Houses or People?

2 Samuel 7:1-17; 2 Corinthians 12:1-10; Mark 6:1-6

Parents often ponder over how they will introduce a newborn baby to a household. Linda and I wanted to do this properly when our daughter, Heather, was born. We had an aging female Boston Terrier at home and we truly wondered how she would take to our new little girl. What would the dog do if the baby cried? And, more importantly, we worried about what the dog would do when the baby started to crawl around and began to get inquisitive about a dog. We found out the answer to this question from the very first day we brought our baby home from the hospital. When the baby cried, the dog would be the first into the nursery to see what was wrong. When the baby took a nap, that old Boston Terrier would sleep under the crib. And when that baby started to crawl, that old dog was always nearby to make sure that no one hurt her.

But, what if that wonderful old Boston Terrier had decided to reject our baby? Without a question, we would have had to find a new home for the dog. Without a question, even though the dog was our pet, we would have chosen our baby over the dog.

I remember when my brother was born, too. I was only 2½, but I can still remember it. My brother was born at home. My mother had chosen natural childbirth and was one of those persons who felt strongly about not having anyone around telling her what to do and making her decisions for her, like it would have been if she had gone to a hospital, back in the early '50s. And I know that she was concerned about how my sister and I would accept our brother. I can still remember meeting my brother for the first time. Walking into my parents' bedroom, my mother and dad were on the bed, holding what looked like life sized dolls. And I remember that they offered me a choice: I could have any of the dolls I wanted. And what did I choose? I chose one of the two plastic dolls. But, my sister, who was almost five years old, chose the doll that moved and blinked and wet and cried. She chose my brother. I think my mother knew that if I had a doll to play with, then having a little brother who looked like a doll wouldn't be such a difficult thing to accept.

But, what if I hadn't accepted my baby brother very well? Would my parents have looked for a new home for me? No. Would they have chosen the baby over the toddler? Of course not. They would have simply struggled all the harder to make the situation work.

All of us have been faced with situations such as this. When it is a decision between the meeting the needs of a child verses avoiding the expense of losing a pet, or adding on a bedroom, or medical bills, or education, I don't know of any decent person who wouldn't choose the child. For people are more important than money. People are more important than things.

Our Old Testament lesson talks about this as we meet up with King David, once again. By the time of our reading, he has captured the city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, the Ark of the Covenant has been brought into the city, and a nice new cedar palace has been built for King David and his family. What more could he want?

Well, looking at the Ark of the Covenant, and noticing that all it had protecting it was a tent, he decided that it was time to build a house for God. And as he was thinking about this, Nathan, a prophet, a holy advisor to David, was standing there. And David told Nathan what he would like to do. And, of course, Nathan, hearing such news, was delighted and went off to tell his wife.

But, that night, as he was sleeping, Nathan had a dream wherein God told him that he didn't need a Temple, but would rather see the money that would have been spent building a Temple spent on fortifying Israel against her enemies. And, so, Nathan woke up, ran to David, and told him what the Lord had said. And, so, David had to make a choice: What's more important? A house or the people of God? And David made the wise decision. He chose the people of God.

There are times when we have to make decisions like this, as well. There are times when we have to decide whether it is wise to spend money on houses and buildings or spend money upon projects that will insure the existence and well being of a people. For, certainly, we know that people are the most important thing of all.

As the Cold War ended and democracy started to take over Europe, only a few months ago, there was a lot of talk about a peace dividend. It was thought that less money would have to be spent for the military-industrial complex and more money would be available for education and various social programs. And, indeed, there have been cutbacks. In all likelihood, Wurtsmith Air Force Base and others like it around the world will be closed, including the one at Subik Bay in the Philippines that has already been closed by that volcano.

I was talking about this with someone, the other day. And they were upset because they just knew that the town of Oscoda would become a ghost town without the presence of Wurtsmith Air Force Base. So, I looked on my map of Michigan and noticed that Oscoda is already such a small town that it doesn't even rate a census figure on the map index. And, who knows? Maybe Oscoda might even become a better town if the Air Force Base wasn't there.

But, as we make decisions in our country concerning what to do with the peace dividend, we need to remember one thing: That one job in the military-industrial complex costs as much as ten jobs in education, and other similar paying professions. In other words, for every person we hire to inflate jet airplane tires, we can hire ten teachers for the Corunna Public School system. For every person hired to put bolts into M1-A1 tanks, we can hire ten more to teach young adults how to be better parents. For every person hired to build a smart bomb, we can hire ten more to design programs that will help people.

As I look around the Corunna-Owosso area I see people out of jobs, I see scores of deteriorating apartment houses filled with idle people who are paying too much for their rent. I am meeting people, every day, who are not able to read. I am passing people on the street who have no place to live. I am finding out about persons who will not go to a doctor, or who won't buy a hearing aid, or can't go to school, or can't get their teeth fixed, simply because they can't afford it. I am finding myself talking with more and more persons who need mental help, even institutionalization, but can't get it because there is no money for it. And I've even spoken with some social workers who are terribly frustrated because they know of situations of child neglect which they haven't had time to investigate because they are understaffed.

Perhaps we're faced with a decision today that is similar to the one King David faced. Should he have spent money on something that everyone could see? Or should he have spent money on people? Should we spend money on things we can see? Or should we spend money to help people? But, of course, there are those of us who say we shouldn't spend more money on either. Nevertheless, especially in difficult economic times, we need to make our legislators evermore aware of where our priorities are: Upon things, or upon people?

In our gospel lesson for today we see that the people of Jesus' hometown failed to accept Jesus because they couldn't believe that anything as wonderful as the Messiah could come from their own town. But, more than this, they couldn't accept Jesus because all he did was heal people and teach. They wanted to see some fireworks. If Jesus had called forth an army of angels to come down and defeat the Romans, if he had built a New Jerusalem, then they would have accepted him without complaint. But, all Jesus did was love people, and heal them, and teach them, and feed them, and clothe them. That's all.

But, then, that's all he wants from us. Amen.