Pastor Hurst

Makes Me Want To Carry Around Some Cheese

While eating a supper of sandwiches, the family was gathered in the living room watching a TV preacher raving on and on about his novel version of faith. One of the elderly parents, who was suffering from cognitive decline, could take it no more. She still had the facilities and discernment to recognize that what the preacher was spouting was poppycock. Removing the top slice of bread from her sandwich, she took the slice of cheese, rose, walked to the TV, and smashed the cheese on its screen over the babbling preacher’s face and said, “Now take that.” I didn’t smash cheese on his face. I didn’t want to mess up my iPhone on which I was watching him on YouTube. Instead, I sent a verbal volley at him, “You are such an arrogant dimwit.” I tried to mitigate my bad attitude--the frustrated disdain I felt--with an asterisk, “No, I’m not making an ad hominem attack on you. I’m just making an accurate observation.” My tirade had no more effect on him than the cheese on the preacher’s face. He droned on unaffected. The speaker had abandoned his faith in Christ and become an atheist because “the God in the Bible was such a horrible misogynist, cruel child abuser, despicable racist…” His tirade is easily disputed: First, his assessment of God was based on how he set up his declarations: God condoned slavery so He is racist. God encouraged polygamy, so He is misogynist. God ordered ethnic cleansing, so He is a racist. (These claims are demonstratively false—but there’s no space for that here.) Second, he was using God’s own standard of good and evil to judge God as evil. See, the man is an atheist. As an atheist, he is a naturalist, meaning he believes that everything that consists only of matter and energy. Therefore, there is nothing on which to base absolute morality. An atom cannot tell you whether or not murder is right or wrong. Yet, this atheist wants to declare that God is evil because He is misogynistic (which, of course, He isn’t). Even if God were misogynistic, the man has no basis for saying either God or misogyny is evil. He has no standard. He has no measure. He has only the mass of molecules, not a measure of morality. I really didn’t want to get into all of that but had to in order to get at what is really happening. Of course, the man would never concede he is borrowing God’s standard of morality to judge God. He would insist he originated and developed his own standard of morality, good and evil. He would adamantly proclaim, “I don’t need God to be moral. I don’t need God to be good. I don’t need God to have a standard.” He doesn’t need God because he thinks he has created his own superior code of morality. He has revealed the post-modernity contemporary mindset: “We don’t want or need God to tell us what is good and evil. We are capable of doing that ourselves.” (How’s that working out?) Everything about everything the man said, if traced, goes right back to the Garden and the first sin. Satan began by impugning God’s character. His strategy? Dis the Lawgiver, so you can dismiss His laws. Satan put doubt in Eve’s mind about God’s motives. “God doesn’t want you to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because He knows when you do you will become like Him. God is trying to keep you subjugated so He can keep this God-thing all to Himself. God is oppressing you for His own selfish purposes to deprive you of your rightful place and pleasure.” In the end, the temptation was this: Why let God set the standard of good and evil? You humans should wrest that prerogative away from God and make it your own. Humanity’s partaking of the forbidden fruit was its declaration that “We will decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, good and evil.” We don’t need or want God. In a moment. It became so clear. The Christian-turned-atheist wanted to impugn God’s character so He could escape accountability to God. His tirade was like a parishioner, who, when confronted for his adultery by his pastor, begins to hurl depravations against the pastor’s character. The parishioner’s maligning of the pastor is his saying that the pastor cannot tell him his adultery is wrong because the pastor himself is morally flawed. With a pastor, being a human, there’s a possibility his character is compromised. With God, not only are the charges not true, they are poorly imagined. As the speaker droned on about what a horrible God Yahweh was, I had a mental picture: This man was standing before a judge’s high bench with God in the judges’ seat. The case had gone against the man, and the Judge was about to declared his guilt and sentence. In a frightful rage, the man climbed the stairs, raced behind the bench, grabbed the Judge, unseated Him, threw him over the front of the bench, and sat down in the Judge’s chair. He had switched places. Of course, this is only an illusionary conjuration. The atheist could not and would not be allowed to do this in the court of man much less the court of God. Yet, in his own deceived imagination, there he was: Behind the bench, sitting in the judge’s seat with God demoted to the low-floor standing before him waiting for the atheist’s condemnation and sentence. He was judging God. What arrogance. Yet, constantly today we see this. Folks everywhere are going on about how bad God is, how awful His laws, how antiquated His morality, how outdated His Word. They sit as judge of God as criminal. They’ve made their own laws, designed their own standards. These who are always hollering about not judging anybody feel they can pass judgment on God. What convoluted arrogance. What unmistakable hypocrisy. What willful deception. I know it’s a rebukeable attitude to have, but it makes me want to carry around some slices of cheese.

ACETAMINOPHEN: You Sure You Want To Take It?

It was the irony I could not escape: You take a pill to dull your pain, and, though it may, it will also dull your joy. Studies have shown that taking acetaminophen for one’s pain will not only blunt it but will also blunt his emotional responses—such as joy. See, acetaminophen lessens one’s pain and lessens his joy simultaneously. Less pain equals less joy. Go figure. This is the irony: Basically, we seek to remove pain from our lives that we might have joy. We see pain as the very enemy and supplanter of joy. Thus, we take acetaminophen to alleviate our pain not realizing it is also diminishing our joy. Perhaps, this is the very reason Jesus while suffering on the cross, refused the acetaminophen offered Him. Okay, it wasn’t exactly acetaminophen but the contemporary equivalent. As He writhed in pain on the cross, He was offered a mild anesthesia of a wine-myrrh mixture to numb His agony. He refused the “acetaminophen” because He did not seek to avoid nor alleviate the pain He felt. He knew the pain of the cross was necessary both to the joy of returning to the Father’s right hand having fully obeyed Him and to the joy of saving a lost people from their sins and eternal punishment. He willingly suffered the unalleviated pain for that joy. Had he removed the cause of pain, the cross, these joys would have not been experienced. Thus, “… Jesus … for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, ….” (Heb 12:2). Jesus also had forewarned His disciples that they would collaterally feel the pain of the cross but encouraged them they would also feel its joy. He used an analogy of a woman giving birth: A woman in labor experiences great pain. But, when her child is birthed, seeing him, she is so filled with joy, the memory of her pain dissipates. Jesus then applied his illustration. “Disciples, I’m leaving. You are going to sorrow at the pain of separation. But I am returning (from cross and grave). And when you see Me again, your hearts will surge and soar with unmitigated joy. (John 16:21-22). Now, if the disciples’ pain had been avoided by Jesus’ not leaving them, their joy would have been averted and denied as well. Thus, Jesus taught the joy of resurrection can only be known following the joy of crucifixion, as the joy of a newborn child can only be known following the pain of labor. There are some joys we will never know without preceding pain. The joy of reunion can only be known following the pain of separation. The joy of victory can only be known following the pain of battle. The joy of forgiveness can only be known following the pain of guilt and shame. The joy of a sunrise can only be known following the pain of a dark, stormy night. I am no masochist. I do not like pain. I hate it. Pain is just so, well, painful. I will avoid meeting it and, run from it if I do. Indubitably, when pain does manage to get ahold of me, I will seek to wrest myself away or squash it. I will jerk my hand away from the hot pan’s handle. I will take medication to seek to alleviate pain whenever I can. Yet, I must acknowledge the conundrum: We labor to eradicate pain from our lives thinking that is the secret to having joy. We seek to exterminate any political, financial, mental, emotional, physical, and relational pain. In all of these areas, we are unsuccessful in completely ridding pain from our lives. Worse, assuaging the pain does not bring joy. At best, it brings tentative relief; it may bring a measure of comfort, but dulls any ebullient joy. As I grow older, I find myself willing to sacrificing joy if it means mitigating pain. I opt for comfort over pain-joy. It is better to have nothing happening than something painful happening. Yet, I must still concede two realities: First, one cannot live without pain. Not in this world. And I’m not just referring to physical pain. There’s emotional pain. Mental pain. Relationship pain. Self-inflicted pain. Pain caused by others. Pain caused by impersonal forces. Second, the acetaminophen of life may mask my pain but will not touch the cause of my pain. Acetaminophen will not even touch the greatest of life’s pain—the non-physical pain—much less remove its cause. Notwithstanding these realities, understandably, we take acetaminophen to dull our pain. We spend our time, efforts, resources, seeking to escape the pain. This past summer I suffered a protracted stretch of the greatest physical pain I’d ever known. I found myself using a word to describe it when asked by doctors and others the level of my pain: “Excruciating.” Before experiencing this pain, I knew what I’m about to share, but it did not hit me until after my pain had finally subsided. Look at the word “excruciating.” Look right in the middle of the word. Look at the root. It’s “-cruci-.” That comes from “crucify.” Crucify comes from “cross.” Our word to describe extreme pain comes from “cross.” But, there is promise in that: As certainly as Jesus’ joyous resurrection followed the painful agony of His cross, by our being united with Him, joy will follow, if not arise, from our pain. I’m not suggesting you NOT take a Tylenol for your headache. But, as you know, it will not touch your HEARTache. Perhaps, you wouldn’t want it to. You might be averting the coming joy. Rather, in the worse of your pain, know Jesus has promised that after the pain of the cross is a coming joy of resurrection. That promise is better than the Acetaminophen.

WHERE IS GOD?

“Where was God on election day?” Since 2020’s presidential election, I have often heard this or some variation of it. Up to inauguration, I heard things like, “God’s going to pull this out!”—out of what appeared to be the inevitable installation of “that other guy” into the oval office. This pronouncement was augmented with speculation how the incumbent would at the last moment orchestrate a maneuver, pull a trick out of his legal sleeve, that would result in his maintaining office. Rather than facilitate such a hope, the storming of the Capital on Jan. 06, only dashed it. The questioning only increased. “Where was God during the certifying of the election results?” Then, last week, “Where was God during the inauguration?” I do not fault the fervor of folks who truly felt their candidate was God’s righteous pawn against such evils as abortion. I am sure this desire for righteousness is why 80% of evangelicals voted for the Republican candidate. I am not trying to wade into a political polemic or fray—that’s been done. It’s just that there seems to be a seismic-registering shaking of some folks’ faith expressed in their question, “Where was God on election/certification/inauguration day?” And, it’s not just presidential elections that produce the “Where was God?” question. Life is full of sharp disappointments, devastating loss, heart-wrenching betrayal, painful disease, and injury that spawn the question, “Where was God?” and, if one is currently living such calamity, “Where IS God?” “Where was God on election day?” I have another question, “Where was God on Crucifixion Day?” I’m not the first to ask it. Jesus did. “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,… ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’” (Mat 27:46). We take this as Jesus’ awareness and declaration that the Father had abandoned Him while He hanged on the cross. However, I think there is real hope in realizing we may have gotten Jesus’ questioning all wrong. You see, I don’t think that for one second Jesus really thought that the Father had forsaken Him, abandoned Him, left Him alone, walled Him off from Himself, or exiled Him to a God-free alternate-universe. I believe, Jesus is revealing, not that He thought or knew the Father had abandoned Him, but that on the cross while bearing humanity’s separating-from-God sin and experiencing the wrath of God upon that sin, He FELT like that the Father had abandoned Him. It seemed that the Father had turned His back on the Son. He knew it was not true. But that is the way it appeared—to any observer too. However, the Father had NOT left Him! How can I say that so emphatically? Because, at the moment Jesus is asking the question, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” He is praying to the Father. Unless deluded, you and I won't continue to talk to someone who we know has left the room, the house. Neither did Jesus. Jesus was praying the words of Psalm 22 and, by doing so, pointing the observing crowd’s attention to that Messianic psalm which is full of prophecies of His substitutionary death that He was at that moment fulfilling. So much can be explored by exactly what Jesus meant by “My God, why have you forsaken me,” but, in the end, it cannot be supposed that God had actually forsaken Him nor that Jesus believed He had. The torture of the cross and the sin and wrath Jesus bore, made it feel as if God had forsaken Him. Perhaps, a little illustration may help: In flight, prior to 9-11, the door to the cockpit was often left open. The plane would hit successive turbulence that rocked and yawed the plane, and passengers would look up from their books, open their eyes from sleep, or turn their heads from the one with whom they were chatting and peer up the aisle toward the cockpit. There they would see the pilot in his seat, hands on the yoke, steadily and calmly flying the plane. Reassured, the passengers would return to their activities. Now, post-911, before takeoff, the door to the cockpit is closed and locked shut. Passengers will not see the pilot again until the plane lands. Hitting turbulence, the plane shudders as it rocks and yaws. The passengers look up the aisle towards the cockpit and see nothing but its door. They cannot see the pilot. For all they know, the cockpit is empty. Or the pilot has had a heart attack. Or the pilot is a malevolent terrorist. There is no reassurance. In fact, it feels like, it seems, it appears, that there is no pilot at all, no one controlling the plane. Perhaps they never articulate the question, but in a storm, the passengers are asking, “Where is the pilot?” It definitely feels like there is no one. Or, that he’s away from the controls. Often in the turbulence of life, God’s presence, involvement, and voice are veiled from the eyes of our experience. The cockpit door is closed. With each roller-coaster bump and jerk, we ask, “Where is God?” It feels He is no longer around. Often, in a storm, there is nothing but silence from the cockpit. The pilot, busy with controlling the plane, says nothing to the passengers. But, flying the plane out the other side of the storm, the pilot suddenly speaks over the public address system announcing that they are through the rough storm and assuring them that they had been safe throughout their experience. One thing for sure, when the plane has safely landed on the tarmac, chocked at the terminal, the cockpit’s door is opened. The pilot appears, standing outside the cockpit, and the passengers receive his greeting as they exit the plane. He had been there all along. We often doubt God is there; doubt that He is piloting our plane. But, if not before, when this trip of life ends and this plane of faith lands, the cockpit door of the temporal and visible will be opened. We shall see the Pilot has been there along as He greets and welcomes us to eternity’s terminal. Then we will concede, in the roughest of times, it only felt as if He were not there—He always was.

I’LL PROBABLY NEVER GET ASKED AGAIN

Really, I’m honored; it’s always elating when folks inquire after one’s opinion whatever the subject. Recently, different ones have forwarded to me links of another gone-viral video message from a political prognosticator or some prescient prophet. The link’s attached to the question, “What do you think of this?” Some of the most recent feature a monologist citing an imminent takeover of the United States. His message, urging the stockpiling of supplies of food and ammo, intimates that the incoming administration will extend an invitation to foreign communist forces to assist its crackdown on conservative dissidents. Any flattery I might feel at being asked about my opinion is quickly displaced by the awareness of the alarm people are experiencing over these “prophecies” and by my desire, not just to get my opinion correct, but to do so in a manner that does not dash people’s faith in the very real and certain prophecies of an apocalyptic end revealed in God’s Word. Before sharing any observations intended to mitigated folks’ fueled apprehension and misplaced passion for such sound-the-alarm messages, I want to affirm that I believe Jesus will come again, there will arise an Antichrist-led world government, and, proceeding both, anti-Christian sentiment and attacks will increase. I also, personally, believe we are likely to continue to see the decline and transmogrification of America. I do think that every family must often presagingly respond to real and pressing approaching calamitous threats (for an unrelated example, an approaching blizzard) by taking the necessary precautionary measures that may include stockpiling survival supplies. However, I think we must remember something about these monodramas which layout a conspiracy-based, apocalyptic scenario of imminent doom and then urge stockpiling, etc. It is this: How many times through the years have we heard things like this? I became aware of such prophetic predictions in the later 1970s. In more recent history, the doomsday-induced anxiety raised over Y2K serves as a prime example. Folks are quick to forget. When another of these heralders rises, we forget that the last one’s warning, dream, or vision, of the imminent end never happened. This cycle has transpired again and again. Alarm. Nothing. Alarm. Nothing. Alarm. Nothing. Despite all the “facts” the “prophet” laid out based on all the information secret to others but privy to him. I do not doubt the sincerity; at least not of all of them. I do not doubt all the supporting information; some of it’s accurate. I do not doubt adversarial forces are at work against the U.S. and against Christians; there are--both from outside and inside our country. My concern arises from the result of these apocalyptic-trumpet calls. After the scenario doesn’t materialize the aftereffect is often one of two: First, some are kept in a bipolar state of yo-yoing of emotions; their emotions become hyper-inflamed, followed by a huge let-down when the events don’t happen. Again. And again. Second, some quit listening to and believing that there will be an apocalypse in the world’s, the U.S.’s, their future. “Wolf” is cried over and over, until, when someone declares, “Jesus is coming!”, these “Wolf”-weary folks quickly dismiss that Biblical prophecy with, “We’ve heard all that before.” Of course, these apocalyptic occurrences will one day come upon the world. The Antichrist will arise. Hard times and persecution will come to believers. All these could be just around the corner. Yet, Scripture never urged believers to prepare for the Antichrist’s coming but for Christ’s coming. We have been urged to “occupy” until Christ comes with our eyes, not on secretive, conspiratorial political machinations expecting doom, but on the sky, expecting redemption. We have been urged, not to have our hearts enflamed with alarm, but to “let not your hearts be troubled.” Folks need to be adjured to get their hearts right with God over and above to get prepared for a communist takeover. And if our hearts are right, we need not fear. Yes, the alarm should be raised. However, I think that these Paul Reveres should be galloping across the social media with, “Jesus is coming, Jesus coming, Jesus is coming,” rather than with “The Antichrist is coming, The Antichrist is coming, The Antichrist is coming.” Of course, the Antichrist’s coming is a part of the end-time message and should be taught and preached. My point is What predominates? It is the Gospel, the good news, that should predominate. Not the bad news of the machinations of evil forces. I have often noticed and been concerned by this: A preacher can declare what the Bible says about the end and the signs that Jesus gave of its coming, and folks tend to be little moved. Yet, someone can share in a post a scenario, patching together things happening in our government, in global organizations, because of billionaire shakers and movers, etc., and folks become tremendously moved. For example, the preacher can share that Jesus said that one of the indicating signs of the approaching end is that “iniquity will abound,” (Matt. 24:12) and there’s little response. Someone on social media can say, “Bill Gates is trying to insert a chip in people via a vaccine,” and Christian folks become inundated with heightened alarm that the end is coming. Perhaps, this is a bit simplistic, but to me, it seems that the Bible couldn’t move them but a social media post could. I do believe we ought to apply the Bible to the contemporary world. But, to me, it’s a matter of which direction we are looking. Are we looking from the Bible to the world or from the world to the Bible? Put another way, are we using the Bible to interpret world events or using world events to interpret the Bible? I really don’t see a Scripture that urges stockpiling as we see the end approaching; I do see one that urges our continued and increased faithful assembling together for worship, Word, and fellowship (Heb. 10:25); we should head for the Assembly and not for a cave. Perhaps, we should be storing a few more memory verses instead of a few more boxes of ammo. Now, I’ve done it. I’ll probably never be asked again.

WHY HE TOOK THE TWO PENNIES

John D. Rockefeller was the richest man in the world. In today’s valuation, he was worth billions. On a voyage by ship across the Atlantic to Europe, this man who was deemed the monstrous, reclusive ogre of business, gregariously engaged with and entertained fellow voyagers. The night of the captain’s dinner, Rockefeller dressed in a harlequin’s outfit and delighted children with his antics. One of the young boys impressed by Rockefeller’s entertainment, while chatting with the tycoon on a subsequent afternoon up on deck, reached on impulse into his pocket and took out two pennies. He handed them to Rockefeller and insisted he take them. The richest-man-in-the-world, with greater wealth than many nations, very seriously took the two coins and put them in his own pocket. He then reached down, picked up the lad in his arms, stood, and looked out silently, contemplatively across the ocean. Constantly today, I hear and read from student and professor, from theologian and philosopher, from liberal “Christian” and new atheist, that God, if He exists, is petulant and petty to demand humanity’s worship, praise, adoration, and love. They ask, “What kind of narcissistic, psychotic sociopath is God to desire our affection and attention---to not just desire it, but demand it?” They just don’t get it. They see God’s demand of our complete love and allegiance, His insistence that we worship Him alone, as evidence of His deficiency. They see it as His NEEDING our devoted adoration. They just don’t get it. God is complete and whole. He is self-sufficient. He doesn’t need our worship. He needs nothing from us. Nothing we could give Him, however much, would add anything, not even minutely to Him. Nothing we would withhold from Him would leave Him deficient of anything. Simply put, God does not need our love, worship, or praise. He needs nothing from us. At all. Think about the heartwarming story above. Why is it heartwarming? Because the child gave his two pennies—a lot for a kid in those days? Perhaps. But really, it’s moving because the millionaire graciously took the two pennies. Only the malevolent mind would say Rockefeller took the pennies because he greedily wanted more money and would stoop miserly to snatch the child’s copper. Only the ignorant mind would think that Rockefeller took the pennies because he needed them. He didn’t. What would two pennies mean to a man of millions? They would be indiscernible. No, Rockefeller didn’t take the pennies for his own sake. He took them for the sake of the child. It meant something to the child to give them, and he would not offend, injure, or disappoint him. It was good for the child to give unselfishly. The child’s heart was in his gift. There are many other answers to the above-mentioned assault on God’s character and nature because He demands that we worship Him and Him alone. But, this story of a millionaire and a boy’s two pennies is enough to totally debunk its foolish claim. God needs our worship no more than Rockefeller needed the boy’s pennies. God insists we worship Him, not for His sake, but for ours. It does Him no good. It does us tremendous good. God delights in our worship, not because we give it because He has commanded it, but because we willfully, affectionately, offer it to Him. He will take it. And when He has accepted it, He will stoop down, put His arms around us, and embrace us with the love, grace, and mercy of His presence. Two pennies for His arms around you is a small price to pay.

FAILURE TO THRIVE

Then he said it. I felt something akin to a shockwave go through me. My nagging, reflexive hunch had been accurate. I’ll explain: The preacher was sharing an enumeration of collateral damage done by the COVID virus, particularly by the restrictions imposed because of it. He noted things like the tragic exponential increase in suicide rates (In Japan, more have died of suicide in one month than the entire time of COVID). Then he said it: “There’s a new cause being given on death certificates for non-COVID related deaths, ‘Failure to thrive.’” That’s when the shockwave went through me: This past summer my father, a resident of a nursing home facility passed away. We had been told at the time that the reason was “failure to thrive.” I remember my reacting with “I haven’t heard that for deaths of the elderly before. Usually, you hear that given as a cause of a child’s death.” Child deaths from congenital or environmental causes of malnourishment are often described as “failure to thrive.” (I surmise that this reason was listed as a cause of such adult deaths prior to COVID but became more frequently and noticeably employed since.) When I later received my father’s death certificate, there it was “a. failure to thrive.” I blog about this, not to fault any worker or facility, not to affix blame, not to attribute causes, but because I am moved and disturbed by the thought and have been personally, deeply affected by it. What I share is just the reality—anecdotally and statistically; thousands have been dying in nursing homes and not just from COVID, and not just from usual causes at usual rates. It is estimated that for every two COVID related deaths in nursing homes that there is one death from either neglect or despair attributable to the isolation brought on by restrictions and quarantine measures taken because of the virus. It must be noted that even before COVID hit many of these facilities were understaffed, with workers already plagued by being overworked and underpaid. COVID only compounded these problems—at the expense of residents. The COVID-necessitated shutdowns precipitated contingent problems one wouldn’t have imagined. For example, as a rule, dentists were not allowed into the homes. Consequently, dentures could not be adjusted nor natural teeth repaired. Residents with dental problems could not eat properly and became malnourished. Hugely contributing to residents’ health was the dark mental state brought on by the shutdowns. Isolated from family members and others, residents were plunged into mental despair, hopelessness, and despondency from a lack of stimulating interaction. Again, without alleging or assigning blame, the new conditions and demands of the shutdown and care of patients with COVID frequently led to the neglect of the basic needs of non-COVID patients. Because of these factors, these residents began to die. The reason for their deaths was often documented as “failure to thrive.” These deaths are tragic and sad—as you might understand--in a particularly personal way to me. My melancholy over these “failure to thrive” deaths reminds me we are not a creation with only biological life; we also have potential of spiritual life. At this point I’m shifting from the grieving Son of an aged father who passed away because of failure to thrive to Pastor who has seen the same thing happen spiritually to folks. Their spiritual life ended because of “failure to thrive”. I reveal my theological underpinnings, but I have seen those who were born-again fail to thrive. They had nascent spiritual life. Or, perhaps, they had matured spiritual life. Either way, that life ended. Failure to thrive. Jesus spoke of failure to thrive in His parable of the Sowed Seed. That sown on the wayside never really germinated on the hard ground. It was prime picking for the birds. Spiritual life was precluded. That which was sown in rocky soil germinated life. Short-lived life. It never put down deep roots. The sun was hot. The trials hard. It died. Failure to thrive. The seed among thorns, it germinated and grew. It appeared to thrive. But, so did the thorns close around it. The thorns thrived more. They, the thorns, the cares of this life, the deceitfulness of riches, choked the plant sprouted from the seed. The plant died. Failure to thrive. Now the seed sowed in the good soil germinated. Grew. Thrived. No failure there. I cannot venture into an exegesis of this parable, but I simply cannot accept a predestinationist interpretation of the life from the seed not thriving. In application, I cannot believe, if the soil is the condition of a person’s heart, that a person has no choice in the state of the condition of his heart, of his response to the Word. Also, I cannot ignore the possible larger environment of the soil, which is the climate around the soil--the individual’s heart. There is the condition of one’s heart itself, and there’s the environment in which one’s heart dwells. In reference to the former, one can be in an environment conducive to thriving spiritually. He can attend a good church with vibrant worship, poignant, truthful Word, loving fellowship. And, yet, not thrive. He chooses not to partake of the available nourishment. In reference to the latter, if one finds himself willfully existing in an environment not conducive to his spiritual life, he should choose to get himself out and away from it and to an environment where he can thrive. If getting out of such a climate not-conducive-to-life is impossible, say, it is his home, his school, his work, God is able to make him thrive even there through compensatory grace. In the end, because of the prevailing, proffered goodness and grace of God, there is no reason for one’s spiritual life to end. There is no need to put down the cause of the death of the spiritual life of one’s soul, “failure to thrive.” Not in God’s house. Not in God’s care. Not in God’s presence.