Loyalty is the Message

Reading

Sermon

This reading is frequently chosen for a wedding ceremony, however these words were said by a daughter-in-law to her mother-in-law. The reading comes from the first chapter of the Book of Ruth, the focus of our third sermon from the Hebrew bible in this five sermon series. I'm going to give you a synopsis of the story, then I'm going to talk about its significance psychologically, theologically and as part of an epic narrative. In the end I'll talk about what the story might mean for us as individuals and as a community.

The story begins with an Israelite family moving to Moab because of a famine in Bethlehem. Elimelech, the father and Naomi, the mother have two sons: Machlon and Kilion. Both men marry foreign, Moabite women: Ruth and Orpah.

Elimelech and his two sons die. Naomi and her two daughters-in-law are the only family members to survive. Naomi decides to return to her homeland, Bethlehem, and she urges her daughters-in-law to return to their biological mothers and find security in their homeland. Orpah chooses to remain. Ruth refuses to leave Naomi. It is her eloquent speech insisting that she accompany Naomi back to Bethlehem that is so often read at weddings.

The two women travel back to Bethlehem. Naomi takes a new name when she comes back to her homeland -- Mara (which means bitterness). She seeks consolation from her old friends for the unfortunate turn of events in her life. At the end of this first scene we learn that Bethlehem is once more a land of plenty. The barley harvest is just beginning and there is every indication it will be abundant.

The welfare system in those days was simple. Poor people without any means of support ­ like Naomi and Ruth ­ could scavenge fields that had already been harvested for what grain the hired workers left behind. Ruth insists that she be the one to do the work. She goes to the fields owned by Boaz, a relative of Elimelech, Ruth's deceased father-in-law. Boaz takes an interest in Ruth, noting her devotion to Naomi. He shares his own food with her and makes certain his workers leave extra stalks behind, just for her. This kindness continues through the harvest season. Naomi takes note of Boaz's philanthropy.

In the third scene Naomi acts as a yenta. Seeing Boaz's interest in her daughter-in-law, she suggests that Ruth propose to Boaz. She suggests that Ruth do it in the customary way ­ that is, to lie beside Boaz when he is sleeping, and, when he awakes, to ask him to cover her with his cloak. As timing is everything, she suggests that Ruth do this during the harvest celebration, when Boaz falls asleep during an overnight party. When he awakes Boaz does as Ruth asks. He is impressed with her initiative, considering it yet another sign of her loyalty to Naomi and her dead husband. Yet Boaz must first go through some legal hoops. There is another man who is ahead of Boaz in the Hebraic "next-of-kin" system. So Boaz tells Ruth he will do what he can to secure a legal right to marry her.

The city gate ­ a public place ­ is where all public business is conducted. He goes there and announces that Naomi is interested in selling Elimelech's property. The man with the closer connection to the family ­ the one with the first claim -- expresses interest. Boaz reminds this perspective buyer that Ruth and Naomi come with the land, that whomever buys the property must marry Ruth, and that any sons she bears will be raised in her dead husband's lineage. The unnamed man decides he doesn't want the land or Ruth and withdraws his offer. The way is clear for Boaz. The man and Boaz make the transaction official during a sandal-passing ceremony.

Boaz and Ruth live happily ever after. They have a son, Obed, who becomes the father of Jesse, who is the father of David.

Ruth is said to be one of the most loved books of the Bible ­ the entire work, including both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Part of its attraction is its literary quality. F.T. Blanchard, quoted in The Interpreter's Bible, a reference work cites its simple narrative. The plot is carried forward clearly through the different scenes. Each scene includes just enough details of setting, characters, and action. Suspense is sustained by "'dramatic detail'" and the final resolution occurs "'just before the final curtain.'"

James T. Cleland, writing in the same volume describes Ruth as a folk tale. He says

the point of view that we should bring to its analysis should be that of the poet, or the storyteller; the approach had better be that of John Bunyan rather than of John Calvin; perhaps Tolstoy's fables, Wordsworth's nature poems, and the parables of Jesus should be required reading before Ruth is expounded and applied.

Cleland goes on to point out the classic opening words, "Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled". "Now it came to pass" is a formulaic way to begin a story, just was we might say, "Once upon a time." "In the days when judges ruled" sets the story in time, however it also hints that this story will not be about the major characters of the time, but of minor characters. That the story will not be historical in nature, but more a tale of common folk going about their daily lives ­ what Cleland calls "a quiet tale of a country family."

So Ruth is well written. There are some inconstancies about it ­having to do, perhaps, with the fact that it probably originated in oral form about 1000 BCE and was written down in 500 BCE. But all in all, it is a model of a short narrative that has held up over time.

As well as being interesting as a literary document, Ruth has attracted the attention of those interested in its psychological depths. Ann Belford Ulanov, is both a Professor of Psychiatry and Religion at Union Theological Seminary in New York City and a Jungian analyst in private practice. She writes about Ruth in a book entitled The Female Ancestors of Christ. Jungians think of our interior process ­ both psychological and spiritual ­ as having both feminine and masculine dimensions. Therefore, any analysis must use these dimensions in its paradigm.

Ulanov interprets the opening passages as symbolizing "deep disturbance". In patriarchal Judah, or Bethlehem, there is famine, because the masculine outweighs the feminine. Four people ­ three men and one woman ­ leave Judah and travel to Moab. There, two more women are added to the group, and the three men die. One woman remains behind, and two women journey back to Judah. Apparently some masculine energy had to leave and some feminine energy had to arrive to rebalance Bethlehem and make it a land of plenty again. For Ulanov, the story seems to illustrate the need for balance between feminine and masculine characteristics.

The rest of the story emphasizes what Jungians call feminine characteristics, namely compassion. Ulanov points out that the friendship between Ruth and Naomi "springs from the feminine." She goes on to say that Ruth's love for Naomi is her animating strength.

Ruth's devotion reaches below the conventions of collective consciousness to the hidden feminine values of love and faith that spring from unfamiliar depths in the collective unconscious where the spirit makes its presence felt and Being is defined: The quality of [her bonding with Naomi] transcends hierarchy and rules, country and custom, generations and faiths. It engenders courage. It undergirds relationships between women, between women and men, or between men. It is the quality that defines Ruth's role as redeemer.

Ulanov has much more to say in her 20-page analysis of the Ruth story. If this is your interest, I invite you to borrow the book, which is on our sharing table and return it to the library.
Ulanov's analysis makes me think about two ways of living ethically ­ one is by an ethic of fairness and the other is by an ethic of care. Jungians might say the ethic of fairness is masculine, and the ethic of care if feminine. The two people who have written about these two systems are Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan. In an effort to make their systems a little more intelligible, this is how I interpret them.

Ethics assumes relationships between ourselves and others. These others can be other human beings or other beings or God or Earth. There are two ethical systems ­ an Ethic of Fairness and an Ethic of Care. Both have stages.

They look alike in the early stage of development. In the sandbox or on the beach, three year olds claim sand toys as their own ­ whether they are or not. "Mine!" is a favorite word. One's own self is more important than the other. In fact, after a few days at home, older siblings have often expressed the opinion that the new baby can go back to the hospital now! In families, at church, and in nursery school, children learn to share what is theirs and ask to borrow or for a turn with what belongs to another. It doesn't matter if the three year old will be socialized in an ethic of care or in an ethic of fairness, in early ethical development you can't tell the difference. Except for how they may be instructed ­ consider that Johnny may be told, "That isn't fair!" and Janie may be told, "You made Johnny cry. That's not nice!"

At the conventional stage, in an Ethic of Fairness there are rules to govern what is fair. For instance, every state has a motor vehicle code. Some states, like Florida say it's safe to drive 70 even 75 miles per hour. Other states say no, 55 miles per hour tops! In the code, these rules apply to everyone alike. In a case of vehicular homicide, other ethical considerations may come into play ­ but that's another sermon.

In an Ethic of Care, relationships rather than rules are primary. At the conventional stage, those socialized in an Ethic of Care must sacrifice themselves for the other. Parents of colicky babies sacrifice their sleep to care for their infants. An ethic of fairness may call them to take turns, but the ethic of care is primary. If parents were entirely rule-bound, they might let the babies scream, wear ear plugs, and try to sleep, figuring the infants will figure out the rules if they don't pick the anxious parents don't pick them up.

At the conventional stage, in an Ethic of Fairness both self and other are factored into the situation. At the conventional stage, in an Ethic of Care self is sacrificed to the needs of the other.

At the advanced stage, these two situations are flipped. One following an Ethic of Fairness is called to sacrifice himself for the other ­ like Jesus, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., like Mohandas Ghandi. In a less dramatic scenario, some dads work at jobs they don't especially like because the work is steady, pays a fairly good wage, and supports the family.

At the advance stage, one following an Ethic of Care is called to consider her own needs as well as the other's. So a mom who is mature ethically will ask for support in meeting her children's needs, rather than continually to sacrifice her needs to theirs. That's why we need baby buddies and youth advisors ­ in an Ethic of Care it is reasonable to expect support. Too often we hear (out of an Ethic of Fairness ­ conventional stage), "I worked in the Religious Education program for umpteen years when my kids were little! Let the parents do it!"

To get back to the story of Ruth, what's interesting to me is that both ethical systems are operating ­ one is not dominate over the other. Yes, Ruth cares for Naomi and sacrifices herself in a conventional way to support her mother-in-law. Yes, Boaz takes pity on the two widowed women and, using an ethic of care, sacrifices possible profit to ensure their survival. But, when Boaz and Ruth decide to marry, Boaz follows the ethic of fairness and consults with the man whose claim is greater than his own. Their union ­ Boaz and Ruth's ­ is a win-win situation. Ruth progresses to an advanced level in the ethic of care, for by marrying Boaz she meets her own needs for fulfillment as well as her mother-in-law's need for sustenance and a continued lineage. If we assume that Boaz operates primarily out of an ethic of fairness, he also progresses to an advanced level on his own track by giving up the possibility of heirs for himself to give seed to the lineage which will become so important in Hebrew and Christian history ­ but I'm getting ahead of myself.

As well as having literary, psychological and ethical meaning, Ruth has theological meaning. It is from this meaning that I chose today's sermon title "Loyalty is the Message."

The Book of Ruth is a Biblical oasis. In the form we read the Bible in today, it follows seven books of 60, 48, 30, 51, 46, 28, and 29 pages. It is followed by three books, each 70 pages long. Ruth is four pages long! It think this is significant. I don't think the people who put the Hebrew Bible together stuck this little four page story in there just to relieve the monotony of the epic narrative of the Hebrew people. I think its brevity and its literary simplicity signals an important theological message ­ loyalty is redemptive. In a sense, you could say it is the short commercial message between the two halves of the main show ­ what the sponsors want you to remember above all else. Ruth redeems the Elimelech lineage because she is loyal to Naomi. Ruth redeems Naomi's suffering because of her loyalty. Ruth redeems the sterility of Boaz's material success because of her loyalty. Ruth redeems her own life, not in response to some heavenly messenger, but in loyalty to the spirit that moves and speaks within her, and in loyalty to her central value: love.

This simple truth ­ almost buried in volumes of epic narrative and genealogical lists ­ will be stated again in the Christian Bible by Jesus of Nazareth. Just as the conclusion presages Jesus' birth in the Davidic lineage, the Ruth message presages Jesus' redemptive message.

One final note about the story itself. Just as I mentioned that the story is like a brief commercial message in a much longer show, it ends with a commercial message ­ at which I just hinted. This little story sets up the possibility of the greatness that is to follow. Obed, the son born to Boaz and Ruth, becomes the link that leads the story to King David, a pivotal figure in the Hebrew story. King David transforms from a warrior king to a wounded king to a religious king. But that's another story.

I think there are at least four lessons we can take from the story of Ruth. The first is to be loyal to one's call. I spoke last week about Moses' call to lead the Israelites out of their slavery in Egypt. Ruth has no burning bush, yet she was called to follow Naomi just as certainly as Moses was called to lead the exodus. We live in an age when loyalty is a rare virtue. Politicians are not loyal to their constituents or the founding values of our country. Merchants are not loyal to their customers. Corporations are not loyal to their employees. As a people we are not loyal to our children, or else we would have more than five schools in Volusia and Flagler counties with an "A" rating and far fewer mediocre "C's", and one child in five would not go to bed hungry at night.

So Ruth offers us a model of loyalty. In the end, not only does she redeem the Israelite lineage, she redeems herself and Naomi and Boaz. I am sure she and Naomi lived happily ever after as friends, just as Ruth and Boaz lived happily ever after as husband and wife. The magic number seven ­ Ruth and Boaz had seven sons ­ indicates completion, or wholeness. If we are to be whole, we must be loyal.

The second lesson I take from the Ruth story is to be mindful of the opportunities we have for creating family. Ruth and Naomi's friendship made them a family. They supported one another. Naomi looked out for Ruth just as Ruth looked out for Naomi. They were not a family in the conventional sense of the time.

The third lesson goes along with the second ­ in creating families, include the stranger.
The religious right would like to define family as having two parents ­ a male and a female ­ and children. They do not recognize two women as a family ­ with or without children. Or two men ­ again, with or without children. Or a single woman with children. Or a single man with children. Or grandparents raising their grandchildren. Or a household of people ­ some with children, some not -- who clump together because of shared loyalty, values and interests.

Interracial marriage was illegal in this country until very recently, and the Y2K census is the first U.S. census in which someone may claim racial lineage in more than one category.

In the adoption field, more foreign girls than foreign boys are adopted because some families are reticent to have their name carried on by a child who doesn't look like them or who may grow up to be shorter than them.

Ruth and Naomi were from different countries and cultures. They were foreigners to each other. As Unitarian Universalists we have much to learn from Naomi and Ruth's story because it can guide us to becoming congregations which welcome foreigners ­ those who are different from ourselves. It can lead us to welcome bisexual, gay, lesbian and transgender persons. It can guide us to becoming racially integrated. It can guide us to becoming congregations where those with physical, emotional and mental disabilities will find a place. It can guide is in welcoming those whose class backgrounds or present class are different from our own. Ruth, the stranger, redeemed Israel. Ruth, the stranger, could redeem Unitarian Universalism as well.

Finally, this story reminds me that we never know what's around the corner. It's obvious that Naomi, even with Ruth's companionship, felt bereft and abandoned by her God when she returned home to Bethlehem alone, with only Ruth to accompany her. Gone were her husband and two sons and any hope of progeny in her husband's line, which was her own. Through very little effort on her own part, Naomi's life changed from one of despair to one of delight. Grace happens. We must never forget it. Much as we try to imagine the future, often it has surprises for us which we would never even have conceived of. We have to leave spaces for grace to happen. If we control our lives too tightly there isn't room for the redemptive power of love which can transform us and our situations.

To celebrate the power of grace, depicted in this story as being feminine, let us sing the first two verses of hymn 327 "Joy, Thou Goddess" ­ the verses in English.