The Funeral I Most Dreaded

July 27, 2015

This morning I will preach my father-in-law's funeral. 

For 32 years of our marriage, I dreaded this terrible task because he was not a believer. He wanted no part of Christ or his gospel. We prayed for him, witnessed to him, sent others to talk to him, and five years ago even took him to Manaus, Brazil to go fishing for tucunaré (peacock bass), but with the real intention of sharing Christ on the entire trip. We colluded, cooperated and conspired for his soul. 

While in Manaus we attended the Nova Igreja Batista, where our close friends David and Pennie Hatcher serve and we stayed in their home. They and all the members of Nova became co-conspirators in our redemptive plot. 

I will never forget sitting on the front row of their massive sanctuary surrounded by thousands of bouncing Brazilians worshiping and praising their Savior, smiles beaming from their brown faces. Gene could only recognize one word that they sang over and over--Jesus. He looked at Tanya and said, "These people really believe what they are singing." She took the opportunity to drive home the point that He had changed their lives and that is why they sang so fervently. 

When we got back to Kentucky, our niece met us at the airport and drove her grandfather home. She later told us that he did not stop talking—about the church and about David and Pennie. The three days of fishing the Rio Uatumã or seeing freshwater dolphins, caiman, howler monkeys or any of the things that he went to Brazil to see did not even merit a mention. Instead he was fixated on the obvious deep, meaningful belief in the gospel now so evident to him in so many people. 

A few months later his body failed him. One night his legs refused to work for him anymore and he never walked again. Too big and with too many medical needs for any of us to care for at home, the man whose life was as big as the great outdoors suddenly found himself limited to the four walls of a single room and flat on his back in a nursing home. 

For the first four or five days we had to go through red tape to get him a television and, coupled with his near deafness, he had nothing to watch or hear when we weren't there. The strange providence of God had twisted and brought him into the last place on earth he wanted to be but precisely where he needed to be and there, in the silence of that room, God brought to his mind all the times someone had shared the gospel with him, the simple message that Jesus saves by grace through faith. The effect in the lives of his children and grandchildren and his deceased wife and so many others that he knew was undeniable. 

The next day Tanya and I came to see him and were amazed by his attitude. Frankly, we had anticipated that he would hate the nursing home and might be terribly uncooperative. Instead he was positive, focused, and met this challenge with the same spirit that helped him survive World War II. We were, to be candid, stunned. 

As we got up to leave, Gene put out his hand and said something strange to me. "Preach to me, Hershey." He had never said that before. I thought he was confused or that asking me to pray for him was so unusual that he just didn't know how to do it. In 32 years, until this episode, he had never asked me to pray for him or with him about anything. A few days earlier he had held out his hand and said, "Say some good words for me," and I had taken that to mean pray for him and I had. Now I was trying to interpret, "Preach to me" and thought surely he meant for me to pray. 

So Tanya took one hand and I the other, and I prayed. I asked God to strengthen and heal him according to His will, but then I prayed for God to save him. I begged God to help him see that Jesus was the only way. I told God that Gene had had his way for far too long, and I pleaded with him to overwhelm him with His love and to overrule his stubborn heart and grant him repentance and faith in Christ alone. 

When I said, "Amen,” Gene patted my hand and looked me in the eye and said, “I've done that.” Tanya and I shot each other a skeptical and confused glance, both of us worried that he might say such a thing too lightly--though he certainly never had before. “What?” I asked. “I've done that!” “You're telling me that you have repented of your sins and you are trusting in Christ alone for eternal life?” “Yes,” he answered. "I have.” “Now, Gene,” I pleaded, “I really need to be sure about this because more than anything I want to spend eternity with you.” “Well you will,” he said, “because I have done that.” 

I wish I could tell you how sweet these last three years of his life have been, even in difficult circumstances none of us would ever choose. We saw God's grace at work in his life even as it had a profound effect on us as well. So today, I am not preaching the funeral I dreaded. I am preaching the funeral that I could preach for a Rahab, or a Ruth, or the thief on the cross. It's the story of redemption, of God's love extended to one whom many thought beyond His reach. It's the story of the five o'clock worker who gets the same reward as the one who's labored since dawn. It's the story of grace. It's the story of Jesus.

Two Readings of Scripture, Two Views of Jesus

(Note: the following is a guest editorial written for the Frankfort State-Journal for July 5, 2015)

The Supreme Court may settle disputes of American law, but cannot establish right and wrong. A bitterly divided Court can, by the slimmest possible margin, dictate what is legal but cannot determine what is moral. 

    Same-sex marriage is now the law of the land. The same institution that once justified slavery and defined African-Americans as less than human, that has bestowed personhood on corporations but denied it to unborn babies, that vacillates—and will again—on whether or not capital punishment is acceptable has found a way to read the constitution innovatively and differently than any previous generation of citizens or legal scholars. The majority has found something there that none of its authors intended or even thought about.

The heart of the argument is about hermeneutics, how a document is read and understood. Liberal justices contend that the Constitution changes meaning with the culture, while conservatives insist that the meaning is fixed and that the amendment process should be used as society evolves or modifies its views.

Within Christianity the same debate rages about the Bible and stands at the epicenter of the current impasse about homosexuality and gay marriage. Some of us believe the Bible is God’s Word, a special and perfect revelation of himself, written by humans inspired by the Spirit who wrote what God led them to record. We believe that the proper way to read the Bible is the same way we want our pharmacist to read our doctor’s prescription, discerning the author’s original intent rather than imposing any foreign meaning on the text. 

Furthermore, we believe that the sixty-six books of the Bible together form one book with one grand narrative, the story of God’s redemption. That story of creation, fall, anticipation, the gospel, the church, and Christ’s return to reign is a single story. Though many human activities and practices within that story are shameful and highlight the need for redemption, God’s moral will and standard of holiness revealed in Scripture does not change through time and is not subject to the vicissitudes of culture. At the beginning of that story is the marriage of a perfect man and a perfect woman. At the end of that story is the marriage of a glorified man, the Lord Jesus, and his sanctified bride, his church. 

Other Christians, however, see the Bible as stained by human frailty and riddled with error, requiring more enlightened thinking to discern the good parts from the bad. These Christians are embarrassed by and denounce parts of the same book that they read in weddings and funerals, sermons and Sunday school classes as a model for faith and life. They see no contradiction in quoting Paul’s lyrical description of love in 1 Corinthians 13 while at the same time denouncing his instruction on gender roles in 1 Corinthians 11. They fear no inconsistency quoting Jesus when he says “Judge not” in Matthew 7:1, though simultaneously judging Jesus calling people “pigs” and “dogs” in Matthew 7:6. Scavenging Scripture selectively like a picky eater at a smorgasbord, they consume only what appeals to their taste and what they have already learned to like. 

Ultimately, that approach to Scripture inevitably leads to the same understanding of Jesus. How can one claim that Jesus is Lord and yet insist that Jesus needed to be corrected for his insensitivity when he spoke to the Gentile woman in Matthew 15:21-28?

To be candid, I can accept that many people do not agree with historic Christianity that homosexuality is a sin. I understand when people not guided by a biblical worldview adopt a simple live-and-let-live mentality because they do not think in categories of God’s design and purpose. 

I cannot comprehend, however, how people who claim that the Bible is God’s Word and Jesus is their Lord can either ignore or pervert the clear meaning of Jesus’ endorsement of God’s purpose for marriage. When asked about the lawfulness of divorce, Jesus answered by going back to creation and looking at God’s design. What was God’s intent? Jesus answered the question about divorce by saying much more about marriage than merely its duration. “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4,5). 

Jesus could have answered the question about divorce by simply explaining that marriage is for a lifetime, but he went beyond that. He defined marriage by the number of people in that relationship as well as the sex of those in that relationship. Some may voice honest disagreement with Jesus’ words, but I cannot respect the kind of intellectual dishonesty that denies the plain and natural reading of his words. When someone says they take the Bible seriously but not literally, I take their words literally but not seriously.

Two thousand years of church history render a virtually unanimous opinion about the definition of marriage. It seems the epitome of arrogance for a Christian to hear Jesus’ words and the church’s verdict from antiquity only to say, “But I know better.” The Bible is not an instrument by which we justify the opinions of Christians, but the revelation of God in which we discover our justification in Christ.

The Only Decision that Matters

I am excited. While I would not choose this direction for our country or our culture, and though I lament the very real harm that this Supreme Court decision will do in millions of lives, I also believe that a sovereign God rules supreme in human affairs and He is at work making of the nations a heritage for His Son.  The Triune God has not called an emergency session and will not be announcing a strategy of response to the latest development. He is working all things—even and especially this—to His glory for our good.
Because of this Supreme Court ruling Christians who have contented themselves with a nebulous theology and a generic commitment to the parts of the Bible they deem palatable will now be pressed to probe the Scriptures and their own presuppositions like never before. Congregations who have survived on a cultural predisposition toward churches are about to discover what it means to thrive on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ. Believers who have worked to keep their faith separate from the rest of their lives will discover that they can no longer be secret disciples because they are going to be asked bluntly and sometimes with great hostility.
    Two exhilarating possibilities emerge: revival among believers and a greater gospel impact beyond our walls. Think about it like this: has the church in the United States ever had a more advantageous time to stand in stark contrast to the world, to distinguish itself from the prevailing understanding of morality, to present a true counter-culture, to model the gospel? When we had greater numbers and political influence the world thought our great concern was with numbers and political influence. If we profess Christ and stand on the Word when it costs us dearly, however, then even our detractors and persecutors will see that it’s not about us, but about our Savior.
    I anticipate that the churches who stand firmly and lovingly on the Word of God, who focus on the gospel of Christ and preach the necessity of genuine faith and repentance for salvation, are about to experience an indisputable and authentic movement of God’s Spirit. The Christ-modeled balance between an unyielding commitment to the Word and a lavish love of people will offer the world something that they desperately need but cannot find anywhere else.
    People are no more lost now than they have ever been, and Jesus is no less Lord now than He will ever be. We dare not cower in our churches as though God has lost anything. The only decision handed down that matters is that the gates of hell cannot prevail against His church!
    The first marriage was between a perfect man and a perfect woman. The last marriage will be between a glorified man, the Lord Jesus, and his sanctified bride, the church. Between those two weddings, humanity has marred and defaced the institution of marriage in many ways, including this new way. But the Lord Jesus will have the last say. Until then, I am doing all I can to make my marriage reflect the love of Christ for his church and to share the gospel of grace with everyone. No handwringing, no fear, no hatred, no bitterness. Just love of the Lord Jesus, of the truth, of my wife, of the Lord's church, and of my neighbor--ALL of my neighbors. Though something in our culture has definitely changed, everything in the Word of God remained the same. I rest in that.
    It may seem like we’ve hit the bottom. By God’s grace, we are about to discover there’s a Rock down there.

Our Most Significant Spiritual Decision

 In 1980, the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church ventured far out on a very flimsy limb and called a 20-year old junior from Michigan State to be their Minister of Music and Youth. On my first day at the church, Tanya and I went on a date together for the first time. Thirteen days later, we bought the rings. Six months later, in March of 1981, we married.

            Convinced of a definite divine calling on my life since I was ten, on that very first date I explained to Tanya that I did not know where God would lead me, but I was committed to go wherever that might be. Though already certain that I would pursue a PhD after my undergraduate studies, I did not rule out serving the Lord in the jungle or some very remote place. Even from that first serious conversation she wholeheartedly and unreservedly said that she was on board and understood that the Lord came first in my life (yep, on the first date!). Though neither of us truly understood what that would mean, we were sincere in our desire to give the Lord our lives.

Wasting no time, we used our courtship and engagement, brief as they were, to make some key decisions. Tanya was working for a non-profit organization with special needs children at the time, and when the grant that funded her job ended in December of 1980, three months before we married, we decided that from that point on her job would be to help me in the ministry. She would plug into the church and work with students as though she were on staff. When we went on youth trips, she would be available to go. When young girls needed someone to talk to, she would have a listening ear and a word of encouragement. When summer camp rolled around, she would write skits, play softball, and love on kids with as much commitment as I, even though her name would never be on the paycheck. Whenever the Lord gave us children, she would stay home with them as well as continue to travel with the youth choir, teach a girls’ Sunday School class, and a thousand other things.

We made that decision when I was being paid $11,000 per year and living in a church parsonage. We had no idea how difficult it would be to maintain that commitment, particularly during the lean years in seminary, but neither did we know the harvest of joy and blessing it would reap in so many ways.

Now, almost thirty-three years later and with the perspective of history, we realize that no single decision we made as a couple bore more fruit or had greater impact than that one. Even more significant than my decision to go to seminary, more momentous than the calling to any church, with far greater effect than our move to Southern Seminary, our decision that Tanya would forego work outside our family and ministry was life altering. That single resolution shaped who we are as a couple and enhanced or actually caused all those other blessings.

            I hear the gasps and protestations already.

            Let me be clear: Tanya and I do not believe that Scripture forbids wives and mothers to work outside of the home. We know that a lot more is involved than a simple decision to live on one income. There are no shortcuts to sanctification, either privately or as a couple, and in many ways choosing to stay home will produce its own opportunities for conflict and spiritual struggle. A couple could make this decision and still be miserable and miss the will of God. We are not claiming that everyone who makes this commitment will find the fulfillment and contentment that we enjoy.

We are saying, however, that the benefits have far outweighed the costs. So much so, in fact, that we cannot think of any other choice we’ve made as a couple that has done more for our service to Christ, our holiness, or our happiness. We are convinced that this is a primary reason we are still deliriously in love, satisfied with one another, and delightfully fulfilled in ministry, even after so many years. That fact alone should merit some consideration from any young couple attempting to set priorities and a course of life that honors the Lord.

What It Has Cost

            To be fair, this decision has cost us some things. Everything in life is a tradeoff; you just have to be certain that the trades you make are worth it. We knew that this decision would come with a price tag, and it did. First and most obviously, it has probably cost financially. Who knows how much money Tanya would have been able to make? In fact, this commitment has been challenged from time to time by numerous job offers. When I was in seminary and unable to find a job myself, on an almost weekly basis business owners at our church were asking her to come work for them. That scenario has repeated many times. With Tanya’s natural beauty, communication skills, and a winsome personality that always fills the room, she would have been an asset and could have succeeded at many things. Every time she demurred, she was telling me that her investment in my life and ministry and in our sons was worth more to her.  

            For the first 15 years of our marriage we only had one car. During my years in seminary she spent her days with two little boys in a tiny row house in an Arkansas cotton field while I drove to the other side of the Mississippi River and sat listening eagerly to professors I enjoyed talking about subjects I loved.  While I was earning two Masters degrees and a PhD, she was spending her days teaching toddlers Bible stories, how to use the potty, and not to hit each other. At the end of the process I would be Dr. York and she would be, as always, Tanya. I do not judge our sacrifice to have been remotely equal. In fact, I would hardly use the word sacrifice for anything that I have contributed to this decision. Tanya, on the other hand, has sacrificed a monetary paycheck, a formal education, a certain social and peer approval, and any typical trophies of achievement. She has selflessly chosen the joy of seeing others fulfilled as her fulfillment.

What It Has Conferred

            The greatest gift that our decision bestowed has been a constant, unwavering shared and unified purpose in life. Because of Tanya’s commitment to completely immerse herself in our home and my ministry, we have found it far simpler to present a united front in our parenting, pastoring, financial decisions, ministry opportunities, social life, and missions commitments. Married couples who have separate careers may indeed still accomplish that, but surely with far greater difficulty.

            When both marriage partners work they inhabit separate worlds, usually to a great degree, during a significant portion of the day and week. They develop different sets of friends and acquaintances with whom they forge significant relationships and share powerful emotions and experiences. They struggle and succeed with others, they confide in others, they rely on others, and they relate to others in a sphere that a spouse can only share in the third person, never the first.

            In contrast, Tanya and I have closely shared the same sphere of life and work. She not only knows everyone I work with, but is closely connected with them through church or seminary life. She is as invested in my church as I am. She has enough margin in her life to expand and enlarge my ministry and influence largely because she is not occupied with budget reports, attending trade shows, or protecting profits in a business. She can take the time to meet with the wife who has fallen into sexual sin and walk with her on a road of brokenness and repentance, dealing with intimate issues that would be dangerous for me. She can spot a potential relationship challenge and prevent it from becoming a full-blown problem. If she owed that time and energy to another job, my ministry would be far more limited and my weaknesses far more exposed and vulnerable. What she contributes, precludes, prevents, and provides is incalculable.

            Most of the couples I counsel who have experienced a breach of trust or infidelity have done so because of work relationships. To be very candid, that is almost always the case with women who fall into sin (though Facebook and other internet sites have added additional opportunities for sin as well). I could not trust another human being any more than I trust Tanya, but I have also been grateful that she has been spared the inappropriate attentions of other men or a cause for temptation herself that she might have had on a regular basis if she worked outside our home. I realize that some might interpret that as fearful and jealous, but I can honestly deny that. I am not a jealous person, no doubt largely because Tanya has always been so obviously and passionately devoted to me, but I am also a realist and regularly exposed to lives shattered in very familiar patterns, patterns which I am glad we avoided. Equally true would be that Tanya's close and frequent presence in my ministry has also protected me from undue temptation. 

            That avoidance of temptation was not merely the evasion of opportunity, however. Because she stayed home, Tanya has taken the time to become a true student of the Word. Every day she spends significant blocks of time in the Word of God, gaining a strategic grasp of the Scriptures which shape and direct her walk as well as her discipling of other women. I’m sure she would have grown in the Scriptures regardless, but I am confident her knowledge would not be as deep and insightful. Seeing her spend time with the Lord thrills and gladdens this husband’s heart.

            I know I must say this delicately, but I do not believe that Tanya and I would have the unfettered intimacy and closeness we enjoy if we had done it differently and she had to face a separate set of anxieties and difficulties in addition to those we share. At every marriage conference we’ve ever led and in many counseling situations we’ve seen, being too tired for intimacy and too busy for relationship development emerges as a common major factor. Separate schedules, separate and independent goals, separate standards of success in life, and separate job demands all take a costly toll. And because many of those separate challenges can only be solved individually rather than as a couple, a subtle independence creeps in and drives them apart.

            If rearing children becomes the single shared purpose of a husband and wife, then they might do alright in the first half, but they will not the second. Tanya and I loved rearing Michael and Seth, but it was never the only thing or even the main thing we did together. During the early stages of parenting it certainly demanded more time, but we always realized that one day those little boys would grow into young men and leave us, just as God designed. We knew that if our home centered around them, we would find that we were each sitting across the table from a lonely stranger, lamenting the way things used to be.

            If Tanya had chosen a career in addition to the busyness of parenting and being a pastor’s wife, I am convinced we could not have cultivated the relationship we have. It might still be good, fulfilling, and even Christ-honoring, but I cannot conceive that it would be this free, joyful, and inextricably interwoven. As a result, when the time came for our sons to leave home, it took us less than ten minutes to get over empty-nest syndrome. I cried for a few minutes and then moved stuff into their closets!

            I could easily go on. When I get an invitation to travel to preach or minister somewhere, she can go with me. It’s not unduly stressful to have church members or students in our home. We never had to worry about daycare, or additional wardrobe. Our sons always had a parent accessible to them. In fact, if anyone wanted to verify the veracity of my claims, I would simply point them to my adult sons. Ask them if their mother’s decision made a difference in their lives and in our marriage. They truly arise and call her blessed.

            In the first half, Tanya sacrificed and devoted herself completely so I could have sons, get an education, pastor great churches, and pour into students’ lives. She studied the Word intensely so she could disciple and teach others. She made our home the sweetest place on earth.

            In the second half, I want to intentionally give her a greater return on that investment. I want her to reap the emotional and spiritual equivalent of a lifetime of wealth. I want marriage to me and service to the Lord to be so rewarding that she never even questions if it was worth it. I want to serve her, spoil her, bless her, delight her, cook for her, take her places, and make her a more radiantly beautiful follower of Christ than she already is.

By God’s grace our marriage enjoyed a good first half, so the challenge for us is to remain intentional and focused, to refuse to coast and content ourselves with having made it this far. I don’t know if we’ll get a full second half or not, but if, by God's grace, we do, I know what I want it to accomplish for the glory of Christ.