Sunday, November 29, 2015

Reform (1 Advent; November 29, 2015; 2 Kings 22:1-10; 23:1-3)

Reform

2 Kings 22:1-10, [14-20]; 23:1-3
Advent 1
November 29, 2015

Rev. John M. Caldwell, PhD
First United Methodist Church
Decorah, IA

The passage of Scripture that we have heard this morning is not familiar to most of us. I vaguely remember learning about the “revival” that began under Hezekiah and continued with Josiah when I took an Old Testament survey in seminary, some thirty years ago. I remember these things as feeble attempts to stave off disaster for Jerusalem and Judah. Feeble, unsuccessful attempts. The regional political situation saw the Assyrian Empire at its peak and a renewed, badder-than-ever Babylonian Empire on the rise. In the long run little Judah really didn’t stand a chance.

But we only know that from hindsight, from outside of the story. From the inside of the story, things were different. The characters in the story made choices, just as we do, without knowing how any of it was going to turn out. So let’s see what the story has to tell us.

It begins, really with Hezekiah who is described as a king who “did what was right in the sight of the Lord just as his ancestor David had done.” As an aside I will say that anyone who has read David’s story carefully might conclude that this standard does not set the bar very high. Still, looking back, the story-teller may be forgiven a sense of nostalgia.

Hezekiah was a good king, according the story-teller’s standards. He was king in 722 when the Assyrian Empire exploded onto the scene and gobbled up the Northern Kingdom, Israel, like Hitler’s Germany gobbled up Belgium. Judah, the Southern Kingdom, preserved its independence only by paying huge amounts of money in tribute to Assyria.

Hezekiah used this period of uneasy peace to clean house. He removed the local shrines that had been used to worship not only Yahweh but Asherah. Asherah seems to have been considered as Yahweh’s consort, but no one is really sure. As one scholar has said (and I wish I could remember who; he deserves to be cited), “We don’t know what an Asherah was, but we know Yahweh had one of them.” Not helpful for the curious. Anyway, Hezekiah reformed Yahweh worship, getting ride of the Asherahs, suppressing the worship of other gods, and consolidating worship in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Sometime at the very end of the eighth century, say in 702 or 703 BCE, Hezekiah suspended payment of the tribute money that Assyrian had demanded. It wasn’t long before King Sennacherib of Assyria brought his army to the gates of Jerusalem with the demand that it surrender so that people could be resettled or face complete destruction. The seige lasted from 701 to perhaps as late as 691.

We can imagine that Hezekiah had second and third and fourth thoughts during that long siege when all he could see from the walls of Jerusalem were Assyrian soldiers and chariots. Some of his struggles of faith are preserved in the book of Isaiah who reassured him several times of Yahweh’s determination to defend Jerusalem. And, amazingly, Jerusalem was saved. The siege was lifted when Sennacherib heard that there was trouble at home in Nineveh. He withdrew his armies and, a few years later, was assassinated in the temple of his god Nisroch by two of his sons. So it’s not necessary true that “the family that prays together, stays together.”

Hezekiah’s reign ended peacefully and he was succeeded by Manasseh and Amon, both of whom are described as evil kings. They undid Hezekiah’s reforms, rebuilt the high places and altars were rebuilt, sponsored the worship of Baal even in the Jerusalem Temple, and brought the sacred poles back into the Temple.

So bad was Amon’s rule that he was killed in a palace coup. Josiah succeeded Amon and is praised in the most glowing terms. Josiah was his great-grandfather’s great-grandson and, like Hezekiah, began a deep reform of the religious, political, and economic life of Judah.

He sponsored a restoration and remodeling project in the Temple. Anytime an old building is remodeled or restored, there is no telling what may be discovered behind some drywall or in a bricked-up unused space. In the course of restoring the Temple, a scroll was discovered that was a book of law. That’s what the story says. Perhaps it was an old scroll that was discovered. Or, as I think more likely, it was a new scroll written by priests taking advantage of the general chaos that reigns during a remodeling project. Either way, it was almost certainly some form of the Bible’s book of Deuteronomy. The priests took the scroll to Josiah and read it to him. To me this suggests that it was probably quite a bit shorter than the present version of Deuteronomy, but perhaps not. The king listened, horrified, as the law was read, law that was being systemically ignored. In grief and horror he tore his clothes. Then he called an assembly of the people and had the book read to them.

He set about to do the things that Deuteronomy required. The altars on the high places were destroyed and the places themselves defiled. The Asherahs–whatever they were–were removed from the Temple. The worship of the Baals was suppressed. The sacred poles were cut down. The local priests were turned out of work. He called for the Festival of the Passover to be observed as it had not been observed in centuries. “Before him,” says the account of his reign in 2 Kings 23, “there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him.” That is, indeed, as good as it gets. Not even David is praised so well, nor Hezekiah. They are the only two who even come close.

But so what? That’s always a good question. So what? For all of Josiah’s reforms, zeal, and devotion, the disaster was only postponed, not diverted. Josiah was followed by three kings who “did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh.” In less than a century, Judah fell to Babylon, Jerusalem was besieged, its gates burned, its walls torn down, its Temple looted and burned, and its people deported into exile. Josiah’s reforming zeal failed to change the path of history enough to spare Jerusalem and Judah. What was the point of all the struggle to change things, if the disaster could not be prevented? Why bother?

That’s a way of thinking and reacting to approaching trouble that is still with us. One response to the threat of global warming is a kind of fatalism that says, “Well, since we know that, no matter what we do to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the average temperature is going to rise high enough so that there will be wide-spread damage and destruction, what’s the point of doing anything at all, especially if it’s going to be hard?”

I have had one automobile accident in which I was the driver. It was completely my fault. Completely. I was turning at a traffic light controlled intersection. The vehicle in front of me stopped and I hit it. I have heard that 90% of all accidents happen at intersections. When you consider that less that 10% the roads are intersection, that means that we are 80 times more likely to have an accident in the hundred or so feet of an intersection than in any other hundred feet of roadway. I think I have the math right. Anyway, if there is a time to pay attention , it’s while we are in intersections.

And what was I doing at the intersection in question? I was messing with a cassette tape and the tape player. Yep. I was still accelerating when I saw, too late, that the truck in front of me was stopping. Time seemed to slow to a crawl. I hit the brakes hard, just short of locking up all four wheels, but I could see that there was simply no way to avoid a collision. The only questions was, how hard I was going to hit. Pretty hard, it turned out. The truck was a F-250 Ford and I was driving a Dodge Neon. The rear bumper of the truck engaged my hood and peeled it back like aluminum foil. The truck suffered a little scratched paint on the bumper and a bent bracket that held the electrical connectors for hooking up a trailer. The driver was very kind. He bent the bracket back into place and never filed a claim for the scraped paint.

Because I was driving distracted, by the time I realized that there was a developing driving hazard, it was too late to prevent it. But it wasn’t too late to soften the impact. Yes, my hood was a mess and there were broken headlights and turn signal lights. But, except for my bruised ego, no one suffered any injuries. The heavy braking didn’t prevent the accident from happening, but because of the breaking the accident was not nearly as bad as it would have been.

Back to Josiah. Josiah’s reforms did not keep Judah from falling to Babylon. But they were not in vain, either. They recalled Judah to a clearer and more focused loyalty to Yahweh. Especially, I think, the decision to recover a deep practice of the Passover meant that Judah told and retold the story of Israel’s delivery from Egypt, rehearsing and acting out the story of the God who is passionately committed to justice, who hears the cry of the oppressed, who comes down to deliver them, and who sets before them a new way of life that is peaceful, just and humane. Who knows what impact that one decision of Josiah’s had on the next century of Judah’s life, what effect it had on the memories of the exiles who left, what role it had in shaping who the Judeans would become? Judeans left Jerusalem for exile in Babylon and they came back as something the world had never seen before. They came back as Jews. And it was out of his identity as a Jew that Jesus of Nazareth would discover his own calling.

Josiah, of course, could have no way of knowing any of that. He only knew that he had to respond faithfully to the call to live as the king of God’s people. He could only obey or disobey the summons to his own life and ministry. He could not guarantee the outcome.

In that we are no different than us. We can only obey or disobey God’s call to our life and ministry. We can’t guarantee the outcome. We can only be faithful.

The world is warming up and the activity of human beings is a major contribution to that warming. There is as much certainty about this as there is about the relationship between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer. We are already living in a world that none of us has ever lived in: a world with an average of 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can we reverse this in time to prevent widespread misery and suffering? I don’t know. I only know that we are called to do all we can to make the world a better place to live.

Our time in history has seen fresh eruptions of hatred. After the 9/11 attacks and even more in the few weeks since the Paris attacks, we have seen unprecedented acceptance of public hate speech toward Muslims. To our collective shame candidates for public office have discovered that they have nothing to lose and much to gain by holding up Muslims as targets for anger and hatred. Our leaders–including our own governor–are falling all over themselves to show how terrified they are of Syrian refugees and how suspicious we should all be of all Muslims. As a Christian I find this behavior shameful. I’m not afraid of Syrian refugees. They are not dangerous. Racist white men with guns are dangerous, but our leaders fall all over themselves to make sure that their access to guns remains uninterrupted.

Can we hold back the waves of hate that have been unleashed in the last few years? I don’t know. I only know that Christians are called to live out of love and not out of fear. There are actions we can take. We can challenge the racism that we hear at the coffee shop or read on Facebook. We can write letters to our leaders to tell them that there are some Christians who object to the fear and hatred they espouse and encourage. We can vote for justice rather than out of fear. We can decide that our congregation will welcome the stranger who comes to us in the guise of a Syrian refugee family. We can decide that our congregation will sponsor a refuge with or without our governor’s help or blessing. We can pursue a deepening of our relationship with Muslim students at Luther, standing in solidarity with them as they face the growing menace of religious hatred dressed up in a Christian disguise.

We can do all those things and more. Will it turn aside the tide of fear and hatred? I don’t know. I only know that Jesus called us to welcome the stranger. It isn’t given to us to know what effect our actions will have before we act. It isn’t given to us to know how history will turn out in the short term. It is only given to us, as it was given to Josiah, to be able to obey God’s covenant call, to remember who we are, and to live that out in our shared life and in our life in mission in our community.

That’s how we begin Advent. Not by getting our Christmas wish lists finished. Not by getting our baking started. Not by scheduling our visits and our parties. None of those things are bad things in themselves, of course, but they aren’t about Advent. Advent is about hearing God’s call to live in covenant with God, with each other, with all living beings that share this planet, and with the planet itself. Advent is about deciding to live in covenant as far as we are able, and even farther. Advent is about being faithful and leaving the results to God. Advent is about discovering the book of the covenant in the midst of the chaos of our lives and deciding that the life described in that book is the life we intend to live. 

Double-Minded Gratitude (Thanksgiving Eve; Deuteronomy 26:1-11; November 25, 2015)

Double-Minded Gratitude

Thanksgiving Eve
Deuteronomy 26:1-11
November 25, 2015

Rev. John M. Caldwell, PhD
First United Methodist Church
Decorah, Iowa

Thanksgiving doesn’t come easily to me. Whether it is a matter of genetics or of upbringing, I see the dark side more easily than the light. I find Lent easier to cope with than Easter, Advent easier than Christmas.

I am well-described by the old word: jeremiad. In fact I take any resemblance of mine to the prophet Jeremiah as a compliment. I see hope, but always on the other side of loss and struggle. I see the answer to prayer, but always on the other side of God’s silence.  I pray the Lord’s Prayer conscious that, as yet, it is largely unanswered. Not that I intend to quit praying it; I’m not about to let God off the hook.

I come to Thanksgiving with a sense of double-mindedness. There are things about the celebration that I embrace. I love the food. I am fond of turkey gravy poured generously over turkey and mashed potatoes and stuffing. Stuffing! We start with the Better Homes and Gardens traditional bread and sage stuffing, but where it calls for a teaspoon of sage, I add three tablespoons. Where it says poultry seasoning or sage, I use both. And the leftovers are, if anything, better than the first servings. The day after Thanksgiving we take a couple of cups of leftover mashed potatoes, add an egg, shape them into four thick pancakes, and fry them in butter until they are heated through and have a nice crisp brown crust on both sides. Then we pour gravy with shredded turkey over them. I can’t be certain, but I’m pretty sure that this is what manna tasted like.

I enjoy playing emcee for the Community Thanksgiving Dinner. I enjoy seeing the people come who are as hungry for company as they are for turkey. I’m glad when they get enough of both. I enjoy Thanksgiving.

But at the same time I am aware of its darker side. The myth of Thanksgiving has worn thin for me. A myth I define as a story that we tell ourselves about ourselves to explain ourselves to ourselves. Myths can be true or false, but the myth of Thanksgiving is a story we tell to obscure the past rather than illuminate it, a story we tell ourselves about ourselves to explain ourselves away.

Maybe you can understand, if you haven’t lost all patience with me yet, why I read the story from Deuteronomy 26 with misgivings. It is a marvelous text in many ways. It is one of the oldest passages in the Bible, far older than most of the Torah, for instance. The way that it plays with its own past and present as the celebrants of the Festival of First Fruits present their harvests at the altar of Yahweh and announce before the priest and God that they are themselves and at the same time descended from the Aramaeans who went to Egypt and became a mighty and populous nation, is a wonderful example of how liturgy functions at its best. But for all of its beauty and power, this text papers over and sanitizes the story of how it is that this land became their in the first place. It was not, as the text suggests, simply a gift. |It is not as if the land had been empty before the arrival of the Israelite refugees from slavery in Egypt. To be given to them it had to be taken from someone else. They celebrate the figs and olives from the orchards, the wine from the vineyards, the barley from the sown fields; but all of that land is blood-soaked. They give thanks to God, but everything for which they give thanks grows only thanks to theft and displacement. What happens to thanksgiving when it is used to hide the theft, the displacement, and the bloodshed.

Okay, so the world is not as it should be. We admit as much every time we pray the Lord’s Prayer. We pray, “give us this day our daily bread,” but unless our notion of “us” and “our” is selfishly small, we know that this petition describes what we hope for, not what is. I will go to bed tomorrow evening with my belly uncomfortably full, dreaming of potato pancakes and turkey gravy. Others will go to bed not sure where Friday’s food will come from. Still others will not eat at all tomorrow or the day after that. When I pray “give us” I mean, or at least I want to mean, them too.

Someone has said, “In a world in which some people go hungry, you can eat well or you can sleep well, but you can’t do both.” And I get that, even if I’d rather not. I’ve probably followed this trail too far already. You are ready to tell me to shake it off or at least to shut up about it and not spoil your Thanksgiving. I can hardly blame you.

I don’t see things this way on purpose or because it’s fun. But I am unable to not see what I see. I realize that you’re cool with Thanksgiving. I’m the one who’s uncomfortable. I’m the one with the problem. I carry these two aspects of Thanksgiving with me and am unable to put either of them down. I carry both valuations, both valences; I am ambi-valent, ambivalent.

My proposal is to go on carrying them as the cost of being human. I am glad that, for instance, our dog Angus doesn’t have to carry them. I don’t expect Angus to be aware that some dogs don’t eat as well as he does. (In fact a good number of humans don’t eat as well as he does.) He simply enjoys eating. He throws himself into eating whole-heartedly and without reservation. I’m glad he does.

But I’m a human being and blessed or cursed with awareness of the bigger picture. I can eat whole-heartedly, too, but sooner or later I will come around to remembering that there are others who cannot feast with me simply because they do not have enough food to eat normally, let alone to feast.

This is my double-bind: to be aware of the plenty I enjoy through no particular virtue or deserving of mine and to be grateful for it while at the same time grieving because many of God’s children do not have to plenty to enjoy. For me to be human is for grief and gratitude to flow alongside one another, to get mixed up in each other, without any possibility of eliminating either of them. I am grateful for plenty and I grieve for scarcity.

Is the glass half-full or half-empty? Yes.

This is how it will be for now. It is the human condition as it is.

But how it is for now is not how it is for always. The human condition as it is is not the human condition as it will always be. I circle around to the Lord’s Prayer again. We pray for the day when all of us will receive our daily bread today and tomorrow and the day after that. It isn’t here yet, but we pray for it. And, if we aren’t just flapping our lips and making pious gestures, we work for that day, too. We contribute to the Food Pantry. We give through our own denominations to programs that work to eliminate hunger. We can go further than that, too, and work for changes to policies so that food is seen as something more than just another commodity and source of profit, but as life for all of us to share.

In the meantime, I intend to give thanks whole-heartedly and I intend to grieve whole-heartedly. I intend not to let the one temper or diminish the other, but to let grief and gratitude each have their way in my heart, and to live within the exquisite tension that being human entails, the same tension out of which the cry of our hearts arises: “Marana tha!—Lord, come!” Marana tha, indeed! Amen.

--------------------------

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

Judean Exceptionalism (Christ the King; Isaiah 5:1-7; 11:1-5; November 22, 2015)

Judean Exceptionalism

Christ the King
Isaiah 5:1-7; 11:1-5
November 22, 2015
Rev. John M. Caldwell, PhD
First United Methodist Church
Decorah, IA
The biblical prophets did not have foresight; they had insight. They saw deeply, not into the future, but into their present, from the perspective of their covenant God, Yahweh. They saw how God was present, saw what God was doing, and saw God's intention as it was at work. From that they could paint an often vivid picture of what sort of future was about to unfold.

Prophets typically appeared when things had gone wrong, when the covenant people had wandered from the Torah, a word that means simply, "path," but also refers to the first five books of the Bible. Prophets, so far as we know, never appeared to say, "You're doing just fine. Everything is awesome! Keep on keeping on!"

Often this meant delivering bad news, stripping the people of their illusions, and forcing them to look into the abyss opened up by their failures to keep covenant. They were the tellers of unpleasant and even painful truths.

They stripped away false hopes. They saw false hopes as idols, as false gods that we fashion for ourselves. False hopes keep us from facing reality. False hopes keep us from seeing what God is really up to in our world. So prophets had an annoying habit of smashing false hopes as if they were so many half baked clay pots, so much bisque-ware. They did this in the interest of real hope in the true God, but still, the prophets left a lot of shattered pottery behind.

Hosea, as we saw last week, tore down false hope and offered genuine hope in the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the mid-eighth century BCE. Isaiah wrote a little later, in the latter part of the eighth century, in the Southern Kingdom of Judah.

Isaiah of Jerusalem, the son of Amoz, was a Temple priest. Living in Jerusalem and working in the Temple gave him a unique perspective on the inside workings of power in this day. Today we would say that he was a Beltway insider. He was a Jerusalem insider.

It's not that Jerusalem was all bad. The Temple was there. The Temple was the glory of Jerusalem. Yahweh dwelt there. To worship in the Temple was to enjoy the privilege of physical closeness to the place where the home of God's name was forever fixed.

The kings certainly took advantage of that closeness. After all, Jerusalem was "David's city." The kings were part of David's dynasty, the only ruling family that Judah ever had. They were quick to remind any and all that they were descended from the same David to whom Yahweh had promised a never-ending kingdom.

Yahweh became a "kept" God, the domesticated source of power for Judah and its ruling elites. It was not just that Yahweh did favor Jerusalem; Yahweh had to favor Jerusalem. Yahweh's reputation depended on Judah's fortunes. The covenant that bound Judah and Yahweh came to be understood as a covenant that bound Yahweh but left Judah free to do as it pleased.

In short, there was a kind of Judean Exceptionalism in Jerusalem at the end of the eighth century BCE. Judah was not like other nations. Judah had Yahweh. Yahweh would never fail to support Judah's king. As long as the sacrifices were made, Yahweh would never fail to support Judah. Judah could run with the big dogs of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, and know that Yahweh had its back. The elites could exploit the masses and, for the sake of Jerusalem, Yahweh would look the other way. Judah could even hedge its bets by devoting itself to other gods and Yahweh's commitment would not vary.

Judah would stand forever because Yahweh stood with it. Whatever Judah did was right because it was Yahweh's chosen nation. The bedrock foundations of social justice could be ignored, but Yahweh would not turn his back. The elites could gather wealth at the expense of the peasant class, Jerusalem could extract wealth from the countryside, and Yahweh's love would remain unshaken. Judah was Yahweh's golden child; it could do no wrong. It could forget the covenant. It could forget its own past. It could forget what Yahweh expected of it. It wouldn't matter. Jerusalem could not be shaken; the Temple would stand for all time; David's dynasty was forever. God was on their side.

The Jerusalem elite were satisfied with this arrangement. But God was not.

And this was where Isaiah of Jerusalem came in. He could see the deep fractures in Judah's relationship with Yahweh. He could see the violence against the poor that was being built into the system. He could see the crumbled remnants of covenant integrity. And he knew that the glitter and glory of Jerusalem were built on a foundation that would not hold. Trouble for Jerusalem was coming, terrible trouble.

The image he used was the vineyard. We have a few of those in our area. Like Christmas tree farms, vineyards are labor intensive. They require enormous work to plant and continued work to maintain. No one does it just to see vines grow. They do it because they expect a harvest. They expect a vintage for every harvest season. This is something Isaiah's readers knew.

In Isaiah's telling of the story, Yahweh chose the perfect spot, cleared the ground, planted the best grape vines, built a wine vat for crushing the grapes, and a tower. I don't know what the tower was for, but Yahweh’s vineyard had one.

Yahweh expected a harvest of good grapes suitable for producing the sweet strong wine of the Judean hill country, but that never happened. The grapes were worthless. No wine came of all of Yahweh's work.

And so, says Isaiah, Yahweh intends to return the vineyard to its original condition. The protective wall will be removed. Where there were vines, there will be only weeds and thorns. Even the rain will be stopped.

The elite of Jerusalem might look out across the city and feel proud of it, of its fine homes, palaces, and its Temple, but Isaiah redraws this landscape as containing only empty wasteland. Judah has been a deep disappointment.

Yahweh wanted justice and righteousness; Yahweh wanted a community of justice, peace and humanity. Instead, Yahweh got the blood and tears of the poor. Instead of a land of shared well-being, Yahweh goes on to complain that the rich have used their wealth and power to become even more wealthy and powerful. The small fields and houses of the people of the land are gone. The fields have been joined together. The little houses have been torn down and fine homes have been built in their place. And now the countryside is empty.

Judah cannot sustain the lie that it is living. A reckoning will come. Judah's future has been foreclosed. Jerusalem lives its dazzling life in the shadow of doom. No nation that favors its own powerful and privileged classes, that despises its own poor and fails to hear their cries has God as its protector. It does not matter whether its leader invokes God at the end of every public address. It does not matter what it inscribes on its coins and its currency. It does not matter whether that nation is us or God's chosen people of Judah.

To change metaphors, the Kingdom of Judah is a majestic tree with a rotten core. Its trunk is impressive, but it is hollow. In the coming storm this tree will come down and all that will be left is a sad and pitiful stump. Jerusalem will fall; Judah will fall; the House of David fall.

You can imagine how well this message was received in the Temple. You can imagine how well this message went over with Isaiah's Pastor-Parish Relations Committee, his District Superintendent, and his Bishop.

But, you see, one thing about trees is that they are hard to kill. If you cut down a tree and wait, pretty soon you will see a fresh shoot, a tree's attempt to begin again, new life's persistent attempt to live.

The coming desolation of Jerusalem will not be Yahweh's last word. There will be a new day for Judah, a new day for Jerusalem, and, above all, a new day for the House of David. Jesse's stump--remember that Jesse was David's father, so Jesse's stump is the shattered House of David--Jesse's stump will send up new shoots. David's House will have another chance.

And this time David's son will get it right. He will use his power to help the poor. He will pass sentence on the wicked rich. And after justice will come peace, peace unlike anything that has ever been seen: the wolf and the lamb will lie down together, the cow and the bear will graze together. Even Israel and Judah will be reconciled and all of Israel's exiles will be gathered together and brought home.

Poetic excess? Maybe. But they lived and we live in a time for poetic excess, a time for the truths only the poet can utter. It is time for poet-prophets to strip away our illusions, to show us the future that must unfold from the present we have chosen, and to do this in ways that are evocative and inescapable.

It is a time for bad news: bad news from Paris and Beirut and Baghdad, bad news from Ferguson and Baltimore and Houston, bad news from the Arctic Circle and the coral reefs and the salt-water marshes. It is time for our illusions to be stripped away, our illusions of American privilege, or white privilege, or straight privilege, or middle-class privilege, or whatever we imagine it is that will protect us from the future unfolding from our present. It is time for us to know that the walls that have protected us will not stand against the coming tsunami. It is time for us to mourn the lost world. It is time to chose whether we will survive as a just, peaceful, and humane community or whether in the crises that come we will each struggle to be the strongest and most ruthless in a struggle in which only the strong and ruthless survive. It is time for covenant faithfulness to rise to the top. It time for the poet-prophets to tell us all that.

Then, after all that, we need to hear what the poet says next, because the poet is not finished. We need to let the poet paint a picture with words of the world that is coming from God's hand. It will be a world of justice. It will be a world of peace. It will be a world in which no child dies for lack of food, a world in which no young men and women set out to kill other young men and women for the sake of flags and slogans. It will be a world in which those who incite others to fear and hate will be universally denounced as scoundrels, a world in which the old will see their children's children's children grown. In short it will be a world in which each of us will sit under our own fig tree, eat from our own vines, and forget what fear is like.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.



Monday, November 16, 2015

Love Wins! (Pentecost 24; Hosea 11:1-11; November 15, 2015)

Love Wins!


Pentecost 24
Hosea 11:1-11
November 15, 2015

Rev. John M. Caldwell, PhD
First United Methodist Church
Decorah, Iowa

All through history people have invented ritual acts, told stories, observed rhythms of daily, weekly, and annual time, and built special structures to gain a sense of safety and significance. We Christians share this in common with all of humanity.

But each religious tradition bears its own uniqueness. In the Jewish heritage that is part of our tradition, we have something that, while I won't dare to call unique, I will say is extraordinarily rare and precious: the tradition of the literary prophet. Now, many cultures have prophets or soothsayers of one kind or another, people whose job it is to interpret the present so that people can make smart or even wise decisions.

The ancient Romans believed that the behavior of birds in flight was intimately related to the way the universe would unfold in the immediate future. They called the ability to interpret this behavior “augury.” Nancy Reagan famously regularly consulted an astrologer for the same reason: to understand the future that is contained in the present. Tarot cards, I Ching coins, the rings of caterpillars, and a host of other objects and techniques were and are used to make decisions. The ancient Hebrews had something called urim and thummim. Nobody knows exactly what they were or how they worked, but urim and thummim would be cast to understand the will of God. Call them “holy dice.”

The ancient Hebrews also had prophets, men and women who had the gift of being able to discern the working of God in the present so that people would know how they might gain success by aligning themselves with God's will. Prophets did not see the future so much as they saw deeply into the present. And they offered advice based on that insight. Kings had prophets on retainer so that they knew when to go to war, when to expect a famine, and other things that had an impact on policy making. Others could--for a fee--consult a prophet for smaller concerns: whether to arrange a marriage with this family, whether to enter into a trade with a foreign merchant, and so on. Prophets and soothsayers (which is just Anglo-Saxon for truth-tellers) are a part of many religious traditions. In having prophets the ancient Hebrews were hardly unique.

But something remarkable happened to prophets in ancient Israel: they became moral critics. Yahweh, the God of Israel, wasn't just a divine figure with control over the physical universe. Yahweh was the covenant God of Israel who had liberated Israel from slavery in Egypt in order to form a covenant with them in which Yahweh would be their God, they would be Yahweh's people and would enjoy a life that was peaceful, just and humane. Yahweh was not an amoral god like the gods of the Romans and Greeks. Yes, Yahweh seemed to have a rather fragile ego, but Yahweh was also passionately committed to justice.

Aligning oneself with God's will was more than a matter of knowing whether the crops would fail or when it might be a good time to attack a neighboring kingdom. It was a matter of doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God, to paraphrase Micah. Prophets attacked covenant failure, especially by the powerful, as when Elijah exposed Ahab's corrupt real estate dealings.

In the middle of the eighth century BCE, the prophetic tradition took another turn: it became a written tradition. Prophets, or their disciples, wrote prophecies down, almost all of them in verse form. Hosea was the second literary prophet. He looked at Israel's present and spoke into it on Yahweh's behalf. And what he had to say wasn't pretty.

Hosea attacked the religious practices of Israel, the northern kingdom. Using the image of a father-son relationship, Yahweh reminded Israel of its past, and how Yahweh had loved Israel from the very beginning, when Yahweh called Israel out of Egypt, out of slavery, out of the regime of the Egyptian gods and their pharaoh. Yahweh cared tenderly for Israel, held Israel in his arms, cradled Israel against his cheek, fed him, raised him with love. And Yahweh's reward? The more that Yahweh called to Israel, the more Israel followed the Baals and worshiped idols.

Now, this isn't a small thing. It's not like when we raise someone from infancy in Sunday School and worship. We teach them our hymns. We tell them about the Wesley boys and circuit riders and bishops and conferences and the reserve clause and all that makes us who we are as Methodists. And then they go and marry a Lutheran. As much as we grieve losing them, we have to admit that there just isn't that much difference between Methodists and Lutherans, or Methodists and Catholics, or Methodists and Congregationalists, or Methodists and any of the other Christian denominations represented in Decorah.

But to go from Yahweh to the Baals was to go from the covenant God with a passionate commitment to justice to gods of fertility whose only concerns were production and plunder and profit. This wasn't a matter of changing denominations, but of exchanging world systems, religion, politics, economics, everything. This exchange had consequences. It is simply impossible to worship gods of production and plunder and profit and have a society based on the covenant; it is simply impossible to worship gods of production and plunder and profit and enjoy a life that is humane and just and peaceful. Therefore Hosea pronounces Yahweh's judgment on Israel: It will return to Egypt; it will be ruled by Assyria. Their cities will be destroyed by the violence they unleashed by forsaking the covenant. Even when they cry out to Yahweh there will be no answer. Israel will be destroyed. As it deserves to be. Yahweh has spoken.

But destruction is not Yahweh's last word. Death is not Yahweh's last word. Doom is not Yahweh's last word. For more even than other prophets, Hosea sees into Yahweh's heart. Yes, Hosea sees the demand for justice, sees the demand for integrity in Israel. But Hosea also sees that just because God's passion has been fanned into a consuming fire, God's love remains just as strong as ever. After the destruction, after the cities have become ruins, after Assyria has eaten up the land, God will still call to Israel. And this time Israel will answer. After judgment and destruction and exile, there will be a home-coming and a reconciliation. In the end love wins. Love wins. Always.

In the last few days we have been horrified as we have been horrified so many times in the last fourteen years by death and destruction visiting suffering on the innocent. This time over a hundred people were killed in several attacks carried out simultaneously. This time the targets were not symbols of economic and military might, like the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but cultural sites of music, sport, and food--that most Parisian of loves. The President of France describes these as acts of war, and they certainly are. ISIS is claiming responsibility. Already the repercussions of these attacks and the new strategy that they embody are moving through the military and diplomatic establishments like a tsunami.

Like ancient Israel we imagine that the crisis we face is a political and a military one, a matter of finding a realpolitik solution to a newly emergent Assyrian Empire or an insurgent ISIS. But what if we are misreading our present? What if this political, military, economic, social and cultural knot is, without ceasing to be any of that, also Yahweh's judgment? What if the Assyrian threat against the Kingdom of Israel is also the outworking of God's passion for justice? What if the dreadful series of attacks we have suffered and witnessed is also an unfolding of God's judgment.

Of course we have to object that God's judgment is exceedingly sloppy. It is executed with a battle-ax rather than a scalpel. It lands with dreadful regularity on the innocent. We have every reason to complain about the unfairness and even the injustice of the way that God's judgment works out in our history. Still, the terrible events in New York, and Washington, and Pennsylvania, and, now, Paris, have a moral as well as political history. And God is not absent from that history and its outworking. A century and more of the Western nation's exploiting resources, manipulating events, and squashing the dreams of ordinary people in the Muslim world have set into motion this train of events that we are witnessing and suffering.

I suspect Hosea would have said something like this. But he would not have stopped there. Yes, our world like his stands under the judgment of God. Yes, as this judgment works out there will be real destruction and real suffering and misery.

But it does not end there, because the sentence of God's judgment is not God's last word. God's last word is reconciliation and return. In the end love wins. Always. God is still calling. God is still calling Parisians. God is still calling us. God is even still calling the members of ISIS. And one day, when we're ready, when it's time, we will listen. And we will come home. Because in the end love wins. Love wins. Always.


This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Legacy Lost, Legacy Found

1 Kings 12:1-17, 25-29
All Saints' Day
November 1, 2015

Rev. John M. Caldwell, PhD
First United Methodist Church
Decorah, IA

Well, now, this text poses a problem or two. It's supposed to be a text for All Saint's Day. It's supposed to be a stewardship text, too. I think it is both, but you may take some convincing. We'll see how that goes.

Rehoboam was a spoiled rich kid. He was the grandson of David, the great-great-great-grandson of Boaz and Ruth (the Moabite). Like many spoiled rich kids, he had no clue about just how privileged he was.

Rehoboam’s grandfather David had become the king of the united tribes of Israel. But before that he had waged a long guerrilla war against Saul his father-in-law and the first king of Israel. David lived with real hardship and his life was often in danger.

On Saul’s death David became king over Israel. But he was denied the right to build a Temple for Yahweh's chest, the ark of the covenant, because he was a man whose life had been given to making war.

So Solomon built the Temple instead of David. It was an architectural wonder, a thing of beauty, a compelling statement, propaganda in stone to Yahweh's intention to uphold, protect, and give glory to the royal house of David. The Temple by its mere existence proclaimed to one and all that God was in Jerusalem to stay and would stay there forever. No foreign enemy could threaten Israel's future. No internal threat could topple the descendants of David.

Solomon was lucky enough to be king when things were quiet in the region. Neither Egypt nor the Babylon was anxious for foreign adventure and so the little buffering kingdoms between them enjoyed a brief and uncharacteristic freedom from domination by the regional super-powers. Israel's location across the trade routes from the Egypt to Babylon meant that all that wealth passed through Israel and Solomon exacted high tolls. He used the money to become militarily powerful. His neighbors considered him wise. At least they found it prudent to say as much. They came to listen to his wisdom. They brought gifts.

The whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind. Every one of them brought a present, objects of silver and gold, garments, weaponry, spices, horses, and mules, so much year by year.

Solomon gathered together chariots and horses; he had fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand horses, which he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem. The king made silver as common in Jerusalem as stones, and he made cedars as numerous as the sycamores of the Shephelah.

See, I told you this would be a stewardship sermon!

Famously, Solomon also gathered wives. "Among his wives," the text says, "were seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines." Some of them, I'm sure, were acquired in order to make alliances with neighboring kingdoms. But I wonder if the gathering of wives didn't go beyond the needs of diplomacy. Solomon certainly did not lack for entertainment.

Old Samuel had warned the tribes about all this when they had come to him asking for a king. "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots...He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers... He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day."

And under Solomon, only their third king, it was as Samuel had said it would be.

When Solomon died, the people had grievances. They still wanted to have a king, but they were tired. They had built Jerusalem. The defense budget was huge, and this in spite of the absence of any foreign threat. They needed some relief from the burden that Solomon had laid on them. So they met Rehoboam at Shechem, the ancient center of the federation of tribes. Their spokesman Jeroboam presented their grievances to the new king. Rehoboam listened and asked for three days to consider their requests.

Now Rehoboam had grown up in Solomon's court. He was a spoiled rich kid who was accustomed to life in the palace. Like a lot of spoiled rich kids, he had no clue either about what struggles David had faced, nor about what ordinary people's lives were like. He was that worst of all possible characters: someone who was clueless and entitled. He had no idea about the lives led by his subjects, but he was sure what he himself deserved: silver, gold, luxurious furniture, sumptuous food, fine horses. And women, of course. Many, many women.

He consulted his fathers' counselors. They agreed with the people. There needed to be some royal belt-tightening so that the people could have some relief.

But when Rehoboam met again with the representatives of the tribes, he told them: "My father made your workload heavy, but I’ll make it even heavier! My father disciplined you with whips, but I’ll do it with scorpions!"

The people had made their complaint. Rehoboam had refused to listen to them. Instead he had insulted them. They had had enough. They answer to the king was open rebellion:

What share do we have in David? 
We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse.
To your tents, O Israel!
Look now to your own house, O David.

The northern tribes chose Jeroboam as their king and were then known as Israel. The tribes of Judah, Benjamin and part of the tribe of Levi remained with Rehoboam in the kingdom known from then on as Judah. The covenant people of Yahweh never reunited.

This is supposed to be a stewardship sermon. It's also, perhaps more importantly, supposed to be a sermon for All Saints' Day.

So far, it's a story about a legacy lost, a story about how one spoiled rich kid squandered away all that his grandfather had accomplished, all that his father had tried (however foolishly) to build on. The root question that Rehoboam had to answer was this: What was his legacy and what was he going to do with it?
Was his legacy a tradition of protecting and caring for the people of God? Or was it an chance to amass an even greater fortune? He picked the second choice. His father had counted chariots in the thousands and horses in the tens of thousands. He would count them in the tens and hundreds of thousands. He would weigh gold in tons. He would gather wives in the thousands.

He was not going to use his legacy to protect God's people. Especially he was not going to use it to protect the widow, the orphan and the foreigner. The covenant that had protected and sheltered his ancestor Ruth and given rise to his own grandfather would have no role in his rule. He would reign as a deserter of the covenant.

It's a cautionary tale, to be sure. And it asks us the same sorts of questions. We're not kings, of course. We haven't inherited seven hundred of our father's wives and three hundred live-in girlfriends. Thank God for that! But we are heirs, each of us, and responsible for a legacy.

There is the legacy that we share together with all of God's people. Sometimes I think it comes as a surprise, but we are not the first people to follow Jesus or to belong to the God of Jesus. We are only the latest of a long line. Today we have read the names and remembered the contributions of seven of God's saints. They are those who joined that long parade during the last year, just from our own congregation. They lived their lives by God's grace. Some of them did it deliberately, devoting all of their energy to being faithful followers of Jesus. Others were not so deliberate, not so dedicated. But all of them were God's saints.

From these names we can imagine the long, long line of saints from every time and place. They refracted God's love into their world like prisms dangling in the sunlight throwing brilliant colors around a room. We know some very few of their names: Brigit, the sixth-century Irish nun who led a community of both monks and nuns in Kildare, Ireland; Absalom Jones who, denied ordination in the Methodist Episcopal Church, became the first African American to be ordained as a priest in the Episcopal Church; Frederick Douglass, that firebrand of a prophet who railed against America's great sin of slavery; and Polycarp, the second-century pastor of the church if Smyrna in modern-day Turkey, who paid for his faith with his life. And there are countless others.

Of these saints—both famous and anonymous—we are heirs. They are our legacy. We can treat them as if they were of no importance to us. We can poke fun at their oddities; God knows some of them were odd! Or we can take heart from them. In the midst of their struggles, they reflected God's love and grace in their own peculiar ways. They are a treasury of pray-able lives.

We have our own legacies of wealth and privilege. Okay, so it's not much wealth on Solomon's or Rehoboam's scale. And as to privilege, well, again, it may not be much, but surely simply to be born in the United States and to live in a part of the country that is prospering is to enjoy privilege. I can add to my own list of privilege: I'm white, middle class, well-educated, straight, and in a respected profession. You may not have the same list, but your list of privilege is not empty. What will you and I do with that privilege?

I have wealth, too. Maybe I don't have as much as I'd like, and certainly not as much as others, but it's still appreciable. What will I do with it? What causes will I favor? What processes will I encourage? What work will I support? These are all questions of legacy.

On All Saints' Day we consider our legacy of holiness and we decide how to use it and whether to add our own contribution to it. On Consecration Sunday we consider our legacy of privilege and wealth and decide how to use it. My hope for myself and for all of you is that we'll do better than Rehoboam. Knowing you as I do, I'm pretty sure you'll do fine.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

The Times They Are a'Changing (Pentecost 22 ; 2 Samuel 5:1-5; 6:1-5 ; October 25, 2015 )

The Times They Are a'Changing

Pentecost 22
2 Samuel 5:1-5; 6:1-5
October 25, 2015
Rev. John M. Caldwell, PhD
First United Methodist Churchy
Decorah, IA

Since the beginning of September, our path through the Bible began in Genesis and has led us through what have been perhaps some unfamiliar places. But this morning we are on firmer ground with Boaz and Ruth's great grandson, David the King.

Most of what is to me the most interesting material has been skipped over, though, and we begin David's story with his second anointing as the king over all the Israelites. All the tribes of Israel came to David at the most important holy place in the territories, Hebron. There they declared their kinship to him and entered into a covenant to have him as their king. English kings and queens are crowned, but ancient Israelite kings were anointed: they had olive oil poured over their heads as a sign of the presence of God's Spirit and of God's favor.

David then moved his capital from Hebron to Jerusalem. As my first Old Testament professor liked to say, Jerusalem is called the City of David because it was in fact David's city: he had captured it and owned it as the spoils of war.

He didn't just move his capital to his city, though. David moved God's “chest,” as our translation calls it, from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem as well. This chest—also called the ark of the covenant in other places and translations, in Indiana Jones and the Ark of the Covenant, for instance, is described as God's throne. In its histories, Israel remembers that God's chest was built during their time of desert wanderings. It was made of cedar and covered with gold. It had two winged figures, called cherubim, facing each other from either end of the chest. It also had rings attached to the sides so that it could be lifted and carried with poles without having to touch it.

Touching God's chest was dangerous, as Indiana Jones could have told you. In fact, our reading ends just in time to avoid learning that, instead of carrying the ark on poles, the Israelites brought the chest to Jerusalem on an ox cart. When the chest began to tumble off the cart, Uzzah, who was walking along side the cart, put out his hand to keep it from falling. In the story God took this as an affront and struck Uzzah dead where he stood. The text says that David was angry but it neglects to tell us why or at whom. Ending the reading where the lectionary did was probably a good decision.

David brought the chest to Jerusalem, his capital, his city. David proposed to build a temple to house the ark, but Nathan, his prophet, in a rare confrontation (the other being the matter of David and Uriah the Hittite and his wife Bathsheba), told him that David would not be allowed to build a temple because his hands were blood-stained from all the wars that he had fought. The task of building a temple would fall to David's son, Solomon. Until that time, the chest or ark continued to be kept in a large tent.

You may remember that this chest had led the procession of the traveling Israelites through the wilderness. The chest followed the fiery column of smoke that signified God's presence. The people followed the chest.

Later, when the tribes took up residence in the land of promise, whenever they had to go to war, the ark went with them. It was Israel's secret weapon. God went with the ark, the ark went with Israel, and Israel was victorious in its battles, presumably because they had the ark with them.

Now it is one thing to believe that we are fighting on God's side against steep odds. It is quite another to believe that God fights on our side. Can you hear the difference? The first assumes that we must follow God; the second, that God will follow us. The ark as the sign of God's glorious presence in Israel is a dangerous temptation. Israel is tempted to believe that no matter what it does, God is somehow obliged to support and protect it.

David only made this worse by bringing the ark to his city. Does the ark belong to the king? Or does the king belong to the ark? Has God been co-opted to the royal agenda? Does the presence of the ark—and eventually the Temple—give the king permission to do whatever he wants all the while claiming immunity because God will have to protect “the place where God's name lives?”

But these questions don't seem to have been on the people's mind as they celebrated a new-found sense of establishment and stability in a dangerous world, nor even on David's mind as he danced with all his strength in the presence of Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel.

The times they were a’changing. During the time of David's great grandparents, Boaz and Ruth, the covenant people were not really a nation. Only during a crisis did figures they called “judges” arise to give unity to all the tribes. Judges did not simply render decisions. They were revivalists of a sort, calling the people back to covenant faithfulness. They were often military leaders as well. A judge would rally all the tribes to face a threat. But as soon as the crisis passed, the judge would fade into the background. Israel would revert to being a loose federation of clans who, more often than not, jostled and even fought each other rather than their common enemies. (They remind me of my Scottish highland ancestors.)

When some of them looked around they saw that, compared to other nations, they lacked a king, a figure who could prepare for crisis as well as meet it after it arose, someone who, by passing the throne down to his sons, could guarantee stability in the long term.

When they asked Samuel, the last of the judges, to provide a king for them, Samuel tried hard to talk them out of it. A king would tax them, take their sons for soldiers and their daughters for servants. A king would make them miserable, as they were miserable in Egypt under Pharaoh. Besides, to demand a king was to deny their God. But the people would not be dissuaded. Samuel gave them Saul, but he just didn't work out. Saul didn't really understand kingship or the changes that were needed to make it work. But David understood that a king is more than a permanent judge. He knew what to do. He was well-liked and gifted with charisma so he not only knew what to do and how to do it; he had the talent to pull it off.

The times they were a’changing, and Israel's life shifted. It became more than a collection of tribes with a shared history. It had a king. It had a capital and a sacred center.

Over the coming centuries the king and the priests who cared for the ark agreed on one thing: people should worship in Jerusalem. The local shrines should be deemphasized and suppressed.

But that meant that God was not as locally available to the people of Israel. This introduced new and disturbing questions: What does it mean to be God's people? For what should they hope? How should they live?

These, of course, are the very questions that God's people always face in times of great change. When things are stable, it's not so hard to figure out where God is going, so we're more easily able to align ourselves with God's purposes. But when there are rapid and deep changes in our world—as I believe there are now and for the foreseeable future—it gets harder. We're supposed to be Jesus-followers. But where is Jesus, anyway, and where is he headed?

Our small groups are one way we have of trying to answer that question. When we listen carefully, God has a chance of getting a word in edgewise. That won't make our struggles go away. It won't mean that budgets suddenly become easier to meet. It won't mean that we have to turn away families for lack of room. It won't bring back the glory days of the last century. It's just a way trying to find out where Jesus is headed so we can follow him through the changes that are happening outside and within these walls.

The times they are a’changing. Fortunately for us, though, even in the midst of change and uncertainty, there are some things that stay the same. We are still called to remember and tell the stories of our faith and teach them to our children. We are still called to celebrate the love of the God who made us and who delivers us from all the forces that try to diminish and dehumanize our lives. We are still called to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the ill-clad, visit the sick and imprisoned, and welcome the stranger. These have not changed and won't.

The times they are a’changing. But we are still called to continue to be a generous people. In the midst of a changed and changing world we have our noisy offerings and our blanket offerings. And we make regular and generous giving a part of our lives. This is a part of who we are. The times they are a’changing, but this will not change.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.



Moabite Lives Matter (Ruth 1:1-17; 21st Sunday after Pentecost; October 18, 2015)

Moabite Lives Matter


Ruth 1:1-17
21
st Sunday after Pentecost
October 18, 2015

Rev. John M. Caldwell, PhD
First United Methodist Church
Decorah, IA

Our story begins in Bethlehem, as a number of stories from the Bible do, a town whose name translates as "House of Bread." Ironically the story begins with a famine. Elimelech moved his family—Naomi his wife and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, to Moab—to escape the famine.

Then Elimelech died, leaving Naomi in the care of her two sons who both married local girls.

I say that as if it were no big deal, but that wasn't so. These young women, Orpah and Ruth, were Moabites. Israelites and Moabites were traditional enemies. Do you remember the story from a few weeks ago in which the daughters of Lot (whose wife had been turned into a column of salt) decided to seduce their father and bear his children? Remember that one of the sons of this incest was named Moab, the ancestor of the Moabites. This is a classic myth in function: it tells the story of Israel and Moab in such a way as to show just how much superior to those Moabites the Israelites really were. I'm sure that Moabites had similar stories about Israel. Marrying these foreigners can't have been easy for either Ruth or Orpah.

When Naomi and her daughters-in-law found themselves bereft of husbands and, since they were childless, deprived of male protection, the only safe course of action was for Naomi to go back to Bethlehem—after all she owned land there and had family connections—and for Ruth and Orpah to go back to their respective families. They were still young; they could take their dowries back with them; they could still be useful to their families for making alliances and so forth.

But Ruth refused to go. Maybe she knew what awaited a Moabite girl who married an Israelite man and then tried to go home again. Maybe she did genuinely love Naomi. In any event she sang a song to Naomi that is such an expression of self-denial, even of self-negation, that generations of patriarchal advice books have held Ruth up as a positive example for young women. This bit of poetry shows up uninvited at weddings even now, although, of course, it is a love song from a daughter-in-law to her mother-in-law, not a song from a bride to her groom.

Ruth seems determined by her example to ruin the lives of young women down through history. Not only is she devoted to her mother-in-law. She is the model of the good daughter when they arrive in Bethlehem.

It's harvest time. There is a law in ancient Israel that whatever falls to the ground during the harvest may not be picked up by the workers, but must be left for the poor. It belongs to them by law. Gleaning, as it is called, is work that is hard on the back, but Ruth volunteers to go do it.

When the owner of the field, one Boaz by name, sees Ruth and asks his servants who she is, they tell him that she is "that Moabite who came back with Naomi," but that she had been working since early morning without resting at all.

Devoted to her mother-in-law, hard-working, available for marriage: what more could anyone want? And it is clear that Boaz was taken with the young widow. He provided her with his protection and even instructed the reapers to be especially careless with the harvest when she was close so that she would have more to pick up.

Ruth had a good day. She took home an ephah of barley which is about... I don't know. But it was a lot. And she told Naomi her story. When Naomi found out whose field Ruth had been working in, she got really excited.

Now here the story becomes rather interesting for the way that it opens a window onto a couple of features of life in ancient Israel and how they might have worked in practice. Or maybe not. This book is not really a history, but a romance written centuries after the events it describes, after the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah's exile in Babylon. At least we see how these things worked in Judah's imagination.

Remember that property rights in ancient Israel did not mean that owners had the right to dispose of their land. They couldn't subdivide it or sell it outright to whomever they pleased. Land was a covenant inheritance. If a family became so poor that the only asset they had left was their land, they could lease it until the next Year of Jubilee. Even so, close family members were required to intervene and buy it back or "redeem" it. That way, the land stayed in the family.

What got Naomi so excited was that Boaz was a close relative, one who had the "right of redemption." Naomi saw the possibility of security and well-being for both Ruth and herself. All that was needed was to give Boaz a little nudge in the right direction.

Now, as it happened, it was the last day of the harvest and the harvest party would be that night. There would be eating and drinking (and doubtless a good deal of gratitude for the harvest and for fertility in general). Naomi instructed Ruth to note where Boaz was lying and, waiting until the party died down and all was quiet, to join him on the threshing floor with a view toward giving him the needed nudge. She did that.

What happened next? The story uses suggestive language, but does not say explicitly what happened underneath Boaz's cloak on the threshing floor. By the time morning arrived, Ruth and Boaz had reached an understanding. But the story is discrete as was Boaz who sent Ruth home in the pre-dawn darkness with a bride price of six "measures" of barley, which is... I don't know, but Ruth carried it in her cloak.

Ruth told Naomi what had happened. Now matters were in Boaz's hands.

There is, in turns out, another complication. Boaz is not the next of kin; there is another who would come before Boaz. The next of kin is not named, but that doesn't matter. Boaz has a plan.

The next day, there is a meeting of the "elders at the gate." This was an institution not unlike the "retired guys' table at Java John's." The main difference was that whereas the retired guys talk a great deal but don't actually decide anything, the elders at the gate judged the minor disputes of the village and their decisions were binding.

So Boaz brought his case to the elders at the gate. The next-of-kin was there. Boaz said to him, "As you know, Naomi has this parcel of land of Elimelech her husband. She'd like to sell it. If you'd like the land, you have the right to buy it from her." Of course, the next-of-kin wanted to buy it and said so.

Now there was another law in ancient Israel that provided that if a married man died before he had a son to inherit his land, his brother was required to marry the man's widow. This ensured that there would be an heir to maintain the inheritance. That law didn't necessarily go with the redemption of land, but the logic was rather obvious and Boaz made a point of it.

"Oh, I almost forgot," Boaz added, springing his trap. "If you buy the land, Ruth goes with it. You know, the Moabite."

"The Moabite?" said the next-of-kin. "Um, never mind. You buy the land." And so Boaz did that. And took Ruth as his wife (and probably even let Naomi move in with them). And in due course she bore a son.

To this point the story has been a romance worthy of Jane Austen of how an unfortunate young woman—unfortunate in both senses of the word: unlucky and having no fortune of her own—arrived at a happy ending, safely married and the mother of a son.

But what comes next tells us that the writer had another motive than the desire to tell a happily-ever-after story about a sweet girl. For it is in this way that Boaz became the father of Obed. Obed in his turn became the father of Jesse. And—here's the punch line—Jesse became the father of David.

The book of Ruth was written in a time when Jews who had returned from exile in Babylon were trying to figure out who they were. Were Jews called to be a separate ethnic group, carefully preserving their purity by religiously avoiding marriages with non-Jews (pun intended). In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah this view is put forward.

Or were Jews a "light to the nations", called by God to live in such a way as to attract non-Jews to its way of life? III Isaiah, who penned the phrase "light to the nations," falls into this column. To "accept" outsiders into the covenant relationship or not is an unsettled question in the Bible.

The book of Ruth's contribution to this intra-biblical debate is the news that David, King David, the hero-king, was not only one-eighth non-Jewish. He was one-eighth Moabite, descended from one of those incest-begotten descendants of greedy Lot, Abraham's no-good nephew. David was partly Moabite. So, therefore, were all of David's heirs. So is the Son of David, the Messiah, to whom nationalist Jews looked for deliverance. So, incidentally, is Jesus, if we take his davidic descent literally.

So much for the ethnic purity of the people of the covenant. That's the point of the book of Ruth as it's found in our Bible.

Now we Americans can hardly help but read this story as it's found in our Bible through our own cultural lenses. Racism, which is the peculiarly American version and perversion of the commonly found fear of outsiders, colors our reading. White people don't, but probably should, portray Ruth as an African. David therefore—in the old but somehow constantly renewing language of Jim Crow—was what used to be called an "octoroon," one who was one-eighth "negro." The story would be more faithfully translated into our thought world if we did that.

And of course the rule of American racism is that any African ancestry renders a person—regardless of appearance—no longer white. Hence Jesus was not white.

What would it mean, I wonder, for white folks (like me) to have to re-imagine Jesus as black, to have to re-imagine the gospel as news that comes to them rather than starting with them, to have to re-imagine strangers as those who bring us salvation? This is the work that the romance of Ruth invites us to do.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.