|
Several
years ago, I told you about the lady who brought home a wall
plaque that read “PRAYER CHANGES THINGS” and hung it in
the kitchen. Upon seeing it hours later, her husband took it
down. Thinking that location was the problem, she put it back
up in another room. Surprised to find it resurrected
elsewhere, he took it back down. So she asked him point blank:
“Don’t you like prayer?” To which he said: “Sure, I
like prayer. But I don’t like change.”
Well,
some of us do and some of us don’t. For most of us, it’s a
matter of control. Is change a “within” thing or a
“without” thing? Does it happen in us or at us? Do we get
to decide? Or is the decision made elsewhere?
If
you believe conventional wisdom, the arrival of a new year is
the appointed time for self-initiated change. We hang the new
calendar and resolve to lead new lives. Eat less. Jog more. Go
to church twice as often. But conventional wisdom also tells
us that few of us who start, finish. Or even continue. Meaning
that it’s not about how strongly we start, but how quickly
we revert. If we are honest, the words “same old, same
old” are less descriptive of our surroundings than of
ourselves. Dr. Harold Brack (Drew University) once suggested
that the measure of life’s satisfaction does not so much
depend on whether we are struggling with problems, but whether
they are the same problems we were struggling with last year
and the year before that.
One
of the things I do exceptionally well is help engaged couples
get in touch with the marital scripts that have been written
for them by their parents….given that virtually everything
young people know about marriage, they learn from watching
their parents be married. Or married, then not married. Or
married, then not married, then remarried (or multiply
married). I have developed an hour-long process which will
enable them to rewind and revisit 20 or 30 years of marital
history as they watched it being lived….in their
presence….by their parents….before their very eyes. And in
the subsection of that “rewind” that I call
“Conflict,” I invite them to remember not simply how their
parents argued, but what their parents argued about. I tell
them that most couples can solve most things. But every couple
has one or two things they can’t solve….issues that thread
their way through years and years of marriage….nagging
issues that can, for short periods, be back-burnered on
life’s stove, but are still simmering and will spill over in
time (given that it’s just a matter of time). I’m talking
about the one issue that, upon its reemergence, will lead
everyone within earshot to say: “Here we go again.”
Then
I tell these starry-eyed romantics: “Once you figure out
what that issue was for your parents, you need to figure out
why that was the thing that kept tripping them up, given their
ability to avoid so many other explosives in the marital
minefields.”
Several
years ago, some of you heard me say: “The older I get, the
less correctable I find life to be.” But I would amend that
in your hearing to read: “The older I get, the less
correctable I find me to be.”
So
how do people change for the better….assuming that they want
to change for the better….and assuming that the use of the
word “better” grows out of an honest recognition that, as
life is currently being lived, it feels “worse?”
Well,
one thing that motivates change is pain. “I am hurting. I am
tired of hurting. I’d like to stop hurting. And though
change (itself) might hurt, it can’t be worse than this
hurt. So I’ll try.” The problem is, it takes a long time
for the pain process to work. That’s because we are so
skillful at ignoring pain or deadening pain. I am always
amazed when one person in a marriage finally says: “I’ve
had it. I’m fed up with it. I don’t want it. Which is why,
just yesterday, I filed to get out of it. So deal with it.”
And the partner is dumbfounded. Doesn’t have a clue. Missed
the signs. Misinterpreted the signs. Isn’t even sure there
were signs. Obviously, those spouses had very different pain
thresholds.
Then
there’s the addict whose craving for something (drugs,
alcohol, food, sex, power, recognition) is ruining his life.
You think he’d see it. Heck, you think he’d feel it. The
pain, I mean. Because everybody else can feel it. And then
some therapist says: “They haven’t fallen far enough
yet….sunk low enough yet….been hurt badly enough yet.”
Sure, pain instructs. But some of us keep repeating the
course. And even then, we can’t pass the final.
There
is a rule of thumb used by people who study churches that runs
something like this. Any church (or any collection of
churches) will quietly adapt itself to an annual loss of one
and a half percent in any statistical category (members on the
rolls, people in the pews, money in the plate, singers in the
choir) in return for an unspoken agreement to keep things as
they are….maintain the status quo….make no change…..even
if that one and a half percent loss continues and compounds,
year after year, for a number of years.
In
other words, it takes a long time before pain motivates a
church. And pain may never motivate a church. Which only
proves that while “same old, same old” may be
boring….may be hurting….may even be disabling (in personal
life, marital life, or institutional life), “same old, same
old” may also be comforting. Which is why the school of pain
has relatively few graduates. Or alumni.
Which
brings me to a different curriculum, not so much based on
pain, but upon possibility….taught by people who can help us
see life’s possibilities by showing us places to go, ways to
go and means to go. If “pain” is the stick,
“possibility” is the carrot. And there’s often more than
one carrot. But most of us need help in seeing the carrots.
Meaning that where change is concerned, we need outside help.
No
doubt you have noticed that this morning’s sermon title is
uncommonly short. It contains but one word, that word being
“Makeover.” It’s a word that is suddenly very
“in”….replacing two words, “self-help,” that are on
their way to being very much “out.” Not that they won’t
come back. They will. It’s a pendulum thing. But the words
“self-help” are not in vogue now. The word “makeover”
is in vogue now. And makeovers involve outsiders.
As
some of you know, I have long preferred letting Mike the
barber cut my hair. Mike is predictable. Mike is quick. Mike
is cheap. Mike is full of local gossip. But Mike is also in
Elk Rapids (227 miles away), where I go less and less.
Which
explains why my wife and daughter sent me to Jill, the
stylist. Who I see, not at a barber shop, but at a
salon….where it takes three times the time….costs three
times the money (which explains why I go half as often)….and
where I am given “hair goals.” What’s more, there
isn’t a Field and Stream or Popular Mechanics
anywhere to be found. The place is called Virtuoso, and it is
billed as “an elemental salon.” I don’t have the
foggiest idea what that means. But Jill is good. And she keeps
trying to show me how I could look if I could get out of my
boring, comb-over rut. But I find myself balking whenever she
uses the word “spiky.” Still, one of these days….
Actually,
what got me started on the word “makeover” was a show on
TLC (which used to be called “The Learning Channel”).
Loved by my wife and daughter, the show is called Trading
Spaces. It seems as if it’s on all the time (at least
seven or eight times a week). The premise is simple. Two
neighbors redesign a room in each other’s house. Each gets
$1,000, the advice of a professional designer, and the
assistance of a paid carpenter. In short, you move out. Your
friends or neighbors move in. The cameras start rolling. And
the whole thing has to be done in 48 hours.
Does
it work? Surprisingly, quite often. Is anybody watching? Would
you believe over 9 million weekly? What’s more, the audience
is growing and includes tons of college students who, for
reasons that escape me, have abandoned the soaps and SportsCenter
to see whether, 48 hours and $1,000 later, the returning
homeowners will actually like the fact that their master
bedroom has been converted into a medieval castle. The
show’s magic is not in its decorating tips, but in its
suspense. “Will they like what we’ve done when they see
what we’ve done?” And most seem to. That’s because their
designer and their neighbors saw possibilities that would
stretch them, fit them, and therefore please
them….possibilities they could not see for themselves.
Personally, I think some of the makeovers are terrible. But
then, it’s not my room, my designer, my friends or my
neighbors, opening up options and alternatives for me.
I
could go on to tell you about TLC’s other daily show, the
one entitled Makeover Story. Or I could tell you about
ABC’s periodic special, Extreme Makeover, which
includes nose jobs, implants, vision correction, liposuction,
even dental work (in addition to hair, makeup and wardrobe
corrections). Ironically, the promo for Extreme Makeover
suggests that “the work that is done will transform lives
and ultimately redirect destinies.”
Which
kicks things into a much higher gear, does it not? A religious
gear, if you will. For today’s text would seem to suggest
that God is in the makeover business. At least, as I read it,
it suggests that God is in the makeover business.
Jeremiah
takes us to the potter’s house where we are invited to watch
the potter work the clay. The potter’s house was probably
literal as well as figurative, given that Old Jerusalem once
had in its city wall “a potsherd gate.” So picture a wheel
(turned by foot)….clay on the wheel…. hands on the
clay….turning….wetting….molding….shaping. I even gave
half a thought to hiring a potter to do all of the above,
right here in the chancel. But potters cost money and I’d
already sprung for this morning’s donuts.
Everything
is in the hands of the potter. That’s because, by common
scholarly agreement, this is a parable about God’s
sovereignty. Except that the clay, which (at the outset) is
resilient, turns resistant….even rebellious. Ask any potter
and they will tell you that clay (at times) has a mind of its
own….a bent of its own….a “push-back” of its own….a
will and way of its own. On one level (the level of physical
properties), I don’t understand that at all and think it’s
stupid. On another level (the level of spiritual realities), I
understand it completely and find it brilliant.
So
when the clay resists (or rebels), what does the potter do
then? The text is quite clear. He takes the clay that was
spoiled in his hand (interesting, isn’t it, that even in the
hand of the potter….without ever leaving the hand of the
potter….the clay can become “spoiled”), and he
“reworks it into another vessel, as it seems good for the
potter to do.” Same clay. Same hands. Different outcome. Yet
very much within the imagination of the potter.
People
sometimes ask me: “Bill, do you think that God has designed
our lives so that there is only one right call for us to
answer…..one right college for us to attend….one right
career for us to choose….one right person for us to
marry….one right home for the living, church for the going,
and destiny for the finding?” And I say: “No.” Because I
think that such a philosophy limits both the potential in the
clay and the imagination in the potter. Go back to the text.
Even in the hand of God, stuff spoils…..life spoils….best
laid plans spoil…..best made people spoil…. because in
that wonderful dance between potter and clay that we call
creation, stuff sometimes goes awry.
So
does the potter scrap the effort? No. Does the potter scrap
the clay? No. Does the potter scrap the original design?
Maybe. Is that because life is full of possibilities or
because God is full of surprises? Yes.
My
wife, who really doesn’t watch any more television than I
do, tells me that the there is a new home-makeover show
coming. Not one where a designer (or a neighbor) buys or
builds you a bunch of new stuff, but where somebody takes your
existing stuff….your old stuff (like tables, chairs,
pictures, lamps) and shows you things to do with your stuff
you never dreamed possible. So I said to my wife: “You know,
Krissy, I’m a preacher. People expect my television viewing
to be dictated by my holy calling. So is the show you’re
describing a religious one?”
“It
could be,” she said. “It could be.”
|