Gospel for September 23, 2007: Luke 16:1-13 September 18, 2007
Posted by Will Deuel in Luke.2 comments
Luke 16:1-13
16:1 Then Jesus said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property.
16:2 So he summoned him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give me an accounting of your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer.’
16:3 Then the manager said to himself, ‘What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg.
16:4 I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.’
16:5 So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’
16:6 He answered, ‘A hundred jugs of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.’
16:7 Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’
16:8 And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.
16:9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes.
16:10 “Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much.
16:11 If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches?
16:12 And if you have not been faithful with what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own?
16:13 No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
Oh boy. This one’s fun.
If this is the way Jesus really talked, then no wonder the disciples had difficulty understanding what he meant so often. This is one of those parables that I have heard preached, and the preachers usually skip over interpreting the parable itself and go straight to the saying in verse 10 or the saying in verse 13. That is both problematic (especially from a scholarly point of view) and understandable (from a preaching-ministry point of view). Historical-critical scholars are likely to point out that the saying in verse 13 is probably tacked onto the parable as Luke’s attempt to explain it. Others will argue over where the parable ends (the semicolon in verse 8? The end of verse 8? Verse 9? 10?) Another nagging question lingers over just who the kyrios really is in the story - is it just the master in the parable or does he represent God?
Honestly, I don’t know how to interpret this parable. I suppose it would be easy to decide what I think it means and force the story to mean that. Or I could decide what I think Jesus usually means, especially in Luke, and force it to mean that. Or I could decide to live with its ambiguity and puzzlement, but that doesn’t do much for me in terms of preparing a sermon for Sunday.
I turn to my handy-dandy Herzog, and discover that Bultmann claimed that this parable was “obviously meant to say that one can learn from the slyness of a deceiver, but in what way?” (Page 237), but that scholarly opinion is not unanimously behind old Rudy. Is this really an extension of Jesus’ Markan admonition that the disciples be wise as serpents but gentle as doves?
Here’s Wesley’s take on the crux of the biscuit:
Is Wesley right? Is the “mammon of unrighteousness” simply a way of referring to all money because it is (dualistically) different from the kingdom of God? Are cruel, dishonest people more true to themselves than we who would term ourselves children of God?
Barclay offers an interesting point: part of the problem with this parable is that, as presented, it contains at least four different points!
- …the sons of this world are wiser than the sons of light. This means that, if only the Christian was as eager and ingenious in his attempt to attain goodness as the man of the world is in his attempt to attain money and comfort, he would be a much better man.
- …material possessions should be used to cement the friendships wherein the real and permanent value of life lies. That could be done in two ways. (a) It could be done as it affects eternity. The Rabbis had a saying, “The rich help the poor in this world, but the poor help the rich in the world to come.” … (b) It could be done as it affects this world. A man can use his wealth selfishly or he can use it to make life easier, not only for himself but for his friends and fellow-men.
- …a man’s way of fulfilling a small task is the best proof of his fitness or unfitness to be entrusted with a bigger task.
- …no slave can serve two masters.
Interesting. Are these points as related as Luke would like us to believe?
Here’s another interesting point: just how much of a discount were the debtors really receiving when repaying their debts? Were they really giving the manager less than they owed the master? Or was the manager knocking off his under-the-table profit? Was he collecting the debts with the intent to “take the money and run?” Did the master catch onto that intent, then collect the debts from the manager? Or did the manager intend to give that money to the master in the first place as a last-ditch attempt to keep his job?
Those of us with a narrative hermeneutic (like me) have a lot of deciding to do!
Herzog concludes that the tactics of the manager were simply the “weapons of the weak” against the tyranny of the master. The oppressed have very few weapons: rumors, innuendo, foot-dragging, protestation. The debtors’ debts were relieved at a discount, the manager was able to keep his job, and the master held all the cards but lost the hand. (Herzog, 258).
In terms of preaching, though, how do we understand this text? Bruce Epperly at Process and Faith has a suggestion:
While Christians may not be experts in foreign policy, economics, health care, education, national defense, or global warming, our lack of expertise is no excuse for ignorance. We must not be “so heavenly minded that we are no earthly good.”
We are called to embody practical as well as theoretical wisdom. We must make a commitment not only to see the big picture, but also know enough about the critical issues of our time to present a (sic) intelligent case….
He goes on:
…each occasion of experience – each moment of life – shapes the future of the planet. We never know what small action may be the “tipping point” from death to life for a person or the planet. Although we trust our ultimate future to God, we must also act as if each action can transform the world. As Jewish mysticism asserts, if you save a soul, you are saving the whole world.
Our faithfulness in both great and small things requires shrewdness and wisdom. Our decisions and discernment matter to God. Whether we use shrewdness to preserve our livelihood, to relieve the debts of others, or wisdom to contribute to the good of the church, the planet and God’s children; we are called to faithfulness in all that we do. We must wisely use the tools we were given to complete the task we are assigned.
Gospel for September 2, 2007 August 28, 2007
Posted by Will Deuel in Luke.1 comment so far
14:1 On one occasion when Jesus was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the sabbath, they were watching him closely.
14:7 When he noticed how the guests chose the places of honor, he told them a parable.
14:8 “When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not sit down at the place of honor, in case someone more distinguished than you has been invited by your host;
14:9 and the host who invited both of you may come and say to you, ‘Give this person your place,’ and then in disgrace you would start to take the lowest place.
14:10 But when you are invited, go and sit down at the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher’; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at the table with you.
14:11 For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
14:12 He said also to the one who had invited him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid.
14:13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.
14:14 And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
Sometimes when we discuss the differences between the cultural setting of Jesus and our own, we fall too much into an us-them mentality. We declare theirs as an honor-shame culture without looking at our own honor-shame dichotomies. Much of our disposable income is spent on status symbols and items that display our honor. Chances are pretty good that the nicest picture frame in any office is the one holding a college degree or an ordination certificate. Many parents display “My child is an Honor Student” bumper stickers proudly on their vehicles. Some people will not go to church if a relative or friend has committed a terrible crime or somehow brought shame. “I’m afraid to show my face in church.”
We do the same with clean-unclean. The principle really is the same, the rules are just different. Back then a woman’ s menstrual cycle made her “unclean,” these days a hair in one’s salad is unclean. A culture not obsessed with clean-unclean would not support Germ-X or Purell.
So let’s take a look at Jesus’ honor-shame lecture here and ask how it applies to us today. His first example - taking a seat of lesser honor so that you may be honored by moving up - seems pretty straightforward. Don’t brag or boast about how honorable you are; you will only be honored by humbling yourself.
But in his next example, Jesus warns against throwing banquets only for those who will invite you to their own banquets later. Jesus tells us, “What’s in it for me?” is the wrong approach. Instead we should share out of our abundance with those who are less fortunate.
We have to read these parables in light of what Luke tells us Jesus said about two chapters ago: “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.” (12:48). Or for a more contemporary interpretation, the words of uncle Ben Parker to his young, spider-bitten nephew Peter: “With great power comes great responsibility.”
My pastoral care prof, Peggy Way, says that she adopted Micah 6:8 as her personal Christian mission statement. When she was younger, she confesses, she focused too much on the “do justice” part, and now that she’s older she focuses more on the “walk humbly with your God” part.
Honor, wealth and power that have been bestowed upon us should be held gently and with great humility. Honor is not something we have earned and can therefore display; it is something with which we have been entrusted. It is a gift, and we are expected to give it away to others. Power is something with which we have been entrusted so that we can share it with those who have none. Wealth is entrusted to us so that we can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick.
And we are called upon to have the humility to admit that it is not ourselves who do these good things, but Christ working through us. And it is not done for our own honor, our own reward but for the Glory of God.
Gospel for August 5, 2007 August 2, 2007
Posted by Will Deuel in Luke.add a comment
Luke 12:13-21
12:13 Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.”
12:14 But he said to him, “Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?”
12:15 And he said to them, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.”
12:16 Then he told them a parable: “The land of a rich man produced abundantly.
12:17 And he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?’
12:18 Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods.
12:19 And I will say to my soul, ‘Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’
12:20 But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’
12:21 So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God.”
“This very night your life is being demanded of you.” Scandalous words for a scandalous time.
A friend in her contextual education placement was asked to exegete the congregation where she was serving. She described them to our class as “living the great American lie.” This upper-middle class congregation was filled with reasonably wealthy folks who lived above their means, attempting to appear more wealthy than they really were. Sure, they made a lot of money - but they spent more than they made and were in debt up to their eyeballs. And guess where they cut spending? That’s right, their stewardship of the church was even poorer than the stewardship of their own credit.
Luke’s gospel is especially important to preach prophetically in this age of rampant consumerism. Luke’s Jesus, more so than Matthew’s, Mark’s or John’s, calls us to a radical rethinking of how we deal with our finances and wealth. Luke’s Jesus admonishes us like Peter Parker’s uncle Ben: with great power comes great responsibility. Our wealth is not our own - we can’t take it with us when we die.
Jesus’ message is 180 degrees counter to our culture. “You would be really happy if you only had ______.” Better gas mileage and a roomier interior? A flat screen HDTV with ambient backlighting? 5.1 Surround Sound? Blu-Ray? A phone that hooks up to the internet and plays your music? Natural male enhancement? A pain reliever that won’t upset your stomach?
Jesus reminds us in no uncertain terms that those things do not make us happy, just like a big Coca-Cola won’t really quench your thirst when you’re actually thirsty. A chocolate bar won’t really satisfy a deep hunger. They are great at providing a quick temporal fix, but the satisfaction won’t last. In fact, such empty calories actually make you more hungry later.
We in the church talk a good game about giving our lives to Jesus, but we don’t want him to touch our bank accounts. That is a personal transfomation that most of us are probably scared of … one that intimidates us and hits us where it hurts.
And yet, when we focus on the eternal rather than the temporal, the heavenly over the earthly, the ethereal over the material, we can find deeper meaning in life. We find something better than temporal happiness.
And that’s good news.
Gospel for July 22, 2007 (8th Sunday after Pentecost) July 19, 2007
Posted by Will Deuel in Luke.add a comment
10:38 Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home.
10:39 She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying.
10:40 But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.”
10:41 But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things;
10:42 there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.”
This is one of those rare stories that actually appears in all four gospels, and each gospel writer tells it differently. I’ll not get into the differences, but Luke’s is unique in that this is not the anointing story.
Martha’s efforts to do the right thing for Jesus are probably sincere. The common view of hospitality was to provide the best meal possible for one’s guests. However if we assume she was sincere then we have to concede that sincerity itself is not enough, and there is a right and wrong kind of hospitality.
Martha was so wrapped up in “getting things done” that she failed to take time to listen. Mary, on the other hand, dropped everything to sit at the feet of Jesus (”sitting at his feet” is definitely the language of discipleship, and affirms the importance of women in Jesus’ ministry).
Have you ever been in the presence of greatness without knowing it? There is a guitar player named Reggie Young. He is a rather nondescript-looking guy, and you’d never know that he is one of the most widely recorded guitarists in history. Elvis’ Memphis sessions (”Suspicious Minds,” “In The Ghetto”), Dusty Springfield (”Son of a Preacher Man”), The Box Tops (”Cry Like a Baby”), Dobie Gray (”Drift Away”), Waylon Jennings (”Honky Tonk Heroes”) are some of his notable collaborations. If you listen to classic rock or country music, you probably hear Reggie Young’s Telecaster every day. But he doesn’t dress flamboyantly like Stevie Ray Vaughan or tout his own greatness. Chances are you could eat in a restaurant with him and never know you were in the presence of a great musician. Sometimes it is only later that we know we were in the presence of someone important or admirable. Perhaps it was that way for Martha.
Mary, on the other hand, recognized something right away. One time my dad met Stan “The Man” Musial at a golf tournament. Musial walked up to my dad, stuck out his hand and said, “Hi. My name’s Stan Musial, what’s yours?” And he wasn’t bragging about being THE Stan Musial, he was introducing himself very politely and humbly. My dad laughed out loud. “I know who you are! My name’s Rodney.” Dad knew he was in the presence of one of the greatest ballplayers ever. Mary knew something great was up when Jesus came into the house.
For reflection:
- What is it like to suddenly find yourself in the presence of greatness? Do you always recognize it right away?
- Is there a right way and a wrong way to be hospitable?
- Have you ever been so wrapped up in trying to get something done that you missed a great opportunity?
- If you had the opportunity to sit at Jesus’ feet for one hour, what would you ask-say-want to know?
Gospel for July 15, 2007 (7th Sunday after Pentecost) July 9, 2007
Posted by Will Deuel in Luke.1 comment so far
The Parable of the Good Samaritan - Luke 10:25-37
How to preach this extremely familiar parable? Haven’t we heard enough sermons on this one already?
Obviously, Jesus uses this parable to illustrate a point. If the whole of the law and the prophets is summed up in “Love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself,” then the lawyer’s question is perfectly appropriate: “Who, then, is my neighbor?”
Jesus answers the question awkwardly by using this parable. My interpretation is utterly dependent upon the work of Steve Patterson in his book The God of Jesus.
The lawyer has asked about someone to whom he should show love. But the Samaritan is not an example of such a person. He is not the object of love, but one who himself demonstrates love. (Patterson, page 123).
If we begin with Patterson’s primary assumption, which is that the Jewish peasant audience hearing the story would immediately identify with the victim - the poor fellow who gets beaten half to death and left by the side of the road, then the story ends up with the Jew receiving rather than giving neighborly love. If the hearer is to learn to be a good neighbor, then identifying with the Samaritan is necessary. The problem, then, for Jesus’ Jewish audience is that Jews hated Samaritans.
The Samaritan expemplifies neighborliness, a move that is possible in Luke’s Gentile world, but not very likely in Jesus’ Jewish world (149).
As the hated Samaritan, the enemy, approaches the beaten man “the plot thickens,” writes Patterson.
“What will happen now? Will he see us? Will he stop? What is he doing here in the first place? Will he help us, or finish us off? We hope he will pass by on the other side and let us be. Samaritans are unclean. They are dangerous. They are not to be trusted. They are not to be touched. Our best hope is that he won’t even notice us here in the ditch.” (page 151).
As the Samaritan approaches, the victim fears for his life. He might be killed. If he survives at all, he will be rendered unclean by his contact with the unclean Samaritan.
And yet the Samaritan binds up the man’s wounds, takes him to shelter, and provides for his healing and restoration.
Jesus has to then turn the story around in order to make the Samaritan serve as an example for the lawyer. An awkward answer indeed. Jesus answers the question, “who is my neighbor” with a lesson in being a good neighbor to someone else. And he does it by turning the bad guy into the good guy. Ewwwwww.
That may not seem too scandalous at first glance. But what if Jesus were telling us this story today? Would the good Samaritan become “the good Muslim?” “The good Al-Qaeda?” “The good illegal immigrant?” Is the person binding your wounds infected with HIV?
Allen and Williamson point out the dangers for the Samaritan as well.
This parable is intentionally provocative. It is not syrupy. Bandits leave a victim for dead. The ordained cannot be bothered. A hated Samaritan in this danger zone of bandit-infested roads risks his own well-being to minister to human need. (Allen and Williamson, page 222).
In preaching this text, the absolute horror of it must be restored, and the dogmatic presuppositions of our congregations must be challenged. What are our suppositions about people of other faiths? What are our modern notions of “clean and unclean?” What are our suppositions about race? And what of interdependence and interrelatedness/interconnectedness? What if we actually need those who dislike us? What if our survival depended upon those we hate?
How can we retell this story in such a way that our familiarity with the tale is challenged? How can we restore the horror and terror felt by the beaten traveler? How do we allow this story to change our lives? How does it call each of us into repentance?
Works Cited:
Patterson, Stephen J. The God of Jesus: The Historical Jesus and the Search for Meaning (Harrisburg PA: Trinity Press, 1998).
Allen, Ronald J. & Williamson, Clark W. Preaching the Gospels Without Blaming the Jews: A Lectionary Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004).
Gospel for July 8, 2007 (6th Sunday after Pentecost) July 5, 2007
Posted by Will Deuel in Luke.1 comment so far
Luke 10:1-11, 16-20 (NRSV)
10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go.
10:2 He said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.
10:3 Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves.
10:4 Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road.
10:5 Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house!’
10:6 And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you.
10:7 Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house.
10:8 Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you;
10:9 cure the sick who are there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’
10:10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say,
10:11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’
10:16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”
10:17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!”
10:18 He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning.
10:19 See, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing will hurt you.
10:20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
Exegetical Notes:In terms of historical and redaction criticism, I operate from the two-source hypothesis that assumes Markan priority and Q as primary sources for Matthew and Luke. I realize that we may not all operate under the same presupposition. The mission of the seventy (or seventy-two) is unique to Luke, though Luke shares much common language with Mark’s story of the mission of the twelve and with Matthew’s version of the same. There is also much language shared with Matthew that is not shared with Mark, making this story both Mark-ish and Q-ish. Understanding Luke’s agenda for including this story, therefore, may lie with its narrative context and Luke’s overarching theological assumptions.
Luke’s gospel is far more pro-Gentile and universal than the others. Luke is more concerned with breaking boundaries between economic, socio-cultural, ethnic and religious groups than Matthew or Mark. With the gospel narrative continued into Acts, Luke clearly views the whole world as being within God’s domain. Luke carries the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam and continues the work of God outside of Israel and Judea to the Samaritans and eventually to Rome.
This broad-scope soteriology allows Luke to tell two separate mission stories. First, like Mark and Matthew he tells the story of the mission of the twelve (Luke 9:1-6), then the mission of the seventy (or seventy-two). Some ancient authorities read “seventy” and others “seventy two” in 10:1; hence the NRSV’s 70 and the NIV’s 72. This number references the tenth chapter of Genesis in which the descendants of Noah populate the nations of the earth. Jewish tradition named seventy as the number of nations of the world; the LXX named seventy-two in Gen. 10. While the number itself is not clear, its symbolism is - this mission is to all the nations of the world.
And what of the instructions? Take no provisions: no purse, no bag, no extra shoes. Rely on the hospitality of strangers. If households accepted, fed, and housed the missionaries it was a sign of God’s providence; if they rejected the missionaries they rejected God also, therefore it is best to move onward. It takes a real leap of faith to venture out into unknown territory sans provisions; this utter dependence upon God is key.
The RCL leaves out verses 13-15. In terms of biblical criticism I think that is correct. The “woes” interrupt the narrative flow. When Jesus says, “whoever listens to YOU…,” the antecedent to the pronoun is Capernaum in the text as presented. When verses 13-15 are omitted, however, the antecedent is the missionaries - and this is obviously the correct reading. Verses 13-15 would have made more sense after verse 20.
When the seventy returned, Jesus warned them not to place their faith in their successes; rather they should be grateful to God “that your names are written in heaven.”
Reflections:
- What is your understanding of the nature of Christian mission - both as a church and as a church member?
- To what extent are you prepared to fully rely upon God? Are you ready to jump into the deep end with no life preserver?
- Do we have a tendency to idolize success? How do we define success in the church? Is our definition of success theologically sound?
Proper 9 (14); July 8, 2007 June 30, 2007
Posted by Will Deuel in 2 Kings, Galatians, Isaiah, Luke.add a comment
2 Kings 5:1-14 and Psalm 30
or
Isaiah 66:10-14 and Psalm 66:1-9
Galatians 6:(1-6), 7-16
Luke 10:1-11, 16-20
Proper 8 (13), July 1 June 21, 2007
Posted by Will Deuel in 2 Kings, Galatians, I Kings, Luke.add a comment
2 Kings 2:1-2, 6-14 and Psalm 77:1-2, 11-20
or
1 Kings 19:15-16, 19-21 and Psalm 16
Galatians 5:1, 13-25
Luke 9:51-62
2 Kings 2; Psalm 77
Again, I’m not particularly happy about the lectionary’s choice to omit verses from the narrative in this passage. For one thing, it loses one serious exegetical note - properly, Elisha says “As the Lord lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you,” three times.
We also lose Elisha’s knowledge that Elijah is going to leave. His commitment to Elijah seems far stronger when we realize that Elisha knows he is going away.
Elisha’s reaction, watching and crying out and tearing his clothes, are a great expression of grief. Knowing that a loved one is leaving does not lessen the response of grief. Ask anyone who has lost a loved one to a terminal illness. As a counselor I even know a term for that one - “anticipatory grief” - the grief that comes when you realize you’re losing someone before they’re truly gone.
The image of Elisha rending his clothes and taking up Elijah’s cloak is a wonderful image of shedding an old life and taking on a new one. His old identity is gone, a new creation takes his place. Of course parting the water is a Moses image - and this connection is huge. Elisha is not only the new Elijah, but also the new Moses - a voice of God’s liberating spirit for God’s people.
Psalm 77:19 Your way was through the sea, your path, through the mighty waters; yet your footprints were unseen.
God, through Elisha, again made the impossible possible - making a way when there seems to be no way.
1 Kings 19
Here is the beginning of the Elijah-Eilsha story, in which Elijah knows he is naming and training his own successor. He takes on a student, knowing that one day the student will become the master. This has great implications for church leadership today - are pastors really shepherds leading a flock of sheep, or shepherds training apprentices who are to become shepherds themselves? Faithful churches are largely lay-driven.
Galatians 5
Paul once again contrasts, in my opinion, the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. If you really love God and love neighbor, you will not engage in the actions of the “vice list.” Following the rules never saved anyone, following the Spirit saves us.
I love 5:15 - If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. Very similar to Gandhi’s “an eye for an eye and soon we are all blind.”
Luke 9
Luke 9:62 Jesus said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”
My grandfather was a farmer. I was always intrigued how a farmer could plant so many straight rows on so much land. When driving the tractor there is really only one way to keep your rows straight. You find a point ahead of you and stay focused on that point. The moment you look back to see if your rows are straight, your hand moves on the wheel and the row you’re planting becomes crooked. Oops.
I have always liked this verse as an illustration that running away from one thing is not the same thing as running toward another. Running away from evil is not the same as running into the arms of God. Focusing on the goal is always better than focusing on the obstacles.
