We were having a conversation at my house over the weekend about the way in which people refer to God. My daughter recalled a time when she was in a group and the leader of worship asked everyone to join him in prayer, and he began the prayer by saying, "Hi Dad." I remembered a time, as well, when I was in a large worship setting and the leader introduced a prayer time by saying, "Let's talk to Dad." For some, such familiar salutations for God call to mind the literal meaning of a word that Jesus used to address God, which was "Abba." Abba can be translated Father or even Daddy.
Since I always referred to my late father as "Dad," I don't feel comfortable using such a title for the Almighty. I should also say that I go to great lengths to remove any references to God that ascribe gender, because I believe that using such pronouns as He or She, or names such as Father or Mother limit our ability to imagine a God that does not fit into any of our preconceived categories. It may come as a surprise to some who know me that I rather like the image of the Almighty that Isaiah witnessed in his dream. In that vision, God sat on a throne, high and lifted up, and the mere edge of God's robe filled the entire Temple. Now there is an image of God that cannot be boiled down to a folksy Dad. So, is that a bad thing then? This writer does not think so.
Our culture is not easily awed, because everything is made so familiar. We have e-mail, social networking, texting. Even small children refer to adults by their first names, when those of us of a certain age always referred to our elders as Mr. or Mrs. It is hard not to like informal address from children, because it means that said child feels comfortable around adults and feels that adults are people to whom the little one can relate. But are there are times when a child should address an adult as Mr. or Mrs. or by a title? And is there not still room for a sense of formality, or awe, in our worship? In thinking about the ways in which God was envisioned in ancient times, Darrell Jodock, writing in The Christian Century, observed that "For half a century, Isaiah would guide the people of Judah through a crisis that they were religiously unprepared to face. His encounter with God is telling. God is "sitting on a throne, high and lofty." .... This God is much more exalted than the domesticated deity worshiped during Judah's period of power and prosperity. In the presence of this God even attending seraphs cover their faces and their feet. Isaiah can only say, "Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!"
The whole concept of religious belief is under attack in popular culture and atheism is often thought of as cool,especially on college and university campuses. Such a belief in non-belief is accessible, certainly, and some see it as the only rational explanation for a troubled world such as ours. So, is it not expedient then, also to make God as accessible as possible? Is that not why churches are working to make worship more attractive to everyday folks? We are asked to make worship less threatening by getting rid of hymnals and projecting the words to hymns on to screens in the front of the church. We are told to emphasize casual attire to enhance an atmosphere of welcome and comfort. Working with college students for a generation, I well-understand the need to construct worship experiences that are meaningful and welcoming, especially for students who may not have attended worship before. So, it may come as a surprise to some that I have had students tell me that they would like to dress up for chapel, if that is okay. They say that it makes them feel as if they are showing respect. So, folks know that they come come to chapel dressed up, or down.
Isaiah reminds us that God the Almighty One is above all, not simply a being on our level, as familiar as Dad or Mom or as a best friend. There is a certain theological sophistication that must be present to enable us to see God as both an approachable and a transcendent being. Living in a world that sometimes prefers shallow to substantive, such a balancing act is good exercise for people of faith, and for those who observe us.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Love is Fully Now and Fully Then - I Corinthians 13
Soon Valentine's Day will be upon us. Sappy, self-indulgent Valentine's Day. Now, before you come after me with the long knives, follow my thoughts here. A quick reference check yields no less than eleven St. Valentines. February 14th is the day for Valentine, Bishop of Terni, martyred under Claudius the Goth in 269 A.D.. The tradition of sending "Valentines" on his day is based on a medieval belief that birds began to pair on that day. OK, I will admit that I have no idea of how birds choosing mates evolved into a commercial bonanza for Hallmark, FTD and Godiva. However, I do think that this Sunday's epistle lesson is instructive for us as we approach the "holiday."
I Corinthians is perhaps the most familiar chapter in the New Testament, and it turns up at many, if not most, Christian weddings as one of the texts that is read. That is appropriate, because a wedding is a time for looking forward, a time for making promises and for thinking about what it means to say that we love someone. Paul was offering a non-sentimental excursus on the meaning of love to a church where people regularly felt superior to others due to manifestations of various gifts of the spirit. He reminded them of his own gifts, and then stated that, "without love, I am nothing." There it is in a nutshell. In the words of William Sloane Coffin, "If we fail in love, we fail in all things else"
We we perform Christian weddings, we encourage the couple to look outward to the needs of the world, so that in them, the stranger may find good and generous friends. Conversely, Valentine's Day is about "us, us and us!" The idea of agape love is nowhere evident in the bustle of finding just the right card and gift to prove one's love. But, as Paul reminds his readers, gifts do not endure, but love does. Love is eternal because the source of all love is the eternal One. Love begins with God, not with us, and reaches beyond us to others. Love never asks, "what's in it for me," but, instead asks, "what's in it for you?" THAT is what the celebration of Valentine's Day should affirm. That should be the intent of a couple as they take their vows during a service of Christian marriage. That should be the credo of all people who call themselves Christians. If we love as Paul defines love, we can do no less than build up the faith community, the larger secular community and the world.
Love believes all things are possible, because the source of love is a God of eternal history: past, present and future. That is why Paul can affirm, "Love never ends."
I Corinthians is perhaps the most familiar chapter in the New Testament, and it turns up at many, if not most, Christian weddings as one of the texts that is read. That is appropriate, because a wedding is a time for looking forward, a time for making promises and for thinking about what it means to say that we love someone. Paul was offering a non-sentimental excursus on the meaning of love to a church where people regularly felt superior to others due to manifestations of various gifts of the spirit. He reminded them of his own gifts, and then stated that, "without love, I am nothing." There it is in a nutshell. In the words of William Sloane Coffin, "If we fail in love, we fail in all things else"
We we perform Christian weddings, we encourage the couple to look outward to the needs of the world, so that in them, the stranger may find good and generous friends. Conversely, Valentine's Day is about "us, us and us!" The idea of agape love is nowhere evident in the bustle of finding just the right card and gift to prove one's love. But, as Paul reminds his readers, gifts do not endure, but love does. Love is eternal because the source of all love is the eternal One. Love begins with God, not with us, and reaches beyond us to others. Love never asks, "what's in it for me," but, instead asks, "what's in it for you?" THAT is what the celebration of Valentine's Day should affirm. That should be the intent of a couple as they take their vows during a service of Christian marriage. That should be the credo of all people who call themselves Christians. If we love as Paul defines love, we can do no less than build up the faith community, the larger secular community and the world.
Love believes all things are possible, because the source of love is a God of eternal history: past, present and future. That is why Paul can affirm, "Love never ends."
Friday, January 8, 2010
Getting Back to Basics in the New Year
I am not one for making New Year's resolutions, and never have been. If I decide to do something positive for myself, such as a personal fitness regimen, I just do it. I have been faithful to that regimen for thirty years, so it has been much more than a New Year's thing, it has become a lifelong passion.
So, in this New Year, I am determined to keep espousing the kind of biblical study that looks at the scriptures honestly for what is actually there, not what one may wish was in there. Last fall, I switched on the TV early on a Sunday morning and flipped through a few channels to look at the preachers who were on. I could not stay very long on any one channel, because the "performers" fulfilled every negative stereotype of TV preachers that exists. I did find one preacher who seemed promising. He said that he wanted to talk about sex, so he had my, and everyone else's attention. He began with the book of Genesis. So far, so good; he was willing to look at the Old Testament, when most evangelists cannot leave Paul for even a minute. He quoted the passage "Let us create man in our image."I was on the edge of the bed; he was going to deal with the nature of God and God's will for the creation. Far out. Alas, that is not where he was headed. He reminded his listeners, quite confidently, that everyone knows that the use of the first-person plural in that passage refers to the Holy Trinity. It does? You mean it's okay to read things into scripture passages that the writer could not possibly have been thinking about, because there was no conception at all of a trinity in the seventh-century BC, when Genesis was written? So, contrary to the general agreement of mainline biblical scholars the world over, we should forget that the use of the phrase "in our image" probably reflects the ancient belief that Yahweh sat at the table with the Heavenly Council, and that creation was a consultative process?
I am determined to counter instances where folks mis-represent what scripture really states, or what Jesus really said, because those who take such liberties with the scriptures are the ones who hurt the cause of Christianity the most. They mold scripture to say what they want it to say, sometimes to reflect positively on current political realities, and sometimes to reinforce what they already believe to be true. But wait, should I not point a cautionary finger back at myself when talking about scriptural interpretation? Absolutely! If I don't do my exegetical homework, and do it well, I should keep my big trap shut.
I work with students and faculty who think the Christianity is the "Big Lie" that has been perpetrated on humanity. The teachings of Christ are often dismissed as fairy tales and ideas stolen from other religions and philosophies. Worse, when individuals have suffered a loss of tragic event, those who would say that they represent the Christian view utter cliches and offer dime-store solutions and go on their merry way.
So, I will study long and well and will seek to put forth what I think is a fair and real picture of the Gospel message, even when it flies in the face of easy answers and political expediency. And you, my readers, should hold me to that vow.
So, in this New Year, I am determined to keep espousing the kind of biblical study that looks at the scriptures honestly for what is actually there, not what one may wish was in there. Last fall, I switched on the TV early on a Sunday morning and flipped through a few channels to look at the preachers who were on. I could not stay very long on any one channel, because the "performers" fulfilled every negative stereotype of TV preachers that exists. I did find one preacher who seemed promising. He said that he wanted to talk about sex, so he had my, and everyone else's attention. He began with the book of Genesis. So far, so good; he was willing to look at the Old Testament, when most evangelists cannot leave Paul for even a minute. He quoted the passage "Let us create man in our image."I was on the edge of the bed; he was going to deal with the nature of God and God's will for the creation. Far out. Alas, that is not where he was headed. He reminded his listeners, quite confidently, that everyone knows that the use of the first-person plural in that passage refers to the Holy Trinity. It does? You mean it's okay to read things into scripture passages that the writer could not possibly have been thinking about, because there was no conception at all of a trinity in the seventh-century BC, when Genesis was written? So, contrary to the general agreement of mainline biblical scholars the world over, we should forget that the use of the phrase "in our image" probably reflects the ancient belief that Yahweh sat at the table with the Heavenly Council, and that creation was a consultative process?
I am determined to counter instances where folks mis-represent what scripture really states, or what Jesus really said, because those who take such liberties with the scriptures are the ones who hurt the cause of Christianity the most. They mold scripture to say what they want it to say, sometimes to reflect positively on current political realities, and sometimes to reinforce what they already believe to be true. But wait, should I not point a cautionary finger back at myself when talking about scriptural interpretation? Absolutely! If I don't do my exegetical homework, and do it well, I should keep my big trap shut.
I work with students and faculty who think the Christianity is the "Big Lie" that has been perpetrated on humanity. The teachings of Christ are often dismissed as fairy tales and ideas stolen from other religions and philosophies. Worse, when individuals have suffered a loss of tragic event, those who would say that they represent the Christian view utter cliches and offer dime-store solutions and go on their merry way.
So, I will study long and well and will seek to put forth what I think is a fair and real picture of the Gospel message, even when it flies in the face of easy answers and political expediency. And you, my readers, should hold me to that vow.
Friday, December 4, 2009
What's In A Name? Luke 3:1-6
Every year at about this time, I meditate deeply on what I can say about John the Baptizer that will present him in a new light, or, at least, a different light than I presented him in last year! But we have so little information about John that it is difficult to find a great deal about him that will seem new. Then again, maybe that should not be my task. So, this year, I am going in a bit of a different direction.
What is behind the name "John?" Well, from the Hebrews we got y'hohanan, the Greeks pronounced it Ioannes, and both mean, loosely, "Yahweh has favored and is gracious." Of course, to fulfill the tenets of full disclosure, the name John also has a meaning derived from jakes, from the sixteenth century which means toilet. Then, of course, there is the name for the customer of a prostitute. So, let's stick with the biblical John, specifically, John the Baptizer. When reading the gospel accounts of John, it is not difficult to agree with the traditional definition of the name that expresses God's favor. Even Jesus commented that, of mortal men, no one was better than John. And John, who had a following all his own in those days, asked from prison if Jesus was the one for whom they had been waiting. Frederick Beuchner tries to imagine what John must have felt when the word came back that Jesus was, in fact, the one who had been foretold. Beuchner muses that "maybe he remembered how he had felt that day when he'd first seen him heading towards him through the tall grass along the river bank and how his heart skipped a beat when he heard himself say, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." Peculiar Treasures, p. 71. John was an old-style prophet, a strange sort of fellow, but a man who gave his life for the kingdom that Jesus came to bring forth.
So, it is a bit daunting to possess such a name as John. So many expectations come with such a name, and how can one even hope to live up to its meaning? Perhaps the best that people with the name, John, and people of the faith, can do, is to live up to the inspiration that Jesus' cousin John brought to the name. If one looks in baby name books, John is defined as "God's gracious gift." John the Baptizer was such a gift. Why can't we be as well, regardless of our name? God breaks into our world during Advent, and perhaps God looks for people, male and female, who call to mind the John of the desert, the river and the prison. God looks again for people who bear the likeness of one known, so long ago, as God's gracious gift.
What is behind the name "John?" Well, from the Hebrews we got y'hohanan, the Greeks pronounced it Ioannes, and both mean, loosely, "Yahweh has favored and is gracious." Of course, to fulfill the tenets of full disclosure, the name John also has a meaning derived from jakes, from the sixteenth century which means toilet. Then, of course, there is the name for the customer of a prostitute. So, let's stick with the biblical John, specifically, John the Baptizer. When reading the gospel accounts of John, it is not difficult to agree with the traditional definition of the name that expresses God's favor. Even Jesus commented that, of mortal men, no one was better than John. And John, who had a following all his own in those days, asked from prison if Jesus was the one for whom they had been waiting. Frederick Beuchner tries to imagine what John must have felt when the word came back that Jesus was, in fact, the one who had been foretold. Beuchner muses that "maybe he remembered how he had felt that day when he'd first seen him heading towards him through the tall grass along the river bank and how his heart skipped a beat when he heard himself say, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." Peculiar Treasures, p. 71. John was an old-style prophet, a strange sort of fellow, but a man who gave his life for the kingdom that Jesus came to bring forth.
So, it is a bit daunting to possess such a name as John. So many expectations come with such a name, and how can one even hope to live up to its meaning? Perhaps the best that people with the name, John, and people of the faith, can do, is to live up to the inspiration that Jesus' cousin John brought to the name. If one looks in baby name books, John is defined as "God's gracious gift." John the Baptizer was such a gift. Why can't we be as well, regardless of our name? God breaks into our world during Advent, and perhaps God looks for people, male and female, who call to mind the John of the desert, the river and the prison. God looks again for people who bear the likeness of one known, so long ago, as God's gracious gift.
Friday, November 20, 2009
A King of All, Even Those Who Do Not Wish To Be Like Him. John 18:33-37
We are preparing for the Sunday of Christ the King, or the Reign of Christ. I cannot help but think that the best way to celebrate the final Sunday in the Christian year is to emphasize, once more, how this king is different from any other king. Ralph Milton, writing in an e-zine for "people with humor" describes the paradox that this Sunday highlights. When we hear the scriptures read, does it ever occur to us what was running through the minds of those who wrote the words of the texts? The writer of John's gospel contrasts the roles of Pilate and Jesus, "But the people who wrote the Bible wouldn’t recognize today’s kings. What good is a king, Pilate would have asked, who owns no land, who can’t raise an army to defend himself, who doesn’t extort taxes, who refuses to force people to do things his way..." It is unlikely that the believers of the first century understood the kingship of Jesus any better than believers of the twenty-first century, which is to say, they didn't get it either. And they could not have imagined the standard of living that the majority of western Christians enjoy today.
We give lip-service to the concept of the kingship of Christ, thinking we understand it so much more than those folks so long ago. And yet, we continue to follow TV preachers who preach in churches that seat thousands, while the preachers themselves travel around on their own private jets. A friend recently wrote to me and mentioned the new sanctuary that his church is building, which will seat eight-hundred people, while cutting available parking space in half. The price tag for this expansion is twenty-million dollars.
Let's be honest, it is not that we don't understand what kind of king Jesus was; we just don't want to emulate that kind of kingship. It calls on us to give up too much and to think and live in a way much closer to the way that he lived. I can think of a few pastors and laypeople in my experience who did their best to live such lives, but they are exceptions. I live comfortably, though not extravagantly, by any means. Yet, I have so much more than a person in a developing nation could ever imagine. I claim to follow a king who had no earthy possessions, but I have not chosen to live my life in the same way. Most Christians are like me. So, in reality, we cannot celebrate the Sunday of Christ the King as if we really understand it. Perhaps the best that we can do is to enter that day with a sense of awe, and a willingness to try once more to see beyond what we want for ourselves so that we might discover how we can take another small step on the way to understanding what it should mean to live under the reign of Christ.
We give lip-service to the concept of the kingship of Christ, thinking we understand it so much more than those folks so long ago. And yet, we continue to follow TV preachers who preach in churches that seat thousands, while the preachers themselves travel around on their own private jets. A friend recently wrote to me and mentioned the new sanctuary that his church is building, which will seat eight-hundred people, while cutting available parking space in half. The price tag for this expansion is twenty-million dollars.
Let's be honest, it is not that we don't understand what kind of king Jesus was; we just don't want to emulate that kind of kingship. It calls on us to give up too much and to think and live in a way much closer to the way that he lived. I can think of a few pastors and laypeople in my experience who did their best to live such lives, but they are exceptions. I live comfortably, though not extravagantly, by any means. Yet, I have so much more than a person in a developing nation could ever imagine. I claim to follow a king who had no earthy possessions, but I have not chosen to live my life in the same way. Most Christians are like me. So, in reality, we cannot celebrate the Sunday of Christ the King as if we really understand it. Perhaps the best that we can do is to enter that day with a sense of awe, and a willingness to try once more to see beyond what we want for ourselves so that we might discover how we can take another small step on the way to understanding what it should mean to live under the reign of Christ.
Friday, November 13, 2009
2012 - Just Another Year. Mark 13:1-8
According to Mark's story, Jesus spoke the words of the "Little Apocalypse" on the Tuesday before the crucifixion. But the early Christians did not read the words of Mark's gospel until after the temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed. So, Jesus' prophetic words were not dealing with the fears of what was to come, but with the realities of what had already happened. The nightmare had come to pass and Jerusalem lay in ruins. But the story of Jesus' words uttered during the last few days of his life gave hope to people of all generations. When the temples and institutions of religion and government fall, there is no need to give up hope. The One who has existed from the beginning of time remains with us, and will be with us when our end time comes. Christians who read the gospels in the early centuries of the church knew all about fear and persecution and death; it was part of life and faith for them. They believed that it was possible to die with words of faith on their lips. The temple had been destroyed, but the church had survived, and continues, to this day.
With the opening of the film "2012" today, folks are chatting about the end of time. I have asked my students what they are hearing,and they all know some story of the end associated with the year 2012. Most of the hoopla began with the realization that the Mayan Long Count Calendar of 5,126 days turns over and nothing is listed following that time. Though it does not sell books and movie tickets to say it, the end of the Mayan calendar means that another cycle of time then begins. In America, at least, people prefer to be kept on edge, especially during the tough economic times that we are experiencing. So, pundits come forth will all manner of doomsday scenarios and folks line up to have their wits scared out of them. In addition to the 2012 phenomenon, the story persists of a giant asteroid that is hurtling towards earth and will hit us by 2016. If one takes the time to research this matter, one will find that the asteroid has a 1 in 43,000 chance of hitting the earth. The truth does not sell, so the fables arise in its place.
Mark's scary chapter 13 is actually a balm for nervous folks. Jesus warns his followers that there will always be those who claim that they know when the end will be. His advice? Don't listen to them. Keep faith in God, in good times and in bad, and the truth will not only set us free, but will carry us through to our end, and beyond. 2012 will be just another year, another artificial time period created by humankind to measure events. 2012 will provide opportunities to love and serve others, just as every year does. So, don't be rattled by the hype. Instead, be comforted, strengthened and inspired by the truth. And give thanks to God for another year of life.
With the opening of the film "2012" today, folks are chatting about the end of time. I have asked my students what they are hearing,and they all know some story of the end associated with the year 2012. Most of the hoopla began with the realization that the Mayan Long Count Calendar of 5,126 days turns over and nothing is listed following that time. Though it does not sell books and movie tickets to say it, the end of the Mayan calendar means that another cycle of time then begins. In America, at least, people prefer to be kept on edge, especially during the tough economic times that we are experiencing. So, pundits come forth will all manner of doomsday scenarios and folks line up to have their wits scared out of them. In addition to the 2012 phenomenon, the story persists of a giant asteroid that is hurtling towards earth and will hit us by 2016. If one takes the time to research this matter, one will find that the asteroid has a 1 in 43,000 chance of hitting the earth. The truth does not sell, so the fables arise in its place.
Mark's scary chapter 13 is actually a balm for nervous folks. Jesus warns his followers that there will always be those who claim that they know when the end will be. His advice? Don't listen to them. Keep faith in God, in good times and in bad, and the truth will not only set us free, but will carry us through to our end, and beyond. 2012 will be just another year, another artificial time period created by humankind to measure events. 2012 will provide opportunities to love and serve others, just as every year does. So, don't be rattled by the hype. Instead, be comforted, strengthened and inspired by the truth. And give thanks to God for another year of life.
Friday, November 6, 2009
An Amazing Grace - Ruth 3:1-5; 4:13-17
As I was looking over the sermon resources for this week, I could not help but notice that few commentators commented on the text from Ruth, opting instead for the Markan passage about the widow's mite. Perhaps they felt that all that needed to be said about Ruth was spoken last week, when the text focused on Ruth's decision to remain with Naomi. How we love the "whither thou goest" language! This week, we are confronted with the story of what happened next: Ruth had to figure out a way to earn a living, and Naomi tried to figure out a way to find a nice Jewish husband for Ruth. Enter Boaz. Through some scheming, Noami and Ruth were able to get Boaz to notice Ruth, and to notice her in a big way. Boaz took quite a shine to her, and even though a kinsman of Naomi's late husband was next in line to court Ruth, he stepped aside so that Boaz might be the suitor. So, Ruth and Boaz married and had a child and Naomi had an honorary grandchild and all lived happily ever after. That sounds corny, and I cannot help but wonder if that is why so many folks ignore this passage this week. After all, what can one say about the story that was not covered last week?
Glad you asked! At its heart, the story of Ruth is the story of the Other. Andre LaCocue, in his book The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversives in Israel's Tradition, makes the point that Ruth, a foreigner, was the embodiment of all that was despised by those who considered themselves "pure." "Ruth is not any foreigner in general. She belongs to a nation that, for Israel, represents perversion and destruction. Moabite females attempted to corrupt the Israelites coming from Egypt on their way to Canaan. Since then, the numerous references to Moab in Scripture are unanimously pejorative (85).
The true miracle of the story of Ruth is the outcome for Naomi, and, by extension, for the children of Israel. The law of levirite marriage provided a childless widow with the opportunity to have a son to carry on the family bloodline (Genesis 38, Deut. 25:5-10). Usually, the brother of the dead husband provided the necessary "services." In the case of Naomi, her ex-daughter-in-law, a Moabitess, was wed to a Jew, Boaz, and gave birth to a son, Obed. Through the machinations of Levirite marriage, Naomi's Jewish family bloodline was preserved through an outsider. And it should be noted that the child, Obed, grew to marry and he and his wife had a son, Jesse, who had a son, David..and you know the rest,right?
So, in Jesus' own bloodlines were women who were anything but insiders, Ruth and Rahab among them. How then, can people of faith ever stand by while folks are excluded from religious communities for any reason? Perhaps the story of Ruth is given scant attention for the very reason that it upsets the status quo, if that status quo is one that demands that the Other remain just that. The story of Ruth is the story of an amazing grace from a God whose love knows no bounds. Go ye, and do likewise.
Glad you asked! At its heart, the story of Ruth is the story of the Other. Andre LaCocue, in his book The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversives in Israel's Tradition, makes the point that Ruth, a foreigner, was the embodiment of all that was despised by those who considered themselves "pure." "Ruth is not any foreigner in general. She belongs to a nation that, for Israel, represents perversion and destruction. Moabite females attempted to corrupt the Israelites coming from Egypt on their way to Canaan. Since then, the numerous references to Moab in Scripture are unanimously pejorative (85).
The true miracle of the story of Ruth is the outcome for Naomi, and, by extension, for the children of Israel. The law of levirite marriage provided a childless widow with the opportunity to have a son to carry on the family bloodline (Genesis 38, Deut. 25:5-10). Usually, the brother of the dead husband provided the necessary "services." In the case of Naomi, her ex-daughter-in-law, a Moabitess, was wed to a Jew, Boaz, and gave birth to a son, Obed. Through the machinations of Levirite marriage, Naomi's Jewish family bloodline was preserved through an outsider. And it should be noted that the child, Obed, grew to marry and he and his wife had a son, Jesse, who had a son, David..and you know the rest,right?
So, in Jesus' own bloodlines were women who were anything but insiders, Ruth and Rahab among them. How then, can people of faith ever stand by while folks are excluded from religious communities for any reason? Perhaps the story of Ruth is given scant attention for the very reason that it upsets the status quo, if that status quo is one that demands that the Other remain just that. The story of Ruth is the story of an amazing grace from a God whose love knows no bounds. Go ye, and do likewise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
