While this is listed as Part 1, it could be thought of as a continuation of a previous post. I use the story of Naaman the Leper from II Kings 5 to illustrate three of the four pastoral care functions as described by Clebsch and Jaekle. These three (which were orignially identified by Steward Hiltner) are: Guiding, Healing, and Sustaining. I used three servants in the story to illustrate each one.
The servant of Naaman’s wife, exemplified the ministry of Guiding Without Much Knowledge.
The servant of Elisha, in guiding Naaman to go to the Jordan River, exemplified the ministry of Healing Without Much Skill.
The servant of Naaman, exemplified the ministry of Sustaining Without Much Strength.
You can read that post by clicking: Three Servants: Guiding, Healing, Sustaining – Missional Thoughts and Theology
Now I am going to look at Gehazi, not as exemplifying the ministry of the fourth ministry of Reconciliation, but rather as a cautionary tale of failing in the role of reconciliation.
===========
The fourth servant is Gehazi, Elisha’s servant. Was he the same servant that gave guidance to Naaman for healing? Not sure.
Naaman returns from the Jordan River and goes to Elisha’s residence. I am not an expert on the social obligations of the Northern Kingdom during this period, but I can make some guesses. Naaman came to give extravagant gifts in part to thank Elisha. It may also be seen as “paying the bill.” Elisha was clearly a man with powerful connection to the gods. You certainly do not want to make him angry. However, perhaps more than either of these, he was making an offering to Elisha’s god.
Elisha simply refuses any gift? Why? Not sure. Some suggest that Elisha was avoiding a transactional arrangement. Perhaps Elisha wanted to instill in Naaman a bit of an understanding of God’s grace— and one cannot buy grace. Or maybe Elisha did not want to receive gifts from a “pagan.” In II Kings 8 we find a somewhat parallel passage of Elisha dealing with the rulers of Aram. In this case it is clear the distaste he had for this task, even though it does not say whether he kept the gifts.
If we take the more positive view that Elisha was seeking to teach Naaman something about God’s grace, one must admit I think, based on what has been passed down to us, he did not seem to do a very good job. What we are left with was Naaman having to do a bit of self-theologizing. In his worldview, the gods are tied to the people and to the land. Naaman could not become an Israelite. However, if he brought bags of dirt from Israel, and perhaps he spreads it around the courtyard of his house… then the God of land of Israel will also be the God of his household.
Additionally, he said he would only make offerings to Yahweh. For someone that I must suspect at least was a polytheist, that is a pretty impressive conclusion. I will only do ritual worship before the God of Israel. And then, even more impressively, he notes that there may be a bit of a conflict. His role as a military general may mean that he must participate in government functions that involve rituals directed to Rimmon. He believed he could not avoid at least putting a show of bowing down before Rimmon.
But then he realizes that his obligations as a general of the Syria may require him during state functions to behave in ways that are inconsistent with his new allegiance.
Truthfully, Naaman did some pretty good theologizing. His idea about getting Israeli soil was based on faulty theology, but probably no worse than a lot of Israelites at that time.
Elisha’s response of “Go in peace” may be seen as comforting, but it is also certainly unhelpful.
At this point, there is the opportunity for reconciliation— particularly between Naaman and Elisha, and between Naaman and God.
This is where Gehazi comes in.
<End of Part One>
