Thursday, November 25, 2010

God Is At Work - The Story of Ruth Part IV - The Providence of God, Part 22 of 23

TEXT: The story of Ruth

IDEA: The providence of God is often at work when we don't think God is involved at all.

PURPOSE: To help listeners understand that a good storyteller seems to say one thing when he really means another.

T. S. Eliot asked, "Between what matters and what only seems to matter, how do we decide?" Do you resonate with that question?

I. Looking back on your life, can you see decisions that you thought were insignificant but turned out to be life-shaping?

II. We can see God at work in the story of Ruth in incidents that didn't seem to matter much at all.

In Ruth 2:3, the storyteller says that Ruth "happened to come to a part of the field belonging to Boaz." One translator paraphrased this as "As a stroke of good luck." If the message of Ruth is that God's providence is always at work, doesn't it seem strange that this event which brought Ruth and Boaz together would be attributed by the storyteller to "chance" or "luck"?

The author's real meaning is to say just the opposite. No human planning was involved. Ruth and Boaz might have regarded what happened as chance, but not really. The writer is underplaying for effect. He calls the meeting "lucky" but the reader knows better than that. The author is pointing to the seeming "accidental" as directed by God.

In Ruth 3:13 the writer refers to an incident that does matter for the wrong reason. Here is an extremely dangerous scheme. The author treats it with delicacy, but it could have turned out to be very indelicate.

The big question is, "Could God possibly bless a scheme like this hatched by a desperate old woman?" Notice that the writer doesn't come out and ask it, but it is there.

Is God's providence limited to actions we approve of?

III. Sometimes an idea is better communicated by what we don't say than by what we say.

The writer doesn't say, "As though by accident, God brought Ruth to a field owned by Boaz."

He doesn't say, "So you see that the prayer uttered by Naomi was answered."

When something happens earlier in the story that is later fulfilled, the writer doesn't say, "Naomi says she is empty but doesn't realize that Ruth standing by her side will bring her fulfillment."

The "punch line" of the story speaks about God indirectly. In Ruth 4:17 the story of Ruth concludes by naming David as her great-grandson. It would take an informed reader's breath away. Look how far back in history David's election reached. Here again the skill of the storyteller serves theology well.

Conclusion:

Why do you think the author used subtlety to make the theological point?

Between what matters and what seems to matter, how do we decide?