Exodus 15:22-27

²² Then Moses made Israel set out from the Red Sea, and they went into the wilderness of Shur. They went three days in the wilderness and found no water. ²³ When they came to Marah, they could not drink the water of Marah because it was bitter; therefore it was named Marah. ²⁴ And the people grumbled against Moses, saying, “What shall we drink?” ²⁵ And he cried to the Lord, and the Lord showed him a log, and he threw it into the water, and the water became sweet. There the Lord made for them a statute and a rule, and there he tested them, ²⁶ saying, “If you will diligently listen to the voice of the Lord your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, your healer.” ²⁷ Then they came to Elim, where there were twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees, and they encamped there by the water.

Have you ever noticed that valleys tend to come fast on the heels of mountaintops? Why is it that the greatest moments tend to give rise to the most anticlimactic moments? There are times when we are tempted to agree with T.S. Eliot’s famous conclusion to his poem “The Hollow Men.”

This is the way the world ends


This is the way the world ends


This is the way the world ends


Not with a bang but a whimper.

There is almost a cruel irony to life.

I once spoke with a man who told me that his great-grandfather survived the brutal and bloody 1862 Battle of Antietam in which the combined number of dead, wounded, and missing was over 22,000. Shortly after the end of the war, however, a hoisted cotton bail fell on his grandfather and killed him.

In the oft-repeated words of Kurt Vonnegut from Slaughterhouse Five, “So it goes.”

Perhaps that is how the Israelites felt when they came to the bitter waters of Marah after having just survived the Red Sea. Which is to say that it would indeed be ironic to survive the Red Sea only to die beside an oasis. But for a moment this looked like exactly what was about to happen.

For a moment.

God delivers the grumbling children of Israel through a contrasting water miracle.

The Israelites have just been delivered from Pharaoh’s army in the startling passage through the Red Sea. God is on their side. Then, in the first part of Exodus 15, they rejoice with singing and dancing! These are thrilling times indeed. Now they set out toward home. But there is a problem.

²² Then Moses made Israel set out from the Red Sea, and they went into the wilderness of Shur. They went three days in the wilderness and found no water. ²³ When they came to Marah, they could not drink the water of Marah because it was bitter; therefore it was named Marah. ²⁴ And the people grumbled against Moses, saying, “What shall we drink?”

Three days in and the people, understandably, were parched. Surely God did not bring them through the Red Sea simply to have them die in the wilderness, did He? The “water of Marah” may refer either to “the Bitter Lakes” or an oasis called Bir Marah “where the water is saline with heavy mineral content.”[1]

Clearly this was an untenable situation. Hundreds of thousands of thirsty Israelites hear that water is near. Their hearts soar with expectation! They rejoice at the faithful provision of God. They begin to press forward. Then those at the back hear an approaching murmur. It grows louder as it spreads. What is that they are saying? “It is undrinkable! It is marah! It is bitter!”

You will perhaps recognize this word marah. It is what Naomi renames herself in the end of Ruth 1 as she launches her complaint against God to the Bethlehemite women. Bitter! The water is bitter!

Nobody likes undrinkable water, not even the Lord! As He says to the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:15-16 concerning their bland non-commitment, “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” Furthermore, in Jude 12, Jude writes of the taunting disappointment of expecting water and finding none when he metaphorically describes the false teachers as “waterless clouds.”

Whether it be grossly lukewarm or bitter or merely a mirage that does not deliver what it promises, undrinkable water is a plague. Thus, they “grumbled” against Moses. Moses, in turn, “cried to the Lord.”

But before we see how this episode concludes, let us ponder a moment on the nature of human fickleness. To respond with unraveling fear before a bitter oasis when the Lord God miraculous delivered you through the waters of the Red Sea just three days earlier is as glorious an example of human fickleness as one could ever want. “What is remarkable,” Philip Ryken writes, “is not that God was able to perform the miracle at Marah, but that he was willing to do it for such a bunch of malcontents…God’s grace is so amazing that he even provides for whiners, provided that we really are his children.”[2]

This is very well said. How very, very quickly we forget. And this is why it is difficult to judge the children of Israel too harshly. Do we not do the exact same thing? Do we not fret about oases after being delivered through seas? Certainly we do. No sooner has the Lord delivered us from life-threatening challenges than we start complaining about challenges that are trifles in comparison.

To be sure, the prospect of slowly dying from lack of water in the wilderness is no mere trifle, but, again, this episode happened after the most staggering act of miraculous deliverance in human history to date. The Lord, however, is indeed merciful to His grumbling children.

^25a And he cried to the Lord, and the Lord showed him a log, and he threw it into the water, and the water became sweet.

Once again, God saved His people in a watery miracle, this time by having them throw “a log” into the water that rendered it drinkable. Victor Hamilton explains that, “ʿĒṣ normally means “tree,” but “stick, twig” is the meaning in some passages (Ezek. 37: 16, 19).”[3] Regardless, it had the desired effect.

Was the tree just a tree that God miraculous enabled to change the nature of the water, or did the tree have inherent neutralizing properties unknown to the Israelites and God simply pointed them to the natural solution to their predicament? Both cases have been argued. Roy Honeycutt, for instance, suggests that “the tree possessed purifying qualities, and the Lord utilized the created order for the fulfillment of his own purposes. The latent energies of the world came to life under the responsible direction of a man committed to the will of God, and Israel was delivered.”[4]

I personally see this as a miraculous transformation of otherwise normal wood into an agent of change for the water. Regardless, God showed up once again and saved His people. I say this is a “contrasting water miracle” because it does indeed offer ironic contrasts to the miracle of the Red Sea. Consider:

• At the Red Sea Israel did not want to go into the water but they had to. At Marah Israel wanted to get into the water but could not at first.
• At the Red Sea Israel thought they would die beside a large body of water. At Marah Israel thought they would die before a small body of water.
• At the Red Sea God saved Israel by keeping them from contact with the water. At Marah God saved Israel by enabling them to have contact with the water.
• At the Red Sea Israel moved from fear to joy. At Marah Israel moved from joy to fear to joy again.

It is indeed intriguing to consider the nature of these watery miracles. The constant, however, was the love and grace and provision of Almighty God, Who delivered His people.

God delivers His children through an early giving of Law.

There is another miracle here, and it does not involve water. In fact, we may be tempted not to consider it a miracle at all, but truly it is. I speak here of God’s giving of an initial law to Israel as well as His charging them to obey and live.

^25b There the Lord made for them a statute and a rule, and there he tested them, ²⁶ saying, “If you will diligently listen to the voice of the Lord your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, your healer.” ²⁷ Then they came to Elim, where there were twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees, and they encamped there by the water.

I say that this giving of “a statute and a rule” is a miracle because revelation always is. Out of the abundance of His own mercies, God established His law with His people. We are not at Sinai yet and the great giving of the Law, but here we find a kind of proto-law. Furthermore, he reinforced in their minds that obedience will lead to life. Specifically, the Lord told Israel that if they were obedient and kept His commandments, “I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians”

That was an interesting way to put it: “I will put none of these diseases on you.” Victor Hamilton has offered some fascinating insights into how we likely should understand this saying

To what might “the sicknesses that I set upon Egypt” refer? Possibly characteristic Egyptian sicknesses like dysentery or elephantiasis. More likely the reference is to the plagues of chaps. 7– 12, although the word “sickness” is never used to describe any of them. If this is correct, the plagues in Egypt begin with nobody being “able to drink the water” (Exod. 7: 18, 21, 24). Similarly, Israel’s journey Canaan-ward begins with nobody “able to drink the water.” Egypt’s water got a staff (Exod. 7: 17). Israel’s water got a stick.[5]

Hamilton is right. This is likely a reference to the plagues put on Egypt. God is telling His people that He will not do to them what He did to Egypt, but they need to trust in Him and walk with Him and obey Him.

Hamilton’s point about the first plague of Egypt rendering the water undrinkable (by turning the water of the Nile into blood) is important. Perhaps God’s assurance that He would not do to Israel what He did to Egypt is evidence that the Israelites were grumbling precisely this accusation beside the bitter waters of Marah. Perhaps some of them were thinking, “He rendered their water undrinkable. Now He has done it to us. He has brought us out here to strike us with the same plagues with which He struck Egypt.”

To which God says, “No! I will not treat my own people as I treated wicked, murderous Egypt. But you must walk with Me and obey Me.”

This principle still applies. God is immutable, unchanging, and does not vary how He deals with His people. To obey God’s commandments is to walk the path of life. To disobey is to walk the path of death.

Of course, this presents us with a dilemma, as none of us are able to walk the path of obedience with perfection or complete purity. This is where the gospel shines the most splendidly, for this gospel tells us that there was One who walked the path of perfect obedience for us: Jesus. When we come to Him, we are covered by His righteousness, His obedience, and His perfection. This, of course, must not give rise to thoughts of lawlessness on our parts, as if the righteousness of Christ could be stolen and manipulated by wicked hands. In truth, the man who comes to Christ will never dare consider that the righteousness of God is in any way a license for sin. Paul deals a definitive deathblow to such an absurd idea in Romans 6.

¹ What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? ² By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? ³ Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴ We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. ⁵ For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. ⁶ We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. ⁷ For one who has died has been set free from sin. ⁸ Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. ⁹ We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. ¹⁰ For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. ¹¹ So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. ¹² Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. ¹³ Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. ¹⁴ For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Here we begin to understand that what God did for Israel at the waters of Marah God does for the hearts of all who will come to Christ: He changes the bitter into sweet, the unpalatable into the delightful, death into life. God is still in the business of delivering His grumbling children. He does so through and in Jesus, the King who makes all things new.

Are you stuck in the bitter waters of Marah? Come to the everlasting waters of Christ! Take His hand and take His way and He will lead you home.

[1] John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p.91.

[2] Philip Graham Ryken, p.422.

[3] Hamilton, Victor P. (2011-11-01). Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Kindle Locations 8013-8014). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[4] Roy L. Honeycutt, Jr. “Exodus.” The Broadman Bible Commentary. Vol.1, Revised (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1969), p.379.

[5] Hamilton, Victor P., Kindle Locations 8129-8133.

My friend Eugene Curry sent me Edward Feser’s latest salvo in the fracas between him and David Bentley Hart.  I will not summarize the squabble here because Feser lays out a bit of a timeline in his post.  It is an interesting discussion, and a rather heady one.  I daresay that ego certainly appears to be playing its role on both sides of what is otherwise an insightful exchange.

I am intrigued, however, by Feser’s reference to the “terrorism of obscurantism” and think that is probably a reasonable charge to lay at Hart’s feet.  I am, again, much more familiar with Hart, and have read with great profit his Atheist Delusions and The Doors of the Sea.  That being said, I have been disappointed with Hart on two fronts:  (a) his overly-simplistic skewering of conservative hermeneutics and (b) his (in my opinion) caricaturing of William Lane Craig.  Even so, I appreciate Hart’s work on atheism and theodicy, though he likely does at times traffic in excessive obscurantism.  Here’s the Feser post.

I have only recently read Barry Hankins’ article, “‘I’m Just Making a Point’:  Francis Schaeffer and the Irony of Faithful Christian Scholarship.”  If you are familiar with the late Francis Schaeffer or, if like me and countless others, you were influenced at some point in your life by his writings, you will likely find this article troubling and enthralling.

As I say, like many others, I was deeply influenced by Francis Schaeffer, particularly as a teenager and a college student.  Those who were impacted by Schaeffer oftentimes have a similar story:  he awakened within us the possibility of being intellectually satisfied Christians who could emerge from the fundamentalist ghetto and engage the culture without hating or hiding from it.  Especially those coming out of fundamentalism found reading Schaeffer to be a heady, exhilarating, and even dangerous experience.  Could one really actually like and appreciate Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Albert Camus, etc?  For those raised in certain branches of conservative Southern Protestantism in particular, this was gloriously liberating.

But, like many others, Schaeffer managed to sow the seeds that would oftentimes grow to cause his fans to question him.  For me, this happened when, under Schaeffer’s influence, I actually read Soren Kierkegaard.  In short, the experience caused me to question Schaeffer’s method and the very broad brush with which he painted (in the case of Kierkegaard, this was a very negative brush).  Furthermore, some of Schaeffer’s conclusion are too neat, too tidy, and lacking in the nuance that real life usually presents the observer.

At the end of the day, I retain a fondness for Schaeffer, a fondness that is somewhat buttressed by nostalgia, but now it is measured with a strong degree of hesitation and a recognition of his limitations and, at points, outright mistakes.  Schaeffer opened a door for me.  Having walked through it, I realize with a degree of sadness that I have, in part, parted company with him.

In part.

Hankins’ article is a fascinating look at Schaeffer’s falling out with Christian historians Mark Noll, George Marsden, and Ronald Wells over some of the issues I have referenced above.  I offer a pdf of the article here as a fascinating case study in competing approaches to Christianity and culture and the Christian understanding of history and philosophy.

“‘I’m Just Making a Point’: Francis Schaeffer and the Irony of Faithful Christian Scholarship”

Ruth 3

¹ Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, “My daughter, should I not seek rest for you, that it may be well with you? ² Is not Boaz our relative, with whose young women you were? See, he is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. ³ Wash therefore and anoint yourself, and put on your cloak and go down to the threshing floor, but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. ⁴ But when he lies down, observe the place where he lies. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down, and he will tell you what to do.” ⁵ And she replied, “All that you say I will do.” ⁶ So she went down to the threshing floor and did just as her mother-in-law had commanded her. ⁷ And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came softly and uncovered his feet and lay down. ⁸ At midnight the man was startled and turned over, and behold, a woman lay at his feet! ⁹ He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer.” ¹⁰ And he said, “May you be blessed by the Lord, my daughter. You have made this last kindness greater than the first in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. ¹¹ And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a worthy woman. ¹² And now it is true that I am a redeemer. Yet there is a redeemer nearer than I. ¹³ Remain tonight, and in the morning, if he will redeem you, good; let him do it. But if he is not willing to redeem you, then, as the Lord lives, I will redeem you. Lie down until the morning.” ¹⁴ So she lay at his feet until the morning, but arose before one could recognize another. And he said, “Let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor.” ¹⁵ And he said, “Bring the garment you are wearing and hold it out.” So she held it, and he measured out six measures of barley and put it on her. Then she went into the city. ¹⁶ And when she came to her mother-in-law, she said, “How did you fare, my daughter?” Then she told her all that the man had done for her, ¹⁷ saying, “These six measures of barley he gave to me, for he said to me, ‘You must not go back empty-handed to your mother-in-law.’” ¹⁸ She replied, “Wait, my daughter, until you learn how the matter turns out, for the man will not rest but will settle the matter today.”

Oddly enough, our chapter made the news recently. On May 12, 2015, a BBC article entitled “Rare 1611 ‘Great She Bible’ found in Lancashire church” tells of a British church’s discovery of a most interesting Bible in their church.

A rare 400-year-old Bible worth about £50,000 has been discovered in a Lancashire village church.

Printed in 1611 and known as the “Great She Bible”, it is one of the earliest known copies of the King James Version (KJV) of the Christian holy book.

It will be displayed at St Mary’s Parish Church in Gisburn on Saturday.

The Reverend Anderson Jeremiah and the Reverend Alexander Baker found the old book following their appointment at the church last August.

It is called a “She Bible” because Chapter 3, Verse 15 of the Book of Ruth mistakenly reads: “She went into the city”.

Thought to be typographical mistake, this verse was changed from another KJV edition which said “He”.

The Bible has been assessed and authenticated by the Antiquarian Booksellers’ Association.

Only a handful of the “She Bibles” still exist. Oxford and Cambridge Universities have one, as do Salisbury, Exeter and Durham cathedrals.[1]

Strange, no? The Hebrew text says that “he” went into the city in Ruth 3:15, whereas the context clearly demands that is was “she” who went into the city. So this Great She Bible is so named because of a translation issue surrounding a particular part of a particular verse in Ruth 3. It is humorous, really, because the great scandal of the chapter is not that she left the threshing floor and went into the city but rather that she, Ruth, left the city and came to the threshing floor!

This is a rather eyebrow-raising chapter, and a profoundly important one, for in Ruth 3 Ruth does something that, if taken the wrong way, could have seriously backfired and put her in a very dangerous situation. If received, it could open the door for her and Boaz’s relationship to move to new heights. I am talking about Ruth coming to Boaz in the night and making a surprising statement of love and devotion to him in a rather surprising way.

The chapter has been subject to various interpretations over the years. Katharine Sakenfeld writes that she has talked with people who see what happens in Ruth 3 as “a steamy tryst between mutually desiring persons (in the genre of the North American soap opera or formulaic romance novel),” whereas others she has spoken with see it as “a beautiful but needy young Ruth forcing herself to relate to a rough, pot-bellied, snaggle-toothed (but rich) old man for the sake of her mother-in-law,” and still others who see it as “a wily, scheming Ruth cooperating with Naomi to compromise and thus force the hand of the most handsome and wealthy bachelor of the community.”[2]

In truth, the context and tone and details of the story would suggest that what we have here is, again, a shocking declaration of love. Ruth, to use our terminology, really puts herself out there! There is nothing sinful in what she does, though there is something very unorthodox about it. On the upper level of the story, what we have here is a plea for salvation that is met by the offered redemption of a loving God.

We will be approaching Ruth 3 with the following thesis in mind: redemption happens when desperate need leads to a radical plea for salvation and is met with saving grace. We will deal first with the nature of the radical plea.

Redemption happens when desperate need leads to a radical plea for salvation and is met with saving grace.

As chapter two ends, Ruth has recounted to her mother-in-law that is was one of their kinsman-redeemers, Boaz, who had so richly and generously blessed the women through the kindness and provision and offered her. Naomi apparently realized that this relationship could become even more.

¹ Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, “My daughter, should I not seek rest for you, that it may be well with you? ² Is not Boaz our relative, with whose young women you were? See, he is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. ³ Wash therefore and anoint yourself, and put on your cloak and go down to the threshing floor, but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. ⁴ But when he lies down, observe the place where he lies. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down, and he will tell you what to do.” ⁵ And she replied, “All that you say I will do.” ⁶ So she went down to the threshing floor and did just as her mother-in-law had commanded her. ⁷ And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came softly and uncovered his feet and lay down. ⁸ At midnight the man was startled and turned over, and behold, a woman lay at his feet! ⁹ He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer.”

Let us first understand the historical setting for what happens here. The harvest has come to a conclusion and now Boaz has come to winnow the harvest on the threshing floor. J. Hardee Kennedy explains:

            The threshing floor probably was privately owned by Boaz and located on his property. In accord with general practice, however, it may have been common to the whole village (cf. 2 Sam. 24:15-25). There the ripe sheaves were brought and loosed in a circle on the smooth hard surface, possibly a flat rock floor. The grain was separated from the straw by the trampling of the oxen and the cutting of the sled or roller studded with sharp pieces of stone and metal (cr. Jer. 51:33; Mic. 4:12-13). In the winnowing process the threshed grain was tossed high in the air with shovels or forks and the chaff blown aside by the wind. Afterward the grain was gathered in a heap on the firm ground or smooth rock floor.

            Winnowing took place in the evening, usually from four or five o’clock until shortly after sunset, when a cool breeze blew in from the Mediterranean Sea. Apparently the workmen often closed their day’s labor by celebrating the harvest with considerable license, eating and drinking (v.3). Afterward they slept on the threshing floor to protect the grain.[3]

This is the situation into which Naomi sent her daughter-in-law. She first told Ruth to wash and perfume herself. Kennedy rather humorously writes that Naomi “advised Ruth to prepare for maximum impression.”[4] Indeed she did!

Naomi tells Ruth that she is looking out for Ruth’s well being. Undoubtedly that is true, but it is not the whole truth. In point of fact, the security that Boaz would offer Ruth would naturally extend to Naomi as well. This is not to say that Naomi was being manipulative per se, but one cannot help but chuckle a bit at the obvious dynamics at play in this older woman’s fairly aggressive maneuvering of her daughter-in-law toward a desired end.

It should be pointed out that many people have read into Ruth 3 an outright seduction. In point of fact, if one were to read Ruth 3 in this way it would make Boaz’s invocation of the Lord’s name once he discovered Ruth essentially nonsensical. Boaz saw Ruth’s behavior here as a chaste act of love and not as something tawdry. The 5^th century church father, Theodoret of Cyr, wrote that, “[Naomi] suggests to her that she sleep at Boaz’s feet, not that she might sell her body (for the words of the narrative signify the opposite); rather, she trusts the man’s temperance and judgment.” Furthermore, Theodoret argued that Boaz “praised Ruth’s deed and, moreover, he did not betray temperance, but he kept to the law of nuptial congress.”[5]

This is not merely a church father trying to protect Ruth’s dignity. This is the most natural reading of the text.

Ruth, we are told, slipped onto the threshing floor, approached sleeping Boaz in the night, uncovered his feet, and lay down there. When he awoke, he was understandably startled. When verse 8 tells us that Boaz was “startled” it uses a Hebrew word that carries the meaning of “seized with fear and shivering.” Some have suggested that it might be a reflection of the fear that many ancient men had of the demon, Lilith, who would allegedly seduce men during the night and steal their power.[6] Perhaps. Or perhaps it is simply the natural shock any person would feel when awakening and realizing that another human being is essentially in bed with them when there should be no other human being in bed with them!

Boaz awoke and asked Ruth who she was. “I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer.” “Spread your wings over your servant” was an idiomatic expression that meant, “Marry me.” It “reflected the custom, still practiced by some Arabs, of a man’s throwing a garment over the woman he has decided to take as his wife.”[7]

In short, Ruth proposed to Boaz.

One cannot overstate just how risky, how dangerous, how unorthodox, and how shocking an act this was for a foreign woman or any woman at this time to do. In doing so, Ruth put herself completely at Boaz’s mercy. By lying at his feet, she was making a symbolic statement of devotion and submission to Boaz. It was a touching act, but, by any reasonable human standard, it was amazingly inappropriate.

Yet, she did it. Why? One does not feel that she was begrudgingly obeying her mother-in-law’s command in so doing. Rather, while Naomi suggested the idea, Ruth seems to have been in complete agreement, to the extent that it must be said that the act really and truly was Ruth’s.

By why? Undoubtedly she saw in Boaz the qualities of the kind of man to whom she wanted to attach herself. Futhermore, Ruth said, “I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer.” This should not be seen as coldly pragmatic or as calculatingly self-serving. We have every reason to think to Ruth felt drawn to Boaz and highly esteemed him. Yet she also realized that this man is in a position to take her into his family, to marry her, and to save her.

At this point, the lower level love story and the upper level story of salvation come very close to each other. Just as Ruth asks Boaz for loving salvation, so we too cry out to God to save us. And the scandalous audacity of Ruth’s asking must not be forgotten. Redemption happens when desperate need leads to a radical plea for salvation and is met with saving grace.

Ruth had a growing love for Boaz and she had desperate need. Thus, she offered a radical plea for salvation.

It is interesting how, when people grow truly desperate for Jesus, they forget about the maintaining their dignity and they radically reach for Christ simply because they must have Him. Mark 2 offers one of the truly beautiful examples of this kind of radical plea for salvation.

¹ And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. ² And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them. ³ And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. ⁴ And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. ⁵ And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

So desperate were these men to see the Lord Jesus heal the paralytic that they ripped the roof off of a house to get him near. Behold the scandalous, risking, no-holding-back nature of the sinner’s plea for salvation! And behold the love of Christ, who looks upon such audacious efforts and says, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Perhaps less dramatically, Zacchaeus’ charming and moving efforts in Luke 19 provide another example.

¹ He entered Jericho and was passing through. ² And behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector and was rich. ³ And he was seeking to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small in stature. ⁴ So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was about to pass that way. ⁵ And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.”

See the running, climbing Zacchaeus. Anything to see Jesus! And Jesus, in turn, sees him. In fact, Jesus seems to be particularly drawn to those who are so desperate for an encounter with Him that they go to scandalous and embarrassing extents to reach him. Consider the poor woman of Luke 8.

⁴³ And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians, she could not be healed by anyone. ⁴⁴ She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased.

Here, too, great need leads to a radical plea. Even a quiet effort to touch the hem of Jesus’ garment in the midst of a pressing crowd is radical when merely going out of your house is a scandal because of a shameful physical debilitation. Such was the case with this woman. Yet she risked it all. Why? Because great need drove her to a radical plea for help!

Ruth’s plea for Boaz to cover her with his garment and save her was a radical plea arising from great need. When a person knows that they need the covering protection of the Lord God, they do not fear to ask, even in shocking ways. Being saved is all that they can think of! In a beautiful passage in Ezekiel 16, the Lord uses this very image to describe His salvation of His people. Speaking of Israel, the Lord said:

⁸ “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine.

This is what Ruth was crying for through her actions. This is what we must cry for as well.

Redemption happens when desperate need leads to a radical plea for salvation and is met with saving grace.

And what, we should ask, will be God’s response to the heartfelt cry for salvation? Let us behold Boaz’s response to Ruth’s audacious request.

¹⁰ And he said, “May you be blessed by the Lord, my daughter. You have made this last kindness greater than the first in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. ¹¹ And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a worthy woman. ¹² And now it is true that I am a redeemer. Yet there is a redeemer nearer than I. ¹³ Remain tonight, and in the morning, if he will redeem you, good; let him do it. But if he is not willing to redeem you, then, as the Lord lives, I will redeem you. Lie down until the morning.” ¹⁴ So she lay at his feet until the morning, but arose before one could recognize another. And he said, “Let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor.” ¹⁵ And he said, “Bring the garment you are wearing and hold it out.” So she held it, and he measured out six measures of barley and put it on her. Then she went into the city. ¹⁶ And when she came to her mother-in-law, she said, “How did you fare, my daughter?” Then she told her all that the man had done for her, ¹⁷ saying, “These six measures of barley he gave to me, for he said to me, ‘You must not go back empty-handed to your mother-in-law.’” ¹⁸ She replied, “Wait, my daughter, until you learn how the matter turns out, for the man will not rest but will settle the matter today.”

I repeat: Boaz could have sounded the alarm, painted Ruth’s actions in the worst possible light, accused her of inappropriate behavior, and likely had her killed. Ruth’s life was quite literally in Boaz’s hands because of the manner in which she approached him.

But what does Boaz do?

• He called for God to bless her.
• He extoled her character and virtue.
• He told her not to be afraid.
• He announced that he would indeed save her (though there is one obstacle to overcome).
• He gave her rest.
• He protected her dignity.
• He shielded her from the wrath of those who would judge her.
• He blessed her and her mother-in-law with food.

Redemption happens when desperate need leads to a radical plea for salvation and is met with saving grace.

Once again, Boaz blessed Ruth with amazing grace! All she brought was her vulnerability, her humble spirit, her great need, and her faith and love…and it was met with saving grace!

This is how Boaz the redeemer treated Ruth. This is how Christ the redeemer treats all who similarly come to Him. He, too, meets us with saving grace! He, too, shields us from judgment! He, too, sends us back with bountiful blessings!

I wonder: do you see in Ruth’s desperate plea a picture of your own cry for salvation, for help, for healing, for life? Have you come to Christ like this: setting aside your dignity, opening your heart to Him, and demonstrating humility and submission to His gracious will?

Church, here is a powerful picture of a heart that yearned for salvation and was willing to risk all to have it!

May we do likewise.

Our Redeemer is good.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-32705720

[2] Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Ruth. Interpretation. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1999), p.67.

[3] J. Hardee Kennedy, Ruth. The Broadman Bible Commentary. Vol. 2. Gen. Ed., Clifton J. Allen (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1970), p.474.

[4] J. Hardee Kennedy, p.474.

[5] John R. Franke, ed., Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament Vol IV. Gen. Ed., Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p.187.

[6] Kirsten Nielson, Ruth. The Old Testament Library. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), p.72.

[7] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p.200.

I had somehow missed Andrea Arnold’s 2011 “Wuthering Heights.” The book is one of my favorites.  I do so love the Bronte darkness over the Austen cheer (though I certainly appreciate Jane Austen as well) and, as a result, I greatly appreciate good film adaptations of Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights in particular.

This particular adaptation is unique for three reasons.  First, Heathcliff is black, a former slave.  Truthfully, against my initial skepticism, I thought this worked.  In the book, he is described as a dark-skinned gypsy, thus, his being black and a former slave fits the exotic foreignness that the book sought to project on his character.  Secondly, the language and some of the scenes will go down, as far as I know, as more coarse than the language and scenes of the previous film adaptations of the book.  Some of this struck me as fitting the book’s tone and temperament and some of it struck me as unnecessary, and, in one instance, gratuitous.

The third unique factor is what struck me as most intriguing.  It also explains why fan reactions to the movie tend to be some shade of either abhorrence or adulation.  I am speaking of the film’s heavy reliance on atmosphere, its elevation of nature (wind, in particular) to the status of a character, its bleak vision, and its sparse dialogue and brooding pace.  In terms of pace, think Philip Gröning’s 2005 documentary on the Carthusians monks, “Into Great Silence.”  I’m being serious here.  A consideration of the trailers for the two films will show what I mean.

The camera lingers long over scenes.  There is no music in the film until the very end (and the choice of song was, in my opinion, a misstep).  It is a very different experience watching this movie.  Long shots of moths fluttering at windows, bugs crawling over the ground, fruit, the moors, dogs, the sky, birds, the characters staring into the distance or each other’s faces in silence, etc. dominate the film.  In particular, the wind is given prominence, rightly so, and becomes a character in its own right, particularly in the grueling scene in which Heathcliff attempts to pry open Catherine’s coffin.

Furthermore, the imagery is grey, grey, grey.  It, too, highlights the tension, the angst, and the tragedy of the story of Heathcliff and Catherine.  Here I could not help but think of Sally Mann’s enthralling “Deep South” images.  Just compare the images:

Deep South

Wuthering Heights stills:

The overall effect is ominous, Gothic, and profoundly contemplative.  I kept thinking of my earlier bouts with Seasonal Affective Disorder and how I simply would not have survived the moors at a certain time in my life.

Now, however, I find this whole ethos to be powerful and beautiful.  As such, I greatly appreciated the film.  One will either like this approach or hate it.  It forces a kind of stillness upon the viewer, and demands an emotional and psychological investment in the pathos and sadness of the story itself.

I can imagine that the film is not for everyone.  I can even see why many did not like it.  For me, it fit the book perfectly in its sparse, bleak, strangely beautiful, and sometimes brutal depiction of a doomed relationship and of human nature in general.

Exodus 15:1-21

¹ Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the Lord, saying, “I will sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea. ² The Lord is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation; this is my God, and I will praise him, my father’s God, and I will exalt him. ³ The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name. ⁴  “Pharaoh’s chariots and his host he cast into the sea, and his chosen officers were sunk in the Red Sea. ⁵ The floods covered them; they went down into the depths like a stone. ⁶ Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power, your right hand, O Lord, shatters the enemy. ⁷ In the greatness of your majesty you overthrow your adversaries; you send out your fury; it consumes them like stubble. ⁸ At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up; the floods stood up in a heap; the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea. ⁹ The enemy said, ‘I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them. I will draw my sword; my hand shall destroy them.’ ¹⁰ You blew with your wind; the sea covered them; they sank like lead in the mighty waters. ¹¹ “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders? ¹² You stretched out your right hand; the earth swallowed them. ¹³  “You have led in your steadfast love the people whom you have redeemed; you have guided them by your strength to your holy abode. ¹⁴ The peoples have heard; they tremble; pangs have seized the inhabitants of Philistia. ¹⁵ Now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed; trembling seizes the leaders of Moab; all the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away. ¹⁶ Terror and dread fall upon them; because of the greatness of your arm, they are still as a stone, till your people, O Lord, pass by, till the people pass by whom you have purchased. ¹⁷ You will bring them in and plant them on your own mountain, the place, O Lord, which you have made for your abode, the sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have established. ¹⁸ The Lord will reign forever and ever.” ¹⁹ For when the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, the Lord brought back the waters of the sea upon them, but the people of Israel walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea. ²⁰ Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing. ²¹ And Miriam sang to them: “Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea.”

Exodus 15 records the great song of Moses that he and the Israelites sang on the far shore of the Red Sea after their miraculous deliverance through it. In 1879, W.M. Taylor had this to say about the song:

It is presumably the oldest poem in the world, and in sublimity of conception and grandeur of expression, it is unsurpassed by anything that has been written since. It might almost be said that poetry here sprang full-grown from the heart of Moses, even as [in] heathen mythology fables Minerva came full-armed from the brain of Jupiter. Long before the ballads of Homer were sung through the streets of the Grecian cities, or the foundation of the seven-hilled metropolis of the ancient world was laid by the banks of the Tiber, this matchless ode, in comparison with which Pindar is tame, was chanted by the leader of the emancipated Hebrews on the Red Sea shore; and yet we have in it no polytheism, no foolish mythological story concerning gods and goddesses, no gilding of immortality, no glorification of mere force; but, instead, the firmest recognition of the personality, the supremacy, the holiness, the retributive rectitude of God…Here is a literary miracle, as great as the physical sign of the parting of the Sea.[1]

Some seventeen years before these words, around 1862, Charles Henry Mackintosh called this “a fine specimen of a song of praise” and contrasted the tone of Exodus 15 with that of Exodus 14.

Up to this moment, we have not heard so much as a single note of praise. We have heard their cry of deep sorrow as they toiled amid the brick-kilns of Egypt, we have hearkened to their cry of unbelief when surrounded by what they deemed insuperable difficulties, but, until now, we have heard no song of praise. It was not until, as a saved people, they found themselves surrounded by the fruits of God’s salvation, that the triumphal hymn burst forth from the whole redeemed assembly. It was when they emerged from their significant baptism “in the cloud and in the sea,” and were able to gaze upon the rich spoils of victory which lay scattered around them, that six hundred thousand voices were heard chanting the song of victory. The waters of the Red Sea rolled between them and Egypt, and they stood on the shore as a fully delivered people, and therefore were able to praise Jehovah.[2]

I share these older statements on Exodus 15 because the beauty and grandeur of Israel’s song deserves the kind of likewise beautiful comments that such older commentators were able to write. It is a moving chapter. It is theology in song.

The army of Pharaoh lies drowned at the bottom of the Red Sea and here we are privileged to see the reaction of God’s people. Tellingly, they react in song. Singing is a special act of worship, at its best it is an overflowing of the grateful hearts of the people of God. This is what we have here. We also have a lesson in theology proper, a powerful exposition on the nature of God.

God is all powerful.

Hanging over this amazing expression of praise is a striking proclamation of the omnipotence and might and sovereign power of God. Take a moment and let the rich imagery of the first ten verses wash over you.

¹ Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the Lord, saying, “I will sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea. ² The Lord is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation; this is my God, and I will praise him, my father’s God, and I will exalt him. ³ The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name. ⁴  “Pharaoh’s chariots and his host he cast into the sea, and his chosen officers were sunk in the Red Sea. ⁵ The floods covered them; they went down into the depths like a stone. ⁶ Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power, your right hand, O Lord, shatters the enemy. ⁷ In the greatness of your majesty you overthrow your adversaries; you send out your fury; it consumes them like stubble. ⁸ At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up; the floods stood up in a heap; the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea. ⁹ The enemy said, ‘I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them. I will draw my sword; my hand shall destroy them.’ ¹⁰ You blew with your wind; the sea covered them; they sank like lead in the mighty waters.

Let us first note how very interesting it is that this astonishing display of divine power led the Israelites to burst into song specifically. Music and theology actually go hand-in-hand. Martin Luther understood this well. In 1538, Luther wrote the following:

I most heartily desire that music, that divine and precious gift, be praised and extolled before all people…Experience proves that, next to the Word of God, only music deserves being extolled as the mistress and governess of the feelings of the human heart….A greater praise than this we cannot imagine.

Again, in a letter to the composer Ludwig Senfl, Luther wrote:

There are, without doubt, in the human heart many seed-grains of virtue which are stirred up by music. All those with whom this is not the case I regard as blockheads and senseless stones. For we know that to the devils music is something altogether hateful and unbearable. I am not ashamed to confess publicly that next to theology there is no art which is the equal of music. For it alone, after theology, can do what otherwise only theology can accomplish, namely, quiet and cheer up the soul of man, which is clear evidence that the devil, the originator of depressing worries and troubled thoughts, flees from the voice of music just as he flees from the words of theology. For this very reason the prophets cultivated no art so much as music in that they attached their theology not to geometry, nor to arithmetic, nor to astronomy, but to music, speaking the truth through psalms and hymns.[3]

That is well said, and said, I might add, as only Luther could say it. Here, in Exodus 15, we have the two arts, theology and music, walking together in a most striking fashion. It would seem that one of the primary reasons for this outburst of song was the jaw-dropping display of power that God revealed in His destruction of the Egyptian army.

The beginning of the song is filled with wonder at the power of God: “He has triumphed,” “the horse and the rider He has cast into the sea,” “the Lord is my strength,” “the Lord is a man of war,” “He cast [them] into the sea,” “Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power, your right hand, O Lord, shatters the enemy,” “the greatness of your majesty,” “you send out your fury; it consumes them like stubble.” Then we see the amazing metaphor, “at the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up…the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea.” “You blew with your wind…they sank like lead.”

This is a picture not only of the strength and power of God, but also of the devastating totality of His victory over Egypt. Terence Fretheim summarized this latter thought with the memorable phrase, “the defeat of the Hitlerian horde is total.”[4]

Let us be sure of this: there is none that matches the Lord God in power and strength.

Do you remember the scene in the film “Forrest Gump” when Lt. Dan hoists himself to the top of the mast of Forrest’s shrimping boat and angrily shouts at God in the midst of the storm? As he screams defiantly toward heaven, Lt. Dan asks, “Is that the best you’ve got?!”

It is a memorable scene, but the answer to the question is, “Of course not.” If the Lord God of heaven and earth were to unleash the best He’s got, we would all be instantaneously obliterated. His might is complete and without weakness!

God is unparalleled.

This was the conclusion the Israelites drew from God’s display of power: there is none like God. He is unparalleled. He is matchless.

¹¹ “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders? ¹² You stretched out your right hand; the earth swallowed them. ¹³  “You have led in your steadfast love the people whom you have redeemed; you have guided them by your strength to your holy abode.

It is a wonderful rhetorical question, “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?” None! None are like our great God!

In Psalm 113:5, the Psalmist asks, “Who is like the Lord our God, the One who sits enthroned on high?” In Jeremiah 10, the prophet said:

⁶ No one is like you, Lord; you are great, and your name is mighty in power. ⁷ Who should not fear you, King of the nations? This is your due. Among all the wise leaders of the nations and in all their kingdoms, there is no one like you.

There was even a name in the ancient world that meant, “Who is like God?” That name is Michael, which is a transliteration of the Hebrew question, “Who is like God?” In Latin that is, “Quis ut Deus,” and it is sometimes associated with the archangel Michael in Christian art, iconography, and statuary.

It is a question that is worthy of being asked, and the answer must never be forgotten: “No one.” “No one is like our God.”

¹¹ “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders? ¹² You stretched out your right hand; the earth swallowed them. ¹³  “You have led in your steadfast love the people whom you have redeemed; you have guided them by your strength to your holy abode.

His is matchless, the Israelites sang, in His majesty, holiness, glorious deeds, and works of wonder. Furthermore, He is matchless in His steadfast love, His redemption, and His provision for His people.

There is no one like our God!

God is terrifying in His wrath.

Furthermore, He is terrifying in His wrath. The song moves on to the trembling responses of the people who observe the might of God.

¹⁴ The peoples have heard; they tremble; pangs have seized the inhabitants of Philistia. ¹⁵ Now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed; trembling seizes the leaders of Moab; all the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away. ¹⁶ Terror and dread fall upon them; because of the greatness of your arm, they are still as a stone, till your people, O Lord, pass by, till the people pass by whom you have purchased.

Notice the reactions of the people: trembling, pangs of terror, dismay, the leaders tremble, the pagan peoples melt away, terror, dread, and the people are frozen in horror like stone. Let us make no mistake: when God reveals His wrath, it is a horrifying thing to see.

“In the holy war,” writes Douglas Stuart, “one of God’s weapons is psychological affliction, the creation of fear and cowardice in an enemy that might otherwise pose a formidable obstacle to the well-being of his people.”[5] That is true, but it would be better to say that God simple reveals His awesome power and holiness and the psychological affliction comes naturally. God does not have to aim to terrify. He simply has to pull back the curtain just enough for those who oppose Him and His people to see who He is.

In his novel Blood Meridian, Cormac McCarthy has an old Mennonite give this warning to the murderous soldiers who had entered Mexico to hunt marauding bands of Apache Indians:

The wrath of God lies sleeping. It was hid a million years before men were and only men have power to wake it. Hell aint half full. Hear me. Ye carry war of a madman’s making onto a foreign land. Ye’ll wake more than the dogs.[6]

“Ye’ll wake more than the dogs.” It is a terrifying thing to “wake” (to use McCarthy’s metaphor) a wrathful God with one’s wickedness and evil!

We are not in a Church age that appreciates the reality of the wrath of God. We are in a Church age that rather elevates God’s tenderness and gentleness to the exclusion of His wrath. Richard John Neuhaus offered a troubling example of this some years back, in this case concerning God’s flooding of the earth in Genesis.

Mr. Miles reportedly approves of Episcopal Church guidelines for teaching the flood in Sunday School. Harold O. J. Brown is of a different view: “Because children love pets, it could be extremely disagreeable to them to hear that God destroyed all of the animals (not to mention the people, of course). For this reason, this destructive, vengeful aspect is to be played down, and the totally unrelated Twenty-third Psalm, with God as the Good Shepherd, is to be introduced as a kind of counterpoint. The rainbow after the Flood, rather than the destructive Deluge itself, is to be emphasized, and each child given a card with a little rainbow on it. The message, of course, is that God is Very Nice and would not do anything mean or nasty. This is all quite sweet, of course, but it does totally obfuscate one essential part of the Deluge account, namely, that God is not willing to tolerate human depravity indefinitely and that human evil will bring destruction upon nature and upon innocent bystanders as well as on the evildoers themselves-a message that might seem particularly appropriate in an age of terrorism and environmental pollution.”[7]

I daresay the Israelites did not wish to shield their children from the reality of the awful wrath of God against wickedness and evil. Remember, their children presumably joined with them in singing this song. The people of God, like the people of the world, dare not forget God’s wrath. For the people of the world, it leads to fear and trembling. For the people of God, it leads ultimately to deeper love for our God. F.W. Faber rightly wrote:

They love thee, little, if at all,

Who do not fear thee much

If love is thine attraction, Lord!

Fear is thy very touch.[8]

Yes, God is perfect in His wrath just as He is in His love, but His people are the objects of His love. The Lord Jesus has satisfied the wrath of God on the cross and opened the door to the loving heart of the Father.

God is faithful to His people.

The song concludes with a beautiful proclamation of the faithfulness of God.

¹⁷ You will bring them in and plant them on your own mountain, the place, O Lord, which you have made for your abode, the sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have established. ¹⁸ The Lord will reign forever and ever.” ¹⁹ For when the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, the Lord brought back the waters of the sea upon them, but the people of Israel walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea. ²⁰ Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing. ²¹ And Miriam sang to them: “Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea.”

The conclusion of the song contrasts with the beginning of the song: the army of Egypt is destroyed by the awesome power of God, but that same power saved the Israelites. The walls of water collapsed on Pharaoh like a cataract of death, but not until God’s people walked through on dry land. The Egyptian horde would never again return to their homeland, but the people of God would ultimately be delivered to theirs.

The power that destroys is the power that saves, for it all emanates from the wise hand of God. He is perfect in wrath and perfect in mercy. He is perfect in justice and perfect in grace. He is strong and He is tender. He is ferocious and He is gentle. He thunders and He whispers.

He is not schizophrenic in His properties and attributes. Rather, our minds cannot conceive of the perfect harmony of His own holiness and totality.

He is the thundering Lord over the Red Sea…and He is the crying baby of Bethlehem. He is the God who crushes the wicked. He is the God who offers salvation and forgiveness to the wicked.

He is God. See Him as He is.

We occasionally sing the hymn, “Behold Our God,” interestingly subtitled, “Who Has Held the Oceans.” Its lyrics will be our conclusion.

Who has held the oceans in His hands?

Who has numbered every grain of sand?

Kings and nations tremble at His voice

All creation rises to rejoice

Behold our God seated on His throne

Come let us adore Him

Behold our King nothing can compare

Come let us adore Him!

Who has given counsel to the Lord?

Who can question any of His Words?

Who can teach the One who knows all things?

Who can fathom all His wondrous deeds?

Behold our God seated on His throne

Come let us adore Him

Behold our King nothing can compare

Come let us adore Him!

Who has felt the nails upon His hands

Bearing all the guilt of sinful man?

God eternal humbled to the grave

Jesus, Savior risen now to reign!

Behold our God seated on His throne

Come let us adore Him

Behold our King nothing can compare

Come let us adore Him!

Men: You will reign forever!

Women: Let Your glory fill the earth

Behold our God seated on His throne

Come let us adore Him

Behold our King nothing can compare

Come let us adore Him! [9]

Amen. And Amen.

[1] Quoted in Arthur W. Pink, Gleanings in Exodus. (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1981), p.113.

[2] Charles Henry Mackintosh, Notes on the Book of Exodus. (New York, NY: Loizeaux Brothers, 1862), 195,192.

[3] Quoted in https://www.wlsessays.net/files/EggertLuther.pdf

[4] Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus. Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), p.169.

[5] Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus. The New American Commentary. Vol 2. Gen. Ed., E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), p.359.

[6] McCarthy, Cormac (2010-08-11). Blood Meridian: Or the Evening Redness in the West (Vintage International) (p. 39). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[7] RJN, “While We’re At It,” First Things. December 1996.

[8] Calvin Miller, The Path of Celtic Prayer: An Ancient Way to Everyday Joy (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2007), p.155.

[9] https://www.sovereigngracemusic.org/Songs/Behold_Our_God_(Who_has_held_the_oceans)/1

In the 1990’s, Baptist representatives from the Baptist World Alliance (BWA) entered into “pre-conversations” with authorities in the Greek Orthodox Church.  These conversations, regrettably, did not continue for very long.  I quote here from Ken Manley’s “A Survey of Baptist World Alliance Conversations With Other Churches: Some Implications for Baptist Identity” from July of 2002, posted on the BWA website.

The Baptist World Alliance has now completed four inter-church conversations. The first was with the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (1973-77); the second with Roman Catholics through the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (1984-88); the third with the Lutheran World Federation (1986-89); the fourth with the Mennonite World Conference (1989-92). Since then conversations have been held with the Orthodox Church or, more precisely, ‘pre-conversations’ have been shared with the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul (1994-97) although these seem to have been discontinued by the Orthodox representatives…

Tensions between Orthodox churches and Baptists have at times been severe with Baptists enduring discrimination and persecution. For this reason the BWA welcomed the possibility of conversations in the wake of the changes in many Eastern European countries in the 1990s. Preliminary meetings were held in 1994, then a major dialogue was held in Istanbul May 10-13, 1996. These ‘Conversations between Baptists and the Ecumenical Patriarchate’, or ‘Pre-conversations’, were with a view to later full conversations between the BWA and representatives from the 15 autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox churches. The last ‘pre-conversation’ meeting took place at Oxford, May 16 to 19, 1997. The only meaningful contact since then has been a meeting between Dr Lotz and Dr Popkes with the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Bucharest in December 1997. Relations between Baptists and Orthodox in a number of European countries have since become quite difficult with Baptists characteristically being accused of being a foreign sect. A striking illustration of this stance is the publication in 1995 of a pamphlet, with the imprimatur of the Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia, entitled Baptists. The Most pernicious Sect.

The BWA sent a prestigious group to Istanbul for the 1996 meetings. Denton Lotz spoke on Baptist identity and Tony Cupit gave an overview of BWA world statistics; Wiard Popkes introduced Baptists in Europe, Euro-Asia and the Middle East; James Leo Garrett outlined the authority of the Bible for Baptists; Bruce Milne gave a Baptist perspective on evangelism in the life of the church. Others to participate included Dr Gerald Borchert, Dr William Brackney, Dr John Briggs, Dr Russ Bush and Dr Paul Fiddes. It was not that the Orthodox had no awareness of Evangelicals, as a consultation between Evangelicals and Orthodox, sponsored by the WCC, was held in Alexandria, Egypt in July 1995. None the less, it was apparent that there were deep-rooted differences, especially about the place of mission in the life of the church. Dr Bruce Milne had included a thoughtful distinction between proselytism and evangelism in his paper, but this remained a problem issue. Dr Erich Geldbach of Germany linked evangelism with religious liberty in a paper to the Vancouver (1997) Study Commission on ‘Religious Liberty, Proselytism, Evangelism: Some Baptist Considerations’ and Paul Fiddes had addressed the topic, ‘Mission: Essence or Responsibility of the Church’ at the May meeting with the Orthodox in Oxford.

Baptists remain hopeful that conversations might resume. The observation of the General Secretary to the 1996 General Council in Hong Kong remains true:

Our understanding of evangelism and proselytism may differ, as well as our understanding of church and state, and authority. Nevertheless, we rejoice at the Orthodox defence throughout history of the trinity, the divinity of Christ, the cross and resurrection, and the triumph of Christ and His kingdom. We pray that conversations will take place for the edification of both communions.

The collapse of these talks was and is regrettable and the tension between Baptists and the Greek Orthodox Church remains in many quarters to this day.  Even so, two of the statements that emerged from these pre-conversations are particularly helpful.  I am referring to the two papers presented by retired Emeritus Professor of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. James Leo Garrett, Jr.

I have written often of my esteem for Dr. Garrett.  A consideration of the careful, scholarly, reasoned, and thorough nature of these papers will reveal why. The papers are (1) “Major Emphases in Baptist Theology” and (2) “The Authority of the Bible for Baptists.”  Both were published in the Southwestern Journal of Theology and I am making pdf’s of both presentations available here.  They should be read as one Baptist’s attempts to explain who Baptists are to a non-Baptist audience.  As such, I consider them very pertinent and helpful today.  Take a look:

“Major Emphases in Baptist Theology”

“The Authority of the Bible for Baptists”

Ruth 2:14-23

¹⁴ And at mealtime Boaz said to her, “Come here and eat some bread and dip your morsel in the wine.” So she sat beside the reapers, and he passed to her roasted grain. And she ate until she was satisfied, and she had some left over. ¹⁵ When she rose to glean, Boaz instructed his young men, saying, “Let her glean even among the sheaves, and do not reproach her. ¹⁶ And also pull out some from the bundles for her and leave it for her to glean, and do not rebuke her.” ¹⁷ So she gleaned in the field until evening. Then she beat out what she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley. ¹⁸ And she took it up and went into the city. Her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. She also brought out and gave her what food she had left over after being satisfied. ¹⁹ And her mother-in-law said to her, “Where did you glean today? And where have you worked? Blessed be the man who took notice of you.” So she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked and said, “The man’s name with whom I worked today is Boaz.” ²⁰ And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “May he be blessed by the Lord, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead!” Naomi also said to her, “The man is a close relative of ours, one of our redeemers.” ²¹ And Ruth the Moabite said, “Besides, he said to me, ‘You shall keep close by my young men until they have finished all my harvest.’” ²² And Naomi said to Ruth, her daughter-in-law, “It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his young women, lest in another field you be assaulted.” ²³ So she kept close to the young women of Boaz, gleaning until the end of the barley and wheat harvests. And she lived with her mother-in-law.

I recently read a fascinating story that struck me as equal parts beautiful and sad.

This is the true story of twin brothers from Australia. As they were growing up, Leslie and Karl were close throughout their chaotic childhood. But after their dad abandoned the family, a week after their 22nd birthday, Karl disappeared. For 23 years Leslie kept searching for his brother. Finally, on May 5th, 2013 the police found Karl dead on York Lane in Sydney. Karl had died where he had spent much of the second half of his life—on the street as a homeless person.

When the police contacted Leslie, he travelled to Sydney to take his brother back home and bury him. Much to his surprise, Leslie found a bank account in Karl’s name that was worth $30,000. The Australian Department of Human Services had been depositing a check into Karl’s account every month for the past 23 years. Leslie wanted to use the funds to support the dedicated people and shelters which had supported his brother. Unfortunately, the money was earmarked for the next of kin, which in this case was Karl and Leslie’s father, the man who had abandoned both brothers decades ago.

But Leslie also discovered an exception to the financial regulations: He could use the money from the account to pay for Leslie’s funeral and burial expenses—the entire balance of $30,000. So Leslie organized a lavish service for Karl. Before the funeral, he hosted a delicious hot lunch with a bouquet of flowers on every table for all the men and women who lived at the shelter that Karl frequented. For the funeral Leslie hired the finest organist in Sydney to play hymns. Leslie designed and printed a beautiful order of service on the best paper available. Flowers filled the church.

During the eulogy for his brother Leslie said, “I never gave up looking for my brother.” Leslie chose the following verse from the Gospel of Luke: “‘My son,’ the father said [to the prodigal son], ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'”[1]

That is beautiful because of the wonderful fact that a homeless man had a lavish funeral. It is sad because a homeless man had a lavish funeral.

It strikes me, hearing that story, that that is how many people view the Christian life: a life of misery here and now but a lavish party after we die. Somehow the story of Ruth strikes me as a much needed corrective to this idea. If Ruth tells us anything, it tells us that the astonishing grace of God begins to be lavished upon us here and now. That may or may not translate into physical comfort and provision, but it certainly translates into provision for the heart and soul here and now. In other words, while the full benefits of grace will not be realized until we stand before the Lord, very real benefits are open to us here and now.

You do not have to die to experience lavish grace, though, through Christ, we certainly will experience inconceivable joy after we die. The Lord Jesus came to give us life, and that abundant (John 10:10). As we rejoin Ruth gleaning in the fields of Boaz, let us continue our consideration of Boaz as a type or picture or foreshadowing of Jesus and let us continue to consider his actions towards Ruth as an unfolding vision of grace. In the process, however, let us not lose sight of the beautiful love story unfolding before our eyes as well.

God’s grace is lavish and blesses us with more and more as we draw closer and closer to Jesus.

One of the truly fascinating developments in the story of Ruth is how Ruth draws closer and closer to Boaz throughout the book. It begins with Ruth in Moab and Boaz in Bethlehem. Then Ruth moved to Bethlehem with her mother-in-law, Naomi. Then Ruth moved to the field of Boaz. Then Boaz saw Ruth and inquired about her. Then Boaz addressed Ruth, telling her not to leave his field but to stay near his women where she could continue to glean the grain that was dropped or left behind. This gradual but consistent diminishment of distance continues in our text.

¹⁴ And at mealtime Boaz said to her, “Come here and eat some bread and dip your morsel in the wine.” So she sat beside the reapers, and he passed to her roasted grain. And she ate until she was satisfied, and she had some left over. ¹⁵ When she rose to glean, Boaz instructed his young men, saying, “Let her glean even among the sheaves, and do not reproach her. ¹⁶ And also pull out some from the bundles for her and leave it for her to glean, and do not rebuke her.” ¹⁷ So she gleaned in the field until evening. Then she beat out what she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley. ¹⁸ And she took it up and went into the city. Her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. She also brought out and gave her what food she had left over after being satisfied.

Her distance from Boaz decreased as the blessings she received increased. Boaz, as we saw in the first half of chapter 2, had already blessed her by (1) acknowledging her, (2) granting her a degree of status, and (3) offering her protection. In the second half of the chapter, the blessings increase to a degree that can only be described as lavish. In our text, Boaz (1) invited Ruth to sit closer, (2) passed her roasted grain, (3) personally told his young men to let her glean not only where grain had been left behind but also “among the sheaves,” among the bound bundles of grain stalks, (4) told the young men actually to pull stalks from the bundles and drop them for her to gather, and (5) personally and directly forbade the young men to harass or harm her (as opposed to his initially sending word to the young men through his servant).

Whatever Boaz’s actions are, they are not subtle. This is outlandish, lavish, over-the-top, eyebrow raising grace! So outlandish is this kindness, that when Ruth threshed what she had gleaned, she ended up with “about an ephah of barley.” An ephah is roughly 29-50 pounds, according to our reckoning. An ephah would be enough grain to provide a single person enough food for a number of weeks.[2] She took the grain home to a very surprised Naomi, as well as the left overs from her earlier meal of roasted grain cakes.

Here is a picture of Boaz’s growing affection for Naomi. Here is a picture of how God blesses us.

But do not forget: the blessings increase as the distance decreases.

I suppose that one of the more common and more frustrating phenomena I have encountered are Christians who complain that they are not experiencing the blessings and peace of God but who will, in the same breath, admit that they have not drawn closer to Jesus in their own walks. The blessings increase as the distance decreases. Simply put, there is something patently absurd about complaining that you do not feel God near when you are refusing to go to Him consistently in prayer, to read and immerse yourself in His word, and to serve Him. Remember: the father allowed the prodigal son to run away. When the son hit bottom and started home, however, the father ran to him with open arms. The blessings increase as the distance decreases.

The Lord Jesus had obliterated all distance by coming to us, yet we still seek to keep Him at arm’s length. Why? The closer we draw to Jesus, the more we are able to see and understand and receive and celebrate the amazing and lavish blessings He gives us. We are Ruth. We are the recipients of an embarrassing amount of grace! The Lord has opened the treasury to us in Christ and his given us stunning amounts of love, grace, mercy, peace, hope, and joy!

God’s grace gives us spiritual healing, allowing us to move from anger to praise.

What is more, there are healing properties in grace. This can be seen in the effect that Boaz’s kindness had on Naomi. Naomi, understandably, wanted to know who had shown her daughter-in-law such unexpected kindness.

¹⁹ And her mother-in-law said to her, “Where did you glean today? And where have you worked? Blessed be the man who took notice of you.” So she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked and said, “The man’s name with whom I worked today is Boaz.” ^20a And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “May he be blessed by the Lord, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead!”

Naomi was stunned to hear that Ruth had gleaned in Boaz’s field. But her reaction is telling for another reason. For the first time since Naomi’s bitter complaint against God’s treatment of her in chapter 1, the realization of the grace that God had shown her and Ruth moved her to praise God. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld proposes that Naomi’s response “may be regarded as the turning point of the story both theologically and rhetorically.” She furthermore suggests that, “Naomi has begun a healing journey, a journey from despair to hope, a journey from a living death to a life worth living.”[3]

This would seem to be the case. Naomi moves from anger at God in chapter 1 to worship and praising God in chapter 2. Old Testament scholars are divided on just what Naomi is saying in verse 20: “And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, ‘May [Boaz] be blessed by the Lord, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead!’” The question is, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead, Boaz’s kindness or God’s kindness? It is notoriously difficult to translate.

Many scholars suggest that the rendering is intentionally ambiguous, however, and that it is making the point that God’s kindness is all bound up in Boaz’s kindness. This would support the idea of Boaz as a type or picture of the lovingkindness, the hesed, of God.

Regardless of how you render it, Naomi turned to God now with praise and not complaint. The name of the Lord was no longer bitter on her lips. It was sweet. She asked that God bless Boaz because God, through Boaz, had blessed her and Ruth.

It is almost certainly the case that Ruth saw beyond the blessing of food, lavish though it was, and foresaw the eventual marriage of Boaz and Ruth, or at least the possibility of such. Old Testament scholar Robert Hubbard has pointed out how similar Ruth 2 is to Genesis 24. In Genesis 24, Abraham sends his servant to Mesopotamia in order to find a wife for his son, Isaac. You may recall that the servant goes and waits by the well and asks that God reveal Isaac’s bride by having her respond to his request for water by saying that she will draw water for him as well as for his camels. In that context, when the servant discovers Rebekah, he says, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken his steadfast love and his faithfulness toward my master. As for me, the Lord has led me in the way to the house of my master’s kinsmen.” This is very similar to Naomi’s words in verse 20: “May he be blessed by the Lord, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead!

Russell concludes that “the similarity of Ruth 2 and Genesis 24 suggests that Naomi’s remark probably has marriage in mind.” He also quotes Alter to the effect that “the entire dialogue between Boaz and Ruth conforms to a common Hebrew literary convention, the ‘betrothal type-scene.’ That is, in reporting vv.8-17, the author employed certain literary conventions well known to his audience in order to portray the episode as a betrothal – more precisely, a prelude to betrothal.”[4]

Did Naomi know for sure that Ruth and Naomi would eventually marry? Who knows, but she appeared to realize that there was more in the air than just kindness. She seemed to suspect that love was in the air as well.

Regardless, Naomi was now overwhelmed by grace and its life-changing possibilities, and this grace healed her spiritually.

Are you struggling with bitterness or anger toward God? Let me challenge and encourage you to do this one thing: take some time and reflect long and hard at all the many acts of grace and kindness and hesed and love that God has shown you and is showing you now. How do you do that? Take some time and reflect long and deeply on the cross of Jesus. Consider what He has done for you, what He has won for you, what He has secured for you! Even in the midst of pain, consider what grace Jesus has lavished upon you! It will be medicine to your soul! Grace heals the hurting heart!

God’s grace provides us with a family, a people to whom to belong.

And it is God’s grace that gives us a family. Boaz had already granted Ruth a kind of familial status in his field, at least to some extent. Naomi, however, did two things to suggest that Ruth’s meeting with Boaz meant that Ruth now had family status.

^20b Naomi also said to her, “The man is a close relative of ours, one of our redeemers.” ²¹ And Ruth the Moabite said, “Besides, he said to me, ‘You shall keep close by my young men until they have finished all my harvest.’” ²² And Naomi said to Ruth, her daughter-in-law, “It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his young women, lest in another field you be assaulted.” ²³ So she kept close to the young women of Boaz, gleaning until the end of the barley and wheat harvests. And she lived with her mother-in-law.

First, Ruth tellingly uses the pronoun “our” in speaking to Ruth: “The man is a close relative of ours, one of our redeemers.” In doing so, Naomi appears to have warmed to Ruth. The rudeness she showed her in chapter 1 has now given way to open acceptance and acknowledgement of her. Ruth is now part of “our family.”

More significantly, Naomi identified Boaz as “one of our redeemers.” This had rich implications. Boaz was a kinsman-redeemer. The kinsman-redeemer referred to the closest relative who had the right and responsibility to care for destitute members of the extended family by doing certain things:

• The redeemer was to repurchase clan land sold because of economic hardships (Leviticus 25:25-30).
• The redeemer was to buy back relatives who had sold themselves into slavery as a result of poverty (Leviticus 25:47-55).
• The redeemer was to avenge murdered family members by hunting down the murderers and killing them (Numbers 35:12,19-27; Deuteronomy 19:6,12; Joshua 20:2-3,5,9).
• The redeemer “was the recipient of money paid as restitution for a wrong committed against someone now deceased (Num[bers] 5:8).”
• The redeemer assisted clan members in lawsuits.[5]

Thus, Naomi pointed out to Ruth the possibility that Boaz could do more than merely feed them. After all, the harvest was ending soon. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Even if we did not have the rest of the story, Boaz had already changed Ruth’s familial status. He had seen her, acknowledged her, drawn her into the circle of his people, extended to her his protection, provided for her above and beyond all expectation, and had blessed her extended family as well, her mother-in-law. He had taken a foreign woman who had no significant connections in Bethlehem and given her a name, in essence, a family.

In Romans 11, the Apostle Paul made a fascinating statement about (1) Israel’s rejection of Jesus and (2) the acceptance of the Gentiles into the family of God. He uses the imagery of branches.

¹¹ So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. ¹² Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! ¹³ Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry ¹⁴ in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. ¹⁵ For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? ¹⁶ If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. ¹⁷ But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, ¹⁸ do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. ¹⁹ Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” ²⁰ That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. ²¹ For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. ²² Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. ²³ And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. ²⁴ For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

It is a compelling image. Paul says that we Gentiles are like branches from a wild olive tree that have, by God’s grace, been grafted into a cultivated olive tree. The cultivated olive tree stands for God’s covenant people. The wild olive tree stands for the Gentile world, the pagan world. The two do not naturally belong together. It is an act of grace that welcomes the wild branch into the cultivated tree.

Ruth does not naturally belong with Boaz. She is accepted into the circle of his people because of his grace.

You and I do not naturally belong in the family of God. We are accepted into the circle of his people because of His grace.

Grace is so powerful. Grace is so beautiful. Grace is so amazing.

It is lavish. It is powerful. It is has the ability to heal, to welcome, to draw, to include, to protect, to fill, and to bless.

All of this and more is offered to all of us this very day in Jesus Christ, the lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world and offer grace.

[1] https://www.preachingtoday.com/illustrations/2013/july/2072913.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium =feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+preachingtoday%2Fillustrations+%28Preaching+Today+Illustrations%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

[2] Kirsten Nielson, Ruth. The Old Testament Library. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), p.61.

[3] Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Ruth. Interpretation. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1999), p.47-48.

[4] Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p.187.

[5] Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., p.188-189.

Last Sunday afternoon through Tuesday I took a personal sabbatical at the campuses of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX, and Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas to try to slow down, catch my breath, and assess my life.  One of the things that has become abundantly clear to me is the need to minimize somewhat my relationship with technology.  To that end, I deactivated my Twitter account yesterday (you will notice the feed is now gone from the right column), am in the process of shutting down Words With Friends (a relaxing game to which I am way too addicted), and, biggest of all for me, will be changing my phone number next Monday in an effort to better guard my time as well.

All of this is difficult for me to do.  I do not see social media as necessarily inherently pernicious (nor do I see it as inherently benign – I’m still chewing on this).  Rather, for me, it kind of became a too-easy-venue for time wasting and for viewing reality through a series of 140 character sound bites.  I will say that I have begun thinking a great deal about the nature of social media and what it does to our view of the world, of others, of human interactions, etc.  I suppose the jury will be out for some time on the overall effects of social media on the national psyche, but I do wonder if it does not have certain damaging effects.  (I have been off of Facebook for two years now.  That was easy.  I came to hate it.  I have never missed it.  My advice:  start doing a lot of marriage counseling for struggling couples and you will soon see the other side of some of these social media platforms.)

That being said, I again want to stress that I am not trying to make judgments about social media per se or those who enjoy being on it.  All of this is much more a commentary on me than social media.  Many people use it well, benefit from it, and enjoy it.  For me, it became somewhat counterproductive.

As for my phone, this is a tricky one.  I am an odd mixture of recluse and extrovert.  That is simply a matter of temperate.  Ministry dynamics play a role in this as well.  It’s interesting being a pastor:  you love and care for and want to be accessible to the people to whom you have been called to serve, but you cannot let the church utterly consume you.  It’s a balance.  Regardless, it has become clear to me that, simply put, way too many people have my phone number.  Central Baptist Church is averaging just over 500 people in attendance this year.  A sizable percentage of those 500 people have my phone number.  This means that it is very difficult to ever really detach and rest, even if the phone is cut off.  (The moment you turn the phone back on, a stream of messages and texts are waiting.)

I say this is tricky because I fully believe that a pastor should indeed be accessible to his people, and, to the best of my ability, I have striven to be and will continue to strive to be.  To that end, I am working on a plan whereby church members will have an emergency line that will be manned by a ministerial staff member, myself included, on a rotational basis on weekends.  In this manner, Central Baptist Church members will be able to get ahold of ministerial staff members at any time (in the case of emergency of great need), as it should be.

On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that boundaries are necessary in all relationships, even (especially?) those closest to you.  A failure to establish boundaries can destroy relationships.  My previous church ran around 200 folks.  My current church, 500 folks.  But I have taken the same approach to my phone in a church of 500 as I did in a church of 200.  Eventually, that will catch up to you.

Thus, I am now trying to make adjustments so that I can be a better husband, father, pastor, son, brother, and friend.

This is not about me wanting to do less.  It is about me wanting to be more.

I will be keeping this website.  It is a creative outlet that I am mainly using now for posting sermon manuscripts and audio as well as the odd random post here and there.  I have a much more relaxed approach to this site.  It takes a little more to actually post on it, as opposed to the immediate availability of something like, say, Twitter, so I don’t really sit around looking at this site other than when I feel the need to post.

We only have so much time in a day, and managing that time is a matter of great importance.  I would covet your prayers as I try to hit the right stride in managing the time allotted me, and I would encourage you to do so as well.  We all face this challenge in an increasingly busy world.

When I pastored in Dawson, Georgia, a church member gave me a cd by The Be Good Tanyas, a bluegrass(ish) group of three ladies from Canada.  The sound was gloriously eclectic and beautiful.  I have not heard them in some time, but recently I heard their song “Gospel Song.”  It’s not really a gospel song, but it struck me as particularly beautiful and I thought I’d share it here.