You're Stuck with Me! Ruth 1:1-18

In the past month, I have officiated at three weddings, which for me, is a high number. Were I still in the parish, it would not seem so high. I recall that the summer my wife and I were married was the summer that I performed seven weddings. By the time my wedding day rolled around, I could have been on automatic pilot. Fortunately, I was not. When I pronounce a couple husband and wife, I am always struck by the power of the words I have just uttered. Because of the words I have just spoken, a couple is bound together for life, at least, legally. In reality, they have probably bound themselves together in spirit long before. But on their wedding day, the bride and groom say to one another, if not literally, then figuratively, "You're stuck with me!"
Ruth was not stuck with Naomi, but she chose to be. Ruth and Orpha (spellcheck just suggested that this word should be "Oprah") were daughters-in-law to Naomi, living in their native land, Moab, Gentile territory. However, both of their husbands died and Naomi, a Jew, decided to return to Judah, her home. Naomi gave Ruth and Orpah permission to stay behind in their homeland and find new men to marry. She felt that they had no further obligation to her. Eventually, Orpah did decide to remain behind, but Ruth chose to go with Naomi. Ruth's words to her have captured the imagination of people of faith and moviemakers ever since: “Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; Where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. ¹⁷Where you die, I will die— there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” Ruth 1:16-17 NRSV.
Ruth did not have to go with Naomi, there was no obligation to care for her now that they were no longer related by marriage. Ruth CHOSE to accompany Naomi back to her homeland, where Ruth would be an outcast. Her bonds of love superseded any practical concerns about her future and welfare. The Book of Ruth is a wonderful story, whether or not any such person really lived. But why is it in the Bible? Perhaps those who chose the books for the canon wanted to make sure that a book was included that illustrated radical devotion that grows from a sense of love and loyalty to illustrate the never-ending love of God for God's people. God voluntarily chooses to be stuck with us, for the long term.
Every time I perform a wedding, I am reminded of the story of Ruth, but not for the reason that people might imagine. More than one couple, including my wife and me, have included Ruth's words to Naomi in their wedding album! I think of the story of Ruth because, in the act of professing undying love and faithfulness to one another, a couple re-enacts God's promise to always be with us, no matter how thick-headed or unfaithful we may at times act. The story of the prophet Hosea and his naughty wife Gomer is another reminder of a long-suffering and ever-faithful God whose love is a pattern to be emulated by every set of individuals who pledge love and faithfulness to one another. Marriage and lifelong unions are not always pretty as they move through the years, and they seldom live up to the romanticized visions painted on the wedding day. But just as no amount of contrariness and rebelliousness can ever cause God to leave God's people, those who live together in marriage or lifelong unions will prosper if they but remember the story of a loving former daughter-in-law and mother-in-law and their journey together. In that tale is the story of our faith, our hope and our end.

True Reformation: Peace! Job 42:16 and Mark 10:46-52

I have never been one to really celebrate Reformation Sunday, as I think it focuses too much on the differences between Protestants and Catholics, and Protestants and Protestants. But I think the use of the word "reformation" can be quite instructive this week. As has been true for the past seven years, at least, we are engaged in war. Much ink has been spilled of late speculating on whether or not we will, or should, pull out of Afghanistan. Fortunately, I don't have to make such far-reaching decisions in the course of a given year. But many people of faith have opinions on both sides of the issue when it comes to matters of war and peace. I think that the scriptures for the day can be helpful as we try to wend our way through the issues.
Although the lesson from Job for the week features Job's humble response to God's chastising in the previous two chapters, I want to go back to those chapters. In them, the Lord utters the following interrogative: "And the Lord said to Job: ²“Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Anyone who argues with God must respond.” ³Then Job answered the Lord: ⁴“See, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. ⁵I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but will proceed no further.” ⁶Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind: ⁷“Gird up your loins like a man; I will question you, and you declare to me. ⁸Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?
Job was asking, quite rightly, according to our ways of looking at things, about the horrible condition of his life of late. Who cannot sympathize with poor Job and his state of utter destitution. But the Lord does not offer sympathy, but a question: "So, are you so smart that you know how I do what I do?"Job, realizing that the universe was just a bit beyond his comprehension, spake thus: Then Job answered the Lord: ²“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ³‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. ⁴‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me.’ ⁵I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; ⁶therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”
This story unsettles us, because we think that Job deserved an explanation, and he did not get one. So, perhaps our thinking can stand a bit of reformation? Let's move on to the story of Bartimaeus. Despite the calls of everyone around him to shut up, Bartimaeus, who was a blind beggar, called after Jesus. Jesus called back and asked that he come over to him. There is no placing spittle or mud in his eyes, no bathing in healing waters. When Jesus observed the man's sincerity, he told him to go on his way, for his faith had made him whole.
Both of these stories contain elements that lead us to understand that our thinking about life, death, God, etc, is in need of reforming. War continues to exist because people of faith still look at it as an acceptable alternative, and we sometimes attempt to remake Jesus in the image on one who thinks as we do. So, we need to read the Lord's response to Job and Job's response to the Lord, over and over again. Can we admit that we don't really understand God's ways and that we should, perhaps, spend more time in contemplation and prayer before we take actions that we think are justified by our faith? Bartimaeus got it right, when all those around him did not. Though Jesus told him to go on his way, for his faith had made him whole, he continued to follow. We should go and do likewise!

A Double Standard Mark 10:2-6

I was a freshly minted M.Div. grad and was serving my first parish. I received a call on a Friday afternoon from a woman who asked if I would perform her wedding. She admitted that she had been on the phone all afternoon, being turned down by every pastor with whom she spoke, because she was divorced. Since there was divorce in my family, it was not something that I had ever thought should be a barrier to re-marriage. Even then, as a young man, I knew to ask questions as to whether or not the pain of that split had healed enough to give a second marriage a fair start and whether or not the divorced individual had become jaded about the whole idea of marriage in general. I have been surprised at how many couples have been so grateful that I would perform a wedding for them, since one or the other had been divorced. These days, most of the couples who come to me for premarital counseling have been living together for some time, and that is something that the church has also looked at with discomfort over the years. But many of us have come to the conclusion that we are happy that a couple wants to make a public commitment of faith and fidelity to one another, and we want to encourage that.
Jesus' comments about divorce are troubling. “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; ¹²and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” If that be so, there are quite a few adulterers out there, and some of them are clergy!
We would do well to remember that Jesus was responding to a trap set for him by the Pharisees. If he said that divorce was wrong, he would have gotten himself into the same hot water that John the Baptizer had when he criticized Herod for breaking up his brother's marriage in order to secure his wife. If he said that there is nothing wrong with divorce, he would have been guilty of a blasphemy. So, what he did was to remind all present that men and women were created one for another, for companionship and happiness. As usual, he was looking at the big picture, and that transcended laws about marriage and divorce. He wanted folks to enter into marriage very seriously, with the intention of spending the rest of their lives together. And who better than Jesus, and God, for that matter, understands when unforeseen problems may cause a union to split? When a dissolution of the covenant occurs, are we to believe that one has no right ever to fall in love again? Is that the kind of God we claim to love, and who claims to love us?
I don't think pastors are as likely to refuse to perform marriages because of divorce as they were thirty years ago. I think we look at this scripture passage as a cautionary tale; couples should enter into marriage for life, not simply for convenience or as a filler for a temporary loneliness.
Having said that, why are many of us able to look at these verses with a larger view in mind of what Jesus might have met, but many cannot look beyond some much less specific verses concerning same-sex behavior and use those as absolute bans on same-sex unions? Shame on us for our double standard!