"Don't worry!" -- Why faith and optimism are not remotely the same

Matthew 6:19-34

Matthew 6 is just great, because it is the most appropriate time to use one of my favorite quotes, from Newt Scamander, in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the one that goes: “My philosophy is worrying means that you suffer twice.”

            I love this quote, as I love this scripture, because at first they both sound tremendously optimistic. Don’t worry, be happy; it will all work out. That feels so much like the messages our society sends around faith, which can be summed up by the ol’ Jeremiah 29:11, “For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope.” Our society eats that stuff up! Don’t worry; God has plans; you’re set. Wonderfully optimistic!

            Nothing about that is wrong, per se, but all of it is misleading, because Matthew 6 and Jeremiah 29 and Newt Scamander are not at all optimistic. Scamander’s quote doesn’t say, “Don’t worry because you won’t suffer;” rather, it assumes you will suffer, so why double the suffering by adding worry on top? That’s not optimistic. Now, we can excuse that, because that quote comes from a movie about wizards, so maybe it has little to do with our faith. But Jeremiah 29:11, which is quoted as much as any scripture, most certainly does come from the Bible, and it is most often quoted in an optimistic way. Nonetheless, this verse about God’s plans is said by Jeremiah to a nation in Israel in exile, currently suffering, and the plans do not involve individual people finding their best life now, or anything like that. In fact, many will suffer and many will die before Israel is ever restored from captivity in Babylon. Jeremiah 29:11 is about God’s plans for everything, but not you, specifically. It is not optimistic about individuals avoiding suffering.

            But surely Matthew 6 must be optimistic! Don’t worry, says Jesus. Consider those lilies of the field, how beautiful they are, and God takes care of them. Surely, God will take care of us, too! Absolutely, definitely! This scripture is about assurance in the face of adversity; it is about an ultimate promise that God watches over and protects. However, because it is ultimate protection, we have to be a bit careful. The first paragraph in Matthew 6 ends by saying, “That’s what the Gentiles worry about!” That’s what those pagan Romans worry about—food and drink—because they worship gods who provide for them in the here and now. They are, in fact, obsessed with the comforts of now—nice food, nice clothes, nice things; comfort. To be a Christian is something different; it is not to pray to God asking for food and drink and clothing, or even security and comfort; it is to say, “Jesus, I will follow you wherever you go, even through death, so what sense does it make to worry?” Matthew 6:33, at the very conclusion of this paragraph that begins “Do Not Worry!” concludes by saying, “But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

            There are two ways to read that. One is to say: If I strive for the kingdom of God, God will reward me with nice things in this world. That is a possible reading, even if it doesn’t seem to match up with reality. After all, so many Christians through the ages have suffered, have died, have watched their loved ones get snatched from them, sometimes directly because of their faith. If anything, Christianity shows itself strongest in despair. So, I’m inclined toward the other reading of Matthew 6:33, which is that we are to strive for the kingdom of God with the assurance that when we suffer, when we struggle, and, eventually, when we die (which will happen for all of us, after all), that is when we will receive our reward; that is when all the pain of the world will be justified. The party is coming at the end of the story; all we have now are reflections.

God uses the least qualified. Are you still surprised?

Ruth 4

Why is the book of Ruth in the Bible?

I started three weeks ago by pointing out all the obstacles the book of Ruth faced in ever making it into the Bible: A story of a heroine in a world run by men; a moral about loving kindness for a mother-in-law to whom Ruth had no legal obligation; a story about a foreigner who was not part of the tribe. It’s one of those things that may well have happened and then dissolved into obscurity; the great-grandmother of King David who nobody talked about, as it might betray his royal blood.

And, yet, for exactly those reasons, it is so powerful that the book of Ruth persists. This is about a foreigner whose audacity to stay by Naomi’s side changed history. This is about a woman, who was property, and yet shows us a model for how to live in dark and dangerous times. This is a story that reads well today, in spite of the many and obvious differences between our society and theirs, precisely because of the unlikelihood of it all—because there are so many little, seemingly insignificant, people who do little things that make all the difference.

Ruth loved Naomi. Naomi advised Ruth. Boaz worked within the rules of the society, subtly influencing the unnamed next-of-kin to give up his inheritance, which included Ruth. All of these are little things that change the lives of all those involved, but they also suggest something about how God works through people. It’s rarely dramatic shifts, conversion experiences like Saul’s, or experiences more dramatic still, as it was with Jonah. More often, God moves just behind the scenes, subtly stirring hearts in a direction we will never see. Ruth has no idea of her part in all this, but she doesn’t have to see the big picture. Instead, because of her actions, not only does she save her mother-in-law from a life of poverty and death in obscurity, she also becomes great-grandmother to David, the great king of Israel. In that way, she becomes a central figure in the bloodline that eventually leads to Jesus.

Just a little person, doing little acts out of love.

Sex, love, power, and why the church is missing the point

Ruth 3

Well, this is an awkward part of the story of Ruth to preach, if I’m being completely honest. I guess, at least there isn’t a children’s sermon today?

I don’t mind talking about relationships, and marriage, and sex, but it’s nice when there’s something else besides it—you know, something Jesus-y, or gospel-y, or anything else, really. What is a person to do with this? What are the underlying lessons from Ruth and Boaz on the threshing floor? Is it even something we should care about, or in the words of a seminary professor, who I asked one time to write an article for our student newspaper, and who said, “I’m happy to write, as long as the subject isn’t sex… again.”

            I suppose Ruth and Boaz could appear to be a story about sexual morality, as fun as that is to preach. From a quick sampling of sermons taken from, admittedly, largely evangelical sources on this scripture, I saw a lot of stuff about sexual boundaries. That’s thrilling and all (not really), but the other thing about that is simply: That has nothing to do with what is going on here. Ruth and Boaz do not exist in 21^st century America, and if you pretend that they do, then you’re not being faithful to the scripture.

Ruth is, quite literally, property. Now, that might rub you the wrong way, and it probably should, but it is simply how the world worked in those days, and that has to color the way we look at this relationship. It’s not like Ruth and Boaz can date. Their relationship is necessarily about contracts and assurances, which is not romantic (at all), but this was life in those days. Whatever you think about the way our society handles marriage, and the role of the church in it, it has to be said that we are miles away from what Ruth was dealing with. We have our issues, but they are completely different.

It’s really hard to culturally commute between 21^st century America and 11^th century AD Israel. To that point, using the Bible as a key to sexual morality is really fraught with difficulty, because morality in the Bible is a constantly moving target. At various times, scripture allows polygamy, levirate marriage (in which a brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his wife, which is sort of what’s going on here with Ruth), and many other versions of marriage which we would aspersions on today. The society of Ruth’s age began with the clan, which was the immediate family system. You could never marry outside of the clan. This is why Ruth goes to Boaz, because he’s a close-enough relative that he might take her in and protect her. Marriage, in that time, was about security for women and property for men.

Love? The only love here is between Ruth and Naomi, her mother-in-law. There is no romance; it’s just obligation. So, the first, and perhaps greatest, lesson here is that if you’re looking for a good message about morality in marriage today, you’re barking up the wrong tree. But if you’re curious about what it looks like to value commitment to meaningful things in a broken world, then yes, delve a little deeper into Boaz and Ruth. So much of our conversation on matters of marriage, sex, and sexuality, when it happens in the church, if it happens at all, is really a guise to talk about boundaries. We don’t actually talk about sex; we talk about boundaries around sex, and it’s awkward. I know, because I have to bring it up on occasion with a bunch of middle-schoolers. You think you’re squirming! The thing is: When the church talks about sex, it is usually to hold boundaries, to say, “This is appropriate and this is not”—whatever “this” is.

Commit!

Ruth 2

I believe that the book of Ruth has a very simple moral for us, which is this: Be committed. To something, to anything, preferably to someone. Just be committed.

Last week, I talked about how Ruth’s love for Naomi defies cynicism and is a reflection of God’s love for us. After all, who could be cynical about a daughter-in-law taking care of her mother-in-law. This week, the seeds are planted for something different—a different kind of love.

            But we need to hit the brakes here for just a minute. This is not a story of commitment in terms of romantic love, at least not how we think of love today. We shouldn’t romanticize the relationship between Ruth and Boaz. From the start, this is about protection and safety, and, in this case, you could make the case that there may be all sorts of ulterior motives brewing. Ruth and Naomi need a clan to belong to, and Ruth needs safety from these mongrel men, who apparently go around bothering all the women unattached to a man. Meanwhile, Boaz can lay claim to whatever woman he wants; he has all the power in the world over her—clearly, this is not a simple case of love winning the day.

            Yet, in the midst of a society that is obviously imperfect, still there are hints of something better. This starts with the reason Boaz finds Ruth attractive. Boaz finds Ruth attractive not first because of her looks (there’s not a word here about her appearance); rather, he is interested in her for two reasons: 1. Her commitment to her work, and 2. Her commitment to Naomi. There are many reasons Boaz could have sent Ruth away. She was a foreigner, not related to the clan or anybody in it. That alone would have been enough for most. To that end, he could have essentially made her a slave. He doesn’t do any of that, and the only reason we are given is because of her commitment.