For the past four weeks, we’ve been putting women in their place! Over these four weeks we’ve discovered Sarah’s faithfulness. Natalie Johnson showed us how God used an unnamed Samaritan woman to become a powerful example of evangelism, and last week we saw how Mary of Bethany modeled true discipleship even before the men who were called Jesus’ disciples.
I’m still not sure how women came to be seen as not having a prominent place in the Kingdom of God. I mean, seriously, if it weren’t for women, nothing would ever get done around the church. Trust me…I’m a pastor…I know! Throughout the Bible, God has used women in powerful, life-changing ways. They are integral to the story of God’s salvation, and Jesus was never one to limit the capacity of any person, male or female, Gentile or Jew to be used in his kingdom. Jesus had an entourage of women who were his disciples just as he had the twelve. It was the women who stayed with him around the cross when the men bolted out of fear. It was the women who were early to the tomb on resurrection morning, and without them, the disciples might still be cowering in a room. A woman told them, “Come, see. He’s alive.”
And, I believe the Apostle Paul gets a bad rap from a serious misreading of his directives concerning the place of women in the body of Christ. When we look at the women who were engaged in ministry around Paul, and especially in the Roman church, we find it almost impossible to believe that Paul had an issue with women in ministry. He names, specifically, no less than ten women who were active in the church in Romans 16—Phoebe heads the list. It is believed that Phoebe delivered Paul’s letter to the Romans, so Paul introduces her to the Roman church, and, rather than a greeting, he gives her a glowing recommendation. Paul refers to her as “our sister” and he tells the Romans that she is a deacon of the Church in Cenchrea—a port city in Corinth. Paul asks the Roman Church to welcome her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and to give her whatever assistance she may need. The list also includes Priscilla, Mary, Junia, Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis, as well as Julia, and the mothers of Rufus and Nereus. Perhaps it has been our own misunderstanding of women in ministry, and our own misreading and misinterpretation of Scripture that have led us to think that women were somehow less in the Kingdom of God.
This year, United Methodists celebrate the 75th anniversary of the ordination of women. Methodists have led the way in offering a place for women in ministry. Wesley’s earliest class meetings actually had more women leaders than men (47 – 19), and Grace Murray, Sarah Crosby, Elizabeth Ritchie and Mary Bosanquet were early traveling preachers. Additionally, much of the success and cohesion of the early Methodist movement in America may be attributed not only to its itinerant preachers, but also to the often lifelong support of a host of women in and outside the church. And, we can’t forget that our very own Rev. Lea Joyner was one of the first women ever ordained in the Methodist Church.
I offer this long introduction just as a reminder that the body of Christ is nothing without women. It’s a reminder that God uses all of us to impact the Kingdom, and God incorporates all whom He chooses to bring about His salvation—even going so far as to incorporate a foreigner, a Gentile woman into the lineage of the Messiah. Of course, I’m talking about a woman named Ruth, and we find her story (and that of her mother-in-law, Naomi) in the book of Ruth in the Old Testament. Did you know that the book of Ruth is the only book in the Bible named after a Gentile?
Ruth’s story actually begins with the story of her mother-in-law, Naomi. Uh oh! A story that begins with a mother-in-law? That can’t be good, right? We’ve all got a mother-in-law story, don’t we? Like the man who took his wife and mother-in-law on a vacation to the Holy Land. Tragically, the mother-in-law died while in the Holy Land. The man went to the undertaker and asked how much it would cost to have her body shipped back to the States. “Five thousand dollars,” said the undertaker, “but we can provide a very nice burial here in the Holy Land for only $150.”
The man thought for a while and said, “No, I’ll pay the $5,000.”
“Why?” asked the undertaker.
“Well,” said the man, “two thousand years ago a man died over here, and they buried him. Three days later he rose from the dead. I simply can’t take that chance.”
Our story begins with tragedy. There is famine in Bethlehem—only a little irony to open the story—Bethlehem means “house of bread,” yet there is famine. That irony bespeaks a deeper irony, for you see, this was the period of the judges in the nation of Israel—a time when the people had turned away from God. Two words define the situation in Israel during this time period—chaos and disobedience. The literal famine was merely symbolic of a spiritual famine in the nation. It was during this famine that a Jewish man named Elimelech takes his wife Naomi and their two sons down to a pagan, Gentile land called Moab. The tragedy gets worse as Elimelech dies in Moab, leaving Naomi and her two sons, whose names, by the way, were sickly and puny. Naomi marries off her two sons to Moabite women, but things go from bad to worse as both sons soon die. To make matters worse, her sons had not given her any grandchildren. Naomi’s circumstances are just about as bad as they can get for a woman in ancient near eastern cultures—a widow with no men to take care of her. Naomi’s name means “pleasant,” but even she had to admit that her circumstances were “bitter” (1:20). Life had given Naomi a bitter pill to swallow.
In the midst of all this loss, Naomi hears that the situation has improved back in Bethlehem, so she decides it’s time to return to her home. Seriously, what other options does she have? Here’s a lesson I draw from this situation—it’s not the point of the message, but it’s a good lesson. We may find ourselves in the midst of a spiritual famine, a time we’ve lost touch with God, even though we’re working hard in the Kingdom. In that famine, we look outside our homeland for provision. There is some enticing philosophy, or the latest guru offering a quick fix, or some cultural fad or trend that captures our attention, and we say, “Hey, maybe that’s the answer to my circumstances.” Rather than waiting the famine out, rather than trusting the Lord, we flee to another land—a land that promises answers to life’s challenges. We flee, and we discover things only go from bad to worse—that where we thought there was provision was only more problems. As Naomi shows us, when we’re out of options, we can always go home.
There was a time in the ministry of Jesus when he had fed the five thousand and walked on the water to his disciples. The crowds who had been fed the day before clamored for Jesus to perform even more miraculous signs, even invoking the name of Moses in the process. Jesus said, “It wasn’t Moses who gave you bread. It was my Father.” He went on to challenge the people by saying, “Don’t search for the bread that perishes, but seek the bread that leads to eternal life,” and then he added, “I am the bread of life.” The Apostle John tells us that many turned away from him. He looked at his disciples and asked, “Will you turn away, too?” And Peter answered, “Lord, to whom would we go?” In those times when we feel like we’re in what St. John of the Cross called “The dark night of the soul,” we must turn to Jesus and trust that he’s the source for our life. Like I said, not the point of my message, but a good point, nonetheless.
“So, what is your point?” you ask. For that, we turn to Ruth’s part of the story. Ruth was one of the two Moabite women Naomi’s sons married. Orpah and Ruth had failed to bear either son a child, yet they continued to live in the Naomi’s household. As Naomi prepared to return to Bethlehem, she turned to Orpah and Ruth and said, “Y’all go back to your father’s homes. I’m too old to have more sons for you to marry. You don’t need to go with me. Go home and get on with your life. I release you from any obligation to me.” After a little coaxing, Orpah left, but Ruth persisted, and that’s where we hear the famous words…
16 But Ruth replied, “Don’t ask me to leave you and turn back. Wherever you go, I will go; wherever you live, I will live. Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God. 17 Wherever you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord punish me severely if I allow anything but death to separate us!”
We’ve heard those words so often quoted during a wedding ceremony, and they seem most appropriate because they speak of the depth of commitment a husband and wife are supposed to embody. But, here spoken by a daughter-in-law to a mother-in-law, they seem out of place. And, no, I’m not going to share another mother-in-law joke here, though it would fit well.
The Hebrew word for leave (1:16) is similar to the word from the vow of marriage in Genesis 2:24: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united (or cleave) to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”
The Genesis commandment was for sons to leave parents, not for daughters-in-law to cleave to their parents-in-law; but Ruth made cleaving to Naomi her choice, her business, and her destiny. Now that her husband was dead, and that her brother’s brother was dead, her obligations to Naomi were ended, but Ruth applied the vow to herself, volunteered her commitment, and bound herself to Naomi, and in so doing, Ruth demonstrated covenant love, and that’s the same kind of love God has for his people, and it is the same love we see lived out ultimately in the life of Jesus. Imagine, God chose a pagan woman to demonstrate His covenant love to a chaotic and disobedient people. God never ceases to amaze us!
We can’t talk about covenant love without thinking of “agape” love, the love Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 13…you know, “love is patient, love is kind, etc…” They are one in the same love, but long before Paul wrote about it, Ruth demonstrated it. Long before Jesus died on the cross in love, Ruth exemplified it. There are a number of characteristics we could use to describe covenant love, but time only permits one—sacrificial. Ruth was demonstrating sacrificial love to Naomi. She was giving up her culture, her people, her language, and her right to have her own children in her own land. She was putting the needs of others ahead of her own.
This kind of love is rooted in the will. It is a conscious choice made on behalf of another, and it is made without regard to cultural expectations or personal feelings. It also is rooted in the heart and character of God. Simply put, it comes from God. If we love in this way, it is because God first loved us. In Naomi’s case, Ruth is the reminder that no matter how far away we are from home, no matter how tragic our circumstances, God is with us, and God loves us. God’s love calls us home, back to the place of right relationship, back to the place of reconciliation, back to the place of our redemption. Such was the case for Naomi and Ruth as they returned to Bethlehem, and God opened the door for the provision of their lives, for it was back in Bethlehem that Ruth met a man named Boaz, who showed mercy on Ruth and Naomi. Boaz and Ruth eventually married, and they bore a son who would become King David’s grandfather…and God kept His covenant to bring salvation to His people.
It all happened at Bethlehem. It was also at Bethlehem that God came in Jesus Christ and kept his covenant, and showed us truly what sacrificial love looked like. The challenge for the church today is to love like Ruth…no, to love like Jesus. Paul said it this way:
“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2: 5 – 9).
I believe our greatest issue today in the church is that we don’t grasp the concept of sacrificial love. We cling to our politics and our preferences, wholly unwilling to surrender ourselves to the One who has promised to deliver us, to reconcile us, to redeem us. What do you have to give up today to be reconciled to a brother or sister, a father or mother, a co-worker or friend? What are you holding onto that is keeping you from the fullness of home? Why don’t we give up our rights…just like Ruth did? Let’s see what God will do in us, in His Church and in this creation. Maybe then we won’t have to worry about putting women in their place. We’ll all be in the place of God’s grace and glory.
