Pastor Hurst

Bad Things Turn Out Good

Since the pending but apparent outcome of last week’s election, there seems to be a black pall hanging over a huge red swath of America—like dark, black crepe over a 19th-century funeral bier. Although there was far less consequence attached, it reminded me of another time I felt that hanging pall. I had been preaching a revival at a church in a state that heavily invested and engaged itself in its college’s football. The church was full of fanatic football fans. During that meeting, the church took Saturday as a rest night. Some were relieved for that; they could watch that night’s football game. But, their team lost. Badly. An important game. I remember the morning after. I was standing outside the church as people began to drive on the lot for Sunday morning worship. They got slowly out of their cars as if they were especially encumbered with burdens. Their eyes were downcast. I remember one brother who had been exuberantly and ebulliently talkative the previous services. He barely returned a greeting and was cloaked in silence. This morning, I sense a darker cloud thickly draped over conservative believers in the aftermath of the past week. More than heavy despair, there is frustration, anger, and even doubt of God. From the conservative Christian perspective, things have turned out bad. And since things have turned out bad, as someone asked me, "How can we possibly believe that God is in control?". How? Because when things turn out bad, God is still sovereign. Before we get into that, there is a reality that backward reflection brings: Things turning out good have often, in the end, turned out bad. And, things turning out bad have often, in the end, turned out good. We often say things have turned out good when they turn out the way we want them to, the way we desire or think they should. Conversely, we say things have turned out badly when they do not turn out the way we desire or think they should. But there is something in play other than what we desire—the sovereignty of God. We make the mistake of assuming God isn’t in control because the outcome was not what we so vehemently desired. This fallacy can only lead to despair and doubt. Believing in God’s sovereignty is to believe that however bad things appear to have turned out that God is still in control. God’s being in control indicates God has a purpose in everything that happens. One simply does not control something without a purpose for doing so. God’s having a purpose indicates that God has a plan. Even when things turn out bad, God still has a plan. In fact, things turning out bad works right into His plan. Fortunate for us, God’s plan is always for the good of His people (and, inseparably, for His glory). Thus, God is not only still in control, He is still working all things according to His plan towards the fulfillment of His purpose. We are told this in a familiar story in the Bible’s first book. There’s no space for the details, but things kept turning out bad for Joseph until the bad things turned out good. Of being sold into slavery by his brothers to being left to rot in prison—bad things all—Joseph said, “You planned these things for evil against me, but God used those plans for good.” Bad things turned out good. Even when the bad things are happening, God is in control. The last book Revelation is really about this very thing. It’s not about all those minute prophetical details folks like to put on an eschatological chart. It’s about God’s being sovereign. God is in control when things are bad, at their worst—as they one day will be. Here’s what we see in Revelation: “The dark forces will advance so far, but no farther.” “Horrible times will go on this long, but not longer.” “Many will die, but no more.” “The enemy has this much power, but far less than God.” Everything happens only within the parameters God has allowed. Everything turns out the way God has it planned and says it will. I’m not saying that bad things are good. I believe with millions of others that what’s happening in our country is bad, horrible for America. Yet, this is all a part of God’s larger plan. Something good. I have no space to get into the theodicies but had there been no horrible Holocaust, there would be no state of Israel, the safe home of millions of Jews today. Things may not have turned out as we would have planned. But they have just as God planned them. There are times when it appears that evil is victoriously advancing and good is dismally retreating. Yet, God is in control. Things are not as they seem. Think of this rough illustration that we see in scripture and throughout military history. The army of the good guys sets up ambush forces on opposite sides of a narrow valley leading to the enemy's entrenched position. Then it sends a small force to engage and attack that enemy. It fights for a period of time and then begins to retreat as though defeated. The enemy, assuming they are winning, abandons their fortified position of safety in pursuit. The good guys retreat in an apparent panic until the pursuing enemy force is completely in the middle of the valley flanked on both sides by the hidden forces of the good guys. Then the retreating good-guys battalion whirls and faces the enemy as the good-guy forces hidden on opposite sides of the valley rise from their cover and close in upon the enemy like the jaws of a shark. The enemy is annihilated. The point is this: Things looked like the enemy was winning. The enemy thought they were winning. It looked like the good guys had been routed and would soon be squashed and massacred. But, all along, the good guys were in control of the field. Everything like clockwork took place as they had planned. It may look like evil is winning. It may appear that good is in retreat. But, in the end, all things are working exactly as God has planned. He is fully in control of the field. Bible readers, remember Haman ended up swinging by the neck on the gallows that he built for Mordecai. Things rarely work out the way we plan and would have them. Things always work out just as God plans them and would have them. For His glory. For our good. This "game" will be won! Bad things will turn out good.

TWEET OR POST?

My prevailing writer’s block is evident in this line I’ve just typed. I am writing about my writing. What I write each week was never originally intended as a social media post. At some point, after the launching of Facebook, someone suggested I begin posting the Pastor's Pen article I've written each week for our church bulletin for close to thirty years. Recently, I’ve been intent on shortening what I write. My wife kindly but candidly coaches me with, “Nobody wants to read something that long.” I respond, “I can’t help it. I can’t write short stories, only novels” (speaking analogously). But I hear her. I desire and have determined to write more pithily, briefly. I am handicapped by two personal hang-ups: First, I always want to analyze every angle of my thought. I want to examine it from every point of view. I want to reconcile it with other truths and opinions that seem contrary to it. I want to fully explain what I mean, leaving no stone unturned. I want to tell the whole story—and thus, the “novel” thing. Second, although I appreciate a clever turn of phrase, I have an aversion to one-liners, or, as I call them, jingles. These can be put on colorful backgrounds and even accompanied by some nice music. People love them. These aphorisms seem to share such wisdom (and some do). They appear and sound so nice, so uplifting, so prescient and poignant. But mostly, they are popular because they are conducive to rapid consumption. They fit nicely in one small frame; no scrolling required. The reason I do not like them so much is that one reads them and assumes he has been given such a handle on the topic. Yet, there are no qualifiers, explanations, and reconciliations with other realities. The slogan is a postcard of the truth. I want the documentary. Speaking of media modes, this reminds me of something I’ve heard about the impact of the different mediums of social media—the impact both on the sharer and the viewers. When one tweets, he tends to be impulsive and volatilely emotional. His sharing is an outburst. When one writes a personal post on Facebook, he tends to ramble on and on and ends up sharing what reads like a first draft of a writing assignment. Why the difference? The length. Twitter limits each tweet to 280 characters. Facebook doesn’t seem to have a limit. At least with my lengthy meanderings, I’ve never reached it. The length determines the expression. Those who’ve read my past blogs know what I do. I share a thought about life and living from history or contemporary events and flesh it out for most of the blog’s duration. Then, I finish up with an application of a spiritual truth that I’ve really been addressing all along. Today’s is no different. I have often spoken and written about expressing our innermost thoughts, feelings, desires, musings—and the benefits and dangers of doing so saying, “Before there were Twitter and Facebook, there were the Psalms.” (Did I just pen a one-liner?) Humans need to express themselves and their innermost thoughts and feelings. There can be real understanding and relief in doing so. This is exactly what the Psalms are. They are the inspired sharing of human emotions and thought and struggles and frustration, etc., to God—for us to use in expressing ourselves. In the Psalms I notice that, analogously speaking, we have both Twitter tweets and Facebook posts. We have the short, impulsive outbursts, and the long analyzing musings of folks sharing their innermost being. We have the Twitter tweet-sized Psalm 117 (156 characters) and the Facebook-post sized Psalm 119 (12,322 characters). In both, the human heart was expressed. So, I guess the Psalms show us we humans need both the short tweets and the lengthy posts. Readers have profited from both. Well, as you can see, if you’ve made it reading this far, my first attempt to write more briefly has miserably failed. But, you know, not that I’m saying what I write is inspired or profitable to readers like the Psalms are, maybe I’m just not a Psalm 117 writer. Maybe I’m a Psalm 119 writer. (In my defense. This post is only 3,473 characters long, only ¼ the length of Psalm 119. Whoops, adding that trivia, I just made my post longer.)

A Bugle? A Bible?

A bugle? A valveless musical instrument? Who would ever imagine it as a lethal weapon of war? But it was--in the hands of Corporal Adolph Metzger, a 5’ 5” tall immigrant and veteran of Gettysburg. Adolph became honored and famed, not for masterfully playing the bugle, but for wielding it as a weapon in a fatal battle. Even his enemies that took his life honored him as a brother warrior for his bravery with the bugle. Adolph died in Red Cloud’s War when a U.S. military contingency from Fort Phil Kearney in Dakota territory was lured from the fort by a coalition of Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapahoe native Americans. The U.S. force of infantry and cavalry, of which Adolph was the bugler, was ambushed where the trail was flanked by precipices. Over 1,500 warriors rose from the gullies on both sides. By some estimates over 40,000 arrows were fired, along with many bullets, at the 78 soldiers. All 49 infantrymen in a short time were slaughtered. The dismounted cavalry soon would be likewise. As his fellow cavalrymen fell around him, Adolph continued to fire his rifle until he was out of ammunition. As the native Americans surrounded and closed in upon him, Metzger grabbed the pipe stem of his bugle and bludgeoned the attacking enemy with its bell. He clobbered Indians in the head until the bugle was a twisted piece of brass. Wounded over a dozen times, Adolph finally fell to the ground. Overly impressed by such bravery, the Native Americans did not mutilate, carve up his body, and scalp Adolph as they did the rest of the fallen. Instead, they cut a cross on his chest to indicate that he died facing the enemy and honored him by covering his body with a buffalo robe as they would have done for one of their own heroic fallen. A bugle as a weapon? Who would have thought? Several years ago, I came across this story while reading U.S. western history. Recently, as I read it recounted by another author, I could not help but think of Samson of Israeli history, surrounded by Philistines, caving in heads with the jawbone of a donkey. Then I thought of Jesus. In the wilderness surrounded by wild beasts and demons, He is tempted by Satan. Never has there been such an onslaught massed against just One. Yet, that One, surrounded by darkness, like Samson surrounded by Philistines and Adolph by American Natives, took a unique weapon in His hand and wielded it against His attacker. This One, Jesus, wielded the Word of God. Colloquially put, he brandished not a bugle but the Bible. Successfully. Victoriously. Satan sulked whimpering away. We too, as believers, may find ourselves surrounded by the enemy as the three I noted above. Apostle Paul indicates we will. Our foe is the spiritual forces of evil, dark cosmic powers. We are attacked soul, mind, body. Our belief. Our faith. Our hope. Our very way of life. “Don’t run,” the Apostle admonishes. “Stand your ground. Don’t capitulate, armor up. Fight. Take in your hand your weapon, the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God.” In my mind’s eye I see each surrounded by a menacing enemy: Samson silhouetted against a blue sky his donkey’s jawbone raised high; Adolph, his bugle. I can also see a badgered believer with his Bible raised high to defend himself against attack. As the enemy closes in, I feel like shouting to the surrounded believer, “Slash, parry, thrust, whack, smite. Wield the Word against the Wicked One.” The accuracy of the blow is determined by using the specific passage which best answers the attack made. The beleaguered besieged believer’s story will not end as Adolph’s. Unlike Adolph with the bugle, no believer has ever perished wielding the Word. Even if they physically were killed, they, completely victorious, immediately entered the presence of God to live eternally. Adolph’s bugle became a mangled mess; the jawbone, Samson tossed aside; but the Word of God is unaffected despite the many times it’s been used to dispatch and devastate the attacking enemy. The Sword of the Spirit’s edge is still razor-sharp. The enemy IS attacking. Closing in for the kill. “Take the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Eph 6:17). Wield the Word. Remember Samson. Jesus. Adolph Metzger. What’s that in your hand? Not a bugle, but a Bible. It was said of Adolph Metzger, “He never once turned his back on the enemy.” Stand firm. Stand tall. Stand your ground. Fight bravely. The enemy, not you, will fall.

WHAT I GOT FROM THE 1st PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

Thinking of the raucous presidential debate last week, I had an absurd thought: If you watched it, you know that it was not a clash of ideas but a clash of vitriol. No punches were thrown, but plenty of mud was. Each was declaring the other the worse scoundrel ever. Each was vehemently insisting the other was wrong. Not just wrong, but dog-lyingly wrong. My thought is this: What if in the middle of that brawl, one of the candidates had stopped and contritely said, “Wait a minute. I AM wrong. I misspoke. I shouldn’t have said that. My attitude has been substandard and unacceptable.” And then, in a step further, to follow “I’m wrong,” with “And, you’re right!” If that had happened, there might have actually been two seconds of silence in the debate. There would have been plenty of shock in that auditorium and in living rooms across the nation. There might have even been some folks choke on their popcorn or fall over in a faint. But there would have been something else. If the one hearing the first’s confession thought he was sincere and heartfelt in his repentance, at least for the moment, there would have been a way across the great divide that separated the two—and I’m not talking about the COVID mandated social distancing, nor the political difference. I’m talking about the divide of personal animus. Whether on the debate stage, in personal conflict, or family feud, the divide between two can only be removed when someone admits he is wrong. But, to admit one is wrong requires the hardest thing possible--surrender. Surrender of one’s pride. Surrender of one’s need to be right. Surrender of one’s obstinacy and obduracy. It’s not just presidential political opponents that are divided. It is a husband and wife. It is two estranged, formerly best friends. It is two siblings. It is two sisters in the church. It is a parent and an adult child. In every case, the divide is there because neither will surrender. The worse divide of all is that between Creator-Redeemer God and the individual human. In the divide between humans, either, taking the initiative, can surrender and concede he is wrong. In the conflict between human and God, although the human can say, “I’ve been wrong,” God cannot. He has never been anything but right. Between humans, when the first has sincerely conceded and confessed, “I’m wrong,” the other often will break and reciprocate responding with, “I’m wrong too.” Between human and God, God cannot respond, “Me too.” He isn’t wrong. There is only one in that conflict that needs to confess. The human. In the conflict between humans, the one confessed to may choose not to accept the other’s humble penitence and, refusing to allow the divide to be removed, continue to be hostile and belligerent towards the repentant. When any human is genuinely repentant to God, God has never refused his repentance. Every time the repentance is accepted and the divide is removed. Wonderful things can happen in relationships when someone is willing simply to say, “I’m wrong.” But that confession takes surrender of self, which is, perhaps, possibly the hardest thing for any to do. Yet, surrender, is the divide remover, the divide crosser, the divide closer. Surrender. If there is a second debate, the podiums may, because of COVID, be further apart and the two standing behind them politically, relationally, and personally, even further apart. Don’t wait with bated breath for one to say mid-debate, “Wait, I’ve been wrong. I’ve wronged you.” But, do something. Remember that old hymn, “I Surrender All”? Sing that through several times in a prayerful manner. See if it doesn’t narrow some divides in your life. Especially the one that matters most. Not the one between presidential candidates. The one between you and God. That’s what I got out of the 1st presidential debate—the need and power of surrender.

Solo or Choir?

Inexplicably, yesterday morning shortly after awakening I began thinking of an incident that happened years ago in a church I was attending. It was quite unremarkable, really. I happened to notice in the service a visiting family of unbelievers. Their faces looked trouble. It seemed apparent they had come seeking help. It was not a given they were there to surrender their lives to Christ, but they did seem like they were searching. Right behind them sat two young-adult age young men. They had been raised in the church, their fathers both in leadership there. They both claimed to be Christians. Yet, I watched as throughout the whole service they paid no attention to what was going on from the platform. Neither did they did participate in the worship. The whole service they talked to one another, joked and goofed. I could tell it was distracting the unbelievers seated inches in front of them. Yet, the two young men seemed oblivious to the impact they were having on the unbelievers and, in reality, the whole service. My reaction was not so much an alarm at their inattentive talking, nor even at the distraction they were being to the seekers near them. It was that I was incredulously flummoxed how these two could have been raised in church and be so oblivious and uncaring of the effect they were having on those around them, and, thus, on the church service too. Lost souls sat inches away, and those two were selfishly unaware and uncaring of the effect they were having on them. In the end, this revealed how they really thought about a church service and the church in general. Too many Christians today think only of themselves when it comes to their participation in, attendance of, and belonging to a church. Everything about church is viewed through a narcissistic lens. They think of Church, its services, ministries, and activities only in terms of Do I like it? Do I get anything from it? Does it focus on me? Am I blessed by it? Does it facilitate my inclinations, talents, desires, etc.? They do not think in terms of how they and their choices may influence, affect, help or hurt the Church. Making a decision about attending or not, participating or not, staying at or leaving, they think only in terms of themselves and not in terms of the effect of their decision on the Church. A person decides to leave a church based on his subjective whims, desires, preferences and never gives thought to how his leaving will affect that community of the Church. Not thinking of the Church, he gives no consideration to all the ways the Church has ministered, helped, blessed, contributed to him. He gives it no consideration in his decisions because he does not even think of it. He thinks only in terms of himself. Not thinking of the way the Church has helped him, he does not think of the effect of his decisions on the Church. And that’s just the thing. If he thinks of the Church at all, he thinks of it as an “it.” The Church, his church, is not an “it”. His church is a community. A community is people. Church is not an “it,” an institutional impersonal entity that cannot be hurt. Church is a community of people that are hurt by the individual’s rejection of them. The community of the Church is a family of people. I could go on and on about this individual vs community thing but must restrain myself. I will rather point to Jesus, the Great Example; He lived His life for the community. He did nothing for Himself but for the community of His followers. He announced that He did not come to be ministered to but to minister. He illustrated this by His washing of the disciples’ feet. That church service was not about Him but about the community. They had dirty feet; Jesus washed them. Lest someone point out that putting the community’s need before one’s own was something uniquely limited to Jesus, it must be noted that Jesus followed that foot washing with, “I have given you an example that you should do as I have done to you.” Not wash each other’s’ feet specifically, but to put others' needs above one’s own—of not being served but serving others. In a rough analogy, the Church is not about a solo but about a choir. In reality, there are humble soloists who bless others. But, I’m speaking in an analogy. Church is not about each showcasing his singular singing ability in a solo. Church is about joining the choir where each blends his voice with others in a unified harmony that produces a melodious blessing to all who hear. One who is a part of the choir must realize if he makes his decisions based only on his own caprice, desires, and perceived needs, it will hurt the choir. His simple choice of showing up for choir or not will affect it. His choice to quit or join choir will have an effect. If he decides he will not sing unless he has a solo part, if he decides he wants to sing a different song than what the choir is singing, or sing in a different key, or not sing his part but someone else’s---all these hurt the choir. And the choir being hurt does not minister as it could. Individuals are needed to make up a choir. But, individuals must make their choices based on what is good for the choir. He must not forget that he himself is blessed by singing with the choir. Not because he has found a place to sing by himself and do his thing, but because he has contributed to the community. In being a blessing he is blessed. Today we gather as a choir. We unify and blend our voices and hearts. We think of the good of our community, our Church. Still speaking analogously, I even have a suggestion for what song we sing, “Revive US again!” Pastor Hurst

OUR COUNTRY COULD USE SOME MARRIAGE COUNSELING

When I survey the volatile landscape of America, the divisive verbal vitriol lobbed back and forth, the raucous partisanship, the explosive tension between protestors of different groups, I think of marriage. (I know, right?) Not that the above describes marriage in general, but, that it reminds me of something I always stress in pre-marital counseling. To the dismay of the eager couple, I drain a lot of the mystique of romance from finding the “right one” by telling them whether they have a successful marriage or not comes down to how many compatibilities they share. It’s scientific. It’s mathematic. The more compatibilities they have, the greater the possibility they will have of a successful, lasting marriage. I prophesy that in their marriage they will inevitably have conflict, disagreements, differing opinions but emphasize their marriage can survive all of those if they are compatible. It is then that I point out that there is a hierarchy of compatibilities. After a mutual faith experience, the most important compatibilities are values and beliefs. The two may lack compatibilities of temperament, tastes of food and music, preference of auto vehicles, etc., but however hampering their differences may be, however fierce and frequent their argument over these, they can make marriage work if they are compatible in values and beliefs. Put simply, the couple may have differences of opinion, but their marriage cannot survive if they have differences of values--at least in no wholesome, happy way. There has always been bitter political conflict in America, rancorous, fierce disputes in Congress, disagreement in the market, streets, and homes, rowdy debate in places of learning. But something has changed in America: The argument used to be largely about differences of opinion, not about different values. Both sides shared common values—the values of the Judeo-Christian western world. That does not mean they were all Christians. It does not mean they all went to churches. Some went to synagogues. Some went nowhere. It does not mean they were all a part of the same political party. It means they shared unifying values. Values such as the worth of the individual, the preeminence of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion, the necessity of private ownership of property and law and order, etc. They shared the values our society had derived from Scriptures, the values enshrined in the constitution, the values that hundreds of thousands died fighting for in the Revolutionary, Civil, World I & II, and subsequent wars. The row over opinions was rowdy, rambunctious, belligerent, and bellicose, but it was a family fight. The blood of values was thicker than the water of opinions. No more. This is no longer a family fight. This is not a husband and wife disagreement. This is a bitter war between two sides that have two completely antithetical sets of values. Though the conflict today is nationally internecine, it is no different from the cold war conflict between then free-market America and communist Russia. With no shared values there are no grounds for possible disagreement of opinions. With no shared values those of opposing camps with differing opinions become like two without a shared language trying to debate. They end up shouting at each other simultaneously louder and louder since neither understands the other. In America where there are no longer shared values, folks are not having debates, they are not discussing the issues at hand, they are just screaming at those they know disagree with them. Those that speak their language hear them and applaud, but they never hear the other side; nor the other side, they. This “marriage” cannot survive. Personally, I think the real danger of implosion in our nation isn’t that the two “sides” now have different values, but that one side now has no true values at all. Not values based on objective, absolute principle, and precept. They have only ever-evolving, capricious contrived causes, faddish relativistic based outrages, and ill-made subjective conclusions drawn from gobbledygook postmodern philosophies. When a married couple has conflict, in counsel, I always take them back to values. Those are found in the Bible. No value can originate in or be derived from the individual. True values are not uniquely discovered values that I have custom created. They exist outside of me. They are mine only in the sense that I choose to make them the values by which I live my life. If we go to a common source for our values, we will have shared values. Having shared values, we can survive the difference in our opinions and preferences. With shared values, a marriage can survive—our country can survive. Our country could use some serious marriage counseling along these lines.