|
|
|
|
|
More Tragedy Than We Can Handle?by What a tragic
week. Last Monday,
the horrible saga of three-year-old Marcus Fiesel, who we now know was a
victim long before most of us had heard of him, came to a
conclusion of sorts when his foster parents were charged with his
murder and gruesome attempt to cover their tracks. The same day,
Two different cases. Both ignited media coverage (though
Marcus’s story failed to capture coverage outside the region). Both
seemed to grip our attention and call forth compassion. But
why? Why do these
stories capture our attention and elicit our compassion, while others do not?
After all, more than two thousand children are reported
missing every day in this nation. An average of 8,000 cases of neglect and
abuse are reported daily. An
average of 158 children are abducted every day (not counting those
abducted by family members). And, on average, a
child is murdered every single day in this country. Is it only
the most tragic stories that capture our attention? Is it only the missing or
murdered white kids we hear about
(or care to hear about)? Or those with sufficiently
appealing “human interest” angles (like the murdered
“beauty queen” murdered on Christmas or the “homecoming
queen” who disappears on Spring break)? Or the
most “Jerry Springer-worthy” stories (like the pretty pregnant
wife whose philandering husband reports her missing over the Christmas
holidays)? There is
certainly something to those suggestions. With today’s
highly competitive, fast-paced, twenty-four-hour news cycles, the pressure to
find the “big story” often makes for strangely selective
reporting. And there are probably journalists who
are so cynical as to rifle through human tragedy looking in search of a
Pulitzer or other prize (witness the managed and manufactured photos and
reports some media outlets were spoon-fed by Hezbollah in the recent conflict
in But I think there’s something else at work here. The scope of
such heartache is overwhelming. A single tragedy like that of Marcus Fiesel
is utterly heartbreaking; multiply his story many times over, and who among
us would not soon reach a point of emotional exhaustion? I’m
not suggesting we avert our eyes or turn away from such tragedy, but even the
most compassionate among us have limits. Our minds are finite; our hearts can
absorb only so much sorrow. Who among us would watch the news or read the
paper if every case of neglected, abused, missing, and murdered children were
catalogued and detailed? Who among us would have any outrage left? Who among
us would not be thoroughly numbed by such reports? Indeed, that
is a problem faced by social workers and children’s advocates
everywhere. The ugliness and sadness is so rampant, the human heart can’t handle it: the typical results are burnout,
cynicism, or despair. Or all three. For me, as a
man of faith, I can at least find some consolation in my belief that
God’s compassion is infinite. My capacity to hurt for Marcus Fiesel,
for example—and his poor bereaved mother, along with all those who love
him still—is limited by my humanity. But I
believe that God alone possesses infinite compassion, and his heart alone can
break constantly for the constant tragedy that humans enact on each other. I know, that
belief doesn’t change the “facts on the
ground.” And it sure doesn’t answer the
question of how God can allow such evil (though when we ask that question, we
always wish for God to interfere with someone else’s free will, not our
own). But
as for me, while I live in this world that has more sorrow than I can handle,
I have no better refuge than to rely on a God who possesses more compassion than
I can summon. This article appeared
in the More articles by Bob Hostetler... Copyright © 2006, |