Brad Sullivan
Proper 27, Year B
Sunday, November 8th, 2009
Emmanuel, Houston
Ruth 3:1-5; 4:13-17
Psalm 127
Hebrews 9:24-28
Mark 12:38-44
In our story from Ruth today, you may have noticed that there was a whole lot missing from the middle of the story, 24 verses which really explain what was going on in this story today. I assume some of y’all know the story of Ruth, but for those who don’t. Ruth was the daughter-in-law of Naomi. Naomi, her husband and her two sons were fairly well-to-do Israelites, but there was a famine so they moved away and found wives for their two sons, one of whom was Ruth.
Unfortunately, before very long, all three of the men died, and Naomi, Ruth, and Orpha, the other wife, were all widows. Orpha goes on back to her family, but Ruth seems to love her mother-in-law, Naomi, very much and clings to her. So, they return to Israel.
Now, as widows, Naomi and Ruth were in a tough spot. Back then, they couldn’t just go out and get jobs. Like it or not, by their society and culture back then, women were fairly dependent on men to provide, and so we see in the opening verses of our reading today, Naomi telling Ruth to seek some security by going to their kinsman Boaz. Ruth does so, and in the missing verses, we see a negotiation going on between Boaz and a nearer kinsman to Naomi and Ruth. The negotiation was basically about who would marry Ruth.
Naomi and Ruth had land. Like I said earlier Naomi and her family were fairly well-to-do. Now that they were widows, their nearest kinsmen could purchase the land thereby increasing his own holdings and helping to provide for the widows. The catch was, Boaz tells this nearer kinsman that if he bought the land, he would also have to marry Ruth and raise children for her. He did not want to do that because it might hurt his own financial standing, having to provide for kids, so he and Boaz agree that Boaz would acquire the land and marry Ruth, which we see at the end of our reading that he does.
Now again, we may not like women being negotiated over almost like property, not like property, but almost, however, we see in the actions of Boaz a man who was willing to take on some personal risk in order to care for the widows among them according to the rules of their society. Boaz was a righteous man, caring for the widow.
Fastforward around 900 years. In our Gospel story, today, Jesus is denouncing the scribes because they didn’t take care of the widows among them. Rather, Jesus says, the Scribes “devour widows’ houses”. What exactly that phrase means, I have not found, but here’s my speculation. Perhaps widows in Jesus’ time would sell their land and possessions in order to make ends meat. Scribes were often administrators even over financial matters so perhaps the scribes were taking a good portion of the sale for themselves and for the Temple treasury rather than leaving all of it with the widow.
We may say that even the widows should give something to the treasury, but the scribes were taking far more than they should have been. Further, part of the reason for the treasury was to take care of the widows. Every three years, a substantial part of the tithe was supposed to go to the widows to take care of them. By Jesus’ indictment, it seems that this practice may not have been happening either or at least not to the extent it should have been.
Then, we see the example of the widow giving her two copper coins. We tend to read this as an example of a widow with great faith, giving out of her extreme poverty, and then we all get to feel badly for not giving enough, even if in poverty. The story of the widow giving the coins, however, is placed right next to the indictment against the scribes for devouring widows’ houses. It seems to me that while this woman’s faith and generosity is praisworthy, she shouldn’t have been giving anything to the treasury, or at least not being asked to do so.
The administrators of the treasury should have been taking care of her, not the other way around, but they liked their honors and wealth and pretty clothes and flowing robes (and no, the irony of saying that while wearing an alb an chasuble is not lost on me). The scribes should have been acting like Boaz did when he took care of Naomi and Ruth. Instead, they placed their value on themselves and on the temple and the religion, even if it meant the people in their charge suffered.
They made big shows about how much they had and how much they gave, but they forgot that God was not glorified through money or big presentations of wealth. God would have been glorified by the people taking care of one another. God would have been glorified by the leaders of the people caring for the people as much as God cared for the people.
The widow, then, who gives the two copper coins is certainly to be praised for her generosity and faith, but rather than a figure who teaches us to give to the church until we are impoverished and then keep on giving until we have nothing, I think she is more an example of the injustice and abuse that can happen when leaders take advantage of the least among them rather than care for the least among them. The widow is an example of the injustice and abuse that can happen when the institution and the practices of a religion become more important than the people that religion is meant to shepherd or even more important than God to whom that religion is meant to guide people.
Now, we are about to make someting of a show of brining our pledges up to the altar to blessed. I don’t believe, however, that we are falling into the same error of the scribes. The purpose of our “show” of bringing our pledges to the altar to be blessed is not to show how great or generous we all are. All the pledge cards look the same; they don’t start glowing if someone gives a huge amount. No individual is going to be showing off his or her generosity or wealth in the presentation of the pledges. Rather, we’re bringing the pledges up to the altar together in order to give thanks together.
Our pledges are our thank offerings to God for all that he has given each of us. Further, we’re not giving as individuals, but as a community. We’re not giving to achieve prominence within a religion, but to give thanks as a community and to help keep this community alive and well. We’re giving as a community to nurture this community with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to offer the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those beyond this community. We do not worship a God who is honored by vast sums of money given to make religion beautiful. We do worship a God who cares deeply for people. We worship a God who desires for us to care for each other, especially the least among us. We worship a God who is honored by the love we show him through loving one another, a God who is honored by us caring for each other as a community, by caring for those beyond ourselves, and by inviting others into the Gospel life of love, charity, and thanksgiving. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment