The Legitimate Leader and the She-Bears of 2 Kings 2:23-24

Elisha is the apprentice of the prophet Elijah and in 2 Kings Elijah is taken up in a chariot of fire, leaving Elisha alone to carry the mantle of prophetic leadership. The young Elisha picks up the mantle of Elijah and touches the river. The waters part and Elisha walks across the dry land.

Soon a group of people see Elisha and bow down to him out of respect. Even as they respected the office that Elisha now holds, they might have wondered what happened to Elijah? Did something wonderful or nefarious happen to him at the hands of Elisha? The group asks if they can search for the body of Elijah. Elisha says to not do this, because they will not find the body; which, if you are a conspiracy theorist, sounds suspicious. However, the group still sends 50 men to search for 3 days only to return and tell Elisha that they did not find the body of Elijah. Elisha says, "Did I not say to you, Do not go?" 

Elisha may have felt at this point a sense of frustration. He was shown signs of respect when the group bowed, but they questioned his decision to not search for Elijah. Elisha's legitimacy as a leader is called into question.  

Photo by Thomas Lefebvre on Unsplash

Just after, Elisha walks to a town and discovers the water is bad killing the land and causing miscarriages. Elisha heals the water with some salt. Like Moses making the bitter water sweet, Elisha goes one step farther and heals the water and the town rejoices. As he leaves the town a crowd gathers to mock Elisha. He is called "baldy" which is only obvious if Elisha was not wearing the mantle of Elijah over his head. If he wore the mantle then would the crowd have made fun of him? Once again, Elisha's legitimacy as the leader is called into question.

In response to this claim, Elisha curses the crowd and two she-bears maul 42 people.  

Two sets of stories with complementary suggestions about how Elisha struggled being seen as the legitimate leader. In one case Elisha suggested that no one trusts him and in the other Elisha lashes out to his enemies. 

When Elisha struggles with legitimacy, people get hurt. In this case, young people die.

There was another who ascended to heaven and when his followers came to share this good news, they were considered drunk. When the disciple preached that Pentecost Sunday they, like Elisha, had their legitimacy questioned. They did not call forth She-bears. 

When the legitimacy of the leader is called into question some leaders lash out, curse enemies and call forth destruction. They look sort of like they early days of Elisha. Christianity requires a different response. Notice that Christians are not called "Elishans." Christians do not curse our enemies and wish/cause their destruction - even in the face of a legitimacy crisis.

Christianity marked by not in how we agree

Reverend Ryan Kiblinger is a doctoral candidate for a PhD in the area of Christian catechism. He and I have known one another for a while now and we have come to engage in a handful of intellectual spats over the years. It is clear that am very much out of my intellectual league when I am in his presence. It is also clear that he and I do not agree on a number of what many might consider to be "critical aspects of what it means to be Christian". And, to be clear, every time I see him, I rejoice in our interactions and friendship. 

After a heated bit of conversation at a meeting of laity and clergy around the area I live (this meeting is called "Annual Conference"), Ryan gave me a hug.

He and I spoke with one another and I thanked him for his kind words of support. Then Ryan said what I am not smart enough to come up with on my own and was the best part of my whole three day experience. To paraphrase Ryan:

Christianity marked by not in how we agree but how we disagree.

The best part of my annual conference experience was being affirmed by someone who I disagree with and being reminded once again that they will know we are Christians by our love.

Thank you Ryan. 

One Church Model as Yeast

The Nicene and Apostle's creed both have a line that affirms belief in the holy catholic church and if we read it too quickly then we overlook the mystery of that phrase. 

I was reminded not long ago in a meeting with church leaders the meanings of these words. 

• holy - set apart 
• catholic - throughout the whole
• church - the body that comes together in order to be sent out

If the point of the church is to be sent out, then why would it come together to begin with? Some might even call this a paradox others might see this is really inefficient. If the point is to be sent out, then are we not going against the point when we come together? Many of us see the benefits of coming together in order to be sent out and are not hung up by this paradox. However, fewer of us are able to reconcile the paradox of something that is both set apart and throughout the whole. 

We like to think that we are able to hold two ideas in our heads at the same time and give them equal weight. We like to think that we do not privilege one side over the other. We like to think that we are able to hold the paradox, but more often than not we will place one position over the other. Despite our inability to hold paradoxes, we continue to try because we know that life is never one or the other, but full of contradictions and paradoxes. 

For instance, are you a parent or a child? What color is the dress? What do you hear? Maybe the most basic paradox - "this sentence is false."

The divisions in the church these days might be understood as our unwillingness to attempt to hold these tensions together. Some elevate the role of the church as holy (set apart and different) while others elevate the role of the church as catholic (though out the whole or sometimes understood as universal).

Photo by Drew Coffman on Unsplash

You may recall that Jesus attempted to address this paradox of being set apart and through out the whole by speaking of yeast. Yeast is different form the whole and yet in order for yeast to function it has to be through out the whole batch. 

The UMC faces a number of decisions in February 2019 around how to include LGBTQIA+ people in the church. It seems to me that the option that is most like the church as yeast is what is called the "One Church Model." This model gives the decision about ordination and marriage to the most local body able to make the decision. Conferences decide who they are going to ordain as it is now, pastors decide who they are going to marry as it is now, and churches decide what types of ceremonies are allowed on church property now.

If we allow the the decision of how to include LGBTQIA+ persons to be spread through out the whole of the church then, paradoxically and mysteriously, the yeast retains its holiness. It seems clear to me that if the status quo remains or if there is a dramatic change in the current stance, then we move closer to being holy OR catholic. 

This is one more reason why I believe the "One Church model" not only is in line with the creeds, but is in line with our historical and Wesleyan tradition of affirming the holy, catholic church.