|
Earlier
this summer, while hitting a little white ball around a great
green field with Jay Hook, I fell into conversation with another
Methodist member of the foursome .... a young fellow who hails
from Pensacola, Florida. My friend, Henry Roberts, preaches
at First Methodist in Pensacola, so you can imagine my delight
in finding that Henry was my golfing partner's preacher.
This fellow
got to talking about his five-year-old son and something that
happened at this year's Vacation Bible School. Apparently,
each child was to bring a certain amount of money each day
for poor people in Africa. So the boy's mother gave him a
dollar each morning to contribute to the offering. At the
end of the week .... while cleaning out her son's pockets
before washing his pants .... she extracted five dollar bills,
wadded up amongst the trivia little boys tend to carry. Upon
being confronted, he admitted that these were the same dollars
that were supposed to go to the poor people. But when asked
why he didn't put them in the basket, he replied: "If
they need money so badly, let them work for it like my daddy
does."
I suppose
that might be called "a teachable moment." Which
is what it became. And his father thinks .... or at least
hopes .... that his son now has a broader view of mission,
and a more charitable view of need, than before their conversation
took place. But the boy did not come up with that idea all
by himself. He was reflecting a cultural assumption (or question)
that is not all that uncommon .... and not entirely wrong.
Most of
you know that one of the things at my disposal as your pastor
is a small discretionary fund. I have had one in each of the
churches I have served. It is not available to me personally.
It is only available to me pastorally. I don't suppose that
this surprises you .... although several things about it might
surprise you. The number of people who need to draw upon it
(both internally and externally) might surprise you. The stories
told by many of the "street people" who come through
the door might surprise you. And the number of people who
regularly work "the church circuit" might surprise
you.
And you
might also be surprised by the number of able-bodied young
men who come by. They are always in a bad way, economically.
But they always have a fresh pack of cigarettes in their pocket
.... along with a Methodist somewhere in their family ....
often a Methodist preacher (back home, somewhere). And most
of these able-bodied men claim that they are willing to do
a little work in return for whatever cash I might give them
("Got any odd jobs, Reverend? I can do most anything.").
In the
old days, I never had any "odd jobs." But then I
got smarter. I began keeping a few "odd job" ideas
in mind, the better to test the seriousness of such requests.
In a previous church, we always had a huge pile of wood chips
on the back forty. So I would point out the pile .... point
out the shovel .... point out the wheelbarrow .... point out
a section of the building in need of wood chip cover ....
and then propose a decent hourly wage. And with God as my
witness, I am here to tell you that not one single wood chip
was ever moved by any of those seekers after cash. There was
always some reason they wanted to do it, but couldn't. At
least right then. But they'd certainly come back tomorrow
.... if I paid them today. A few of the excuses I believed.
Most I disregarded. But I was left to conclude that the major
issue for a number of these folk was that "work was simply
not their thing."
A few
years ago, I did a wedding with Father Bill Cunningham of
Focus Hope. All of us remember Bill as a delightful Irish
priest. I know I enjoyed every occasion that brought the two
of us together. At this particular wedding, we both attended
the reception. At that time, Bill launched an animated defense
of one of his favorite themes, job training programs. As you
know, most of his effort at Focus Hope moved in this direction,
because (as Bill put it):
It's
a new ballgame out there. We're seeing something we've never
seen before. There are parts of the city that more closely
resemble a Third World country than an American city. One
of the symptoms is that we are seeing families now into
a third generation of permanent joblessness. And it is not
primarily a question of jobs being available. It's a question
of knowing the first thing about how to get one .... do
one .... keep one .... or even want one.
But, let
me hasten to add, that this creeping malaise in the "work
ethic" is not limited to people south of Eight Mile Road,
or to those on the low end of the hourly wage scale. In a
recent conversation with a high-level managerial type, he
said: "I just can't abide, let alone understand, the
management people who work for me who simply put in their
hours, do half the job of which they're capable, and then
act as if they are doing me and the company a colossal favor."
To which a recent United Methodist District Superintendent
added: "One of the things that surprised me in this job
was that when a church became dissatisfied with its preacher,
it seldom had anything to do with something he or she did,
but rather with the list of tasks that he or she didn't do."
Now it
strikes me as odd that, in a world where there are many who
work too little, there are others who work too much. There
are couch potatoes. And there are workaholics. There are people
who don't know the first thing about work. And there are people
who don't know that there is anything else besides work. Both
are diseases. And both are spiritual.
I have
previously addressed myself to the over-workers of the world,
for they are the people I know best. Notice that while I called
them "over-workers," I did not call them "over-worked."
For to say that we are over-worked is to say that we are victims.
And to say that we are victims, is to say that we are without
choice. And to say that we are without choice is not only
the first step on the road to despair .... but is also patently
ridiculous. But having said that before, I will refrain from
saying it again. Besides, I have very little stomach for addressing
my own sins.
I am concerned
with those who have seemingly chosen shortcuts on the way
to a work ethic. Not long ago, I got in a very heated argument
with a colleague about a particular "Jobs Corp"
program for youth. Now mind you, I have probably supported
more social betterment programs proposed by politicians, than
anybody here in this room. But suddenly I found myself rocked
back on my heels. For my colleague was arguing that unemployed
youth shouldn't be expected to sign up for make-work labor,
unless it provided a certain level of "meaning."
To which he added: "What kind of meaningful work is it
to cut grass along the freeway?"
I suppose
he struck a nerve, given that I once fantasized that I might
like to spend a summer mowing grass along the freeway. Which,
I acknowledge, might get monotonous. But the last time I looked,
grass only grows out-of-doors .... in warm weather. And, if
nothing else, such a job would teach you how to get to work
on time .... stay the full day .... and run a piece of mechanical
equipment. And every grass cutting crew has got to have a
section leader .... a foreman .... a truck driver .... or
someone to do repairs on the mower. Meaning that, in time,
that person could be you .... as much as it could be anybody.
Besides,
"meaning" is a funny thing. Is "meaning"
a byproduct of the job? Or is "meaning" something
you bring to the job? Clearly, some jobs are likely to be
more meaningful than others. I doubt that assembly line work
is terribly meaningful. I think that my job is extremely meaningful.
But there are people who do my job and hate it. Finding "meaning"
means just what it says .... finding it. Which implies a search
.... and a searcher. So there is always a subjective element
present, which is a fancy way of saying that "meaning"
is never solely in the job's description .... or in the job's
compensation (although I am not arguing in favor of dull jobs
.... or low paying ones).
But let
me tip my hat, right now, by making the radical suggestion
that work is its own meaning (quite apart from the kind of
work it is, and the pay that comes from doing it). Dorothee
Soelle .... a remarkable German theologian .... contends that
there are two things we must master on the way to maturity.
We must learn to work. And we must learn to love. In other
words, we must master the issue of industry. And we must master
the issue of intimacy. She even goes on to suggest that the
truly mature person both loves to work and works at love.
She is
right. As well she should be. For she is borrowing from two
rather unique sources .... Sigmund Freud and the Bible. But
let's leave Freud alone and proceed to the Bible.
Strangely
enough, the oldest word in the Bible (concerning work) is
a negative word. It dates from 950 BC and the earlier of the
Bible's two creation narratives. I'm talking about Genesis
2. That's the story that has God walking around in the garden,
hollowing out rivers, fashioning Adam from a dustball and
Eve from Adam's rib. And this very early stratum of stories
(2950 years old) also includes the Garden of Eden story ....
complete with a serpent, an apple, and an act of punishment.
Concerning the latter, the punishment reads:
Accursed
be the soil because of you. With suffering you shall get
your food from it. You shall have sweat on your brow every
day of your life, until you return to the soil, from whence
you came.
What is
the punishment saying? It is saying that work is a curse ....
and that the curse is rooted in our sinfulness. We are condemned
by God to work, and that work will be sweaty and hard.
But how
many times have I tried to teach you that the stories of Genesis
are not chronological? They are layered into position over
a period of 500 years. And so it is that Chapter 1 of Genesis
dates from 450 BC .... meaning that it is 500 years closer
to us than Chapter 2 of Genesis. I know that's hard to believe,
but trust me. Which means that the creation story of Chapter
1 (the story where God does things day by day .... light first
.... humans last .... with all of the creation initiated by
speech rather than by hand) is considerably more sophisticated
and stylized than the material in Chapters 2 and 3.
And notice
that the view of work in Chapter 1 differs from the view of
work in Chapter 3. Work is not toil. Work is not a curse.
Work is not a punishment for sin. Work is what humankind is
created to do. We are supposed to fill the earth .... till
the earth .... care for the earth .... and manage everything
in it. We are supposed to be attentive to the earth. And we
are supposed to be productive in the earth.
In fact,
in Genesis 1, there is a rhythm to each and every day of creation.
And what is that rhythm? Work and rest .... work and rest
.... work and rest. That's the rhythm. What's more, everything
about it is said to be "good." It is as if ....
given 500 years to think about it .... the Jewish mind wanted
to correct itself on whether work was a curse or a blessing.
And it chose "blessing."
We could
spend all day with that idea. But drop it, the better that
we might jump to the Reformers. I'm talking about Luther,
Calvin, and (in latter days) even Wesley. It is from this
era that we received the notion of the "Protestant work
ethic." It is not by accident that Western Europe became
highly economically developed in the 16th century
and also became Protestant at the same time. Recall that Ben
Franklin, in his autobiography, remembered a Bible verse ground
into his head repeatedly by his Calvinist father. That verse
being Proverbs 22:29: "Seeest thou a man diligent in
his labors. He shall stand before kings."
And it
is no secret that in the mid-1700s, Methodists in England
were persecuted by Anglicans, not because of their religious
defection from the mother church, but because Methodists were
religiously inspired to work longer and harder than their
Anglican neighbors. In many cases, Methodists were beaten,
blacklisted, and often had their tools broken by their non-Methodist
comrades.
"Honor
your secular calling," the Reformers said. "Fulfill
your daily tasks with cheer and diligence." Also peculiar
to the Reformation was the admonishment: "Never be idle."
For many, the wasting of time was both the first and the deadliest
of sins. Where do you think the phrase "idle hands are
the devil's playmate," came from? And note the number
of sermons delivered by the Reformers on the parable of the
talents (complete with its condemnation of the one-talent
man who buried what he was given, thus turning his back on
the opportunity to make it grow).
And it
was out of the Reformation that this idea was pushed to its
ridiculous extreme, voiced by some of the Puritans in their
utter distrust of anything that looked too much like pleasure
and too little like effort. But they did reclaim the corrected
Hebrew notion, namely that we were created to work, rather
than cursed to work.
What does
this mean? It means that work .... biblically understood ....
is not a means to an end, but an end in itself. A job may
be one means of working. But a job is surely not the only
means of working. Which is certainly good news for those who
are retired.
We used
to sing an old hymn which is no longer in our hymnal. Much
to my regret. So I'll have to recall it for you, rather than
sing it with you. The first line reads: "Work, for the
night is coming." And the last line reads: "When
man's work is done."
But when
is that .... when man's work is done, that is?
Is it
5:00?
Is it
Friday afternoon?
Is it
Friday at sundown?
Is it
age 65?
If you
know the hymn, you know that it is none of the above. Man's
work is done at night. But, in this instance, night has nothing
to do with sundown .... and everything to do with shutdown.
For "night" is a symbol for dying.
Which,
I suppose means: "Work `til you drop." But that
doesn't sound terribly appealing. So a better way of saying
it might be: "To work is to live."
|
