SURPRISE!

     "Surprise!"  That one word can strike fear into the heart of the most courageous person.  It can also bring the greatest amount of joy into the lives of others.  Of course, there are good surprises and bad surprises.  A good surprise might be in the form of an unexpected birthday party.  This kind of surprise is most effective if the object of the party is manipulated into thinking everyone has forgotten about this most special day.  A sour mood characterized by brooding, hint-dropping and general grumpiness is purposely manufactured by the subject's closest friends, then the surprise is sprung and the happiness meter spikes at ecstatic, a state that seems all the more euphoric because of the contrast with the earlier mood.  That's a great surprise.

     Other good surprises lack this sudden, totally unexpected element.  This would be a situation where a person is expecting something good, but the outcome exceeds expectations.  Have you ever watched Extreme Makeover: Home Edition?  The subjects of the show know they are getting a new home, yet they seem genuinely surprised when it is presented to them.  By the way, I would like to have a dollar for every time I have heard, "Oh, my God!" on that show.  Better yet, I'd like to never hear that phrase again.  Since most of us will never find ourselves in that kind of situation, maybe a more down to earth example would be appropriate.  How about running into an old friend at Costco?  Or, my wife's favorite, finding a ten-dollar bill in the pocket of a coat she hasn't worn for quite a while?  Those are nice surprises.

    Naturally, there are bad surprises as well.  The car breaking down without any previous warning, the sewer backing up, and a sudden realization your checking account is overdrawn because you made a mistake balancing the account would all qualify as bad surprises.  Lately, I have been surprised (maybe startled or scared would be better adjectives here) when I suddenly realized someone was standing right by me.  These are relatively mild bad surprises.  I'm sure you can all fill in the list of terrible or even horrible surprises that may have shaken the foundations of your lives.

       I've had many surprises in my life.  My brother and I were sent for a week to a summer camp.  When our folks picked us up, we learned they had moved while we were out of their way.  Surprise!  One evening the whole family gathered in my parents' bedroom to find out that my father was leaving.  Surprise!  One night in 1970, I asked a beautiful, intelligent, delightful young lady to marry me.  She told me she'd have to think about it.  Surprise!  Several years after we were married (yes, she decided that maybe I'd be an okay guy to marry), she told me we were having twins.  Surprise!  But before they had a chance to be born, one September night they were lost.  Surprise.  About a year later, our wonderful daughter was born; not much of a surprise really.  Two years after that we were definitely surprised to learn our son was on the way.  I like to remind him that he was not an "accident," but he was a surprise!  And each time we learned a new grandchild was on the way we were joyfully surprised!  These days we are continually surprised by their actions and words as they begin to express their individual personalities.  Blessings, every one.

    C.S. Lewis wrote a book entitled Surprised by Joy.  It has been quite awhile since I read it, but I remember his surprise at finally succumbing to God's call while trying to be true to his atheistic philosophy, and his surprise at this happening in the way that it did.  I also vaguely remember that his idea of true joy, derived from memories of his childhood prior to this mother's death, had to be redefined as he immersed himself in his studies.  This is one of those books I will put on my "read again" list.

      My point is that life is a succession of every kind of surprise.  But, as Lewis discovered, in spite of the happiness or sorrow that surprises bring to our lives, true joy can still be obtained by turning our lives over to God.  As I look back on every surprise in my life I can truly say that, given the opportunity, I would not eliminate any one of them.  Each has contributed to the molding of the man I am today.  Those bad, even horrible surprises challenged me to exercise lessons I had previously learned, grow in my ability to handle future stressful situations, and helped me appreciate the blessings in my life.  The delightful surprises in my life have served to encourage and reassure me that life is a gift from God worth living.  It is quite scary to contemplate who I would be if my life circumstances had been different.

    I currently have five above average grandchildren walking this earth, being trained to fulfill their purpose to love God and serve him.  But wait, there's another surprise: grandchild number six is on the way!  Not an accident, but a wonderful surprise! 

    One would think, after 43 years of commitment to him, that God's interventions in my life would cease to surprise me.  They haven't, and I hope they never will.  Knowing the future would be much more fearful than any surprise he has planned for me.  I choose gladly to live in anticipation of his undisclosed plan for my life.

    I would love to hear from you on this topic.  I anticipate some of you having some wonderful insights, whether in line with my way of thinking or contradictory.  I welcome both, and hope I can learn something from you.

Excited About Shoes?

    When was the last time you got excited about buying a new pair of shoes?  Your answer may depend a great deal upon how many X chromosomes you have.  Yesterday my wife and I walked out of a department store with four pairs of shoes; two for me and two for her.  I believe it had been about two years since I had purchased a pair of shoes.  I informed her that when I got home I was throwing away two pairs of shoes and replacing them with the new ones, and challenged her to do the same.  "Not likely," was the gist of her body language and mumblings.  Several times that evening, once before we got out of the store, once in the parking lot on the way to the car, and again at the restaurant she exclaimed with glee, "We bought four pairs of shoes!"  Now, all things being equal, wouldn't you expect  the person who had not purchased a pair of shoes for the past two years to be more excited about that transaction than the one who buys a pair a shoes at least once a month?  Instead, I understood that I purchased those shoes because the other pairs I already owned needed replacing.  It was a practical, utilitarian decision for me on the same level as the purchase of a roll of toilet paper.  It was cause for rejoicing for her on the level of finding a forgotten twenty-dollar bill in the pocket of a long-unused coat.

    That leads me to another observation.  I was looking at casual dress shoes, with my lovely wife right there to guide me, and found a pair I thought had good workmanship, soles that would grip a slippery surface, and the kind of material that would make the upper parts easy to keep looking nice.  She saw another pair that looked good.  I tried on both pairs and decided on the pair she had picked out.  Then, after I had announced my decision, she pointed out another pair that would look good on me.  "I already have a pair," I told her.  She was doing her ancient ancestor gathering thing.  I had finished the hunt and was ready to return to camp.

    The second pair I wanted was to replace a worn out pair of running shoes.  She walked down the aisle looking at various pairs and commenting on two things: looks and price.  I walked around and looked for good support for my ankles and room for my orthotics.   

    I recently read something about geneticists changing their minds about that extra X chromosome women have.  They previously thought it was largely useless; just an extra letter of the alphabet that had no real purpose.  Now they are thinking it may have a great deal to do with why woman are so different from men.  They still don't know what it does, but now they think it is very important.

    I believe I have it figured out.  That extra X chromosome is the shoe chromosome.  Think about it.  It is "extra;" not really needed.  It is there for looks, not utility.  It is non-descript; one X looks pretty much like any other X.  Yet, if it were removed it would drastically alter its confines, which would take on the appearance of a male's environment, one Y shoe and one X shoe. 

    I suspect these scientists will eventually find that woman have more than one extra X chromosome.  If they look carefully they will eventually find dozens hidden away in genetic closets, lined up neatly in some, piled high on the floors of others, but hiding there waiting for that one special day in their lives when they will be brought out and noticed only by all the other X chromosomes who will display signs of great excitement.  We men will simply shake our heads and ask,"Y"?

Moonstruck

    I was driving two of my granddaughters home last night when I was blinded by a full moon sneaking over the foothill town of Plymouth.  I pointed it out to the 5-year-old, whereupon I was informed that it was so bright because the sun was "here" (accompanied by a dainty, little hand with the fingers gently forming a sphere) and the moon was "here" (the other hand illustrated this) and the earth was "here" (the sun hand had to do double duty).  All this was observed by me, the driver, in the rear view mirror while negotiating a country road.

    When I got home and checked in with the Facebook crowd (they get worried if I don't let them know I got home safely) I discovered my sister-in-law had seen that same moon in Minnesota.  Her comments were not as scientific as my granddaughter's, "All you Minnesotans-- turn off the lights in your house. Look out the window to see the brightly lit moonshine tree limb shadows etched on the snow. Would be fabulous to do a midnight XC ski run...but it's just too cold...and my bean bag foot warmer just came out of the microwave. The Amplified Bible describes the moon as "a token of God's providential care." May we all rest in the assurance of His love."

    I couldn't help but wonder if my two-and-a-half-year-old granddaughter marveled at the brilliant splendor of this same night light as it illuminated her home in Europe.  When she lived nearby I would carry her outside where she would look up, point at the moon and utter an "mm" sound.  She seemed fascinated by it. Would she have seen it in scientific terms like her cousin, or would she have observed an object of divine beauty like her great-aunt?  I would be happy just to hold her while she points at it, even if she made no sound at all.

   Why are we so fascinated by a full moon?  A quick look around the web uncovered several viewpoints.  It's our only natural satellite.  It's the brightest object in the night sky.  It comforts us, because we feel like it is watching over us.  Of course, there are those theories about the unusual gravitational pull resulting in lunacy, and what some consider a type of lunacy, love.  The fact that it only comes around about once a month, and can be observed in its brilliance only if the weather cooperates on those particular days, may contribute to its mystique.

    But I believe we are naturally enthralled with the heavens due to a God-given awareness.  In Psalm 19 we learn that "the heavens declare the glory of God."  Paul writes in Romans that we can know about God by simply being aware of what is around us, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Romans 1:20 NIV).  When we gaze upon that huge natural light peeking over some hill, we may see an astronomical phenomenon or an incredibly romantic glow.  But we will all see "a token of God's providential care."

   

C'mon! Give Me A Break! Help Out Ol' Pappy!

    I have noticed that there are about 15 of you who check in with this blog from time to time.  This past week 7 of you visited for the first time.  In the past month this blog was visited about 101 times, which means those 15 or so of you are coming back for more insights into my thoughts and possibly to secretly scoff at my idiocy.  I don't really care why you are reading this, I'm just thrilled that someone other than my wife (and I'm not actually certain she ever visits this page) knows I exist.  Yes, it's a little egotistical, I know.  But in spite of the fact that I truly do enjoy writing just for the sake of writing, I also enjoy writing for someone else.  I don't believe it's any different than a singer or actor wanting an audience.
     However, as much as I appreciate all of you stopping by, I have some suggestions to make this more fun (and maybe even more meaningful) for me and for you.  Don't be a drive-by audience.  Here are some actions I would love for you to take.
    1. Become a "follower."  It's easy.  On the left-hand side of this blog click on the "Follow" button.  You will be asked to give some information and given the opportunity to submit a photo (but you don't have to).  Right now I have 7 followers (Actually, it's only 6.  My wife signed up twice.).  That's pathetic!  People visit my page and think it's a dumb place to be because there are only a few digital people digitally milling around.  They want to be where the action is.  And on a blog page, action is denoted by followers.  So, do me a favor and start following. 
    2.  Next, you can get an email notification every time I post a new blog.  All you have to do is look just a little bit below the end of this article for the "Subscribe" button.  There's one small one that has "Atom" next to it.  Then farther down there is a little window with a drop down menu.  I'm not sure how all of that works, but I believe if you click on the little one ("Atom") you will get notifications.
    3. You can check a box at the bottom of this article to summarize your immediate impression as "funny," "interesting," or "cool."  Try not to check "cool" every time.
    4. You can leave a comment.  Really, why are all of you (except Shanti) reluctant to comment?  That's what makes a blog fun!  You get to criticize, applaud or question.  Then people can agree or disagree with you.  Pretty soon we have wild discourse and literally sparring!  Or a love fest!  But if you don't leave any comments, you may suck the fun right off the page.  You don't want to be a killjoy do you? (The feds haven't outlawed "killjoy" yet, so I'll leave it there).  When you want to comment, you will be asked to identify yourself.  If that's what's keeping you from commenting, just indicate "anonymous."
    5.  Finally, if you really want to have some fun, you can click on "Share this on Facebook" or "Tweet this" and all your friends will know you are recommending my blog for them to read.  Wow!  Would that boost my ego or what?!  It may not do much for your standing with your friends, but remember you are doing this for my self-esteem.
    So, give a guy a break.  It's not like I'm asking for money.  In fact, I am considering following the lead of my dear friend (whose blog is listed on the left, "Adoption is Our Nutshell."  Check it out.) and giving away a prize or two if you help me reach a goal, say like 30 followers.  I will think about an appropriate gift card or other item that could be given away in a drawing.  I'll get back to you on that.
    Oh, to those two Russian visitors from a few weeks ago: If you revisit this sight, I'll include you in the drawing.

Spike Lee & Meredith Vieria: Do Words Matter?

     I was surprised to hear Spike Lee, famous movie director, producer, writer, actor and avid Knicks fan speak as though he is also an authority on world history and world violence.  There I was, frying up some bacon and eggs, when I heard him talking to Meredith Vieira on the Today Show about a children's book he and his wife have written.  Suddenly, Meredith brings up "what happened in Arizona last week" because there has been so much discussion about the "level of discord in this country" and the "level of rhetoric."  Not that this "rhetoric" was responsible for what happened, but it just adds to the negativity.  He said something has to be done about violence in this country.  "The United States of America is the most violent country in the history of civilization.  And, this NRA thing, we gotta turn this around.  You know, these guns are out of hand."

    I believe a statement like that deserves some attention.  After all, Meredith's lead-in was focused on the importance of words; "discussion," "rhetoric."  Surely, we must look at the words Spike used to respond.  So, drawing on his vast knowledge obtained at Morehouse College as a Mass Communication major, and in his film courses at Clark Atlanta University and New York University's Tisch School of the Arts as he worked toward his Masters of Fine Arts degree, and his life experiences writing, producing and directing films, he makes a statement that is so absurd one must wonder if he learned anything about communication from all his experiences.

    "…the most violent country in the history of civilization"?  Really?  The United States is more violent than the ancient Romans and Greeks who continually expanded their empires by way of merciless military strategies?  More violent than any number of medieval kingdoms that held absolute power over their own people and constantly sought to strengthen their positions by acquiring other lands by force?  More violent than the government of the Khmer Rouge that, led by Pol Pot, is estimated to have systematically murdered about two million of its own citizens?  More violent than the USSR, estimated to have killed as many as 61 million Soviet citizens, with Stalin being responsible for about 43 million of those?  More violent than Nazi Germany, responsible for the deaths of an estimated six million Jews and another six million who were physically or mentally handicapped, Gypsies, Polish and Soviet citizens, and a variety of others who weren't deemed useful?  More violent than the modern day country of Rwanda where 800,000 were murdered; about 20% of the population?  More violent than Darfur, where over 400,000 lives have been brutally taken?  More violent than Somalia, Uganda (under Idi Amin), Iraq, Afghanistan and present-day Mexico?  That's quite a claim, Spike.  I, for one, would like a little explanatory follow-up.  While it can't be denied that our nation was born out of violence, has had a couple of internal wars (Civil and Indian), has tolerated violent treatment of an enslaved race, and participated in two World Wars and several others, do we as a nation really qualify as "the most violent country in the history of civilization? 

    Spike Lee knows that words are important.  He has made his living turning his ideas into motion picture dialogues.  Yet, he says something outrageous like this and people believe him.  He sits on the Today Show couch with his serious I-care-deeply-about-this-issue face and blames "this NRA thing" for the massacre in Arizona.  He seems to accept Meredith's proposition that "rhetoric" is the problem that led to this event.  Yet, Spike has had his own problem with violent speech.  In 1999, he said, referring to Charlton Heston, "Shoot him with a .44 Bulldog."  He said it was just a joke.  Do words matter?  In 2005, he accused the federal government of deliberately attempting to displace black people from New Orleans by not responding sufficiently to the disaster.  Might his words have caused blacks in New Orleans to respond with violence?  Do words matter?  Any number of basketball fans can attest to Lee's caustic remarks to opposing teams' players.  Do words matter?  It has been reported (though I haven't been able to substantiate it) that Lee said of a German filmmaker, "Wim Wenders had better watch out 'cause I'm waiting for his ass. Somewhere deep in my closet I have a Louisville Slugger bat with Wenders' name on it."  Violence, Spike?  Do words matter?

    Moreover, Meredith, you don't really believe you are a journalist, do you?  You let him get away with that statement without any follow-up? 

   One last comment: "Rhetoric" is not a bad word, and it doesn't mean "speech that instigates violence" or even "speech that causes bad feelings."  Rhetoric is simply "persuasive speech."  It may be used to describe empty or pretentious speech, or even insincere speech.  However, it has nothing to do with what Meredith thinks it is about.  Meredith, words matter.  Do a little study before spouting off, please.

New Info on 1 in 5 Americans Being "Mentally Ill"

    As I suspected, the report about the SAMHSA study which found that 1 in 5 Americans are mentally ill wasn't reported with complete accuracy.  It turns out our American media folks failed to recognize or failed to tell us that there are actually two definitions of "mental illness" as used by SAMHSA. 

    The first thing that was not made clear in the reports I read is that it was a survey, not a study.  Doctors were not asked to report numbers.  A random sample of current patients was not studied.  This means that, while scientific methods were followed, the people in the study were simply asked questions, not diagnosed. 

    An important piece of information left out of the media reports I saw is that only people 18 and older were considered in this survey.  Developmental disorders, such as autism and mental retardation, were not included.  Only diagnosable mental, behavioral, and emotional disorders were included in the study, though it was unclear to me whether or not conditions that are primarily or substantially physical in nature were included.  Those illnesses present in people who also had a drug addiction problem were excluded from the survey.

    People who are part of a subgroup expected to have an unusually high rate of mental illness, such as those in mental institutions and prisons, were excluded from the survey.

    As to the definition of mental illness, SAMHSA deferred to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994).  Their definition is divided into two levels of mental illness; Severely Mentally Ill and "any mental illness."  This is where our media reports did us the greatest injustice.  They did not specify which group they were reporting on.

    What qualifies a person as having a Severe Mental Illness (SMI)?  They must have or have had a "diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder…of sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria…that has resulted in serious functional impairment, which substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.  The DSM-IV site lists about 160 of these ranging from various levels of bipolar disorders to a variety of fetishes. 

    So, if the media had more accurately reported the results of this survey, the results would have been a little different.  Those with Severe Mental Illness, as determined by questionnaires and interviews, amounted to only 4.8% of American adults not in any of the types of institutions mentioned above.  That means only 1 of every 20 of us, not 1 in 5.

    The other major category, "any mental illness" was defined similarly to SMI except for this sentence, "Adults who had a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder in the past year, regardless of their level of functional impairment, were defined as having any mental illness." (Italics mine).  This is the group that represents about 1 in 5 American adults.  Again, these conditions include all levels of bipolar disorders, anxiety disorders, adjustment disorders, and so forth.  If you have claustrophobia, agoraphobia, or any other phobia, you are the 1 in 5.  If you are more anxious is certain situations that most people, you are the 1 in 5.  If you have a compulsion that is more pronounced that most people, you are the 1 in 5.

    Do you feel any better now?  Do you feel worse? 

    There is one thing that a better understanding of this report doesn't change.  There are still plenty of people living among us who need our understanding and our help.  Don't underestimate the power of one person's smile, touch or friendship to affect a needy person's life.  Show the love of Jesus to all.

Arizona Shooting: The Facts Please

    Once again the U.S. media has lived down to my expectations.  I long ago stopped using the title of journalist to describe most of the people who are a part of the news media in this country.  True journalists are objective observers, investigators and reporters of the facts.  They have studied the English language and utilize it carefully because they know words matter.  When they wish to interpret what they have reported they make a clear distinction between the facts and their opinions.  Instead, most print and electronic media news people are just reporters who may or may not know how to be objective, distinguish fact from opinion, or use the language they call their own.  If they are television personalities, they must look pretty.  If they are radio voices, they must possess a commanding voice.  If they are employed by a newspaper or news magazine, they must know how to follow the age-old reporting format of the inverted pyramid.  Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be much emphasis on possessing journalistic skills.

     Yesterday I watched one talking head after another blunder their way through reporting on the horrific Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, Judge Rolls and many others at an informal gathering in Tucson.  Fox News reporters informed me that Giffords was dead.  They then reported she was still alive.  Later I was told the judge was dead.  Then he was alive.  They he was dead.  In their defense, they apparently did attempt to get official word and actually got confirmation of erroneous information from two different government sources.  But I also sensed it was important to be the first media outlet with the news, and reporting erroneous information with the caveat, "We haven't confirmed this as yet" was preferable to waiting for verification.

    Of course, immediately the various reporters began speculating on motive.  Before the name of the suspect was known, possible motives were being paraded before us.  The New York Times, under the heading acknowledging a lack of hard facts, "Motive unclear, but…," wrote this morning, "The shootings raised questions about potential political motives…"  The reporter, Michael Doyle, doesn't reveal who was raising the questions.  He acknowledges that officials wouldn't speculate, but refers to "Democrats" who "decried the fierce partisan atmosphere."  The lack of factual information leaves me wondering if it was only Mr. Doyle who had those thoughts or if he truly had spoken with a significant number of Democrats or influential Democrats who expressed that thought. 

    In a companion article by Carl Hulse and Kate Zernike entitled New focus on political vitriol, the lead paragraph informs us that the incident "set off what is likely to be a wrenching debate over anger and violence in American politics."  So they are now reporting on what might happen?  The next sentence is a disclaimer, "While the exact motivations of the suspect…remained unclear…"  That is, they have no idea whatsoever his motivations were because the police either had no idea or were not disclosing whatever information they had.  They then write about how this episode "quickly focused attention on the degree to which inflammatory language, threats and implicit instigations to violence have become a steady undercurrent in the nation's political culture."  Has it?  Perhaps, but I need to know the facts.  Whose attention is thus focused?  What evidence is there that these things have become this so-called undercurrent?  The rest of the article did not answer these questions.  Instead, it reports that both Republicans and Democrats expressed shock and dismay.  There is a statement by the National Jewish Democratic Council vaguely blaming "political rhetoric" that has resulted in "vitriol" in our society for the incident.  Remember, at this time no officials have issued any statements about the suspect's motives.  There are no facts to report.  But that doesn't stop these two reporters from bringing up Sarah Palin's website, last spring's protests of the healthcare bill, and unnamed Republicans (unnamed by unnamed Democrats) who supposedly "seemed to raise the prospect of armed revolt if Washington did not change its ways.  The implication seems to be that this kind of political rhetoric, if it took place, is wrong, inflammatory and ultimately responsible for six deaths and perhaps thirteen other wounded people.   They may be right.  After all, this same kind of political rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence resulted in a war…and our current government.

    I anxiously await the journalist who will give me the facts.  I continue to hope there is still a journalist who can patiently wait for enough verifiable information before reporting to me the truth.  Of this I am confident: We will very soon become tired of hearing the word "vitriol." 

Don't Look Back, They Might Be Gaining On You

     Take a look around you.  Observe all the people standing near you, in the same room, passing by your window or milling around the coffee pot at work.  Think about what nice people they are and how well you get along with them.  Now read this: 1 in 5 Americans have some form of mental illness.  Yes, according to the government agency called SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration), in 2009 twenty percent of Americans were considered mentally ill.  I have tried to ascertain what exactly qualifies as mentally ill, but can only surmise conditions such as out-of-control anger, depression, and paranoia qualify.  It may be that conditions such as ADD (Attention Deficit Di…It's really foggy this morning…Some men are loading an old truck…

     I started looking around my world and wasn't entirely pleased with what I saw.  Sure, there are some people I've always wondered about, but 1out of every 5?  Maybe people hide it well, or maybe I don't know what to look for.  But the thought occurred to me that perhaps I should take a look in the mirror.  What if I am the 1 in a group of 5?

     I occasionally get angry, though I can't really remember the last time.  And when I am angry I don't think it is to the level that would qualify as unusual, dangerous or excessive; just annoying.

     I have known depression.  There are some years that I remember darkly.  I know there's a difference between being gloomy or even melancholy and real depression.  I remember being in that place where life appeared hopeless and meaningless.  I don't remember the length of time, but it was many weeks, if not months.  It was a sermon on Elijah that brought me back.  I believe he was in a deep depression immediately following the great victory at Mt. Carmel, but God provided for his physical, social, emotional and mental needs in that cave, and spoke to him gently without accusation. 

    Paranoia has never been a problem for me.  I am usually too oblivious to what's going on to even know when people really are out to get me. 

    I wonder if anyone has looked at the percentage of people who call themselves followers of Christ who would fit into whatever definition of mentally ill SAMHSA is using?  I'm sure there are those who would like us to believe that we are exempt if we truly place our trust in Christ.  I tend to believe there might actually be a higher percentage among us.  It was the sick Jesus came to heal, after all.  And Jesus never said, "Come to me and I will cure all that is wrong with you."  He did promise rest, strength, answers, guidance and comfort.  Comfort?  Who needs comfort if not those who are struggling?  And what is one of the places people go when they are in need?  I would be surprised and disappointed if churches don't have a higher ratio than the rest of society.

    A short while ago I took a few shots at Facebook relationships.  I still believe there is a danger of people substituting digital images for face-to-face, hand-on-the-arm, arm-on-the-shoulder personal relationships, but I have come to accept that Facebook may actually be providing some connections people need to stay mentally healthy.  It's much easier for some to make those connections via faceless, non-threatening posts than by way of personal meetings.  But eventually those digital relationships must be replaced with physical contact.  That's the way we are built.

    Oh, I did find some comforting data in the SAMHSA survey.  People age 50 and over had the lowest level of mental illness of all the age groups studied; just 13.7 percent.  I might be able to identify 1 in 7 people as part of this group.  I will work hard to do so because I figure that if I can find 1 in 7 among my friends and acquaintances, then I'm probably okay.

    There is some bad news for some of you, though.  The 18-25 age group has a rather high rate of 30 percent.  That's 1 out of every 3 of your friends if you're in this age group.

     Are you still looking over your shoulder at those people in the room? 

    Seriously, if you need help, don't try to go it alone.  Talk to a friend, a pastor, or even the county mental health department.  Do not let pride or insecurity keep you from the help you need.  After all, you certainly are not alone; one of every 3 to 5 people are in the same boat.