been talking this way about digital life for a while, Christians largely have not. Instead, we’ve focused not on the form of the Internet, but on its content, encouraging one another to avoid pornography, slander, and envy on the various website and social media platforms we navigate daily. This encouragement is good and necessary, but much more is needed. Pastors and church leaders in particular need to see online technologies as powerful instruments of personal formation that push us in a certain spiritual and epistemological direction.
Before going further, we should take careful note of something important. The Bible’s vision of human flourishing as divine image-bearers and Christ-followers is a deeply analog vision. By this I mean that Scripture both assumes and prescribes doctrines, attitudes, and practices that are tied to our embodied, physical existence. For one thing, Christians believe that divine revelation is expressed in a physical book, the Bible, and that this book features language with objective meaning.[1] Further, the very first thing we learn from the Bible about ourselves is that we are created in the image of God, male and female. This means that our fundamental identity as people is tied to our bodies. God creates physical image-bearers who have embodied sexual identities, and in submission to God these image-bearers come together to marry, make love, and bear children that fill the earth (with their physical selves) and subdue it. Family is not an abstract concept, but a flesh-and-blood institution that is ordered according to real, embodied persons.
The Internet, by contrast, is radically disembodied. To be online is, in a very real sense, to escape the givenness of created existence. The social critic Laurence Scott writes:
If our bodies have traditionally provided the basic outline of our presence in the world, then we can’t enter a networked environment, in which we present ourselves in multiple places at once, without rethinking the scope and limits of embodiment. While we sit next to one person, smiling through a screen at someone else, our thoughts, our visions, our offhand and heartfelt declarations materialise in the fragments in one another’s pockets. It’s astonishing to think how in the last twenty years the limits and coherence of our bodies have been so radically redefined.[2]
The Internet’s disembodied, “fragmented” character is not merely interesting trivia. It is a massively important part of the way being online shapes our beliefs, intuitions, and habits.
Consider now three distinct “digital liturgies” that shape all of us in the image of the disembodied Internet.[3]“My Story, My Truth”
Online technology’s flattening, democratizing character means that the most valuable social currency is not expertise, wisdom, or character, but story. When a truth claim goes up against a narrative, the narrative wins every time. Personal experience is the authoritative norm in digital discourse, and in many cases no amount of evidence or argument can trump it. To suggest that someone’s story may be relevant but not necessarily authoritative is often seen as a grossly unacceptable attack on their personhood.
The power of individual story to provide justification for desires and thwart any criticism is powerfully evident to Gen-Z. In her book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, journalist Abigail Shrier describes how large and growing numbers of teen and preteen Americans are learning to question their given gender through transgendered influencers, particularly on YouTube, Reddit, and Tumblr.
Read More -
Faith, Family, and Church Community See Jeff and Mariah Windt Through the Challenges of Aphasia: Chapters 2-4
Written by The Mary A. Rackham Institute |
Friday, July 7, 2023
Due to Jeff’s stroke and aphasia, he now is more expressive and smiles a lot more than he used to. His happiness and joy are very infectious to others, including strangers. People will ask Mariah, “How is he in such a good mood, even when he can’t talk?” Jeff attributes strength to his family, friends, and faith.
Read Chapter 1
Chapter 2Homecoming: The Church Community Steps In to Help
Nearly six weeks after the stroke, Jeff Windt was able to come home on July 28, much to the excitement of his family and friends. During the time he was in rehab, the family leaned on the support of their church family especially to help with taking care of the boys. They would watch the boys during the day, taking them on adventures and outings to provide Mariah time to be with Jeff and take care of errands and help the boys relax for a bit.
Jeff underwent intensive therapy sessions at home throughout August and September. During this time, his communication challenges became even more clear to the family. The boys especially struggled with no longer being able to easily communicate with their dad, when less than a few months before, they could hold a full conversation with him. He was not able to play catch or chase them around the house anymore because of physical limitations.
It all had changed so much in such a short time.
In early fall, time was running out on the number of therapy sessions that insurance would cover. Then, the limit was hit in September. Mariah shared this news with their community and asked for any support they could provide — whether it be financial or just saying a prayer. Through a Facebook fundraiser, they were able to raise $15,355 for additional therapy sessions. The donations carried them through the end of 2020 and into 2021. However, even in the new year, the Windt family would continue to be tested.
Like many who have suffered a stroke, Jeff had a seizure. In February of 2021, Mariah was awakened when Jeff was having the seizure and called 911 for an ambulance.
Mariah explained, “Because of the damage in Jeff’s brain from the stroke, the cells that send electrical signals to the nerves in his body can have a sudden burst of electrical activity, which can cause the signals to the nerves to be disrupted, causing a seizure.”A Year Makes All The Difference
One year to the day, on June 19, 2021, Mariah posted on Facebook:
“Hello Everyone!Today marks a year since Jeff had his stroke that would completely alter our lives as we knew it.
I miss our life before his stroke on so many levels.I miss staying up with him after the kids go to bed at night talking about this, that, and the other.I miss watching him play catch with Jonah.I miss him carrying Jude on his shoulders.I miss watching him read books.I miss him getting ready for church on Sunday’s and heading off to do what he was born to do in preaching God’s word.
I am also grateful for the Lord’s blessings he has bestowed on us.I am grateful that Jeff and I can still communicate with each other even if it’s not in the way we used to.I am grateful that he can watch Jonah and Elijah play catch together.I am grateful for the close bond that Jeff and Jude have made through Jeff being at home during the day.I am grateful that there is an app on his phone that he can use to have things read back to him in a way that he can understand.I am grateful that Jeff is able to go to church on Sundays, walk into the Lord’s house, be comforted by the congregation he once preached to, and sit under the preaching of God’s word.”
A Beacon of Hope: U-M Aphasia Program
As they adjusted to the new reality a year out, Mariah began looking for aphasia therapy programs for Jeff.
“One night I looked up University Aphasia Programs,” she said. “When this aphasia program at U of M was the first one that popped up, I fell out of my chair!“
Jeff grew up in Bay City, Michigan, and has been a lifelong fan of the University of Michigan (U-M), especially the football program. His connection with U-M football stretched back to grade school. In 1986, Jim Harbaugh was a quarterback for U-M, and Jeff enjoyed following Harbaugh’s game statistics. He had no idea that this passion would lead to a personal encouraging message from Harbaugh someday.
Jeff has been a vocal U-M fan ever since, even after moving to South Carolina, and not meeting many other fans. His love of the university was widely shared with friends and family, especially since Jeff has a habit of only wearing U-M gear everywhere.
When Jeff exited inpatient therapy at their local rehab center in Greenville, Mariah received a phone call. The secretary asked them to come back, as there was a letter from the University of Michigan there addressed to Jeff.
When Mariah picked it up and opened it, she realized it was a personal card, written and signed by Jim Harbaugh, sent to Jeff.
Understanding the significance this would hold for her husband, Mariah planned a special event for Jeff to open the card. The card brought tears to Jeff’s eyes. It’s still one of his most prized possessions. However, the family had no idea how Jim had learned of Jeff, his situation, and his completing aphasia therapy in South Carolina. And it would remain a mystery for a while longer.
Chapter 3: Heading Home to MichiganAfter Mariah discovered the U-M aphasia Program, she learned that the program is unique and that people from all over the world come to work on their aphasia recovery. She learned that “there’s nothing like it anywhere,” and that people come from across the world to take advantage of the specialized, intensive approach.
“After looking at all of the data outcomes and reading personal testimonials from individuals that have Jeff’s same degree of aphasia, I realized that there is no way he would walk out of this program without having made some sort of improvement,” she said. “Any improvement at all, no matter how small, is going to improve his quality of life. It seemed too good to be true though. The logistics of it all made it seem like an impossibility.“
Mariah shared her discovery with Rick Phillips, the senior pastor of their church and a good friend of Jeff’s, who also happens to be a U-M graduate. However, she was worried about the cost and logistics of caring for their children while they were away. Rick was adamant that Jeff should go, and that “God would take care of the way to get us there,” Mariah recalled.
Their good friend Melton Duncan started a GoFundMe to help raise money for Jeff and Mariah to attend the U-M Aphasia Program (UMAP). Within just three weeks, they had raised enough money to cover the costs for the intensive, comprehensive aphasia program, travel, etc.
They attended in November 2021. The in-person session had Jeff working on speech and communication therapy daily from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. with experienced speech-language pathologists who knew aphasia and how to approach his specific situation.
On November 8, Mariah shared this update via Facebook:
“Jeff had assessments done where a series of tests were used to evaluate where he is at in regards to Verbal and Written Expression, Naming/Word Finding, Sentence Formulation, and Auditory and Reading Comprehension.
He was then given a treatment plan based on those results. His treatment plan is very personalized in that they tailor it to his specific needs and personal goals.
Some goals:Being able to say the boys’ names.??
Reading (without assistance from an app to read it back to him).
Formulating a prayer. (As I have stated in previous [Facebook] posts, aphasia affects his word-finding ability whether or not he is trying to say, write, type, or even formulate a coherent thought in his own mind).
Writing a complete sentence.It was clearly evident that we were in the right place for Jeff’s treatment from the first day here at UMAP. To say that the therapists are amazing is an understatement. Each and every one of them has so much compassion for Jeff and shows a drive and enthusiasm to do anything they can to help him improve.
Thank you all for the prayers and contributions that have allowed Jeff to take advantage of this wonderful program.”
Hard Work and Homework
Jeff completed one session of the intensive, individual program at the U-M Aphasia Program, and he and Mariah returned home in late November.
On November 23, Mariah shared this update on Facebook:
“While we’re so thankful to be home, Jeff and I left Ann Arbor with heavy hearts having to say goodbye to the very special group of therapists that worked with Jeff the 3 weeks we were there. Each of them went above and beyond any expectations that we might have had and I attribute Jeff’s improvements to their expertise and encouragement.
I also can’t forget to mention Jeff’s hard work and determination. His therapists would commend him for his positive attitude and perseverance. A lot of times when he couldn’t do something he would just laugh as if to say “What are you gonna do?”
Chapter 4: Mystery Solved!
Read More
Related Posts: