fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Speak No Evil

Throughout her 19-month fight against lung cancer, my younger sister Ruthie was a model of Christian faith and courage. Friends, family, neighbors, even strangers—all of us marveled at her steadiness, fidelity, and good cheer. It was like that from the beginning. She received a note from a young nurse attending her on the day surgeons found […]

Throughout her 19-month fight against lung cancer, my younger sister Ruthie was a model of Christian faith and courage. Friends, family, neighbors, even strangers—all of us marveled at her steadiness, fidelity, and good cheer. It was like that from the beginning. She received a note from a young nurse attending her on the day surgeons found an inoperable malignant tumor in Ruthie’s lung. The nurse said she had seen so much suffering in her job that she had begun doubting God’s goodness, but observing Ruthie’s reaction to receiving a likely death sentence at the age of 41—this, with a husband and three kids at home—reawakened her flagging faith.

That’s how it went with Ruthie until the day she died suddenly in September, at home, from a pulmonary embolism. Modest and self-effacing, my sister hated talking about her cancer and resisted doing so. But we’d talk often by phone—me in Philadelphia, Ruthie at her home in rural Louisiana—and she would tell me sometimes that come what may, she was not afraid, because she knew God had a plan for her. Beyond that she made it clear that further inquiries along those lines were unwelcome.

I figured that she reserved those intimacies for her husband. Not so. The night before she died, Ruthie, by then in deep physical decline, had a friend drive her to a prayer meeting. On the way home, Ruthie said she had more test results coming soon, and she didn’t expect them to be good. Maybe, she said, that would be the time for her and her husband to talk seriously about the prospect of her death.

She meant: for the first time.

For 19 months Ruthie—who, incidentally, never smoked—had struggled with Stage IV lung cancer, an aggressive form that kills something like 80 percent of its victims within a year of diagnosis. The main tumor had wrapped itself like a serpent around her superior vena cava, the second- largest vein in the body, threatening to kill her from a heart attack. Every day she lived with the possibility that it would be her last. Yet according to her friend, Ruthie casually admitted, as if it were the most ordinary thing in the world, that she had never spoken in detail with Mike, her husband, about what should happen if she died.

As she did less than 12 hours later.

Learning this forced me to reconsider what I thought I knew about her faith and bravery. Was her chipper stoicism little more than a Herculean act of denial? Was the prospect of death—especially leaving behind a husband and three children, two of them fairly young—so terrifying to my sister that she simply refused to believe it could happen? I thought her a lion, but maybe she was an ostrich. The idea was repugnant, but maybe her awesome courage was really a front for cowardice.

Ruthie had told her oncologist at the outset of her treatment that she didn’t want to know what the odds of recovery were or how long she had left. That kind of speculation could only weaken her resolve to resist the disease and to endure the hideous chemotherapy treatments, she reasoned. Besides, she said, she was determined to fill every day she had remaining with gratitude and joy. Trust God and get on with life. That was her strategy, and she stuck to it with the determination of Patton bearing down on Palermo.

I confess that this still makes no sense to me. Ruthie was quite intelligent—she made better grades than I did—but no intellectual. When we were in college for two years together, she’d roll her eyes listening to me and my friends talk politics and philosophy. She thought we were vain, silly boys. Then again, she always thought that about me.

I was the one who read theology, who agonized about God, who went through several churches. Ruthie remained the no-drama, small-town Methodist she was raised to be. In all things, I was the rash, peripatetic seeker, a restless sort who waxed philosophically about home but moved all over the country. Ruthie figured she’d found whatever there was to find early on, married her high-school sweetheart, built a house across the gravel road from where we’d grown up, and started a family. Not once did I hear her theorize about home, about religion, or anything else. She just lived it.

A day or two after we buried Ruthie, I asked Mike—a deep man of few words—if Ruthie had been scared. He told me that not long after her diagnosis, she had been lying awake in bed late one night, too anxious to sleep. She was praying desperately when suddenly she became aware of a presence in the doorway of their bedroom. She was too afraid to turn over and look at it, but she was aware when it left—and when it did, it took away all her fear. “She told me it was like a physical weight had been lifted from her,” he said.

And that was that. Ruthie trusted her experience and her faith, and never, as far as anyone knows, thought about it again.

Did that experience, in removing Ruthie’s fear of death, cause her to believe (wrongly) that she was going to beat cancer? We’ll never know. I still think it was an extremely unwise, and even unkind, decision for her not to talk at length with family about the possibility of dying. But then, I admit that I have a problem understanding how anybody can endure a sickness unto death without preoccupying oneself with near-Gothic meditations, preparations, liturgies, devotions, and drama. This is perhaps not only a failure of imagination but also a failure of my fussy, melodramatic style of faith—a failure to comprehend a soul prepared to die in the same simplicity in which she lived.

A firefighter preparing to run into a burning skyscraper doesn’t stop to philosophize about his possible death. He has a mission, prays for the courage to do his duty, and engages. So it was with Ruthie, who saw her mission not only to survive cancer but to overcome the darkness cancer brought with it, so as to be a light to her children and to others. Ruthie called out to God for help in the oppressive darkness of the valley of the shadow of death, and He sent help. Not, in the end, the help she wanted, but the help she needed to do what she had to do.

Perhaps the greatest courage she demonstrated was the courage to believe, simply and surely, that all was well, and all would be well, for both the Bible she read faithfully and believed without protest and the silent ministrations of what she believed was a messenger from God told her so. That belief, held firmly with an iron-fisted internal resolve, helped her not only to endure 19 months of intense suffering with fierce grace that matured into spiritual grandeur, but to triumph over the grim odds predicting an early demise. Ruthie’s way was not my way, and never was, but the way she faced death taught me respect for the role of the disciplined will in matters of religious faith and moral courage.

I see her refusal to talk about her death as a strategy of evasion. She, however, would have called my insistence on talking about everything as a more sophisticated strategy of evasion—as a way of avoiding making decisions demanded by duty. I still don’t know which of us is right, or at least more correct. But of this I am certain: “Purity of heart is to will one thing,” taught Kierkegaard, and my sister Ruthie’s heart was nothing if not pure.

Rod Dreher is a TAC senior editor. His blog is www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher

Read Rod Dreher every month in the American Conservative. Subscribe here, or support us online by making a tax-deductible donation here.

Advertisement

Comments

Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here

Speak No Evil

Over at The Washington Note Steve Clemons has written an article “Israel/Palestine and Iran:  Linkage Should be Hard Wired by Obama Team.”  As the title suggests, Clemons observes that resolving the Israel-Palestine problem will make it easier to rally Arab support behind US initiatives to deal with Iran with “all options on the table.”  He […]

Over at The Washington Note Steve Clemons has written an article “Israel/Palestine and Iran:  Linkage Should be Hard Wired by Obama Team.”  As the title suggests, Clemons observes that resolving the Israel-Palestine problem will make it easier to rally Arab support behind US initiatives to deal with Iran with “all options on the table.”  He calls for a “strategic leap” to bring about that end.  The concept is not exactly a new one, as many have long been arguing that decisive action to bring about a resolution to Israel-Palestine will mitigate problems in many other areas and permit more robust responses on the part of Washington to perceived threats throughout the Near East. 

Clemons’ view of the world might reasonably be described as somewhat odd.  He writes that “America cannot return to be the kind of benign global power it used to be, inspiring other nations to follow its lead.”  Hello?  When was that?  Nor is it altogether clear to me why Clemons thinks that Iran is a threat to the United States that requires “all options” (which is shorthand for attacking them).  And I think he is wrong in his thinking that Israel and Palestine could be moved towards a “credible…two state track” as the deliberate and unrelenting expansion of Israeli settlements has pretty much destroyed that option, something that he is surely aware of.

But what is oddest about Clemons is his unwillingness to call things as they are, quite likely because he likes to preserve his access to policymakers.  Dennis Ross and David Makovsky have written a book explaining that there is no linkage between Israel-Palestine and “broader Mideast dynamics.”  The book is surely comforting to those who believe that Israel is not responsible in any way for any of the negative developments in the Middle East, which is no doubt precisely why it was written.  Clemons pretends not to see that and argues instead that Ross and Makovsky are “thinkers…trapped in the inertia that came from those who lived and breathed foreign policy deal making and analysis during the cold war.”  In other words, their way of thinking is old fashion and they are disinclined to take any risks, a pardonable offense.  But excuse me, surely Clemons knows that Ross and Makovsky are leading members of the Israel Lobby.  Ross, who is currently at the National Security Council, has been described as “Israel’s lawyer” while Makovsky is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank founded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.  They are gatekeepers whose purpose in life is to protect Israel from any and all criticism.  To suggest that as policymakers they have been focused on doing what’s best for the United States and its citizens is contradicted by their personal histories and their recorded statements.  That they receive a free pass and even a pat on the head from Clemons and others is precisely why US foreign policy is as dysfunctional as it is.

Advertisement

Comments

Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here