The numbers game

You may know that my day job for this past year has been pastor at First United Methodist Church in Bolivar, TN.  At the end of June, I had First United Methodist Church in Whiteville, TN added to my work.  It is not a true two-point circuit, but the church classifies it as Bolivar First – Whiteville First Extended Ministry.  It is a fine distinction, to be sure, but accuracy is a goal of mine.

I bring this up because our Conference (Memphis) is in a bit of a clergy supply crisis.  We retired nineteen (19!) pastors at this past Annual Conference session, with virtually all of the ministers being under regular appointment.  We took in three elders, all of whom were already serving local churches.  This is indicative of the situation as I was describing it.  The ratio of retirees to incoming pastors is going the wrong way.

Some of the fallout from these circumstances is that people with less training are being asked to fill pulpits at a higher rate than ever.  Don’t hear me disparaging Lay Pastors or Lay Servants.  The simple observation is that ten years ago a rural county might have one pastoral charge to which someone in one of these categories was appointed.  Now, there are counties where all of the pastors – perhaps with the exception of the church in the county seat – have one of these classifications.  

The other consideration that the current situation precipitates is that three-church circuits are becoming appointments with four congregations.  Two-church parishes are adding a third component.  And, as I said to the start, historically station churches are partnering with other worshiping fellowships in their area.

All of this is to say that, after forty-five years in Methodist pulpits, I am riding the circuit once again.  And, I have friends and colleagues who look at me, shake their heads and say, “Tsk-tsk.  Isn’t it a shame about Rick’s demotion?”  I want to be quick to say that I didn’t start this post in order to bellyache about a diminishment of status.  I don’t consider my situation a reduction in station at all.  I consider it a fulfilling of my calling.  I spent a lot of years in Methodist circuits (as to the meaning of a lot, we’ll just leave it at that).  It is not any harder than being in a tall-steeple church and having two (or three!) worship services on Sunday morning. 

Folks are folks.  Churches are churches.  The sheep need shepherding.  I kind of leave it at that.  As for status, I have a great friend in the ministry who now rests from his labors who used to say, “You hear your name read out at Conference and sometimes it sounds impressive.  Then, the next day, it’s just church work.”

On "The Cure of Souls"

I had a really challenging talk recently with a group of United Methodist ministers about one of the ancient pieces of job description for pastors.  The phrase that we kicked around was “the cure of souls.”  It has been a part of the pastoral task virtually from the beginning.  It really takes in just about all of the work of the pastor. 

Now, the way a lot of churches set up the work of its clergy in modern times, the pastor has responsibility for administration and public relations and a host of other areas.  But these jobs fall outside of the classic daily work of the priestly figure.

The cure of souls has under its umbrella preaching, teaching, directing worship and administering the sacraments.  A present-day addition might be counseling.  All in all, the category encompasses all that a pastor might do for the shepherding of a pastoral flock.

The conversation that fostered these thoughts began with an objection that “cure of souls” is an impossibly awesome task.  “Cure” was taken to mean “remedy” or “to make (absolutely) whole.”  The other side of the debate holds that the term means “to minister,” or “to oversee spiritually.” 

A further observation was that “cure” here, rather than being a medical term, could be an agricultural or culinary term.  When we speak of preparing something like a ham, we understand that we can sugar-cure it, or smoke-cure it, or salt-cure the ham.  “Cure” in this instance carries with it the meaning of “prepare” or “preserve.”  To prepare or preserve souls, while an awesome task in itself, may describe the work of a pastor as much as any other simple term.

The original meaning of “cure of souls” was for the shepherding of individuals or for particular congregations.  In some circles, the Roman Catholic Church among others, cure of souls reached out beyond the congregational walls and extended over a district or parish. 

Later church understanding replaced “cure” with “care.”  I don’t have any real problem with that.  But I sort of gravitate toward the old wineskins, and if that means that I have to do a little more interpretation, so be it.

Thanks to those who sparked a truly stimulating discussion.  I am still cogitating over all this a bit.

Continuing some thoughts on Hoyt Hickman's worship work

The late Hoyt Hickman, one of the Deans of modern United Methodist liturgical thought, wrote a book titled Worshiping with United Methodists.¹ In it, he sought to answer the question, “What is Christian worship?” He listed five assumptions that characterize Christian worship.  His fourth notion is: Worship should be relevant and inclusive.

“Relevant” is a word from which I nearly turn and run.  I get it.  I even agree with it.  And, I am hard-pressed to find a fully appropriate alternative.  But I spent so long – particularly during my seminary years – listening to all kinds of people harp on “relevance, that to this day it makes my skin crawl.” 

It is certainly the case that what the church does, and this is nowhere more vital than during worship, should be germane to the lives of its membership.  It is also true that sometimes our worship can be so dated and full of bells & smells that it might as well be in Latin.  Worship that does not connect with the real lives of worshipers is no worship at all.

My knee-jerk reaction to the R-word is based on my experience of people who acted as if “relevance” was something they could package.  They might not know what it was, but they knew it when they saw it.  It is as if they could impose relevance on the worship event with a guitar and sandals.

My take on worship that is relevant is that it meets people where they are and connects them with the Spirit of God.  That means that a great deal of the heavy lifting must be done by worshipers.  Because for all else that happens in worship, the focus is on God.  Worshipers bring a gift of adoration and praise to God Almighty.  It is not up to Christian worship to foster a feeling or emotion or even a state of mind.  Christian worship is about bringing worshiper to the Worshiped.  When worship fosters an opportunity for the congregation to assemble at the foot of the Throne of Grace – that, y’all, is relevant worship.

¹Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.

The United Methodist Articles of Religion -- Article IV

A further look at the United Methodist Church’s Articles of Religion -- as stated in a previous post:

The United Methodist Church has several sources that historically define its “doctrinal standards.”  These include the church’s Confession of Faith, the General Rules, John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament and Wesley’s Standard Sermons.  Also, in this roster of foundational documents are the church’s Articles of Religion.  In 1784 when the American Church was chartered, John Wesley provided these Articles for the church.  Wesley had composed 24 statements, and the American church added a 25th that was America-specific.  They have always been authoritative in Methodism and the church included them in its Discipline from 1790 on.  The fourth article is:

Article IV — Of the Holy Ghost

The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.

The first several articles work together to provide a strong Trinitarian affirmation.  This article is a simple restatement of a large section of The Nicene Creed.  The early church controversy that the Council of Nicaea addressed had to do with the nature of the Holy Ghost/Spirit.  The heresy stated that the Spirit was of inferior nature to the Father and the Son, and that the Father issued the Spirit from the Father’s nature alone.  Nicaea affirmed that the Spirit was of like nature of both Father and Son.  It stated that while there are separate persons within the mystery of the Trinity, that the Three were at the same time One.

The Methodist movement affirms and employs the Nicene Creed both as theological statement and as liturgical element.

It is interesting that for some the most troubling part of Article IV is the use of “Ghost.”  The Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit issue is a result of an effort to differentiate between the Third Person of the Trinity in the New Testament and the references to the “spirit of God” in the Old.  Some older translations even print “spirit” in all lower-case letters in the Old Testament and resort to printing “SPIRIT” or “HOLY SPIRIT” in all upper-case type in the New Testament.  These folks offered “Holy Ghost” as a way of differentiating between the two entities in print.

As is often the case, the original reason for such practices got lost to memory.  But, for a group of folks, because some of their old Bibles – and old liturgical practices – used “Ghost,” they stubbornly adhered to this usage.  John Wesley, while fully understanding the nature of the issue kept true to his preference for adhering to ancient practices in the face of the modern.  He also maintained that “Holy Ghost,” as it appears in liturgical pieces, is more poetic.  He cites the Gloria Patri and observes that “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit…” provides a metrical stumbling block.  He didn’t see it as an obstacle to Christian understanding or practice.  And, he further notes, that for Methodist documents to use one term in some places and a second in others does far more damage than an adherence to an established practice.

"Go on your way..."

The Revised common Lectionary’s suggested gospel reading for this week is Luke 10:1-11, 16-20.  It is Luke’s version of the Commissioning of the Seventy.  A portion of the reading reads:

Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves. Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road. Whatever house you enter, first say, “Peace to this house!” And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you. Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the labourer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house. Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you; cure the sick who are there, and say to them, “The kingdom of God has come near to you.” But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, “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.” -- Luke 10:3-11

This is certainly an example of the austerity that Jesus asked of his disciples (and we remind ourselves that this is not just an undertaking by The Twelve, but a much larger endeavor by seventy disciples).  It also speaks of the faith that Jesus asks of his emissaries that God will provide for their needs.  These are good words.

There is, however, another possible way of looking at the passage.  We remember that, while Jesus died around 35 CE, the gospel of Luke was not put to paper until around 75 CE, a bit after the fall of Jerusalem in 72 CE.  In the forty years between Jesus’ ministry and the composition of the Third Gospel the church dealt with a number of difficulties within its membership.  One of those was the abuse of hospitality or generosity by would-be evangelists.  Luke 10 has the ring of a document that has gathered some material in order to address a more recent situation.  That is to say that it is possible that Jesus gave a piece of instruction here and another there which Luke has gathered into one place for emphasis and instruction.

We notice that there is a marked similarity between this teaching and the first-century document that didn’t make the final cut for inclusion in the Bible: The Dicache (“The Teaching of The Twelve”).   There is a section of that work that reads:

Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets

Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not; but if he teach so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, according to the decree of the Gospel, thus do. Let every apostle that comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet that speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one that speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he hold the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit eats not from it, except indeed he be a false prophet; and every prophet who teaches the truth, if he do not what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him; but if he says to you to give for others' sake who are in need, let no one judge him.

False prophets and money-grubbing wolves in sheep’s clothing did not cease appearing with the closing of the New Testament.  Anyone with a television who turns the set on during weekend evenings can see these a-plenty.  You’d think we would have caught up with them by now.

Further thoughts on Naaman the Syrian

I have been thinking a little more about this week’s Old Testament reading from the Revised Common Lectionary.  The lection is 2 Kings 5:1-14, which is the story of the healing of Naaman the Syrian.  There are some important characters in this tale about whom we know very little, not even their names.  But without them we have no story. 

We encounter the first in verses 2-3.  That section reads:

Now the Arameans on one of their raids had taken a young girl captive from the land of Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife. She said to her mistress, ‘If only my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.’

The story doesn’t spend time on details that we might find upsetting.  The narrative unfolds in the telling of the capture and enslavement of a young Israelite girl by some of the bad guys.  I kind of want there to be fire from heaven or for the oppressors to drop dead.  But that is not the way the story goes. This girl’s capture and enslavement is the vehicle by which Naaman, the Syrian general, comes to be aware of the authority of the prophet Elisha.

When Naaman arrives at the home of Elisha, he makes his healing request.  Then, verse 10 reports:

Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, ‘Go, wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean.’

Elisha sends a go-between with his reply.  If we examine these verses, we see that the general and the prophet never do meet face-to-face.  It is a servant who brings the words of power.

Farther along in the tale, Naaman reflects on the directions given by Elisha.  The prophet’s instructions are that the supplicant should go to the Jordan river and wash himself seven times.  Naaman is angry and complains both that the prophet did not engage him personally and that Elisha directs the general to wash in the local waters rather than in what Naaman considers to be the superior waters of his own country.  The narrative picks up in verses 12b-13:

He turned and went away in a rage. But his servants approached and said to him, ‘Father, if the prophet had commanded you to do something difficult, would you not have done it? How much more, when all he said to you was, “Wash, and be clean”?’

Naaman washes in the Jordan and his leprosy leaves him. 

If we ask, “Who are the significant characters in this story?” the quick answer is, “Elijah and Naaman.”  But truth be known, it is these unnamed servants that make the story go.  Without the slave girl, Naaman may never become aware of the power of Elisha.  Without the messenger with the healing words, there is no contrast between the fantastic and the simple.  If the servants of Naaman don’t question him in his rage, perhaps the general goes back to his own land unhealed.  He may, as a slaveholder, take his anger out on the Israelite slave.  He may, as a general, wage war on Israel.  He may, as a leper, die a horrible death.

Naaman has all of these anonymous servants/slaves to thank in part for his healing.  And I am grateful to them for giving us a marvelous story.

The simple story of Naaman the Syrian

The Revised common Lectionary suggests this Sunday’s Old Testament reading to be 2 Kings 5:1-14.  It is the story of Naaman the Syrian.  It is a story that I greatly enjoy for a number of reasons.  In a nutshell, Naaman suffered from leprosy.  He goes to Elisha and sends the prophet word that he has come seeking healing of his malady.  Elisha sends the general instructions to go to the Jordan River and wash himself seven times.  Naaman gets angry, first that the prophet did not come and speak to the general himself; and secondly that Elisha’s instructions are so mundane as to go and take a bath.  He complains that the rivers of his home country should be at least as efficacious as these foreign waters.  He is about to leave “in a rage,” when his servants put it to him that if the prophet had demanded a mighty deed that Naaman would have done it in a heartbeat.  Why not, then, do this thing that Elisha directs?  The general capitulates, and his leprosy disappears.

I could go on and on about this story – trust me, you don’t want that.  One appealing aspect, though, is the initial refusal of the pilgrim general to carry out his healing prescription.  It is not complicated enough or difficult enough or miracle enough for him initially.  When cooler heads prevail, he undertakes the simple act and he receives that for which he asked.

I know a man who “just wasn’t feeling like himself,” and so he went to his doctor.  After a thorough examination, the physician took out a prescription pad, scribbled something on it, ripped the page out of his book and gave it to the patient.  When the seeker looked at the note, it said “Walk.”  The man objected a bit.  He said, “But, aren’t you going to give me any pills or tonic?  For the kind of money you charge, I at least want some Latin!”

While we sometimes try to make things more complicated than circumstances warrant, the simple – not simplistic – approach is frequently the most effective.

Continuing some thoughts on Hoyt Hickman's worship work

The late Hoyt Hickman, one of the Deans of modern United Methodist liturgical thought, wrote a book titled Worshiping with United Methodists.¹  In it, he sought to answer the question, “What is Christian worship?” He listed five principles that characterize Christian worship.  His third principle is:

Spontaneity and order are both important.

This is one of the great tensions in both worship planning and worship execution.  Some communions have a worship service that is almost completely scripted.  The Roman Catholic Missal or the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer contain almost every word that the worship leader and congregation speaks.  Take out the parish notices and the sermon/homily and everything else is there.  These traditions find comfort in these ordered services.

On the other hand, thee are worship traditions that have little or no printed matter.  A worship bulletin may serve to convey announcements and calendars.  But the worship portion itself may do little more than list hymn numbers and scripture references.  The position here is that worship should be almost completely spontaneous.  These traditions hold up the ideal that God “inspires” the worship service and that the entire event takes place under the direction of God.

I must note that these “spontaneous” services are often as rigidly scripted as any prayer book-directed meeting.  While there may be no printed order, or no widely distributed plan, these gatherings often commence in an unalterable fashion.  The call to worship may be a song leader announcing, “All that will, come to the choir.”  The worship time often has a strict (if unprinted) order.  Hymns, prayers, the offering, “special music,” sermon, altar call – the various elements take place in an unalterable order.  Yet the planners and congregants will insist that they are spontaneous and inspired divinely week by week.

I have rarely experienced for myself a worship time that was truly spontaneous, and never at the principal service of worship that a congregation held on Sunday morning.

Hickman says about this principle:

Worship should be open to both the planned and the unexpected movings of the Holy Spirit, who can speak not only through the preacher but through anyone present.  People feel free to follow the Spirit if they have a basic sense of pattern and structure, within which there is freedom and from which one may occasionally depart.  Both rigidity on the one hand and chaos on the other make most people withdraw into their shells. 

I believe that this is a wonderful sentiment.  But truth be known, I don’t have any idea how to exercise the intent with any practicality.  It may only be a slight caricature to suggest, “OK, we’ve had the hymn and the offering, does anyone have anything spontaneous to express before we move on to the prayer?”

Worship requires a certain flexibility.  This expresses itself in different ways in different traditions.  But, as much respect as I have for Hickman, I wish he had said a little more here, because I just don’t get it.  Balance?  Yes.  Order? You bet.  Willingness to adapt to occurrences on a given Sunday?  I’m all about that.  Planning for spontaneity?  That’s still going to take some work.

¹Nashville: Abingdon, 1996

Thoughts on Independence Day

Here on the Fourth of July (or, see the photo…), thought I’d say a word about John Wesley and his opinion of the colonials.  Wesley of course had a disastrous tour of the American South – Georgia in particular –early in his ministry.  He hurt for American Methodists, feeling they were neglected by the Anglican Church in America.  Wesley was ambivalent about the looming revolution in America at first but ended up a Tory.  He gave these reasons:

Wesley was passionately anti-slavery.  His efforts were of tremendous influence in ridding Britain of the practice.  Wesley suggested the irony of proclaiming American freedom as Americans themselves perpetrated slavery. In 1774, as political rhetoric for liberty accelerated in the colonies, he sought to appropriate the same logic on behalf of African slaves. “Are they men as well as we,” Wesley wrote, “and have they not the same sensibility?”

He believed that the colonists held the same liberties as other constituent parts of the British empire.

Wesley judged that the Revolution allowed “no liberty of conscience.” Not only were American patriots “mad with party-zeal” against King George, they also fomented against neighbors who disagreed. “None dare print a page, or a line, unless it be exactly conformable to the sentiments of our lords, the people.” What were the allowable sentiments? “None must dare to utter one word, either in favour of King George, or in disfavor of the idol they have set up—the new, illegal, unconstitutional government, utterly unknown to us and to our forefathers.” Public sentiment, he worried, did not allow freedom of speech or conscience on matters of the Revolution.

Wesley opposed the partisan fervor of the American patriots. As ministers preached sermons that stoked the fires of war, Wesley cautioned about the consequences of out-of-control protests. He was not impressed by mobs who were “screaming out for liberty.” Too many patriots were “foaming with rage against their quiet neighbours, ready to tear out one another’s throats, and to plunge their swords into each other’s bowels.” In his 1775 sermon “National Sins and Miseries,” Wesley worried that “reason is lost in rage; its small still voice drowned by popular clamour.”

Politics and religion have always had, at best, an uneasy truce. 

The Baptism of John Wesley

On this date in 1703 John Wesley received the Sacrament of Baptism.  There is no surviving written detail of the event, but it is safe to assume that his father, Rev. Samuel Wesley, administered the baptism at his church at Epworth.  John Wesley was born on June 28 and receives baptism here five days later.  (In this period, children often received their baptism on the Sunday following their birth.)

Wesley wrote extensively on the subject of baptism throughout his ministry.  He regarded it as a Means of Grace and saw its consequences as several.  In various places he writes of this sacrament as a sign that humans are cleared from the guilt of original sin, that people enter into a new covenant with God, that they become a member of the church (insofar as we understand “church” to mean “body of Christ”), that people receive their status as children of God and they therefore become heirs to God’s kingdom.

Much of Wesley’s writing on the subject is polemic.  He writes in opposition to what he considers erroneous positions on the matter.  Some of his sermonic material is more instructive.  But he never wrote systematically on the subject and so research can seem to reveal a belief system that appears erratic.  Such examination frequently fails to recognize either the particular audience to whom Wesley writes or the time in his life when single works appear.  Wesley’s understanding of this sacrament grew over the course of his ministry, and it is unrealistic to think that the understanding of a man in his twenties would be identical to the mature thought of a man writing in his eighties.

Happy baptismal anniversary, Mr. Wesley!

The Third Article of Religion of The United Methodist Church

A further look at the United Methodist Church’s Articles of Religion -- as stated in a previous post:

The United Methodist Church has several sources that historically define its “doctrinal standards.”  These include the church’s Confession of Faith, the General Rules, John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament and Wesley’s Standard Sermons.  Also, in this roster of foundational documents are the church’s Articles of Religion.  In 1784 when the American Church was chartered, John Wesley provided these Articles for the church.  Wesley had composed 24 statements, and the American church added a 25th that was America-specific.  They have always been authoritative in Methodism and the church included them in its Discipline from 1790 on.  The third article is:

Article III — Of the Resurrection of Christ

Christ did truly rise again from the dead, and took again his body, with all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day.

Given that “Christ did truly rise again from the dead” is piling on a bit, we need to understand that, in Wesley’s day, there was great indifference toward the church and toward the maintenance of what we sometimes call “right doctrine.”  It was a time when philosophies of all sorts proliferated.  While most of these turned out to be but flashes in the pan, their subject matter was of great debate.  The physical resurrection of Jesus had multitudinous detractors.  Critics employed all kinds of theoretical gymnastics in order to dispute or deny the physical resurrection.  Some of what occurred were resurgences of old – even ancient – heresies.  While the historical councils of the church dealt with a lot of these, there were people in the eighteenth century who denied the authority of these ecumenical gatherings.  Others spun fanciful arguments out of new cloth.  As I say, most fell by the wayside.  But the forceful rebuttal of Methodism remains.

It was (and is) an important tenet of Methodist theology that the church understands the resurrected Christ to be perfect in his nature.  Being the melding of mortal and divine, Christ in his resurrection stands with all vestiges of his mortality – including any remainder of original sin or fallenness – removed.  In this perfection he fulfills scripture and stands as a foretaste of what awaits Christian believers in their own resurrection.  After all, “resurrection” does not mean “resuscitation.”  Jesus resuscitated the widow’s son at Nain.  Jesus resuscitated Lazarus.  We can’t go to Israel today and meet these fellows.  Jesus returned their own imperfect, human lives for a season.  But, these alive-again figures eventually died once more, even as they await the rising that is before us all.  “Resurrection” means “to be transformed,” “to be made different from what one was before.”  In that, Jesus becomes perfect in his nature.

The article concludes with a credal affirmation of Jesus’ ascension, his station in the Kingdom of God, and his role as judge of humankind in the last days.

Like so many of the statements in the Articles, much of the third Article seems basic, even mundane.  But, part of the nature of these Articles is that they outline the faith as Methodist people understand it.  There can be no comprehensive treatment of Christian theology that does not say something about Christ’s resurrection.  That a statement is simple in its presentation does not hide the divine truth about which it speaks.  Good Christian teaching does not require complex language.  This Article carries the freight admirably.

A New Testament echo of an Old Testament story

In the Season of Ordinary Time, the Revised Common Lectionary frequently offers two options for the day’s first reading.  This week the primary lesson is 2 Kings 2:1-2, 6-14, which is the narrative of the departure of Elijah.  The alternate reading is 1 Kings 19:19-21, which includes:

So he set out from there, and found Elisha son of Shaphat, who was ploughing. There were twelve yoke of oxen ahead of him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and threw his mantle over him. He left the oxen, ran after Elijah, and said, ‘Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you.’ Then Elijah said to him, ‘Go back again; for what have I done to you?’ He returned from following him, took the yoke of oxen, and slaughtered them; using the equipment from the oxen, he boiled their flesh, and gave it to the people, and they ate. Then he set out and followed Elijah, and became his servant.

Now, admittedly there is not a lot of sizzle and pop here.  But what I find notable is that this reading finds a reflection in the Gospel verses for the day.  These include, in part, Luke 9:61-62, which reads:

Another said, ‘I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.’ Jesus said to him, ‘No one who puts a hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.’

Now, there is a LOT going on here, and I don’t pretend to plumb the depths of it all in this one post.  But I find it intriguing that we have two very similar call stories, with two similar responses from those called, and yet the “main characters” – Elijah and Jesus – respond in very different ways.  Elijah feigns disinterest.  Jesus puts the whole event in terms of worthiness for the Kingdom of God.

One observation is that in the new way of doing things that Jesus ushers in, there is no room for indifference.  Jesus indicates that evaluation may be harsher in this new way of doing things.  As Jesus takes Old Testament verses and intensifies them in the Sermon on the Mount (You have heard it said by men of old… but I say to you…), so he does here with a person’s call to discipleship.

It is worth noting that, in Jesus’ eyes, Old Testament-based behavior is no longer enough.  Jesus does not refer here to laws or rules or regulations.  He speaks of behavior.  He speaks of behavior, and his Kingdom expectations of those who would follow him.