Better Than Seven Sons

I've just finished reading the book of Judges in my devotions. Reading Judges is a little like a car wreck on the highway. It's horrifying, but you have to look. In Judges a man makes an oath to sacrifice the first thing that comes out of his house if the Lord will give him success in battle; the Lord gives success in battle, the first thing out of the house is Jephthah's only daughter, and it's likely he kept his oath. In Judges, a man steals money from his mother, returns the money,  the silly mother makes an idol to celebrate the returned money, the son sets up a shrine in his house and hires a personal priest. In Judges, a priest throws his concubine out to a raving mob of crazed men who rape her all night long until she lies dead on the doorstep. The man then cuts his dead concubine up into twelve pieces and sends the parts all over Israel. In those days, there was no king in Israel, especially not God, and people did what was right in their own eyes.

You get to the end of Judges and feel that there is absolutely no hope. You realize that we, after all, are like the people in Judges. We do what is right in our own eyes, and we need to be saved. And that's why there is the book of Ruth. Ruth is the bright, shining spot--the way out of the book of Judges.

The story is set during the time of the Judges. Israel is experiencing a famine, so a family from Bethlehem (ironically, "the house of bread")--Elimelech, Naomi, and their two sons--moves to Moab. While it would seem to make sense to move away  from famine to prosperity, it's important to understand that Elimelech was moving his family away from the Promised Land and the people of God to live among Israel's enemies. The father of the Moabites was the progeny of an incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughter, back in Genesis, and Israel and Moab were not on friendly terms. Moabites were not to enter the assembly of the Lord, yet Elimelech and Naomi were entering Moab to live among the people there. In time, Elimelech dies, and his two sons marry Moabite women. Eventually the two sons die too, and Naomi is now a childless 
widow--and that's about as bad a condition as a woman could find herself in in those days. 


Naomi hears that there is bread again in the House of Bread, so she decides to return to her home. She encourages her sons' young widows to go back to their mothers and their gods, but the heroine, Ruth, insists on staying with her mother-in-law and makes a great confession of her faith in Naomi's God, the God of Israel. She returns with her to Bethlehem. In Bethlehem Naomi tells her friends to call her Mara, which means bitter, because God has dealt bitterly with her.


If you haven't read the story, read it. The two savvy women recognize that hard work and a good husband are the ways out of poverty. In God's providence, Ruth meets the much older Boaz, who agrees to be her kinsman-redeemer and marry her. It's a beautiful story, and when you understand that Boaz is a type of Christ, our own kinsman -redeemer, and we, his people, are Ruth, it's even better. But what struck me when I read the familiar story again was this verse from the very end of the book. Ruth and Boaz are married, Naomi now has happiness and security, and the women of the town rejoice. This is what they say in Ruth 4:14-15:

“Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.”

This is an astounding statement! How can Ruth be better than seven sons? Remember that at the beginning of the story, Naomi lost two sons--all that the Lord had given her. It almost seems cruel to taunt her by saying that this daughter-in-law is better than seven sons. In the Bible, seven is the number of completion, of being satisfied, of having enough. God rested on the seventh day after creating the earth. And now the women say that Ruth is better than having enough sons to a woman who no longer has her sons.

It is interesting that the women point out that Ruth loves Naomi, but she is better than seven sons because through her, the one Son will come who will lead his people out of the despair of the time of the judges. Ruth gives birth to Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David the king. And from David eventually would come Jesus Christ, the perfect Son of God. And this is how Ruth's Son is a  restorer of life and a nourisher of old age. This is how Ruth herself, who forsook the gods of her people to become a child of the true God is, indeed, better than seven sons. Through her would come the greatest blessing the world will ever know.








   

On Noses

I don't remember when this happened, so I can't tell you how old they were. But it was funny, so back then I wrote it down on a scrap of paper. And I just found it, and it made me laugh again.

Katie: Keep your nose out of my business!

Jonathan: My nose isn't that big.

22 Mistakes Pastors [and Consistories] Make in Church Discipline

Since Scripture calls men to the roles of leadership in the church as pastors and elders, I will never experience what I would imagine would be one of their most difficult tasks: executing biblical, effective church discipline. Clearly church discipline is critical to the life of the church: the Belgic Confession, article 29, lists it as one of three marks of the true church. And yet so few seem to understand how it is supposed to work, even among those called to administer it.

This blog post by Andy Naselli, who shares principles from Jonathan Leeman's Church Discipline, provides great food for thought in this often misunderstood and misapplied area of church life.

Pastor and People

From a sermon titled "The Church's Marriage to Her Sons, and to Her God," by Jonathan Edwards:

A faithful minister, that is in a Christian manner united to a Christian people as their pastor, has his heart united to them in the most ardent and tender affection. And they, on the other hand, have their hearts united to him, esteeming him very highly in love for his work’s sake, and receiving him with honor and reverence, and willingly subjecting themselves to him and committing themselves to his care, as being under Christ their head and guide. Such a pastor and people are like a young man and virgin united in marriage, with respect to the purity of their regard one to another. The young man gives himself to his bride in purity, as undebauched by meretricious embraces. And she also presents herself to him a chaste virgin. So, in such a union of a minister and people as we are speaking of, the parties united are pure and holy in their affection and regard one to another. The minister’s heart is united to the people, not for filthy lucre or any worldly advantage, but with a pure benevolence to them and desire of their spiritual welfare and prosperity and complacence in them as the children of God and followers of Christ Jesus. And, on the other hand, the people love and honor him with a holy affection and esteem. Not merely as having their admiration raised and their carnal affection moved by having their curiosity and other fleshly principles gratified by a florid eloquence and the excellency of speech and man’s wisdom, but receiving him as the messenger of the Lord of Hosts, coming to them on a divine and infinitely important errand, and with those holy qualifications that resemble the virtues of the Lamb of God.

I hope your pastor matches the description here. I am thankful to say that ours does.

7/11

Photo by LVL Photography

Four years ago today. Smartest thing I ever did.

Resolve Conflict ASAP

As my family emerges from a time of intense conflict (not a family conflict among us--a conflict outside of us), I have been impressed by how critical it is that we address issues among us quickly and not allow them to fester. I truly believe that the conflict we just endured would never have become what it became if injured parties early on had dealt with one another in the manner described in this blog post by pastor and counselor Paul Tautges. His counsel here is biblical and wise, and there would be much less conflict among us if we were to act accordingly.

The Emotional Left

I don't typically find myself visiting Parents.com. I'm past finding out what the most popular baby names are and am not in the need for toddler finger food recipes these days, but I discovered a fascinating feature the website is offering this election year. They're calling it "Moms Decide 2012," and here's their description of how it works:

"Over the next few months, the editors of Parents.com will report on hot-button election issues that American families face today, from healthcare to education. In the spirit of offering diverse perspectives on the election, we’ve chosen three moms from across the political spectrum to be guest bloggers on Parents News Now. Each one of them will offer a unique take on the topics that they–and you!–are most passionate about."

Last week, three bloggers--a conservative, a liberal, and a moderate--gave their responses to the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Health Care Act. They offer up no surprises. Sharon Lerner, the liberal blogger, rejoices in the SCOTUS decision. She thinks that offering universal health care is a "no brainer," and she can't fathom how or why anyone could possibly be opposed in principle to it. She believes that "Republican health care haters" are basing their ideas on a misunderstanding of freedom; they expect to have freedom of purchasing power and freedom from the responsibility of caring for other citizens. So, apparently, if you want the freedom to spend your money as you choose, and you expect to be free from paying the medical bills of a stranger whose other bills you are not expected to pay, you are a health care hater. As we would expect, Ms. Lerner has no thought for paying for this monstrosity.

The moderate blogger (who really in the end is also a liberal), Amy Julia Becker, argues from compassion and pragmatism. She is happy that the law has been upheld. She acknowledges that she has enjoyed the privileges of health care because she grew up in an affluent family (someone at some point worked hard to create the affluency) and because she and her husband have always worked hard. She cites a study from Oregon (no liberal bias there) that shows that when everybody has access to health care, it has a positive impact on society. She takes issue with some of the finer points of the law that do not consider personal responsibility (does any of it?) and looks forward to the day when everyone will enjoy the same privileges  of health care that she has always enjoyed.



The conservative writer, Suzanne Venker, raises the issue of fairness (is every American truly entitled to health care?) and wonders what the ramifications will be for the quality of health care that people will receive. Nothing particularly new here, but what she does point out that is interesting is this:

"The Left is motivated largely by emotion. If something sounds good or just, it should be embraced–regardless of its feasibility. Conservatives (and independents, for that matter) know better. Leftists can also be elitist. If someone doesn’t agree with their position, he must be educated so he can see things more clearly. Obama is famous for that attitude. When The People reject his policies, he insists he just hasn’t explained himself well. The condescension is so palpable I almost feel sorry for him. Almost."

It gets even more interesting when you consider the number and nature of responses from the commenters, who, in this admittedly very small context, prove Ms. Venker's point.

There were eight responses to the liberal's post. Two conservative commenters (one is a business owner) disagree politely with the blogger and ask how the Affordable Health Care Act will be paid for. Their tone is respectful, they don't call Lerner names, they don't call the president names. When a liberal supporter of the post politely reminds the business owner that this will all be paid for with taxes on the wealthy and budget cuts and also explains that unless she has fifty employees or more she will not be required to offer them health care benefits, the business owner comes back, again, respectfully, with hard numbers and statistics from the Congressional Budget Office. She responds civilly, intelligently, and obviously with a clearer grasp of the issues than the liberal commenter.

There are six responses to the moderate post. Because the moderate's arguments are a bit muddled, a couple of the commenters' responses are as well. Again, there are those who question how all of this will be paid for, one who says she is optimistic and one who says he is not. But the tone here is civil, respectful, and reasonable. There is no name calling, no calling into question the blogger's intelligence (although one commenter rightly questions some of the author's assumptions).

And then we come to the conservative blogger, who accuses the left of being emotional and elitist. It makes me wonder if she didn't provide the comments herself to prove her point, because prove her point they do. There are twenty-three comments to her post--a much higher response rate than the other two bloggers got. While the first commenter chimes in with her support of Venker's arguments regarding fairness, others accuse her of being ignorant and selfish. A couple of these angry commenters say that they are shocked that Parents would publish such offensive stuff and claim that they will cancel their subscriptions. Never mind that  the magazine also provided posts from two liberal perspectives. Those who seem most offended by Venker's viewpoint argue from personal, anecdotal experience, i.e., emotion. They take an elitist position and consider Venker ignorant and selfish because . . . well, because they disagree with her.

I'm happy to report that most of the commenters wrote in support of Venker, and one commenter (who might have been me) offered up this: "This is the problem with liberals: no compromise, and no exchange of ideas. 'If you disagree with me, I'll shut you down.'"

The word liberal suggests generosity and broad-mindedness, and it's interesting that the people who would claim this quality for themselves often have the least generosity and broad-mindedness for anyone with whom they happen to disagree. "Moms Decide 2012" is a case in point.