Ruth
Here is a brief introduction to the little book of Ruth.
Although set in the historical period of the judges (ca. 1200-1020 B.C.E.; Ruth 1:1), the book as we have it is difficult to date with precision. In its final form, it certainly dates from after the reign of David (ca. 1000-960 B.C.E.) and could be as late as the exilic or postexilic period, based on some late linguistic features, as well as the book’s concern with the continuation of family lines and the Davidic dynasty, both of which featured prominently in Israel’s exilic and post-exilic consciousness. In Jewish tradition, the story is among the Five Megillah, or Festival Scrolls. In the canonical order of the Jewish Bible, it follows Proverbs, suggesting it becomes an illustration of the noble woman commended in Proverbs 31:10-31.
I would like us to consider the possibility that the bulk of the story occurs toward the end of the judges period, in a period of relative calm in Israel, while the end of book, which comes after the time of David, makes it clear why the book is in the sacred text of Jews and Christians. The book could be much later. The symbolic nature of the names of the main characters leaves that possibility open. The way the writer weaves dramatic themes and dramatic twists could mean it is a short-story without reference to history. However, a person who wants to write a history needs the skills of the storyteller as well. The sharp opposition of the faithfulness of the Moabite Ruth with later writings like Ezra and Nehemiah that oppose marriage to non-Israelite women could mean a later date would present the book of Ruth as a polemic against that view. My suggestion of placing the final edition around the time of David and Solomon, but the story itself reflecting oral tradition within the family of David, fits the tone of the book better. It feels more like a story preserved because of its connection with David and giving support to the notion of a covenant with the family of David than it does a polemic against other books in the Bible.
The book assumes some familiarity with Genesis 19:30-38, the seduction of Israelite men by women from Moab in Numbers 25:1-3, and the exclusion of Moabites from the assembly of Israelite worship in Deuteronomy 23:3-6. The story invites listeners and readers to share in the life struggles of the characters. It becomes what we would call a short story. It has an earthy spirituality in that it deals with ordinary people coping with everyday life. Life is messy, making theology untidy at times. God helps those in trouble overcome their circumstances. The characters in the story are faithfully obedient to the life envisioned in the covenant Israel had with the Lord. Boaz becomes an example of an Israelite who has regard for the stranger or foreigner in the land. Given the history of contention between Israel and Moab, this graciousness on his part might be surprising. An Israelite is to offer welcome to the foreigner. This story values simple acts of kindness.
The story of Ruth connects an example of simple covenant faithfulness during the Tribal Federation period, a time understood as one of steady deterioration. The short story of Ruth has no murders and no villains. As the text of Judges says, “everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” They were not faithful to their covenant with the Lord and with each other. The tribes fought each other. Priests had done terrible things. The breaking apart of the covenant within the period of the Tribal Federation was necessary for kingship to arise. The story portrays life in a peaceable village setting among hardworking agrarian peasants. The Spirit of the Lord descends upon no one and the angel of the Lord visits no one. We see the Lord working behind the scenes, in the random happenings of life, accomplishing the divine purpose through ordinary people who overcome adversity by means of personal initiative, ingenuity, and acts of selfless devotion. The story is the gentle folk tale of two women — one Israelite, one Moabite — and the circumstances that brought them together, kept them together, and bequeathed their story to Israel’s national epic, to world literature, and to the liturgies of both synagogue and church. It is among the briefest in the Hebrew Bible (only four short chapters). It is peopled by only a small handful of characters, who, apart from Boaz, are not mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. It focuses on the plight of a single imperiled family in a confined locale, with no sustained attention to national or international concerns. Its main characters are women. Its hero is (initially, at least) a non-Israelite. In fact, her gentile origins may also explain her general lack of reference to God. Naomi, Boaz, and the women of Bethlehem express belief in divine intervention. She does express fidelity. Yet, her confidence is primarily in herself. Whether this attribute is strength or a flaw remains debated.[1] Apart from passing references, the deity plays almost no direct role in the book.
The story of Ruth reveals itself as a quite simple, ordinary love story. Yet, to read the story of Ruth is to see God at work. The story occurs in a time when relationships within Israel were falling apart. In chapter eighteen of Judges, the tribe of Dan attacked the peaceful town of Laish. In chapter nineteen, a priest cuts up his wife into twelve parts. He sent one part to each tribe in Israel to deliver a message. In chapter twenty, the other eleven tribes attack the tribe of Benjamin. They almost destroy the entire tribe. They feel sorry about it afterwards. They give the few remaining men of the tribe of Benjamin the right to rape some of the women from another city. The book ends with the phrase: "In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes." Something was happening in their society. Relationships of hospitality, of caring for one another, of being in connection with one another, were falling apart. In some ways, I am sure that last phrase represents sadness in the heart of God. People simply doing what they please. People acting with little sense of responsibility toward one another.
The story of Ruth takes place in this type of society. Just an ordinary family with ordinary people involved. Naomi and her husband moved to a foreign land. While there, her husband died, and her two sons died without having children through their wives. She determines to leave the country and return to Israel. She tells Orpah and Ruth to return to their own families. That is what would make sense. Orpah would do so. Ruth, on the other hand, was determined to stay with Naomi. There was no law that would force her to do this. She freely chose to remain in a committed relationship with Naomi. Could it be that in that kind of free choice, we will find God?
Despite the company of Ruth, Naomi is embittered at her many losses. Over the coming weeks, these losses are all reversed. This theme is important in our time, when the suspicion of so many is that all we have emptiness and all we must look forward to is emptiness. Granted, we may inappropriately emphasize finding significance, meaning, and purpose. We may boast too quickly that we have found them. There is some freedom to be had in viewing our lives as a trace. Even world-historical figures fade with the centuries. Authors and politicians once commonly known are known no longer. You and I are traces, barely leaving a mark upon the lives of those we touch. Yet, we do leave a mark, no matter how small it may be. Such humility regarding our “self” is a good wisdom to learn. The short story of Ruth would remind us that a life of losing ourselves in faithful relationships is the path to whatever meaning we may find in this life. Leaving a mark of such qualities upon the lives of others may be the modest hope we carry with us. We may not be “full,” but we are not empty either, as we act faithfully in our daily relationships. We have learned to scale back our expectations from life and offer what we can. We may die without knowing what the trace our lives might leave.
The book of Ruth is an altogether remarkable addition to the biblical canon. It is simply a tale, parabolic in its presentation of the importance and role of divine and human chesed, traditionally translated as “loving-kindness,” but also as “kindness” (2:20), “loyalty” (3:10), and in its verbal form, “deal kindly with” (1:8). The word denotes willful, directed compassion and faithfulness arising out of a committed relationship. God's activity is bound up with the mundane affairs and interrelationship of human beings. The lofty concept of covenant is brought into contact with daily life. In 1:6, visited and in 1:8-9, hesed are strong covenant terms. Both God and human beings do hesed to one another, intertwining of divine and human activity. In this story, human beings do God's will for interrelationships. They do hesed. What makes Ruth an Israelite is that she behaves like one. There are no great miracles. The story relates only simple living out of the way of the Lord. The theology suggests the activity of God is in the shadows, in the way people act toward one another. Covenant love is a central theme. It contains affirmation of the covenant. The story commends a style of living that God can bless. We can only guess at the ties of implied responsibilities in a small village. In all these ties, there is a way in which God intends people to live out their lives. The commended style of living is a means to that end.
At the end of the book, we learn that Ruth and Boaz had Obed for a son, Obed would have a son named Jesse, and Jesse would have a son named David. Ruth, the non-Israelite, would be the great-grandmother of the great King David. Not bad for a young woman from Moab. Ruth would become the ancestor of Israel's greatest king, David.
The story of Ruth is not over with the birth of a child and eventually her death. In evolutionary theory, the role of chance or random occurrences is important in the ongoing process of creation. The story of Ruth raises the question that we call chance and random occurrence is, from a divine perspective, the working of providence.[2] Ruth bore a son in Bethlehem. She had been alone, vulnerable, at a dead end, with no future or hope. Yet, she had a child, who would be the grandfather of David, who would be the ancestor of Jesus. We begin to see how God works. Ruth, a foreign, Moabite woman, through the twistings and turnings of providence, becomes the means of salvation for Israel, for us. It becomes a story of the nations being a blessing to Israel. It is a story about the whole human family, about the way in which God can use your little, ordinary human family from (insert your geographical area here) in spectacularly wonderful ways. God saves through ordinary people like Ruth. Naomi, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus doing ordinary duties like having babies and putting up with daughters-in-law in ordinary families like yours and mine. If we will just stick together, through thick and thin, and trust God to use our ordinary fidelity to one another to bless the world in the extraordinary love of God. In fact, we might discover our happiness when we dissolve ourselves into something as complete and great as the love of God.[3]
Psalm 146 (Year B October 30-November 5) is part of the concluding hallelujah hymns of the psalter. It offers praise to the Lord as creator and redeemer. Its style is anthological, many of the thoughts and phrases appearing elsewhere in the Psalter. An overview of Psalm 146 reveals that it is a declaration of intent (v. 2) followed by (a) a warning against false trust (vv. 3-4) and (b) the rationale for the psalmist's declaration (vv. 5-10). The psalm combines elements from Israel's royal theology (v. 10), wisdom schools (v. 5), prophetic tradition (vv. 7-9) and ancient liturgical poems (v. 5b). This combination of discernible elements is one of the indicators of the psalm's late date (coming from the Greek period of the 4th century B.C.). The simplicity of the psalm creates a strong impression. The poet draws strength from his religious rituals and beliefs. Judaism used it daily for Morning Prayer. It celebrates the power and beneficence of God.
The poet encourages himself to praise God. He has wholehearted devotion to God. He begins with an imperative in its plural form, that the community will together praise the Lord, and then encourages, in a rare psychological interiorization, but expressing a reflectivity characteristic of and urged by the sage, one of the several indicators of the influence of the wisdom schools on this psalm, his soul to offer such praise for as long as he lives, declaring his intent. He then warns the community against false trust in human power, for it has its limits. He gives the political declaration not to trust in princes nor any human being. He urges the community to remember the powerlessness of their leaders in the face of conquest, deportation, and exile. In a democracy, overly relying upon flawed, weak, biased, transitory, and limited leaders is always a risk. Emotion can get away with us as we invest so much faith in a political messiah. We can develop blind spots that do not allow us to see the mistakes and foibles of the ones in whom we have invested so much faith, trust, and emotion. Inevitably, our political heroes let us down, if we are honest and dispassionate about them. The psalm alludes in Genesis 3:19, as does Psalm 104:29. Unlike prophetic denunciations of foreign alliances, however, the psalmist's reasoning is more anthropological than political. Princes and mortals are unreliable less because of their national self-interest or poor judgment and more because of their inescapable mortality, an idea much more common in the wisdom tradition than in the prophetic tradition. We can see this difference in Ecclesiastes, where the word "vanity" means "insubstantiality." Psalm 118:8-9 offers simply that one is better off placing trust in the Lord than in mortal human beings or princes. We should note the parallel in Isaiah 31:1-3, where Isaiah warns leaders not to go to Egypt for help or rely on horses. They need to rely on the Holy One of Israel and consult the Lord. They are human and of the flesh, and therefore not as reliable as spirit. He then offers a rationale for his declaration, for only recognition of human limits prepares a person to accept the limitless power of God. He uses military titles in referring to the happiness of those whose help is in the God of Jacob and whose hope is in the Lord. He then shifts from the divine warrior to the divine creator, to the cosmic image of the Lord making heaven, earth, sea, and all that in them, keeping faith with humanity forever, referring to the constancy of nature. The community relies upon the one God who created all that is. Yet, heaven and earth are perishable, while only the truth and faithfulness of the Lord will remain.[4] Only God and the word and works of God are fully stable and trustworthy.[5] God becomes identifiable where God identifies who God is in the historic act of faithfulness. If the revelation of God are promises, then God is revealed where God keeps covenant and faithfulness forever. Where God, in faithfulness to a promise God has given, stands to that which God has promised to be, God becomes manifest and knowable as the self. We understand who God is in the selfsame-ness of historical faithfulness to what God has promised. This faithfulness shown in history reveals who God is. Knowledge of God comes about in view of the historic action of God within the horizon of the promises of God.[6] The language of the poet shifts again, this time to the realm of human relations, specifically the relations between the powerful and the weak, the rulers and the ruled. The Lord is one who relieves oppression and hunger, encouraging us as readers today to reflect upon how devotion to the Lord is to bring justice, to restore the weak, to protect the vulnerable, such matters not being peripheral or optional. The Lord sets prisoners free, releasing the Jewish people from exile. The Lord opens the eyes of the blind, lifts up those whom life has brought down, and watches over the vulnerable, such as strangers (gerim, resident aliens, sojourners), the orphan, and the widow. An important part of the notion of justice was to correct specific wrongs. The natural social safety net of kinship ties did not catch everyone. The king was to make sure such persons had their protection. Obviously, as much of the biblical narrative attests, kings fulfilled this fundamental obligation with varying degrees of fidelity and success. The Lord also brings judgment upon the wicked. The conclusion focuses upon the eternal kingship of the Lord, recalling and supplementing Exodus 15:18. The Lord reigns from Zion forever, a powerful statement, given that in the exile and post-exilic period there was no human king there. The psalm begins as it ends, with praise of the Lord.
These are God's values, according to the psalm. Some people will define how compassionate a government is by how many people receive government help. In contrast, others will take the position that limited government, combined with the lowest possible taxes and regulation, will create a rising tide lifts all boats. For them, the best way to help the poor is to have a growing and expanding economy. These two positions are not mutually exclusive. In fact, which side you fall upon is a matter of degree. While good Christians will certainly debate the ways that our society can address these concerns, there should be no disagreement about their priority to God. In every time and place, God lifts up the burdened and loves those who are in a right relationship with him. God has special concern for the strangers in our midst and wants to take care of orphans and widows -- those who have no way to provide for themselves. Once again, there are going to be honest disagreements about how best to meet these needs, but the needs themselves are indisputable.
The psalm connects with the Old Testament reading by its reference to the care the Lord has for the widow.
Ruth 1:1-18 (Year B October 30-November 5) recounts in short order the death of Naomi’s husband, the marriage of her sons to Moabite women, the deaths of the sons ten years later, and Naomi’s decision to return to Bethlehem. One daughter-in-law, Orpah, returns to her Moabite family. The other, Ruth, declares allegiance to Naomi and to the God of Israel and returns with Nomi. The historical setting of the story is the period of the judges. It occurs during a famine, remembering that famine drove Abraham into Egypt (Gen 12:10), forced Isaac to seek aid from the Philistines (Gen 26:1), and compelled the Jacob clan to seek relief in Egypt (Gen 43:1, 47:4). This famine occurred, ironically, in a town, Bethlehem, or House of Bread. Migration was common during a famine, as seen in the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The struggle for physical survival during food shortages is one of the universal conflicts humanity faces in relationship to the natural environment. Introducing this element of suspense of plot conflict sets the stage for the interplay between the work of God, in this case the “test” of a famine, and the and the human response. Moving to a new land is risky. However, the security represented by staying did not compel them to stay. The famine drives the family to neighboring Moab. Gen 19:30-38 offers the story of a drunk Lot having sex with his daughter, this being the origin of Moab and Ammon. Deut 23:3-7, which derives from 640-609, does not allow their admittance into the assembly of the Lord and Israel is not to care for their welfare. The reason is due to their lack of hospitality in the wilderness. We find this behavior reflected in the story of King Balak of Moab, as he tried to get the prophet Balaam to curse Israel, for which see Num 22-24 and Josh 24:9-10. Israel had a history of animosity with their neighbor. Judges 3:12-30 is a story of Moab oppressing Israel from sometime around 1100 BC. They would persistently be at war during the reigns of Saul and David. However, around 550-30, III Isaiah 56:4, 6 says foreigners who love the Lord will receive admittance to the assembly of the Lord. The death of the husband of Naomi suggests hope is starting to fade. The two sons marry Moabite women. The narrator of the story does not comment on this, despite abundant material regarding this matter. They reflect the practice of Esau, who married two Hittite women, Joseph in marrying an Egyptian woman, and Moses in marrying a Cushite woman. Yet, Num 25:1-18 shows the lengths to which Moses went to punish an Israelite who took a Moabite for his wife. Solomon famously had married foreign women, and specifically built an altar the Moabite god Chemosh in I Kings 11:1-2, 7-8. The Old Testament will connect such marriages to idolatry in Exod 34:12-16, Deut 7:1-7, Josh 23:11-16, and I Kings 16:29-33. With the death of the two sons after ten years, the lack of a man was significant for all of them. The hope that led Naomi to follow her husband to a new land is gone. The risk they had taken no longer seems worth it. Naomi heard rumors that the Lord considered the people of the Lord, a strong covenantal term a hint that the Lord is guiding these events. Naomi begins her return to Judah with her two daughters-in-law. She urges them to return to the house of their mothers, which may mean their fathers have died. Naomi is formally releasing these two Moabites and daughters-in-law from any future responsibility toward her. She entrusts these women to the care of the Lord through her prayer, since she is unable to provide for them. The situation Naomi presents suggests levirate marriage, the practice of a dead man’s brother marrying the wife of the brother for the purpose of father children considered the offspring of the dead man, as we find in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and Genesis 38. However, the scenario Naomi presents would not be a true levirate marriage, for her sons would not be full brothers of the two dead sons. Such difficulties remind the reader that the story is a parabolic tale of the importance and role of divine and human chesed, traditionally translated as “lovingkindness” and “loyalty.” When Naomi says that the hand of the Lord has turned against her, she puts herself on a par with the suffering of Job. She has a complaint against the Lord. Naomi is the center of this chapter. She has no husband. Her sons die. She has tried to inflict more pain on herself by her actions. The Lord is at fault for her misfortune. The implicit complaint becomes explicit in verse 21, as she pictures herself as a defendant in a legal battle in which God has brought charges against her, but she does not know what they are. Job has a similar complaint. Orpah was a worthy woman, dismissed with the blessing of the Lord. Ruth, however, clung to Naomi, even as a man leaves his parents can clings to his wife (Gen 2:24). Ruth will become even more worthy. Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. This line is so memorable, in part, because it captures the entire story of the little book of Ruth. We remember these words because they reveal something essential about Ruth: She was a woman of deep love and faithfulness. I think it is also memorable because, like most famous and memorable lines, it has a power to shape lives. It recalls the faithfulness of Ruth to her mother-in-law Naomi that, in turn, is a picture of God’s faithfulness to us. Her comment mirrors God’s faithfulness or hesed to us. She is willing to leave her family and religion and unite to another. For a woman from Moab to do this is remarkable. Did she see something in this Israelite family that attracted her not only to the family but to their God? She would be loyal to Naomi and to her God. She exchanges her ethnic and religious heritage for the people, culture, and religion of Naomi. An ironic twist is that after Naomi just lamented the impact of the cruel hand of the God, Ruth offers her allegiance to God. Looked at from her perspective, this Moabite woman marries an Israelite man living in her homeland. When he died, she walked away from her Moabite heritage, her parents, and the religious system she had learned from childhood. She gave up all she had known. She faced an unpromising future, which makes her resolve hall the more remarkable.
Like Abraham (Gen 12:1-6), Ruth sets out for a new land, among a new people, trusting Yahweh as her God. And God will bring about remarkable things through her. Ruth becomes a Jewish proselyte in the sense that human loyalty, self-renouncing fidelity, and doing the kindness of covenant loyalty to each other, become part of her life. She behaves like an Israelite. Jewish sources affirm this shift in her religious loyalties. However, the focus is on human loyalty and self-renouncing fidelity. The story binds the activity of God with the mundane affairs and interrelationship of human beings. The story brings the lofty concept of covenant into contact with daily life (1:6, 8-9). Both God and human beings do hesed to one another, intertwining of divine and human activity. The question of whether she is a proselyte is deceptively simple. In this story, human beings do God's will for interrelationships. They do hesed. What makes Ruth an Israelite is that she behaves like one. There are no great miracles. The story relates only simple living out of the way of the Lord.
Psalm 127 (Year B November 6-12) is a wisdom psalm, although some might classify it as a royal psalm. It teaches that the Lord is the source of all. The theme is that without the blessing of the Lord, all human effort is futile. The superscription describes it as A Song of Ascents. this psalm is a remarkably practical little psalm. It has two themes: work and family. We discover that our priorities have been misplaced. We often have concern for the neglect of family, but some have so absorbed their lives into their families that they never achieve in their work. Verses 1-2 show the significance of Divine Providence in human life. It has a similar thought as we find in Prov 10:22, where the blessing of the Lord makes one rich, and the Lord adds no sorrow with it. It illustrates the general truth through examples. The Lord is decisively present in daily labor. Without the presence of the Lord, daily labor becomes a life of futility and anxiety. Without the Lord, work becomes futile. It expresses an idea common in wisdom that the Lord is in control of all things. Thus, in Prov 21:31, one may ready a horse for battle, but victory comes from the Lord. Children, but especially sons, of course, are a divine blessing that brings much joy. The importance of a large family is a major theme of the ancestral narratives found in Genesis, where male children are a gift of the Lord.
Although some lections have Psalm 42 here, I would recommend waiting until Year C June 19-25. Psalm 127, with its simple focus on work and family, the Lord sustaining both, is a beautiful connection with the Old Testament Lesson.
Ruth 3:1-5, 4:13-17 (Year B November 6-12) opens the chapter with a new dramatic element of mystery, secrecy, and privacy that becomes an essential part of the story. The characters have choices to make. The call to righteous living is dominate even here, in a provocative setting. God is present where there are responsible and faithful human beings. The scene of this story shifts to the threshing floor. The preparations Naomi recommends for Ruth, washing, anointing, and best clothes, are as a bride preparing for Boaz. She is to meet Boaz on the elevated open space where the kernels of grain were separated from the chaff, winnowing occurring in the evening when there was a strong breeze to carry the chaff away. Naomi recommends she come to Boaz when he finishes eating and drinking. She is to go to where he lays down, and then uncover his feet, often a euphemism for the sexual organs, reminding us that male dress was a robe that could be easily lifted. These crucial instructions are the most ambiguous. The narrator is intentionally provocative as to how much of his legs she would uncover. The narrator wants the reader to deal with the possibility of sexual intercourse between Ruth and Boaz. Yet, Naomi could intend for Ruth to uncover a place at the feet of Boaz and lie down. In any case, the language conveys the sexual tension that must have been present. Naomi is setting up a provocative set of circumstances. This portion of the story has received much attention from scholars.[7] However, I would suggest that as part of the sacred text of Jews and Christians, regardless of the sexual and moral issues the words suggest, the point remains that simple acts of covenant loyalty keep moving this story forward to its conclusion.
I Chron 2:10-17 gives the genealogy in greater detail. Judah had a son, Perez, through Tamar, his daughter-in-law. He had a son, Hezron, who had a son, Ram, who had Amminadab, who had Nahshon, who was a prince of the descendants of Judah. He had a son, Salma, and Salma had a son, Boaz. Boaz takes Ruth for his wife and has a son, Obed, a striking contrast to ten years of barrenness in Moab. The women encourage Naomi with the blessing of the Lord now upon her, reminding us that at the beginning of this little story, she thought of the hand of the Lord being against her. The child symbolizes the complete reversal of the ill-fortune of Naomi. She has been restored to fullness with the continuation of her family. Naomi has received new children. While the text does not fully answer the complaint of Naomi, she receives new tasks. The neighbors have a part to play in the naming of the child, as we also see in Luke 1:59. He became the father of Jesse, the father of David, the youngest of either four (I Samuel 17:12-14, 17), seven (I Chronicles 2:12-15), or eight (I Samuel 16:7-11). Thus, through a series of events, she marries Boaz. There will be a son. In a strange sense, everything works out in the end. Naomi does not get her sons or husband back. Nevertheless, Boaz is there. Moreover, a grandson is there. In addition, of course, there is Ruth. Ruth, a far-from-royal, down-on-her-luck outsider, is the great-grandmother of the greatest king in the history of Israel, David. In a sense, the story of Ruth and Naomi is a story of David. As readers, we know this genealogy. Ruth did not. She knew only to be faithful to the relationships she valued. She was like Rahab, who broke from her people to join the Israelites and give herself to the Lord.
Ruth was faithful in her relationships throughout the story. Could we find God there? How ordinary can you get? People making choices in which they live responsibly, righteously, and faithfully. People choosing lovingly committed relationships. Yes, God is there.
I invite you to reflect upon the goodness and beauty of those who daily walk with God. They do so without expecting gloriously high moments in worship. They are willing to live their life with God and the people of God without receiving the feeling that some people seem to think is so necessary for conversion, filling of the Spirit, and Christian life.
Those who do the extraordinary are the ones we tend to set up as patterns of discipleship. The pattern might be extraordinary feeling or extraordinary missionary commitment. The pattern might be a certain type of sermon. In either case, we need to recognize that while some people do have a life journey that leads them down the path of the extraordinary, for which we can all be grateful, the reality is that most of the people of God, including pastors, lead ordinary lives of daily faithfulness. They do so without receiving heights of emotion, lofty visions, or obvious miracles. To put it another way, we need to see the goodness and beauty of the ordinary life of faithfully and daily living the Christian life. When I see it, I must say that I find it impressive.
Simply knowing what to do today to live faithfully in the presence of God may well be the insight we need to continue the Christian path. We may well preach a sermon in our families, at work, at play, with our neighbors. Are you ready to preach your own sermon today?
All of us have a gift to give. As we go through life, we discover that gift and offer it to others. That is the best any of us can do with our lives. It is so easy to think only of how others can give to us and nourish us. Part of maturing in life, part of the growth we need, is to discover what we can give back to others. We are so often impressed with the larger-than-life heroes of the big screen. I find myself increasingly impressed by the heroes of daily life. They do not get to the front page of the paper. They are the ones who get up every day and have a reason for living this day. They are willing to sacrifice for family and friends. They are willing to live the values and principles in which they believe. They do these boring things every day. Yet, they are the ones who make the world a happier and safer place in which to live. Life is so short. Why not use this short life well? Why not use this brief time wisely? Living the Christian life faithfully and daily moves against our tendency to demand our own way. It moves us away from looking at others as serving our ends. It will help us focus upon what give back to life rather than just get out of life. We will rightly order our passion and gifts. Such a life has a dimension of daily sacrifice it is true. Sacrifice for others is not easy. Yet, such an approach to discipleship will help us receive joy when we can make the lives of others a bit happier and brighter because our life journeys have crossed.
I do not find God's activity in my life to be of the dramatic, miraculous sort. I do find God to be very much with me in daily life. Sometimes, daily life is not overly exciting. Indeed, it can be boring. Moreover, it can be incredibly challenging. There are experiences of pain and suffering which any of us can experience at any time. Yet, God is there too.
[1] The Women's Bible Commentary, Amy-Jill Levine.
[2] Elizabeth Achtemeier, Nature, God and Pulpit, 1992.
[3] Willa Cather, My Antonia.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Victor Shepherd, “Ruth: The woman and the book,” victorshepherd.on.ca/Sermons/Ruth.htm. Retrieved June 12, 2006. Some would suggest that the work of God moves ahead despite the sin of those who serve God. In this case, Ruth was calculating, manipulative, and devious. They would urge us not to get to sentimental about Ruth. She needed a husband. Her culture marginalized widows. Yes, Ruth could glean in the field belonging to Boaz to fend off the worst effects of poverty. Yet, Ruth wanted more. She wanted a husband. She snared her husband by entrapment. Her approach to Boaz comes when he is thirsty from labor and drank too much wine. In uncovering his feet, we find a biblical idiom that means exposing the genitals. As Boaz awakens, he wonders who this woman is, covers himself and covers her. Ruth had exposed herself as well. He could not remember what had happened. He only knew that upon awakening, a naked woman is beside him. It appeared something had happened. Boaz insisted that no one was to tell it around that the woman came to him that night. He thought the only proper thing to do was to marry Ruth, so he did. It at least appears that Ruth blackmailed Boaz. She falsified herself and trapped him. We cannot excuse it. We cannot approve it. This would not be a part of the story that we should imitate. Yet, the story is a reminder at this point that the work of God moves ahead, despite the most appalling clay feet of those who serve the Lord.
No comments:
Post a Comment