1999

Who Buries the Bad Guys? 10/1/1999

First United Methodist Church

Birmingham, Michigan

Scripture: II Samuel 18 and 19 (selected portions)

 

 

 

When last you passed your eyes across the cover of Steeple Notes, you saw a passing reference to my late, great aunt, Emma Michefske (the word “late” having to do with the fact that she is long-since dead….the word “great” having to do with the fact that she was not my aunt, but my father’s). Not that I knew her long.  Or well. She was a Ritter….my grandfather’s sister…. until she married John Michefske.  John was a quiet German who worked with his hands, smoked cigars (whenever Emma let him), and kept a spittoon beside his favorite chair in the living room of their little bungalow on Beechdale. They never had a television….or any kids to entertain them. But they regularly watched the radio….which was, in those days, a big piece of furniture, centrally located so that all who heard it could also see it. We had interesting pastimes in days gone by.

 

My relationship with Emma was somewhat limited. For a few summers, I cut her grass….for which she gave me a dollar and a peanut butter cookie (sometimes two…. cookies, not dollars.) And her cookies were good. Much better than the one solitary pie she baked for John each Friday. We used to call it “Aunt Emma’s Passion Pie.” That’s because there was so little filling in it that the top crust always hugged the bottom crust. And once, each year, Aunt Emma would take me to the sauerkraut supper at the Lutheran church. Which always led me to offer a prayer of thanks for being a Methodist, given that the spiritual heirs of John Wesley ate better than the spiritual heirs of Martin Luther. Or so it seemed when I was ten.

 

To be sure, there wasn’t a whole lot that distinguished Emma’s life….or Emma’s death, for that matter. But I was surprised that, when I went to her funeral, it could have been anybody’s funeral….for all her pastor said. That’s because he didn’t say a word about Emma. He may have mentioned her name whenour eyes were closed. Whenour eyes were open, I looked around and saw several of my relatives….thus reassuring me that I had not wandered into another parlor (and, hence, another funeral) by mistake. No, this was for Emma. But it was certainly not about Emma.

 

Which was by design, don’t you see. Her pastor knew her, and may have had some measure of affection for her (although it seemed that she seldom attended unless sauerkraut was on the menu). Her pastor was simply part of a school of thought that said: “A funeral is about the reassurances of God, not the remembrances of the deceased.” Which certainly made it easier to write funeral sermons, one would think. No need to gather stories. No need to write stories. No need to tell stories. Just read John 14 (about not having “troubled hearts,” and proceeding on toward “many mansions” or “many rooms”….pick your translation).  Which was how he did it. And which is how many of my colleagues continue to do it, lo unto this very day. All of you have heard them. And there’s a school of thought that very much admires them.

 

Which does not include me. For I still deliver eulogies. I still tell people’s stories. Always have. Probably always will. Which is certainly not the sum total of all I do, given my belief that the primary purpose of a funeral is not to talk about what a great guy Joe was, but what a great god, God is. Still, Joe deserves more than a passing name in a prayer. As did Emma. Which has nothing to do with “making a fuss” over either Joe or Emma. Neither does it cozy up to the   idolatry of “ancestor worship.” Rather, it is simply the way “good-byes” are effectively said, grief is appropriately acknowledged, and gratitude is fittingly offered.

 

Each of us (says my friend, Barry Johnson) is a “unique, unrepeatable miracle of creation.” Which means that, where funeral sermons are concerned, one size will never fit all. Each of us tells a story with our lips. Each of us tells a story with our life. And if we believe that God is the author of that story, then no story is totally divorced from God’s story. And each story (Joe’s, Emma’s, yours, mine) matters in the highest places….which means, to God (himself).

 

As a nation of compassionate voyeurs, we have just passed through the wringer of three deaths at sea, followed by three burials at sea. Which gave rise to a tidal wave of eulogies for the Bessetts and the Kennedys….some to be read on the page….others to be watched on the screen. And we both read and watched them. “To excess,” some said. But I don’t see any great harm in it. In fact, we lamented being denied access to the memorial services, in that we (the public) were offered no tickets, and benefited from no cameras. We wanted to be there. But we were told that we couldn’t. Which was all right, too. But disappointing. Yes, disappointing.

 

Their stories mattered to us. Perhaps they shouldn’t have…. to the extent that they did. But they did. Which means that we took their deaths personally. Just as we take a lot of deaths personally. Which is why, as a professional theologian, I treat them personally. And which is why (as a work-a-day preacher) I preach them personally.

 

Which, I will admit, is sometimes a challenge. Not every story is easy to tell. And you can’t just make up stuff. Because no one….in any family….is ever comforted by a pack of lies. Which is why every eulogy I deliver is as honored as it is human (meaning that I don’t airbrush every wart from my manuscript, prior to delivery). We do not come to a funeral to evaluate someone’s life. Neither do we come tograde someone’s life (Joe, C-….Emma, C+). We come to give thanks for someone’s life….to God….from whom it came….and to whom it returns. And that means the “whole nine yards”  of someone’s life….including the parts we liked more, and the parts we liked less. If someone struggled in this life….and lost more struggles than they won….I will probably allude (albeit very kindly) to their struggles in my sermon. After all, everyone in the room already knows what I know. And to pretend otherwise contributes to a corporate sense of denial that helps nobody….and (in the end) may harm everybody.

 

More than once, I have shared the wonderful words of Mary Jane Irion, who (in planning her funeral) counseled her pastor: “Please remind my friends that any good I may have done in my life did not have to be perfect to be effective….and that something of me will go on, lending aid in this amazing human endeavor.”

 

I have buried saints. And I have buried sinners. Most of the time, I have had difficulty telling them apart. Which, as a statement, says more about my theology than about my eyesight. I have buried people mourned by hundreds. And I have buried people where I had to make a sudden transformation from preacher to pallbearer, given that they were mourned (at least on that day) by fewer than six.

 

And there have been several scoundrels mixed in among them. How do I know that? Because someone in the family invariably tells me. “Reverend, he was a real scoundrel.” Don’t laugh. People really say that. I once said in a sermon that I only bury the “good guys”, leading me to wonder who buries the “bad ones.” But I wasn’t completely accurate. I have buried the whole bloody lot, as they say. But not,  ever, a killer.  At least not knowingly.

 

Which brings me, as promised, to Dylan Klebold. Dylan (along with Eric Harris) was responsible for the carnage of April 20 in Littleton, Colorado, which left 12 classmates dead, one teacher dead, and themselves dead….by their own hand, as you will recall, once their day’s work was done. Even as we longed to avert our eyes, we sat riveted to the tragedy. And we sat riveted to the funerals that followed. Except for two funerals, that is….those of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.  As funerals are my stock in trade, I watched parts of several.  But I did not watch Dylan’s (or Eric’s), because nobody televised them.  For good reason.

 

A few Detroit reporters researched the “local angle” on Eric (who spent some of his early years in Oscoda, where he lived kitty-cornered from a United Methodist pastor). But about Dylan, I knew nothing….until I read about Don Marxhausen of St. Philip Lutheran Church, Littleton, who officiated at Dylan’s service. Marxhausen served as pastor to the Klebolds for about eight months (five or six years ago). And although they drifted away from his church (for reasons largely unexplained), they mustnot have landed anywhere else, given that Don was the pastor they turned to, when their world literally turned on them.

 

One of the reasons they may not have “rooted” at St. Philip is because Sue Klebold (Dylan’s mom) is Jewish. She and her husband, Tom, tried to do it all….religiously….sort of.  Forwhile they didn’t go to church or synagogue with any degree of regularity, they did “do both Christmas and Passover”….welcoming the Christ child in one….sitting down to the seder in the other.

 

Given Sue’s Jewishness (however diluted it may have been last April), I can’t begin to imagine her pain upon learning that Dylan occasionally wore a swastika to school, shouted “Heil Hitler” during bowling class, and chose the anniversary of Adolph Hitler’s birth for his massacre. Said Dylan’s father: “I don’t know where all that Nazi stuff came from. Or the violence, either, given that the only weapon we keep in the house is a BB gun, and the only time we use it is to scare away woodpeckers.”

 

Fifteen people attended the service that Don Marxhausen conducted for Dylan Klebold. “It was awkward,” Don said. “Tense, too.” For the first part of the service, Don simply invited those present to talk about Dylan….what they remembered….what they felt. They talked about Dylan’s difficulties at Columbine High School. They talked about his loneliness and disconnection. They talked about his feelings of rejection. But they also talked about how he had already registered at the University of Arizona, having paid his dorm fees for the fall semester. Tom and Sue said they had tried to be good parents….thought they were good parents….and figured they had a “good finished product.” There was also an outpouring of love from another couple who remembered that Dylan played so nicely with their son, when both the boys were little.

 

Then Don took over and began his message. In it, he stressed God’s love and healing power for Dylan’s family. Which was predictable and safe. Everyone would expect that. You would expect that. For who among us cannot identify with their grief….if not by experience, at least by extension? He compared their situation (as parents) to being run over by a truck, only to have the truck shift gears and roll back over them….the first hit being the loss….the second hit, the shame. Concerning the shame, many will tell them they shouldn’t feel any. But they will….in spades….for years…. maybe, forever.

 

Empathizing with their grief, Pastor Marxhausen read them the story of Absolom’s death. Absolom was David’s third son, whose beautiful sister (Tamar) was raped by Amnon, David’s first son (by another mother). Absolom seethed for two years. Then, at a sheep shearing festival, he got Amnon drunk and had him killed. That’s right, he had his step-brother killed.

 

Eventually, Absolom was woven back into the family tapestry….David’s family tapestry….even though Absolom was actively scheming to steal David’s crown. For four years, Absolom’s double-dealing went on, until the day for the coup d’etat arrived. Catching wind of it in advance, David marshaled his troops under a trio of generals. But not without instructing them: “Do whatever you need to quash the uprising, but spare my son.” Which they either couldn’t….or didn’t….depending upon how you read the story.

 

At any rate, with Absolom’s armyin retreat, Absolom (himself) was lifted clean off his mount as a result of having his long flowing hair become entangled in some low-hanging tree limbs. Half dead….half alive….dangling in mid-air….one of David’s generals finished him off with three spears to the chest. Then word was sent to the king that his murdering, scheming, coup d’etat-ing son was dead. Whereupon David was inconsolable in grief, crying: “My son, Absolom, my son, my son. Would that I had died instead of you.” And if you don’t understand that reaction (incongruous as it may have seemed, given everything that had happened), maybe you don’t understand anything. No, maybe you don’t understand anything at all.

 

Then, to the grieving parents, Don Marxhausen said:

 

The God who lifts us up after the journey through the valley, will do so to you….in time….and in surprising ways. Some people will run from you. Others will come to you. There is God’s mercy. And there is the mercy of others. True enough, there will be those who do not know grace and who will want to give only judgment. But God will reach out to you through those who know his grace. I have no idea how you are going to heal. But I know that God wants to reach you, and will find some way to do it.

 

All of which was well said. And, one suspects, well heard. God’s mercy will certainly be offered to Tom and Sue Klebold. But will the same mercy thatreaches them, reach Dylan? For while Pastor Marxhausen didn’t negate that possibility, he didn’t really say.

 

As for me, I would have opened that door wider than he did. But that’s me. You know that. I am known for being overly bullish on mercy. Which doesn’t always set well with some of you. But that’s all right.  I understand that….personally and theologically. Had I been the parent of one of the kids he killed, I’d have wanted to strangle Dylan myself (had he lived) or condemn him to hell (once he died).

 

But, in time,   I would be ill-served and less-than-satisfied with both desires. And even if I never came to that realization, I would have to admit that, where ultimate issues of judgment and mercy are decided, my desires don’t matter squat. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, saith the Lord. Neither are my ways your ways.” Which is probably fortunate, in the long run.

Yes, I think that none of us (including the likes of you and me) will ultimately be able to escape accountability. But, I also think that none of us (including the likes of you and me) will ultimately be able to escape mercy. Of course, that’s just me. But maybe not only me. Try this: “The good news of God in Christ is that when the bottom has fallen out from under you….when you have crashed through all your safety nets and can hear the bottom rushing up to meet you….the good news is that you cannot fall farther than God can catch you. And you can’t be too picky about where (or when) the catch happens. Sometimes it happens after the funeral is over.”

 

Did you read the paper yesterday? Did you see the transcriptions of the letters that Mark Barton (Atlanta’s mass murderer) wrote to his children…. the same children he bludgeoned to death with a hammer, for crying out loud. He said that: “If God be willing, I would like to see you again in the resurrection.”  He really said that.   He probably even believes that.

 

As for me, would I be willing? My initial reaction (after reading the papers): “Hell, no.”

 

Fortunately, however, this may be one of those moments when it’s a good thing   I do not always speak for God.

Print Friendly and PDF

Thin as Thieves 4/18/1999

First United Methodist Church, Birmingham, Michigan

Scripture:  Luke 23:  32 - 43

If the popular emergence of Dilbert has taught us anything, it is that humor can be found anywhere….even in corporate America.  But it wasn't Dilbert who recently sent me a compendium of the ten best things to say to your boss if caught with your head down, sleeping at your desk.  I won't share them all, but among them are these: 

            .  They told me at the blood bank that this might happen.

 

            .  Whew!  Somebody must have substituted decaf for regular.

 

            .  Thank God you got here in time!  I must have forgotten to recap

               my whiteout.

 

            .  I wasn't sleeping.  I was merely meditating on our corporate mission

              statement and envisioning a new paradigm.

 

Still, the very best thing to say when caught, head down, catching forty winks;

            …. In Jesus name, Amen.

But the real problem most of us have is not nodding off when we should be working, but remaining awake when we should be sleeping.  Not all of us are lucky enough to drift off to dreamlandwithin minutes of hitting the pillow.  Sometimes it takes hours.  For which there are many causes.  Too much coffee after dinner.  Too much excitement before bed.  Too much worry over what is past.  Too much worry over what is coming.  A garlic and anchovy pizza.  Any number of things can keep us awake.

Including the 11 o'clock news.  All those fires and murders…. rapes and robberies…. schemes and scams….busts and bombings…. corruptions and cleansings…. coupled withyet one more investigative report on sexual molestations by childcare workers, orcockroaches in the kitchens of four-star restaurants. Taken collectively, there is a numbing quality to their endless quantity, which induces not only sleeplessness, but helplessness.  Even on the sports reports, there seem to be more strikes than strikes…. and more scores than scores (if you know what I mean.)  What's a body to think?  What's a body to do? 

To paraphrase the old hymn, "the wrong is oft so strong."  What's more, it keeps coming at you.  Sometimes you have to turn it off and tune it out.  Consider the high burn-out ratio among those who do front-line duty against drugs and crime.  Police officers have a particularly hard time keeping perspective.  Some adopt the very postures they oppose.  Those are the corruptible ones.  Others lose faith in the basic goodness of humankind.  Those are the hardened ones.  My friend, Fred Timpner, left police work after ten years on the street,  trading it for a career in management and personnel.  Fred was a darned good cop.  But concerning his decision to leave the force, he mused: "I still liked the work.  I still could do the work.  But I didn't like what the work was doing to my head.  My thinking was getting all screwed up.  It was getting so I couldn't see the good in anybody." 

Another friend, Bob Bough, tells me that people who work in the chemical addiction field experience the same thing.  Ten years is a long time to stay in that business.  Twenty years is an eternity.  It gets to you.  You've got to take a break.  You've got to walk away.  Because if you don't put some distance between yourself and the job, you will be consumed by the overwhelming negativity of the very thing you are fighting. 

"But though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet."  How fervently we sing that.  How deeply we'd like to believe that.  But it doesn't always ring true.  Sometimes, in the ongoing struggle between good and evil, it seems as if evil has all the advantages.  Evil is industrious, while virtue is often apathetic.  Evil is cunning, while virtue is easily conned.  Evil is often profitable, while virtue is said to be its own reward.  Evil is attractive and exciting to the senses, while virtue tends to be pedestrian and colorless. 

 

Several years ago, the New Yorker carried a cartoon in which two middle-aged women were discussing a married couple seated near them in a restaurant.  Said one of the women to the other: "Oh, she's such a perfect saint.  But he's much more interesting."  Commenting on the cartoon, Bill Muehl was led to observe: "Most of us quietly suspect that the saint is some kind of traitor to the human race, while harboring a sneaking respect for men of evil reputation and women of easy virtue."

That may be a bit strong.  But it does occur to me that outlaws, bandits, hookers and pirates have always provided storytellers with some of their most appealing characters, just as television argues, week after week, that "good people" are dull, and "bad people" are fascinating. 

What's more, evil is destructive.  And destruction, by its very nature, is quick and easy.  Compare that with the effort required to accomplish the good, which is often laborious and slow.  Contrastdestruction and creativity.  Six children may labor for hours, building an intricate sand castle on the beach.  It takes but a matter of seconds for a strong-legged bully to kick it to smithereens.

 

A painter can spend a year creating a masterpiece.  A committee of art patrons can spend another year raising the funds to purchase it.  A museum curator can spend a third year moving it from wall to wall, seeking the perfect wayto display it.  But one angry man with a concealed knife in his trench coat can slice it into ribbons of canvas in a matter of seconds.

 

A family can pour sixteen years into the socialization of a child.  They can teach her a sense of values.  They can assist her in the development of a conscience.  Then, in the words of an eighteen-year-old boy I heard recently: " All you gotta do is get the chick high and she won't care what she does with her body." 

 

In much the same way, a great career can be compromised by a slanderer telling one lie….a great leader can be toppled by an assassin firing one bullet….and a great cathedral can have a hole blown in its side by a fanatic tossing one pipe bomb.

In the face of"strong wrong,"  can God really bring things into line?  Every time we recite the Apostles Creed, we articulate the line: "I believe in the final triumph of righteousness."  But can it be brought to pass, short of the end of history?  Will God have to destroy the world before goodness can win?  Personally, I think God can pull it off prior to doomsday.   But the house divides on that one.

 

Which leavesmore to be said….more that is positive….more that is promising….more than will please, placate and pacify.  So let me get on with it, weighing in with but one simple observation:   Evil tends to be self-defeating….if not immediately, certainly inevitably. 

That's right.  Evil defeats itself.  Evil sows the seeds of its own destruction.  Evil has a remarkable tendency to shoot itself in the foot.  How so?  I'll tell you how so.  Because evil,  by its very nature,  is a separatist thing, while good is a unifying thing.  We would, by now, be totally under the rule of the criminal, the conspirator, the despot and the deviant one, were it not for this one redeeming factor….one tide-turning truth that cancels out the advantagesevil has in its impressive arsenal of weapons.

 

Evil breaks apart.  Evil separates itself, not only from the good, but from other evil as well.  We all know that evil is destructive.  But I am here to tell you that evil is also self-destructive.  Samuel Johnson, venerable British sage, put it well when he wrote: "Wickedness would have long ago overwhelmed the world, did not those who practice it grow faithlessto each other." 

 

In my cover notes for this week's bulletin, I invited you to consider a pair of cliches. The first cliché  suggests that there is "honor among thieves."  Do you believe that?  I don't.  Were that true, it would mean that thieves would treat each other better than they treat their victims.  They would respect each other's rights.  They would make no infringements upon each other's territory.  I once heard about a man who blew a tire on the freeway.  It was his rear tire.  He steered to the side of the road, jacked up the frame, and was about to exchange the flattened tire for a spare, when he looked up to see astranger raising his hood.  "What's going on?" he screamed.  To which was heard the response: "Cool it, buddy.  You get the tires,  I'll get the battery.  Keep your mouth shut and we'll both make out like bandits."  I suppose that could be classified as honor among thieves.  Except it doesn't work out that way most of the time.  Thieves have little honor for each other.  And what honor there is can be sold for a price.

 

A better cliché….a more descriptive cliché….suggests that "thieves fall out."  It's inevitable.  It goes with the nature of thievery.  In fact, it goes with the nature of most evil.  Evil is anti-social in nature.  Evil is based on selfish motives such as greed, avarice and private gain.  Evil cares only about me and mine, never about you and yours.  Since the thief (or evildoer) is primarily interested in private gain, he or she is seldom capable ofenduring loyalty.

Trust and loyalty require that one will act (most of the time) in the best interest of another.  But evil sees "the other" as one to be fleeced, conned, abused, victimized…. certainly not as one to be sacrificed for.  So evil generates no trust, creates no community and promotes no loyalty.  Which is why thieves tend to fall out. 

Evildoing, in the long run, becomes a solitary and lonely thing.  Which explains why there are relatively few drug dealers over the age of 35.  They kill each other off or carve each other up.  This explains why conspiracies always sound more plausible in theory than they work in practice.  Most conspirators can't trust each other long enough to make a conspiracy work.  This explains why most crimes are solved by giving immunity to one of the criminals who, in turn, spills the beans on everybody else.  This explains why the least stable unit of social organization is a group of bank robbers trying to divide the loot from the heist.  This explains why tyrants are more often killed by their lieutenants than by the armies massed against them.  This explains why Hitler and Stalin could sign a non-aggression pact with each other, but couldn't maintain it longer than a year.  And this explains why the phrase "partners in crime,"  involves a pair of words that cannot coexist in the same sentence, and may constitute the world's most obvious oxymoron.

 

Evil has no center.  It is always a separatist thing.  We should have known this, we who understand theology.  For centuries we have been saying that "sin is separation."  It is separation of the self from God.… often called estrangement.  It is separation of one self from another self…. often called brokenness…. And it is the separation of the self from itself….often called schizophrenia.  All you have to do is focus the light sharply enough, and evil will fragment….running and hiding, just like the book of Genesis said it would.

Evil splits from within.  Occasionally, even Hollywood recognizes it.  My son, Bill, was something of a movie buff.  He understood film artistically, cinematographically, and, sometimes, even theologically.  Which is why he told me to rent a video that,  to this day, enjoys a bit of status as a cult film.  It's name :  "A Fish Called Wanda." 

It is a movie about a crime….a diamond heist to be exact….perpetrated by three rather ugly men and Jamie Lee Curtis (who is certainly far from ugly, herself.)  The plot is interesting, filled with surprising twists and turns.  But the movie ends strangely, almost amorally.  Nobody gets caught.  The diamonds are never returned.  From the standpoint of justice, the crime is quite successful.  But there is no hint that the criminals ever get to enjoy the money.  The whole plot concerns the breakdown of community within the circle of thieves.  This one turns on that one.  That one betrays the next one.  Finally, none are left, save for Jamie Lee Curtis and the judge she corrupts.  They fly off into the sunset, the jewels resting between them.  But, given all that has gone before, only a fool would conclude that either will rest comfortably, or that (together) they will live happily ever after.

 

I found myself reflecting, early on in Holy Week, about the fact that Jesus was crucified between a pair of criminals.  Matthew and Luke go so far as to call them "robbers."  But there is no mention of who they robbed or what they stole.  For all I know, it may have been state secrets.…since crucifixion was most often reserved as a punishment for high crimes of a treasonous nature.  But that's all speculation.  The Bible doesn't say.  And in addition to not knowing their crimes, we don't know their ages, their nationalities, their politics or their religious leanings.

Legend has named the penitent one Dismas….Demas….or Dumachus.  But that's legend.  All we know is that they were apprehended, convicted and suspended….above the crowd….with nails….on wood….beside Jesus.  Which only adds to our Lord's humiliation, don't yousee.  There he hangs, among common criminals….wretched of the land….refuse of the courts….scum of the earth….whatever.

One wonders if thesetwo thieves knew each other….rode with each other….robbed with each other….hung with each other.  Maybe so.  Maybe no.  But even if they started together, they are far from together now.  Not at the end.  One rails at Jesus: "Some King you are.  Can't save yourself.  Can't save us."  And you can darned well betthe only hide this thief is interested in saving is his own.

 

But the other thief either sees something….senses something…hunches something…feels something….splitting him from his comrade opposite, while drawing him to the stranger in the middle. 

            Leading him to say to the comrade:

                        Do you not fear God, since you are under the same condemnation….justly 

                        so, I might add.

            Even as he says to the stranger:

                        Do Lord….O do Lord….O do remember me!

Proving once again, that goodness reopens bridges that evil burns.   For, in the face of evil, it is goodness (alone) that heals the breech.

And since we are recalling movies, let me help you remember another one….a better one….an endearing and enduring one…."Driving Miss Daisy."  In it are to be found but two characters that matter.  Miss Daisy, played by the late Jessica Tandy, is an 80-year-old widow of the deep South….very Jewish….cussedly independent….innately crotchety….and frustrated because she can no longer drive her car, thus requiring the services of a chauffeur.  The chauffeur's name is Hoke, played by Morgan Freeman, who is nearly 70….very black….functionally illiterate…. but possessed of a dignity which will not quit.

For much of the picture, Miss Daisy does not like Hoke, precisely because she does not like the fact that she needs him.  And her dislike, coupled with a subtle sense of racial superiority, leads her to treat him in ways that are not always sensitive or kind.  Then one day Hoke is driving her to Sabbath services at the Temple and they are caught in a traffic jam.  "Stalled" would be a better word.  Impatiently, she urges Hoke to get out and see what the problem is.  Which he does.  On his return, the conversation goes something like this: 

 

"Miss Daisy, I'm afraid you're not going to be able to go to Temple today."

 

"Of course I'm going to Temple.  Why wouldn't I go?"

"Because the Temple's been bombed.  That's why all the cars are stopped."

"Bombed?  Don't be ridiculous!  Who would do such a thing as bomb the Temple?"

"I reckon the same ones, Miss Daisy.  The same ones."

And in the face of such an evil, there was a coming together of the black son of a slave and the white daughter of Israel, as slowly they began to realize they had more in common than they had in conflict.  And God smiled.  Which God always does, when things work out according to plan.

Print Friendly and PDF

The Kid Who Shared His Lunch 6/13/1999

First United Methodist Church, Birmingham, Michigan

Scripture: John 6:1-14

I found the cereal box, got out the milk, made a piece of toast, buttered it, and then completed this marvelous culinary enterprise by sectioning an orange. Then I sat down the coffee and the Free Press, waiting for the Galloping Gourmet to sweep into my kitchen and paste a gold star on my forehead.

That was when Julie said those five wonderful words that symbolized one of the great moments in the history of father-daughter relationships: “Dad, I need a lunch.” Actually, Julie can make her own lunch, and often does. But she also counts on the fact that I will not remind her of that. Therefore, I made a lunch. It consisted of a tuna fish sandwich and a banana. I even made the tuna fish from scratch (well, not exactly, but you understand what I mean), applied it nice and thick and even, and then proceeded to cut the sandwich into triangles.

Later that afternoon, I asked Julie how she enjoyed her lunch. She said that it was fine. Secretly, I was hoping for a little bit more than “fine.” So I said: “Wonderful?” “It was wonderful, Dad,” she answered. “I bet all your friends wished they had a lunch like that.” To which Julie said: “Dad, don’t be dumb. Kids don’t sit around in the lunchroom looking at other kids’ lunches, saying: ‘Gee, your dad sure has a great way with a tuna fish sandwich.’” I bet her friends really did say that. Julie probably doesn’t want to tell me, lest it go to my head.

Actually, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Unless you consider the fact that today’s gospel story literally pivots upon what happened when a boy, who had gone to hear a teacher, opened up a lunch that his father (or maybe his mother) had packed in a sack. The story is incredibly familiar. Every gospel has a version of it. This is John’s.

In other words, John suggests that Jesus feeds more people with less bread, and fills nearly double the number of doggie bags to take home. There are 12 bags of leftovers. And if you said: “Gee, that adds up to one doggie bag for each disciple,” you’d be right. You could probably go home and make a nifty sermon out of that. Or you could go home and cut the lawn.

Ah, but there is at least one other major difference. It is only in John’s version that we have a kid. John gives us a boy, the proper Greek translation being “lad.” You can do what you like, but I choose to see him as a sixth grade boy from Tiberias Middle School, who has come to listen to Jesus and has brought a lunch.

Now I know that the boy is not the hero of the story. Jesus is. And if we are too blind to see that, John tells us that Jesus is the hero. Verse 14 reads: “Now when the people saw the sign he had performed, they began to say, ‘This is undoubtedly the prophet who is to come into the world.’” I suppose that this could be a rough translation of what people in the crowd might actually have said: “Did you see that? Totally awesome! That was out of this world. But we saw it with our own eyes.” To which, John would say: “Yea!”

 

The real point of the story is that Jesus fills people up….in unlikely ways….using unlikely people….working against ridiculous odds….and would not have been able to do it unless God were with him. That’s what the story seems to say. But there may be more.

 

Go back to the kid with the lunch. But first, let me set a stage. Jesus sees a large crowd. He turns and says to Philip: “Phil, where shall we ever buy enough bread for these people to eat?” But Philip knows that this is not a “where” question. If it was a “where” question, Philip would have given a “where” answer. Philip might have said something about a bakery on the road, or the 7-11 Store in Tiberias. But Philip knows it is a “how” question. (“How shall we ever buy enough bread to feed these people?”) And the answer is: “No way.” “Lord, I could work for 200 days and not be able to buy enough bread for all these folks.”

 

Enter Andrew! See him waving his arms furiously. “Over here, Lord. Andrew, on microphone three. I’ve got a kid here with a lunch. He’s got five barley loaves and two dried fish.” But, then, even Andrew seems to realize how ridiculous he sounds. “But what good is that for so many?”

 

Now what I’ve got to do next is tell you something about those five loaves. They are barley loaves. Barley loaves are cheap. Poor people eat them. Wheat loaves are not only better, but preferred. Barley loaves are also smaller. Somewhere it is written that three barley loaves make one meal. And the fish are dried. What John is trying to tell us is that this kid is not carrying a feast.

 

Now I don’t know where this kid got this lunch. I think his father packed it. But I don’t know that for sure. And I am left to guess at the rest of it. The fact that he brought a lunch indicated that he knew he might be needing one. Perhaps he was planning to spend the day. The fact that a sixth grader from Tiberias Middle School would plan to spend the day listening to Jesus, says something rather special about this kid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I suspect that the kid volunteered it. And I also suspect that his offer, once made public, may have stimulated a widespread miracle of sharing. Maybe everybody brought a lunch, but they kept it hidden. They were too selfish to bring it out. So Jesus made an example out of this kid, and people began to feel guilty. So one guy says: “Well, I didn’t say anything before, but I’ve got six oranges in my knapsack.” And another says: “Well, I’m kind of embarrassed to say so, but I’ve got a kielbasa up my sleeve.” And pretty soon, presto feasto! A miracle of sharing, stimulated by a middle school kid.

 

Let me tell you about kids in middle school. One of the things that I know about kids in middle school is that they are not always all that sure of themselves. They know that they aren’t what they used to be (hence, the oft-repeated phrase, “That’s kid stuff”). And they know that they aren’t what they’re going to be (hence, all the grandiose talk about what they are going to do when they grow up). So here they are. God’s in-betweeners. There is not a one of them of whom their parents have not said: “Some days this kid is 13 going on 25; other days this kid is 13 going on 6.”

 

But I know something else about kids in middle school. Kids in middle school can also do a whole lot of things they never give themselves credit for. In the years when I made my living doing youth work, I remember something that happened on a junior high retreat. I asked the group of kids to make a name tag. But, in addition to their name, I wanted their tag to include two additional notations. I wanted them to write something they were proud of. I also wanted them to write down something they were good at. About half of the kids couldn’t think of anything to write. And many who could, were reluctant to put it down. That didn’t surprise me. For to be in the middle school years is not only to occasionally wonder who you are, but to have an occasional doubt or two as to whether you are (or will ever be) very good at anything. A lot of kids in middle school feel that way. They doubt themselves. But that is not something that you ever share with anybody. Middle school is a time for keeping doubt a secret, trying your best to hide your worst.

 

But I also know a third thing about the middle school years. No matter how bad your day is going….no matter how bad your life is going….relief is often just a phone call away. To live with an adolescent is to discover that sometime around the 12th or 13th year, an amazing capacity develops in human beings. The telephone rings, and bodies that were nearly comatose, suddenly spring to life. I call it resurrection by telephone. Bodies leap into action, footsteps pound and race, and you hear a voice shouting: “It’s for me.”

 

Well, how do they know that? So you ask them: “How did you know that call was for you?” They say: “I was expecting a call.” Mark Trotter says: “I think that to be 13 years old is to be expecting a call.”

 

You see where this is going, don’t you? One of the best things about being 13, or even 14, is to be expecting a call. Maybe one of the best things about having a little bit of age 13 or 14 left in you, even if you are long past it, is to be expecting a call.

 

Not every caller uses the phone. Jesus doesn’t. But I believe that he is trying to reach people. And you never know when he is going to try and reach you. Jesus called out to the boy with the sack: “Hey, you with the brown bag….”

            “I want what you brought today.

            I want your lunch.

            I need it.

            I can use it.

            I need you.

          

            I can use you.

 

            It’ll do.

 

            You’ll do.”

Erik Anderson, Chris Banas, Brent Barnhart, Steve Blair, Peter Boyle, Tom Cassel, Alexandra Chadwich, Michael Comeau, Caitlin Cummings, Jacque Dauch, Josh Dickerson, Greg Fenton, Allison Finney, Jonathan Firth, Dan Glisky, Steve Grabiel, Todd Griesen, Craig Johnson, Matt Jones, Jaclyn Julow, Whitney Kulas, Adam Lachowicz, Katie Lohr, David Lorenz, Michael Marburger, Jay Markevich, Eric McComas, Mike McGill, Sarah McNab, Bill Meese, Niki Mehta, Lindsey Muirhead, Alexander Roberts, Sophie Rokicki, Brent Saeli, Patrice Sherman, Jill Signorello, Laura Stewart, Haley Sztykiel, Mark Thomson, David Tomlinson, Claire Torok, Sara Tull, Amanda Venettis, Emily Wilkinson, Matt Williams

This is your Confirmation Sunday. Don’t ever apologize for what you bring. Don’t ever apologize for what you are. Don’t ever stop expecting a call. Listen for Jesus! You never know when somebody will be hungry. You never know when He’ll need your lunch. You never know w hen He’ll need you.

Print Friendly and PDF

The Fear of Being Close 2/14/1999

First United Methodist Church, Birmingham, Michigan

Scriptures:  Luke 8:43-48, John 1:43-46

Although I make no apologies for the title, my sermon has absolutely nothing to do with deodorants, antiperspirants, mouthwashes or hygiene-related toiletries of any kind. If the purchase a few chemicals will help you draw closer and fear less, be my guest. Now that I’ve got that out of the way, let me tell you a pair of stories….one, biblical….the other, personal.

The first comes from the opening chapter of John’s gospel. I alluded to it briefly on Christmas Sunday. But not for the reasons that interest me today. You will remember the setting. Jesus is choosing disciples. Already chosen are Andrew, and Andrew’s brother Simon. In John’s gospel, Jesus immediately changes Simon’s name to “Peter.” In Matthew’s gospel, Peter doesn’t get his new name for 16 chapters and two and a half years. But this is not Matthew’s account. This is John’s.

 

The next day, it’s on to Galilee. Jesus, Andrew and Peter are walking beside the sea. Which is a lake, really….given that the Sea of Galilee barely measures 14 miles top to bottom and 8 miles, side to side. There, beside the Galilean lake, Jesus meets Philip. The town is Bethsaida, which literally means “house of fish”….just as Bethlehem literally means “house of bread.” At any rate, when Jesus meets Philip (the Bethsaidan), he says to him: “Follow me.” Which Philip does. And whether you think it happened just that quickly….or whether you think this is John’s one-sentence condensation of a three hour conversation….I will leave up to you. For today’s purpose, it matters little.

 

That’s because I am not primarily interested in Philip. I am primarily interested in Nathanael….who comes next. But I need Philip to get to Nathanael. Literally. Jesus finds Philip. Philip finds Nathanael. Philip tells Nathanael about Jesus: “Look, Nat, I found the main man….the right guy….the one of whom Moses and the prophets wrote.”

 

Color Nathanael lukewarm. In fact, I can’t make out what Nathanael says next. Because John doesn’t print what Nathanael says next.  But when I take my head out of the Bible and put my ear to the ground, it sounds like a series of questions.

 

            Who did you find?

 

            What is his name?

 

            Where is he from?

 

            Who are his people?

 

Which Philip answers as succinctly as he can.

 

            Jesus is his name.

 

            Nazareth is his place.

 

            Joe and Mary are his people.

 

To which Nathanael says: “Big deal” (although John cleans it up to read: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”). Which could just as well be translated: “Can anything good come out of Ecorse….Centerline….Paint Creek….Copper Harbor?” And what does Philip say to that? Nothing. He simply extends an offer: “Come and see. Check it out. Look him over.” And that’s pretty much it. But I’ll return to it later. For the moment, file it. But don’t forget it. Definitely, don’t forget it.

 

Now to the personal story. Most of you know that I spent a number of years at Yale. What many of you do not know is that I have, on a few occasions, returned to Yale for its annual Convocation (the better to see old friends and hear new ideas). The Yale Convocation is a four-day event at the Divinity School. Normal classes are suspended. Special seminars are offered. World-renown speakers are invited. And the gems in the schedule are a pair of endowed lectureships (which almost always result in books to be published, once they are crafted as speeches to be delivered).

 

Therefore, no one attends blindly. Much is known about who one will hear….and what one will hear. Which I tell you, merely to set a stage. On this particular occasion, I traveled to New Haven drooling over the opportunity to hear the Beecher lecturer, Krister Stendal of Harvard. Now deceased, Stendal was a Lutheran from Sweden, who, better than anyone, knew how to convert New Testament texts into present-day sermons. But as excited as I was to hear Stendal, I was indifferent (even to the point of being uncomfortable) at the prospect of hearing the Taylor lecturer, Dorothee Soelle of West Germany. For I knew her to be something of a saber-rattler in ecclesiastical circles….a lady famous for writing theology from the starting point of liberation perspectives (oppression, being her primary sin….emancipation, her primary goal….and empowerment, her primary strategy for attaining it).

 

But let me back up. You need to understand that, in the last quarter century, liberation has become a major motif in theology. This is especially true of theology written by oppressed persons (like Hispanics, blacks and representatives of the Third World). And it is especially true of theology being written by persons who believe their oppression to be sexual (as well as racial and political)….meaning women. Dorothee Soelle would not take offense at being called a “liberationist” or a “radical feminist”….and probably wouldn’t mind if you added the word “socialist” for good measure. She is a very forceful lady, whose nature it is to speak powerfully about power. Hers has been a strident and oft-times critical voice….made all the more dramatic by the fact that her accent is decidedly Germanic (rather than, shall we say, French).

That was my assessment of Dorothee Soelle, going in. Which, I will admit, was more than a tad defensive. And which explains why I almost blew off her opening lecture. And would have, had it not been for the following line of reasoning.

After all, she did have a world-wide reputation.

            After all, I had paid a lot of money to be there.

 

            After all, I was mildly curious.

 

            After all, it was raining.

 

So I went….late. My lateness spoke volumes about my openness….or lack thereof. Most of the time, you and I are late by design. The design may be unconscious. But it is still a design. Very few of us are late accidentally….or circumstantially. Our lateness is almost always a statement. But of what? That’s the $64 question.

 

At any rate, I was late. The chapel was full. I was directed to an overflow room (an auditorium, in an adjacent building). Her lecture was being piped in. No picture. Just sound. But even at this distance, she came across as harsh and judgmental. She spoke of heavy stuff, hammering it to us in a heavy way. She spoke about the “death wish of the western world.” She talked about the rape of the earth, the exploitation of the poor, and the evils of the arms race. She talked about abuses of power in world and church, adding that the real litmus test of “spiritual death in a nation” is not the number of its citizens who disbelieve in God, but the number of its citizens who are kept powerless by the powerful. “The voice of practical atheism,” she suggested, “is not the profession of unbelief by those who have fallen away, but the cry of anguish by those who have been stepped over.” Then she added that, in her opinion, the United States was in danger of becoming a nation of professing believers and practicing atheists at one and the same time.

 

But, at the end of her lecture, a softer (almost sensual) word began to come through. “We must, as Christians, get in touch again with creation…..with our love for everything God has made. Even as the lover knows the smallest detail of the body of the beloved, so (too) must the Christian get in touch with the smallest secrets of the beloved creation.” Concerning God the Creator, she asked: “Why did God create the earth?” To which came her answer: “As an antidote to loneliness.” And on the subject of God as Lover, came these words: “To make the name of God holy, is to make the love of God real.” Which, she added, is harder for most of us to achieve than we might think….seeing that God loves most of the things we love, but also a whole mess of stuff that we don’t.

Which, I thought, was good. I’ve said similar stuff from time to time. So, since she agreed with me on one or two things, I figured she couldn’t be all bad. Therefore, when the time of her second lecture rolled around, I decided to return. Besides, it was still raining.

So I went. And was on time. Barely, on time. There were only a couple of seats left in the Chapel. They were in the last row, behind a pillar. Which meant that I could hear her, but still couldn’t see her. I concluded that this was an acceptable arrangement.

The lecture was on the meaning of work. It was another mixed bag of ideas, evoking (in me) another mixed bag of feelings. At the close, she announced that lecture number three would be on the meaning of sex. I decided I would attend, whether it was raining or not. I commented on this to a friend. “Just goes to show you,” he said. “Goes to show me what?” I asked. “That you like sex better than work,” he answered. Which I let pass without comment.

The next morning splashed brilliant sunshine all over New Haven. The hour for lecture number three approached. I arrived at the chapel, 15 minutes early. Whereupon, I sat in the front row. I concluded that it was more than just the topic. But I wasn’t sure exactly what it was. As lectures go, hers was brilliant….and beautiful. Incisive….and inspiring. Principled….and very personal. She talked of God’s expectations. But she also shared her story. A wartime lover, lost. Hurtful lessons, learned. Truth fashioned from tears. Laughter extracted from pain. She wasn’t so much confessing as reflecting. But the content of her reflection was rock solid. Indeed, her scholarship (over the course of all three lectures) had never been anything but compelling. But it was only with the passing of time….on this, the third day….that the lady, herself, became captivating.

 

A conversation was taking place. It was not merely at the level of ideas, but on the plane of personalities. Suddenly, it mattered to me….not simply what she thought….but who she was (this harsh, strident, West German feminist….this passionate lover of God and God’s creation…. this vulnerable lady who hurt, loved, cared and shared so deeply).

And when the lecture ended, I left. I never did speak to her. It wasn’t that kind of attraction. But it did occur to me (as I walked from the chapel into the sunshine), that there was a connection between my willingness to move my body (over the course of three days) and her ability to reach my heart. I had started in another room….located in another building….where there was sound but no sight. I continued behind a pillar in the back row, only to end up down front. Which gave me cause to wonder. Did I like her better because I moved closer? Or did I move closer as I began to like her better? Was it movement that created comfort? Or did comfort create movement?

 

I suppose it was both….although I never sorted it out. What matters, today, is the connection between closeness and comfort. Because there was one, don’t you see? Back in my youth ministry days, there was a kid in my senior high MYF whose name was Ron. He was there every week….although he never said anything to indicate that he was “comfortably there” (if you know what I mean). He was a behavior problem at times. And I especially recall that, every time we put our chairs in a circle, Ron felt the need to move his chair three feet back from everyone else’s. Three-feet-removed was his comfortable distance, don’t you see? He had a need to be among us. But not quite with us.

 

And I never thought about Ron again, until I was working with a small group of adults in a rustic retreat setting. We spent two days together in sessions of varying intensities. And there was, in our group, one whose chair always needed to be outside the rest of our chairs. In fact, it became somewhat of a game to try and figure out (during the break times) how to reconfigure the circle so as to bring her into it. But every effort failed. For she, too, had a desire to be among us, mitigated by a fear of being with us.

 

But I can understand that, given that there is often safety in distance. Zacchaeus chose a tree. “I’ll just watch Jesus from the top of this tree,” he said. Now Zacchaeus, we are told, was short of inches. But Zacchaeus, we are also told, was short of ethics. I’ll leave it for you to figure out which of those factors drove him up that tree. As for me, I don’t think he was there to see better. I think he was there to hide better. Which is true of all of us, from time to time. When I worship as a non-preacher, I always sit down front. But when I was a teenager, I often sat in the back row of the balcony….with my back against the wall. And there are still places where I fade into the fringe….even as there are settings into which I move, but never fully unpack.

 

* * * * *

 

But I promised to return to my text. For I asked you to hold fast to the story of Philip and Nathanael. And, especially, Nathanael’s quip: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth….out of West Germany….out of the mouth of a radical feminist….out of the south, the north, the east or the west….out of the left, the right, the gay or the straight….out of the town, the gown, the up or the down?” What a defensive posture. But notice this. The purpose of any defensive posture is to maintain maximum distance in order to preserve maximum security.

 

Therefore, we must learn to read defenses….especially, our own. We need to pay attention to the people we avoid and the subjects we never talk about. I learn far more about myself by reading my avoidances than by reading my actions. And the best technique Jim Dittes ever taught me about pastoral counseling was “to read people’s resistances”….meaning that I should listen to what they don’t say, even more closely than I listen to what they do say….watching for subjects that are consistently skirted, glossed over, dodged or minimized. Because that’s where the “important stuff” can be found.

 

As a counselor, you can tell when you’re getting near one of those places, because you can literally see the defenses going up. So you aim questions at the defenses. Why did Nathanael feel a need to “put down” Nazareth and anybody who was raised there? Why did Ron feel a need to push his chair three feet behind the rest of the teenagers? Why did Zacchaeus take to the tallest tree? Why did I arrive at the chapel, too late to get a seat? What are our avoidances telling us? And who, among our acquaintances, are we afraid to draw near?

 

“Come and see,” says Philip to Nathanael. “Check it out.” Which suggests that proximity is important. A woman says of Jesus: “I know that if I can just touch the hem of his garment, I shall be healed.” Do you think, even for a moment, that the healing was in the garment? I don’t. The healing has more to do with the “coming and the touching” than with the hem or the cloth. The Psalmist says: “O taste and see how gracious the Lord is.” But unlike seeing and hearing, tasting is one of those senses that can only be activated when one is but a tongue’s-length removed.

 

Come and see. Proximity is important. I sometimes think about the “electronic church” and wonder why anybody who could “get religion” in person would prefer to get it by television. But the answer is obvious. The religion one gets over television is anonymous. It asks nothing of you, save a finger that can click on the station and a pen that can occasionally (when guilt gets the better of you) write a small check.

 

Come and see. Proximity is important. I once heard about a fellow who became smitten with a young lady, but couldn’t make up his mind about asking her to marry him. He tried and tried to figure it out. Days stretched into weeks. Weeks into months. But even as he weighed and counter-weighed the decision, he was desirous of keeping the attraction alive. So he “kept in touch” by sending a letter a day. Every night he wrote it. Every morning he mailed it. The following day, the mailman delivered it. In the end, proximity won. She married the mailman.

 

Can anything good come out of….? The defense rests.

 

Whereupon the offense answers:

 

            Come and see.

 

            O taste and see.

 

            Draw me nearer….nearer….nearer, precious Lord.

 

Could it be…..that in addition to being a head and heart trip, Christianity is (first and foremost) a feet trip? Come

Print Friendly and PDF