Living Dead
2 Kings 2:1-14; Luke 9:51-62
July 1, 2001

There was a young man who immigrated to Canada as a refugee. He knew what year in which he was born, but had no idea what date his birthday fell upon. Neither did the immigration officials, so it was official - he had no legal birthday.
When he arrived in Canada his foster parents thought about it for a while and then "officially" gave him July 1 as his birthday, figuring that, at the age of 13 when such things mattered developmentally, he would only be six months off at worst. And having the same special day as his new country would always guarantee fireworks.
It is ever difficult to reconcile Canada Day and its political posturing with the posture of the Biblical witness. Half the Old Testament is about how Israel worked to become a nation and the other half tells the tragic tale of how that desire to be a political power killed Israel and its relationship with God. During Jesus' time there was no Israel - just a people subjugated to a foreign power. Being a nation is never a prerequisite for God's action, nor necessarily a good thing.
Yet - there almost always has to be a Ôyet' - there is a connection, an affinity between the way many people view Canada Day and the two Biblical stories about becoming a disciple.
Today we seldom look back. We are celebrating who we are as Canada today - multilingual, multicultural, a different nation comprised of very different people. Through song and fireworks and barbecues, we proclaim that our way of being different is distinctive, if not better. We know, however, that we have been far from perfect and what is required of us now is a commitment to a vision of what we can still become.
The ascension of Elijah in a chariot of fire is all the fireworks one could possibly imagine. Actually, I have difficulty imagining this event and the Biblical language is powerfully symbolic and spectacularly vague. It's getting to the chariot that matters. Everyone seems to know this is The Day: obviously Elijah knows where he is headed, and his man Friday Elisha doesn't want to let go of his mentor for a second. Even the local companies of prophets - kind of the local clergy - seemed to know what was coming off in whatever town the two great men passed through.
At each point along the way, Elijah tries to get Elisha to stop, but the latter is insistent in going all the way. There is something of a testing going on; probably details in the interaction which the Biblical author could not include. Elijah has been the greatest of Israel's prophets, but the focus has now switched to Elisha who is not in this for the money. When asked, Elisha requests the traditional eldest son's share of the father's inheritance, just as we recently saw in the the parable of the prodigal son - a double portion.
The prophets were not blood related, though the point is here is that Elijah was the spiritual father of Elisha, so that a double portion of the inheritance was a gift of the spiritual power of the older man, not his physical property and assets. But it was a gift that came from God and was not Elijah's to grant. After the whirlwind, after the chariot of fire, Elisha would pick up the mantle of his mentor and do exactly what Elijah had done: part the waters of the River Jordan with the slap of the mantle. Taking up the mantle of his father to do twice as much is an intriguing way in which to honour one's family.
Jesus also now knows exactly where he is going and that is to Jerusalem and to his death. Unlike the Old Testament story, no one else seems to have a clue. Yet like Elisha, many want to cling to Jesus, to be his disciple. The urge and compulsion have not died, for many people still want to be his disciple and the motives and excuses vary, as they did then.
Some never want to be Jesus' disciples. Jesus and his company are to pass through a Samaritan village, but the leaders of the village do not want to be hospitable because he is on his way to Jerusalem for the Passover. The Samaritans considered themselves the true children of Moses and took a different read on the traditions of the faith. Certainly, their values and ethics were virtually the same as Jesus', but because they considered themselves the centre of the universe anyone different was not to be counted in their number and welcomed. Jesus' companions wanted to imitate Elijah when he ordered down from heaven fireballs upon the prophets of Ba'al in retribution. I doubt the disciples had the right stuff to do such a thing in the first place, but Jesus told them we don't operate that way now. They went on to another, more hospitable village.
Along the way, would-be disciples come up to Jesus and plead for "a closer walk with thee." Each one has a condition, sometimes explicit, sometimes not. "I need a predictable place to sleep, some kind of stability." Foxes have holes, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head. One of the first bit of reinterpretation necessary for the earliest Christians was to justify living in a village with a certain level of stability that a wandering charismatic preacher never did. The huge mega-churches which proclaim they are returning to the model of the New Testament church never seem to understand that Jesus did not want a foxhole.
"First, let me bury my father." A reasonable family obligation, but "let the dead bury the dead." These are the "living dead." "First let me say goodbye to my family," but "no one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God." These are the most ignored sayings of Jesus.
It's nothing new, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ in most places has been translated as the gospel of the family. In this time of radical social change the traditional family appears threatened, so politicians utter the mantra of "family values"; the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints has transformed its primary mission into reviving and supporting the family unit; and the Southern Baptist Convention has passed and promoted a resolution on "the biblical family" in which wives are to submit to their husbands in the same way that the church is to submit to Christ as its head.
Plenty of fodder to argue about the particulars, but no matter how you and I define family, family has been the central ethical organizing principle of virtually every institution in the world for the last three millennia.
It is amazing that the most rigourous of fundamentalist churches have completely missed the point and completely missed the Gospel: Jesus did not want us to worship the family, but to follow him. That means letting go of the centrality of the family in order to be a servant in Jesus' name.
If the main thing that matters is the maintenance of our family, how can we ever reach out and minister to those who are not family? Jesus said those who are in need are our neighbours. Yes, this means we include them in our spiritual family. From more people than I can count, I have received a portion of their spiritual inheritance and so am blessed to be their son. Whoever follows Jesus is my brother and sister, no matter how different they may be from me in culture, language, and race. They can make up the strangest family, but it is from this family, this Body of Christ, that I receive a double share of the Spirit.
What share do we accept as Canadians? It is our calling to do twice as much as our spiritual fathers and mothers. Twice as much diversity in nationalities in which we can all call ourselves truly Canadian. Twice as many ventures into service in all parts of the world; twice as much making and keeping the peace. Up to this day we have been a great deal, a marvelous spiritual and national heritage. We squander our inheritance unless we are able to repay twice as much.
Preached by Robert Kitchen
Knox-Metropolitan United Church
Regina, Saskatchewan