A share of the Spirit
Commentary
"Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it." Now there is a bit of sage advice that has a multitude of applications. I thought of it recently when I was watching the video of the film Bruce Almighty. I am generally not a big fan of "Divine comedies," even though I am certain God must have a sense of humor (the evidence is just too overwhelming). But this one struck me as far better than most, and worthy of some serious reflection.
The story is about Bruce Nolan (played by Jim Carrey), a local news reporter for a station in Buffalo, New York. He is denied a promotion to anchor that he was both certain he deserved and was going to get. He launches into a tirade against God for the lousy job God is doing of taking care of his life, and expresses complete confidence that he himself could do God's job better. The next day, he has a meeting with God (played by Morgan Freeman), who bestows the full range of divine powers upon Bruce and then leaves on vacation.
Once Bruce realizes these powers are real, he immediately begins to use them for his personal enjoyment, enrichment, and even revenge. But as the prayer requests of even just the residents of Buffalo begin to pile up, God meets with Bruce once again to point out that doing God's job requires attending to far more than just one's personal desires. Being God comes with not only power but responsibilities.
The film raises a number of religious and theological issues in generally sensitive and constructive ways. (For instance, when Bruce asks God during one of their check-in sessions how he can make someone love him without violating their free will, God responds, "Welcome to my world; let me know when you figure that one out.") But within the context of the scripture lessons for Proper 8, it is the question of why anyone would desire godlike powers and what one would do with such powers if they were available that comes most to the fore.
2 Kings 2:1-2, 6-14
You have to wonder if Elijah didn't feel a bit like the God character in Bruce Almighty as he traveled with Elisha toward his rendezvous with that "chariot of fire" on the other side of the Jordan River. Having parted the waters of the river by striking it with his cloak, Elijah had then essentially asked Elisha what wish he could fulfill for him as a parting gesture. Elisha knew what he wanted; "Please let me inherit a double share of your spirit." Elijah was taken aback; "You have asked a hard thing," he responded, "yet if you see me as I am being taken from you, it will be granted to you."
Well, Elisha did see Elijah taken up into God's presence, and he picked up Elijah's mantle that had wafted to the ground. He returned to the banks of the Jordan, struck the waters with the mantle, and in a test of what he hoped were his new abilities demanded, "Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?" (not unlike Bruce parting "the red soup" in a diner). The waters parted just as they had before, and as the other prophets saw Elisha approaching they declared, "The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha." Difficult as it may have seemed, Elisha's wish had been fulfilled.
But wait a minute. That was just too easy. Elisha only had to watch something most of us would gladly pay good money to see and to pick up a cloth shawl to have his wish fulfilled. How come Elijah had insisted he had "asked a hard thing"? Was it the really the difficulty of fulfilling the wish that Elijah had considered "hard," or was the "hard" part something else altogether?
Let's go back and look at the details of this story again. We need to start by making sure we understand who all the characters in this story are. This story is not just about Elijah and Elisha; it is also about "the company of the prophets." This "company" was a training guild, a kind of informal school where one could learn to be a prophet much like one could apprentice to become an artisan or to learn a building trade. The Hebrew expression would more literally be translated as "the sons of the prophets," and the recognized prophet to whom they discipled themselves -- in this case, Elijah -- was their "father." Thus, when upon seeing the chariot of fire Elisha exclaimed, "Father, father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!" he was calling out to Elijah, the leader of the prophetic guild in which he was apprenticed.
Now this familial language of "fathers" and "sons" within these prophetic associations plays a key role in this story. Listen again to Elisha's wish: "Please let me inherit a double share of your spirit." The "father" of the guild is about to be taken away, and so Elisha is now concerned about how the inheritance is to be divvied up among the "sons." Thus, his request for a "double share" is not about having twice as much of the Spirit as Elijah. Rather, what he is asking for is the "birthright," the legal principle in that society that the firstborn son was to receive two of the equally divided shares of the father's property as compared to his younger brothers' single share each.
But it is not quite the whole truth to then characterize his wish, as some commentators have, as requesting only a fraction rather than twice as much of the spirit that Elijah had. What is more important than the relative quantities of spirit divided among the members of the prophetic guild is that along with the "double share" of the birthright comes the authority of being the next "father" over the "sons of the prophets." The "hard thing" to which Elijah referred in responding to Elisha's wish was not the difficulty of fulfilling the wish, but the responsibility Elisha would have to live it out. Sometimes the very things that we wish for are not the answer but rather the source of our difficulties and struggles.
Galatians 5:1, 13-25
What is one to make of Paul's seemingly self-contradictory statement that those who have been "called to freedom" must nevertheless "through love become slaves to one another" (v. 13)? Aren't "freedom" and "slavery" by their very definitions mutually exclusive categories?
Inherent in Paul's understanding is the conviction that there is no such thing as absolute freedom. We tend to think of freedom as a kind of right, or indeed a power, that enables us to act in accord with our own desires. It is hardly incidental in this regard that so much of our ethical and philosophical discussions of freedom deal with the issue of "free will." Freedom is the opposite of constraint; it is being released from the control of another's will or needs. We think of freedom primarily in terms of "freedom from" something.
Paul does not discount this "freedom from" dimension; that is why he can say, "Christ has set us free" (v. 1). But Paul would remind us that there is a second dimension or aspect of our freedom, what we might call "freedom to" and that Paul speaks about in terms of how we "use [our] freedom" (v. 13). He draws the distinction between the different uses of freedom as to whether they are characterized by "self-indulgence" or "love" expressed as obligation toward others. So strong should our sense of obligation nevertheless remain in our exercise of freedom that Paul can describe the freedom to act with love as "becom[ing] slaves to one another." Freedom does not equate with antinomianism, freedom from the very notion of an external law or constraint itself. Freedom contains within itself the "freedom to" fulfill the wisdom of God's gracious instruction to humanity ("the whole law," v. 14) about how to live in community.
It is indeed possible for these two dimensions of freedom -- "freedom from" external obligation and "freedom to" act for not only our selves but others -- to fall into conflict with each other. Those who see freedom as only a means to self-indulgence have confused it with "the desires of the flesh" (v. 16). To give yourself over to such desires in fact is an abdication of freedom because "the desires of the flesh" will "prevent you from doing what you want" because you will be enslaved to the "law" of the flesh rather bound by the "whole law" of God in which "you are led by the Spirit" (v. 18).
Paul would argue that seeing freedom only in terms of "freedom from" obligation to anything other than one's self results in self-indulgence and a long list of vices (vv. 19-21). These attitudes and actions not only devour others in their attempt to satisfy themselves, but ultimately consume those who engage in them as well (v. 15). But those who properly conceive of freedom as not only "from" but also "to" others produce the virtues of the "fruit of the Spirit" (vv. 22-23).
Luke 9:51-62
The exasperation Jesus seems to feel toward his disciples in the gospel lesson is almost palpable. Within the span of these twelve verses, the evangelist reports that Jesus "rebuked" his own disciples and rebuffed the responses of three different would-be disciples. What might be missed by reading this passage in the isolation of the lectionary is that the evangelist has carefully placed each of these vignettes at the outset of a major transition in the narrative structure of the gospel. The reason for Jesus' apparent exasperation is that the first phase of his ministry has drawn to a close and still neither his inner circle nor those who might yet be drawn in to join his ministry seem to be able to conceive its ultimate purposes and costs.
The evangelist's comment in verse 51 about the approach of time when Jesus would be "taken up" and his consequent determination "to go to Jerusalem" is not made in passing. It is in Jerusalem that Jesus' ministry will find its culmination in his passion, resurrection, and ascension. This journey to Jerusalem will provide the structure for Luke's account down through 19:27, where the final Passion Week will commence with Jesus' "Triumphal Entry" into the city (19:28-46). All along the way, Jesus will continue to instruct his disciples.
In the first of these vignettes, Jesus and his entourage are denied hospitality by a Samaritan village precisely because they are on their way to Jerusalem. Clearly the root of this snub is the centuries-old feud between the Samaritans and the Jews regarding the proper site for sacrificial worship of the God of Israel (cf. John 4:19-26). For James and John this slight should be punished by calling "fire to come down from heaven [to] consume them" (v. 54). No doubt they believed this was the purpose of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem itself, to bring down the fiery judgment of God upon all God's perceived enemies. Jesus' rebuke is aimed not just at an egregious overreaction to an ethnically motivated slight, but at the notion his ministry is in the first instance about destroying rather than redeeming those who alienate themselves from God.
But bringing reconciliation rather than destruction to those who oppose you is costly business, as Jesus' responses to the would-be disciples make clear. It can mean foregoing even one's own legitimate needs in order to commit one's self to ministry for others (vv. 57-58). It places demands on our lives that at times conflict with the normal obligations of society, even from within our own families (vv. 59-60). It requires that we commit ourselves completely to the cause of God's reign of justice without looking back to what we may have left behind (vv. 61-62). All of these things Jesus had done as "he set his face to go to Jerusalem," and those who would truly follow him must do the same.
Application
The transformative moment of the film Bruce Almighty comes when Bruce finally recognizes that the only proper use of those divine powers is to meet the genuine needs of others rather than his own or even their personal desires. Foremost among those needs is for one to know the love that God has for us, to have someone in our lives who, as Bruce expresses it to God, will love and see us through God's eyes.
It is a moment that Paul himself could have scripted, for no sooner had he announced to the Galatians that "Christ has set us free" from bondage to our sin than he immediately warned us all "not [to] use [our] freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence." Could such "self-indulgence" have been what motivated Elisha to strike the Jordan and to demand, "Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?" Had he wanted the "double share" of Elijah's spirit in order to assume the "birthright" of leadership over the prophetic band or to indulge his own sense of self-importance at being able to conjure such miracles as Elijah had performed? Was he driven by compassion and love for his fellow "sons of the prophets," not wanting them left wandering and hopeless without a "father" to lead and instruct them? Or was he driven by "enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy," lest some other of his once colleagues should rise up to be the new leader over him. Why do we seek Christ's freedom and God's blessings -- to use those freedoms and blessings to love our neighbors as ourselves or to satisfy our own desires even if at the expense of others? "If you bite and devour one another," Paul warns, "take care that you are not consumed by one another."
Perhaps had Elisha really understood the "hard thing" that he had asked of Elijah -- had he recognized that the "double share" of Elijah's spirit was to enable him to serve the prophets and the people as a "slave" rather than to lord power over them -- perhaps then he would not have sought miraculous power to keep his own feet dry as the first proof that his wish had been fulfilled. It is our sinful nature that seeks to put our own desires ahead of all else. Indeed, when the God character in Bruce Almighty asks Bruce why he has not been dealing with that backlog of prayers, he confesses that there were some perceived injustices in his own life that he wanted to redress first. "By contrast," as Paul wrote, "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control" (Galatians 5:22). These qualities of life are directed toward the needs of others. These attributes are the proof that "the spirit of Elijah rests upon" us.
We don't really need the ability to invoke miraculous power to deal with the mundane details or common problems we face in our daily lives. What we really need, like Bruce Nolan and those young men in ancient Israel's prophetic guild, is to be in relationships that sustain and nurture us. What we really need is the freedom to find ourselves in service to others. The good news is that it is not a "hard thing" for God to fulfill our longing for a "double share" of the Spirit that can produce the fruit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control that enable us to understand, serve, and be in relationship with one another.
It is not a "hard thing" for God to give us a "double share of the spirit," yet it is as Elijah knew, and Elisha and Bruce Nolan came to understand, an important responsibility for all those who receive this gift. God gives us the Spirit not for our own benefit, but in order that we might benefit others as agents of divine grace. A tremendous responsibility, yes, but never a drudgery. May we all fulfill Paul's challenge: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit."
Alternative Applications
1. Galatians 5:1, 13-25. Although the next Sunday is the Fourth of July itself, this lectionary reading invites us to explore the meanings of freedom at not only the personal level, but at the level of societies and nations as well. What does it mean for the United States and other democracies to "promote freedom" around the world? Are we just promoting "freedom from" the tyrannies of dictators and a "freedom to" fulfill our personal desires, or do we make it clear that there is no absolute freedom apart from a continuing obligation for others? If other societies see our notion of freedom as promoting lawlessness, have we ourselves forgotten the necessary correlation between rights and responsibilities that are essential to genuine freedom?
2. 2 Kings 2:1-2, 6-14; Luke 9:51-62. There are several parallels between the Elijah and Elisha stories and particular details in the gospel lesson. Maybe James and John saw themselves as being in the same league with Elijah in their ability to call fire down from heaven, and maybe a desire for such ability initially motivated Elisha's wish for a "double share" of Elijah's spirit. Elisha's own call to follow Elijah had involved plows and a reluctant severing of family ties (cf. 1 Kings 19:19-21). In the end, however, both Elisha and Jesus' disciples came to recognize the responsibility for others that lies at the heart of God's call on our lives. In what ways might our own failings to recognize the implications of God's call be exasperating to God? What can we learn from the purposes and costs of Jesus' ministry that can help us to live out our own calls?
Preaching The Psalm
Psalm 77:1-2, 11-20
There is nothing quite as unsettling as being lost. A sense of weakness and anxiety takes hold as we realize we don't know where we are or how we got there or how to get back. There is no one to ask, there are no signs that point the way; there are only miles and miles of unfamiliar landscape. Deep inside, a growing sense of panic begins to take hold as we consider the possibility that we may never be found.
Then it happens. A landmark comes into view that seems familiar. We stop and take a close look at it. Yes, it is definitely something we have seen before. Then, there's another familiar landmark, then another and another. Suddenly the road that only a moment before had seemed dreadful and threatening now seems safe and familiar and comforting. No longer is it a path leading to our doom, now it's the way home.
The psalmist is trying to help us find some landmarks. Somehow the psalmist and his congregation had gotten lost. We hear his cry: "in the night my hand is stretched out." What a powerful image of groping in the dark trying to find the way.
Of course, the psalmist is giving voice to the fears of his community. For some reason they are in the dark. They are on a road that does not seem familiar. There is a growing sense of dread that perhaps God has abandoned them, or that they have wandered so far from God that they will never find him again. The psalmist voices their fear, but also their hope.
The psalmist declares: "I will call to mind the deeds of the Lord; I will remember your wonders of old" (v. 11). For the psalmist, helping the people remember will get them back on the right road. They need to remember the stories they know. They need to remember their own blessings from the past. They need to remember the promises that God has made.
Of course remembering also includes acting. They need to remember how to bow in the presence of God. They need to remember the words to use in prayer and use them in prayer. They need to remember the sights and sounds and smells of worship.
If the people will remember they will begin to see familiar landmarks. The road they are on now, even though it seems treacherous and foreign, will suddenly become familiar. Just like in the days of old, they will remember how "You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron" (v. 20). Then it will happen. They will see one happy landmark after another until suddenly they will realize they are on the path that leads to home.
The story is about Bruce Nolan (played by Jim Carrey), a local news reporter for a station in Buffalo, New York. He is denied a promotion to anchor that he was both certain he deserved and was going to get. He launches into a tirade against God for the lousy job God is doing of taking care of his life, and expresses complete confidence that he himself could do God's job better. The next day, he has a meeting with God (played by Morgan Freeman), who bestows the full range of divine powers upon Bruce and then leaves on vacation.
Once Bruce realizes these powers are real, he immediately begins to use them for his personal enjoyment, enrichment, and even revenge. But as the prayer requests of even just the residents of Buffalo begin to pile up, God meets with Bruce once again to point out that doing God's job requires attending to far more than just one's personal desires. Being God comes with not only power but responsibilities.
The film raises a number of religious and theological issues in generally sensitive and constructive ways. (For instance, when Bruce asks God during one of their check-in sessions how he can make someone love him without violating their free will, God responds, "Welcome to my world; let me know when you figure that one out.") But within the context of the scripture lessons for Proper 8, it is the question of why anyone would desire godlike powers and what one would do with such powers if they were available that comes most to the fore.
2 Kings 2:1-2, 6-14
You have to wonder if Elijah didn't feel a bit like the God character in Bruce Almighty as he traveled with Elisha toward his rendezvous with that "chariot of fire" on the other side of the Jordan River. Having parted the waters of the river by striking it with his cloak, Elijah had then essentially asked Elisha what wish he could fulfill for him as a parting gesture. Elisha knew what he wanted; "Please let me inherit a double share of your spirit." Elijah was taken aback; "You have asked a hard thing," he responded, "yet if you see me as I am being taken from you, it will be granted to you."
Well, Elisha did see Elijah taken up into God's presence, and he picked up Elijah's mantle that had wafted to the ground. He returned to the banks of the Jordan, struck the waters with the mantle, and in a test of what he hoped were his new abilities demanded, "Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?" (not unlike Bruce parting "the red soup" in a diner). The waters parted just as they had before, and as the other prophets saw Elisha approaching they declared, "The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha." Difficult as it may have seemed, Elisha's wish had been fulfilled.
But wait a minute. That was just too easy. Elisha only had to watch something most of us would gladly pay good money to see and to pick up a cloth shawl to have his wish fulfilled. How come Elijah had insisted he had "asked a hard thing"? Was it the really the difficulty of fulfilling the wish that Elijah had considered "hard," or was the "hard" part something else altogether?
Let's go back and look at the details of this story again. We need to start by making sure we understand who all the characters in this story are. This story is not just about Elijah and Elisha; it is also about "the company of the prophets." This "company" was a training guild, a kind of informal school where one could learn to be a prophet much like one could apprentice to become an artisan or to learn a building trade. The Hebrew expression would more literally be translated as "the sons of the prophets," and the recognized prophet to whom they discipled themselves -- in this case, Elijah -- was their "father." Thus, when upon seeing the chariot of fire Elisha exclaimed, "Father, father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!" he was calling out to Elijah, the leader of the prophetic guild in which he was apprenticed.
Now this familial language of "fathers" and "sons" within these prophetic associations plays a key role in this story. Listen again to Elisha's wish: "Please let me inherit a double share of your spirit." The "father" of the guild is about to be taken away, and so Elisha is now concerned about how the inheritance is to be divvied up among the "sons." Thus, his request for a "double share" is not about having twice as much of the Spirit as Elijah. Rather, what he is asking for is the "birthright," the legal principle in that society that the firstborn son was to receive two of the equally divided shares of the father's property as compared to his younger brothers' single share each.
But it is not quite the whole truth to then characterize his wish, as some commentators have, as requesting only a fraction rather than twice as much of the spirit that Elijah had. What is more important than the relative quantities of spirit divided among the members of the prophetic guild is that along with the "double share" of the birthright comes the authority of being the next "father" over the "sons of the prophets." The "hard thing" to which Elijah referred in responding to Elisha's wish was not the difficulty of fulfilling the wish, but the responsibility Elisha would have to live it out. Sometimes the very things that we wish for are not the answer but rather the source of our difficulties and struggles.
Galatians 5:1, 13-25
What is one to make of Paul's seemingly self-contradictory statement that those who have been "called to freedom" must nevertheless "through love become slaves to one another" (v. 13)? Aren't "freedom" and "slavery" by their very definitions mutually exclusive categories?
Inherent in Paul's understanding is the conviction that there is no such thing as absolute freedom. We tend to think of freedom as a kind of right, or indeed a power, that enables us to act in accord with our own desires. It is hardly incidental in this regard that so much of our ethical and philosophical discussions of freedom deal with the issue of "free will." Freedom is the opposite of constraint; it is being released from the control of another's will or needs. We think of freedom primarily in terms of "freedom from" something.
Paul does not discount this "freedom from" dimension; that is why he can say, "Christ has set us free" (v. 1). But Paul would remind us that there is a second dimension or aspect of our freedom, what we might call "freedom to" and that Paul speaks about in terms of how we "use [our] freedom" (v. 13). He draws the distinction between the different uses of freedom as to whether they are characterized by "self-indulgence" or "love" expressed as obligation toward others. So strong should our sense of obligation nevertheless remain in our exercise of freedom that Paul can describe the freedom to act with love as "becom[ing] slaves to one another." Freedom does not equate with antinomianism, freedom from the very notion of an external law or constraint itself. Freedom contains within itself the "freedom to" fulfill the wisdom of God's gracious instruction to humanity ("the whole law," v. 14) about how to live in community.
It is indeed possible for these two dimensions of freedom -- "freedom from" external obligation and "freedom to" act for not only our selves but others -- to fall into conflict with each other. Those who see freedom as only a means to self-indulgence have confused it with "the desires of the flesh" (v. 16). To give yourself over to such desires in fact is an abdication of freedom because "the desires of the flesh" will "prevent you from doing what you want" because you will be enslaved to the "law" of the flesh rather bound by the "whole law" of God in which "you are led by the Spirit" (v. 18).
Paul would argue that seeing freedom only in terms of "freedom from" obligation to anything other than one's self results in self-indulgence and a long list of vices (vv. 19-21). These attitudes and actions not only devour others in their attempt to satisfy themselves, but ultimately consume those who engage in them as well (v. 15). But those who properly conceive of freedom as not only "from" but also "to" others produce the virtues of the "fruit of the Spirit" (vv. 22-23).
Luke 9:51-62
The exasperation Jesus seems to feel toward his disciples in the gospel lesson is almost palpable. Within the span of these twelve verses, the evangelist reports that Jesus "rebuked" his own disciples and rebuffed the responses of three different would-be disciples. What might be missed by reading this passage in the isolation of the lectionary is that the evangelist has carefully placed each of these vignettes at the outset of a major transition in the narrative structure of the gospel. The reason for Jesus' apparent exasperation is that the first phase of his ministry has drawn to a close and still neither his inner circle nor those who might yet be drawn in to join his ministry seem to be able to conceive its ultimate purposes and costs.
The evangelist's comment in verse 51 about the approach of time when Jesus would be "taken up" and his consequent determination "to go to Jerusalem" is not made in passing. It is in Jerusalem that Jesus' ministry will find its culmination in his passion, resurrection, and ascension. This journey to Jerusalem will provide the structure for Luke's account down through 19:27, where the final Passion Week will commence with Jesus' "Triumphal Entry" into the city (19:28-46). All along the way, Jesus will continue to instruct his disciples.
In the first of these vignettes, Jesus and his entourage are denied hospitality by a Samaritan village precisely because they are on their way to Jerusalem. Clearly the root of this snub is the centuries-old feud between the Samaritans and the Jews regarding the proper site for sacrificial worship of the God of Israel (cf. John 4:19-26). For James and John this slight should be punished by calling "fire to come down from heaven [to] consume them" (v. 54). No doubt they believed this was the purpose of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem itself, to bring down the fiery judgment of God upon all God's perceived enemies. Jesus' rebuke is aimed not just at an egregious overreaction to an ethnically motivated slight, but at the notion his ministry is in the first instance about destroying rather than redeeming those who alienate themselves from God.
But bringing reconciliation rather than destruction to those who oppose you is costly business, as Jesus' responses to the would-be disciples make clear. It can mean foregoing even one's own legitimate needs in order to commit one's self to ministry for others (vv. 57-58). It places demands on our lives that at times conflict with the normal obligations of society, even from within our own families (vv. 59-60). It requires that we commit ourselves completely to the cause of God's reign of justice without looking back to what we may have left behind (vv. 61-62). All of these things Jesus had done as "he set his face to go to Jerusalem," and those who would truly follow him must do the same.
Application
The transformative moment of the film Bruce Almighty comes when Bruce finally recognizes that the only proper use of those divine powers is to meet the genuine needs of others rather than his own or even their personal desires. Foremost among those needs is for one to know the love that God has for us, to have someone in our lives who, as Bruce expresses it to God, will love and see us through God's eyes.
It is a moment that Paul himself could have scripted, for no sooner had he announced to the Galatians that "Christ has set us free" from bondage to our sin than he immediately warned us all "not [to] use [our] freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence." Could such "self-indulgence" have been what motivated Elisha to strike the Jordan and to demand, "Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?" Had he wanted the "double share" of Elijah's spirit in order to assume the "birthright" of leadership over the prophetic band or to indulge his own sense of self-importance at being able to conjure such miracles as Elijah had performed? Was he driven by compassion and love for his fellow "sons of the prophets," not wanting them left wandering and hopeless without a "father" to lead and instruct them? Or was he driven by "enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy," lest some other of his once colleagues should rise up to be the new leader over him. Why do we seek Christ's freedom and God's blessings -- to use those freedoms and blessings to love our neighbors as ourselves or to satisfy our own desires even if at the expense of others? "If you bite and devour one another," Paul warns, "take care that you are not consumed by one another."
Perhaps had Elisha really understood the "hard thing" that he had asked of Elijah -- had he recognized that the "double share" of Elijah's spirit was to enable him to serve the prophets and the people as a "slave" rather than to lord power over them -- perhaps then he would not have sought miraculous power to keep his own feet dry as the first proof that his wish had been fulfilled. It is our sinful nature that seeks to put our own desires ahead of all else. Indeed, when the God character in Bruce Almighty asks Bruce why he has not been dealing with that backlog of prayers, he confesses that there were some perceived injustices in his own life that he wanted to redress first. "By contrast," as Paul wrote, "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control" (Galatians 5:22). These qualities of life are directed toward the needs of others. These attributes are the proof that "the spirit of Elijah rests upon" us.
We don't really need the ability to invoke miraculous power to deal with the mundane details or common problems we face in our daily lives. What we really need, like Bruce Nolan and those young men in ancient Israel's prophetic guild, is to be in relationships that sustain and nurture us. What we really need is the freedom to find ourselves in service to others. The good news is that it is not a "hard thing" for God to fulfill our longing for a "double share" of the Spirit that can produce the fruit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control that enable us to understand, serve, and be in relationship with one another.
It is not a "hard thing" for God to give us a "double share of the spirit," yet it is as Elijah knew, and Elisha and Bruce Nolan came to understand, an important responsibility for all those who receive this gift. God gives us the Spirit not for our own benefit, but in order that we might benefit others as agents of divine grace. A tremendous responsibility, yes, but never a drudgery. May we all fulfill Paul's challenge: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit."
Alternative Applications
1. Galatians 5:1, 13-25. Although the next Sunday is the Fourth of July itself, this lectionary reading invites us to explore the meanings of freedom at not only the personal level, but at the level of societies and nations as well. What does it mean for the United States and other democracies to "promote freedom" around the world? Are we just promoting "freedom from" the tyrannies of dictators and a "freedom to" fulfill our personal desires, or do we make it clear that there is no absolute freedom apart from a continuing obligation for others? If other societies see our notion of freedom as promoting lawlessness, have we ourselves forgotten the necessary correlation between rights and responsibilities that are essential to genuine freedom?
2. 2 Kings 2:1-2, 6-14; Luke 9:51-62. There are several parallels between the Elijah and Elisha stories and particular details in the gospel lesson. Maybe James and John saw themselves as being in the same league with Elijah in their ability to call fire down from heaven, and maybe a desire for such ability initially motivated Elisha's wish for a "double share" of Elijah's spirit. Elisha's own call to follow Elijah had involved plows and a reluctant severing of family ties (cf. 1 Kings 19:19-21). In the end, however, both Elisha and Jesus' disciples came to recognize the responsibility for others that lies at the heart of God's call on our lives. In what ways might our own failings to recognize the implications of God's call be exasperating to God? What can we learn from the purposes and costs of Jesus' ministry that can help us to live out our own calls?
Preaching The Psalm
Psalm 77:1-2, 11-20
There is nothing quite as unsettling as being lost. A sense of weakness and anxiety takes hold as we realize we don't know where we are or how we got there or how to get back. There is no one to ask, there are no signs that point the way; there are only miles and miles of unfamiliar landscape. Deep inside, a growing sense of panic begins to take hold as we consider the possibility that we may never be found.
Then it happens. A landmark comes into view that seems familiar. We stop and take a close look at it. Yes, it is definitely something we have seen before. Then, there's another familiar landmark, then another and another. Suddenly the road that only a moment before had seemed dreadful and threatening now seems safe and familiar and comforting. No longer is it a path leading to our doom, now it's the way home.
The psalmist is trying to help us find some landmarks. Somehow the psalmist and his congregation had gotten lost. We hear his cry: "in the night my hand is stretched out." What a powerful image of groping in the dark trying to find the way.
Of course, the psalmist is giving voice to the fears of his community. For some reason they are in the dark. They are on a road that does not seem familiar. There is a growing sense of dread that perhaps God has abandoned them, or that they have wandered so far from God that they will never find him again. The psalmist voices their fear, but also their hope.
The psalmist declares: "I will call to mind the deeds of the Lord; I will remember your wonders of old" (v. 11). For the psalmist, helping the people remember will get them back on the right road. They need to remember the stories they know. They need to remember their own blessings from the past. They need to remember the promises that God has made.
Of course remembering also includes acting. They need to remember how to bow in the presence of God. They need to remember the words to use in prayer and use them in prayer. They need to remember the sights and sounds and smells of worship.
If the people will remember they will begin to see familiar landmarks. The road they are on now, even though it seems treacherous and foreign, will suddenly become familiar. Just like in the days of old, they will remember how "You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron" (v. 20). Then it will happen. They will see one happy landmark after another until suddenly they will realize they are on the path that leads to home.
