Why the book of Ruth is not a love story: A study of Ruth 2:1-16

Henry Martinez

I used to think the book of Ruth was a love story. First there is the love Ruth shows Naomi:

“Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die—there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” Ruth 1:16-17

This display of devotion rivals the sentiments of most romantic poems (the good ones at least). And then there is the love between Boaz and Ruth, wrapping it up nicely and providing a colorful backstory for some essential branches in King David’s family tree. But calling the book of Ruth a love story or dramatized genealogy runs the risk of evading a crucial issue of our time. At its heart the book of Ruth is a story of immigration.

We don’t know the reasons for Ruth’s decision to throw her lot in with Naomi. No one is surprised by Naomi’s choice to go back to her homeland, or by Orpah’s choice to go back to her family after her husband dies. But Ruth’s decision to leave the security of her family and homeland to pursue an unpromising future with a fellow widow could only be called foolishness or faith. She is commonly referred to as Ruth the Moabite, which leads us to think her nationality would have been an issue. She takes to gleaning in the fields as a way of ensuring she can feed herself and her mother-in-law. She’s earning no wage for her labor; at most she hopes to glean enough grains for a meal. She catches the attention of Boaz, who learns of her story (at least part of it) from the labor overseer. Thankfully for her, she chose the right field to glean from.

Boaz assures her that she will find protection in his field, safe from the rebuke she presumably would have received from the other field workers or overseers. He also gives her permission to drink from the water they have drawn. She asks what she, a foreigner, has done to earn such favor. Boaz responds:

‘All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before. May the Lord reward you for your deeds, and may you have a full reward from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge!’ Then she said, ‘May I continue to find favor in your sight, my lord, for you have comforted me and spoken kindly to your servant, even though I am not one of your servants.’ (2:9, 15-16)

Rather than see her as a foreigner and respond in a way which protects his economic interests and preserves the rights of the locals, Boaz extols Ruth’s character. He hears her story and sees her sacrifice and devotion ahead of whatever hindrance her nationality or ethnicity may have presented. Even though the Torah teaches that the poor and foreigners should be allowed to glean in the fields (Leviticus 19:9-10), this does not mean there is universal acceptance of this (especially when Moabites are involved). There are other stories in scripture where anti-Moabite prejudice is allowed (Genesis 19, Numbers 25, Ezra 9). Boaz doesn’t seem to have anything to gain by extending this hospitality to Ruth, but his care for her in spite of the conflicting social custom signifies a deep regard for the vulnerable that offers us a witness worth considering as we reflect on immigration today.

The attitude toward immigrants in the US often ranges from indifference to hostility. A welcome acceptance appears to be rare. Regardless of their story or character, it is more likely that we would welcome them in our fields than our communities. The story of Ruth reminds us that social customs may conflict with our understanding and practice of hospitality. No, God doesn’t explicitly tell Boaz to consider Ruth, but God uses the unfolding events and kindness of Boaz to show us how redemption and care of neighbors can work. Knowing someone’s story makes a difference. Rather than see her as merely a Moabite, Boaz sees Ruth as a person of faith and character, with dignity. Her story can help us explore our own hospitality, and the extent to which we acknowledge its boundaries and our acceptance of social norms.

For more on the importance of examining perceptions of immigrants and welcoming the stranger, see two great articles by Carmelo Santos and Bishop Wayne N. Miller (Metro Chicago synod) in the December issue of the Journal of Lutheran Ethics.

Book Review: Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies

Henry Martinez

fresh fruit broken bodies In Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies, Holmes attempts to better understand the “social and symbolic context of suffering among migrant laborers” (29). The book begins with a personal account of a dangerous border crossing, then records his work alongside a particular group of Triqui people (an indigenous group in what is now the Mexican state of Oaxaca) through harvest fields in Washington, California and back to Oaxaca. His explorations progress with the hope that his observations will help change public opinion, practices and policies (29).

The book chronicles Holmes’ journey to understand how the poor suffer, often reading like a sociologist’s annotated field notes. The first-hand interviews and narrative presentation serve two purposes. First, and most obviously, these give the reader a glimpse into the lives of his Triqui companions. Secondly, the author relies heavily on the interviews and narrative to transition to topics that are contextually essential to the issue, but require further analysis beyond the scope of the book (e.g. neoliberal capitalism, North American Free Trade Agreement). As a result the narrative, combined with critical reflection and knowledge of social science research, advances Holmes’ case and signals the need for some additional context.

In the third chapter the author gives a vivid depiction of farm work. His insights not only give the reader a glimpse at some of the issues affecting these laborers, but also explain the segregation of labor, one of the social structures he wants us to challenge. The fourth chapter studies the issue of embodied violence and examines how racism is naturalized (a term the author uses frequently) in the industry. The fifth chapter looks at the health care available to the farm workers, both their access and opportunities in Mexico and the United States. The sixth chapter is devoted to the “public gaze” regarding the farm workers, where the author surveys the systematic effects.

In his analysis Holmes avoids simplistic arguments. Instead, he strives to draw attention to the systematic ways in which populations are marginalized or written off completely. One critical step he acknowledges is combating normalization- seeing the plight of migrant workers (a term which the author interrogates thoroughly) as an unfortunate but inevitable part of the social order. He finds this sort of indifference destructive, and an impediment when working toward respect, and common humanity as far as seeking a solution regarding migration and the U.S.-Mexican border (156). These sorts of conclusions sometimes leave the reader wondering how to work for systematic change, and the author offers a couple anecdotes of how he sees this done.

Since Holmes works, lives, and travels with the Triqui people he is reporting about, his methods of research could be criticized for a lack of objectivity. One would expect a certain degree of empathy, if not bias, would develop when spending a substantial amount of time building relationships with a particular group. On the other hand, the position he assumes makes his claims and analysis tough to dismiss (as he seeks perspective from grower and picker, medical care practitioner and patient). In the end he is able to achieve a unique ethnographic account that fully supports his analysis. Whether or not that analysis is sufficient for his critics is another matter.

Throughout the book I kept wondering whether or not his analysis would be convincing for someone who disagrees with his conclusions. We get the sense that he interviews people who disagree with him, but Holmes doesn’t go into detail about how the conversations took shape or conclude. Of course a lot depends on where the disagreement lies, but overall his case could benefit from a more thorough policy review (i.e. NAFTA and migration). The reader would do well to look into supplement articles and papers from the Economic Policy Institute or other related publications: NAFTA in the New Millennium, (eds. Chambers and Smith) and “NAFTA and Migration.” I have had only a cursory review of these sources and merely recommend them as examples without endorsement of their findings.

This book would be well suited for those interested in issues of race relations and/or work among migrant populations, specifically farm laborers (a population which often exists under the radar in many communities). A common refrain throughout the book is the need to challenge structures that devalue humanity. By identifying the unabashed racism that exists in this system, Holmes is calling us to recognize complicity and work to change it wherever we can.

farm laborer migration Map showing major migration streams in the United States.

My Friend’s House and Pebbles Phillips

Ryan P. Cumming

“If you hold your hand out clenched, you can’t give or receive. But if your hand is open, you can give and receive.” Pebbles Phillips, a vocalist and musician who has performed with top acts, lives by this motto. As a single mother, she not only takes care of her daughter but also helps her daughter’s father, her neighbors and people she meets in food lines. Pebbles teaches her daughter to be grateful for what they have, even though both of them depend on food pantries and government assistance to keep food on the table.

Pebbles and Azure3 Pebbles’ daughter receives SNAP benefits each month, but Pebbles herself does not because she receives a small amount of Social Security which “barely pays rent.” Getting benefits for her daughter is a burdensome process that requires “a lot of patience.” Still, she says, “I have to do it.” Without help from other family members, her daughter depends on SNAP to eat, though even with the meager benefit she receives, both Pebbles and her daughter were going hungry by the last week of each month. SNAP helped a lot, but it didn’t keep them from going hungry.

To make it through the month Pebbles “never misses the food line,” sometimes waiting three to four hours in line to receive fresh food for herself and her daughter. Finding My Friend’s House, a ministry supported by ELCA World Hunger, was a “blessing.” In line there, she joined folks who would sleep on the porch or arrive in the wee hours of the morning to get food. When her daughter’s benefits were reduced November 1, 2013, she relied even more on My Friend’s House and other food programs.

Still, Pebbles makes the best of her situation. “Even if all we have is beans and potatoes, we make it into a feast.” Together she and her daughter served other folks at My Friend’s House dinner on Thanksgiving Day. Her positive attitude helps Pebbles face the grim reality of food insecurity: the laborious process of applying for and maintaining benefits, the long lines at food pantries, the anger and frustration of some of her friends and neighbors in similar situations, the uncertainty of having heat or power each month, and the pressing fear that SNAP, Section 8, Social Security or other programs might be threatened by cuts. Her family depends on the assistance they receive from both the church and the state. Without both, Pebbles and her daughter will join the millions of Americans who go hungry in a land of plenty. With them, Pebbles and her daughter not only feed themselves but are also able to contribute to their community in many ways.

Contracts, Covenants and Charity

Ryan Cumming

Much ink has been spilled critiquing the difference between the simplistic act of donating to the poor and the more complex ministry of accompanying those in poverty. On the one hand, it seems a good thing to put coins in a panhandler’s cup, or donate toys to a gift drive, or pack meals to be shipped overseas. In fact, all of this has a long history within the religious tradition of almsgiving. On the other hand, a whole cadre of activists and advocates have called these acts paternalistic and tried to pull (or push) well-intentioned Christians into a ministry that is marked by interpersonal relationships rather than one-sided giving of time or treasure.

Bishop Wayne Miller (Metro Chicago Synod) attempted this in 2011, when he described a continuum of ways that the church encounters the poor. At one end is pity, which essentially views people in poverty as objects of sympathy or derision. At the other end is identification, in which we identify so closely with people in poverty that we experience their suffering as our own and seek to end it. Somewhere in the middle, we move from mere pity or charity to the beginnings of actual relationships with people in poverty, a move Bishop Miller urges the church to make.

But, really, who has time or energy for that? When our good intentions have brought us to the crossroads of service, we seem left with two choices: charity or relationships. Too often, Bishop Miller and Robert Lupton (whose Toxic Charity wasreviewed here earlier this month) remind us, we choose the former, since we don’t have the time or desire to form a relationship.

I will press Bishop Miller a bit here, though I agree with him otherwise. A relationship isn’t formed somewhere near the middle of the continuum; every interaction with the neighbor forms a relationship. The question isn’t, “Should I put money in the panhandler’s cup, or should I form a relationship with her?” The question is, “What kind of relationship am I forming in this action? How will this act shape how I view my neighbor and how my neighbor views me?” The point to consider here is not whether to form a relationship but what quality of relationship the church is forming in its service.

That the church is in the business of forming authentic relationships with people in poverty and working to end their suffering is central to who we are as people of God. There are those who disagree, claiming that active service and advocacy make the church too worldly, that the church should teach the word and sacraments and focus only on spiritual matters.

To put it bluntly, they are wrong. The Law, the prophets and the Gospel reveal that there is no greater evidence of alienation from God than unrepentant alienation from the neighbor. The two cannot be separated.

Many Lutherans are familiar with Martin Luther’s famous paradox in Freedom of the Christian: Christians are perfectly free, subject to none; Christians are perfect servants, subject to all. Understanding this contradiction requires understanding what salvation means for Lutherans. We believe that sin, in its most basic form, means being “curved inward,” so focused on our own needs and our own goodness that we can’t be there for other people. By grace, God has justified us; we don’t need to be so insular. We are “curved outward” by God’s saving action, freed to be there for the neighbor.

After all the theology, soteriology, Christology, harmatiology, and so on – after all those lofty doctrines and tenets, one thing is left: the neighbor. We are saved for the sake of the neighbor. Or, more appropriately, we are reconciled to God that we may be reconciled to the neighbor. To be in relationship with God is to be in relationship with the neighbor. To serve God is to serve the neighbor. We take joy in God by taking joy in the neighbor. We express hope in God by sharing in hope with the neighbor. We commune with God by communing with the neighbor. We neglect one relationship only at the cost of the other.

We learn what it means to be in relationships by looking closely at God’s relationship with us. The most basic shape this takes is the form of the covenant. Christian ethicist Stewart Herman contrasts covenants with contracts, another powerful image of human relationship. He notes that in a contract, we demand certain kinds of behavior from other people and leave room for penalties if the contract is violated. Once the contract term is ended, both parties walk away, hopefully satisfied. A contract is marked by calculated trust, protection against risk and impermanence.

A covenant, on the other hand, goes far beyond demanding specific behaviors. In a covenant, the hope is that each party learns to value the other. Rather than being forced or compelled to fulfill a contract, in a covenant, each party takes the risk of trusting the other and becomes vulnerable to the other. Rather than ending with a term, both covenant partners move toward a future of togetherness in which the relationship doesn’t end but is deepened and fulfilled.

God doesn’t force Israel to be faithful; God moves among the Israelites, accompanying them despite their unfaithfulness, and invites them to be part of this relationship. The people are called not merely to follow the Law but to “love God.” God doesn’t merely do things for them; God loves them and claims them (Jeremiah 30:22), in a move that Bishop Miller’s “identification” recalls. More than this, according to Herman, God and Israel are vulnerable to each other. God needs Israel to fulfill God’s plan; Israel needs God to bring the plan to full flower. They depend on one another.

So much charity seems like a contract. Those with resources share them with the expectation that those who receive charity will be deserving and grateful. One party receives resources, the other receives the rewarding feeling of having done some good. Not only is this often based on distrust (“How do we know they are really poor and not scammers?” so many ask), but in some ways it depends on there being a steady supply of people in poverty to serve as contract partners. Otherwise, how would people with resources feel the satisfaction of charity?

Seeing ministry as a covenant, though, means moving toward a future together. It means taking a risk, not only that we might be “scammed” – that’s the small risk – but that we might be called to change how we see the world and how we live within it. It means recognizing our vulnerability to each other. It means people with resources seeing themselves as equally needy and recognizing that God meets those needs through the neighbor. It means moving together toward a new future, one in which the suffering of poverty is ended and not merely “addressed.”

Above all else, it means recognizing that God has called us and claimed us for the sake of our relationship with one another. In a shared world of interdependence, we will be in relationship with each other. What has been given to us is to determine whether that relationship is a mutual, life-affirming covenant or a one-sided, termed contract. To which are we called as people of faith?

At the Gate: A look at accompaniment in Acts 3:1-10

Henry Martinez

Peter looked intently at him, as did John, and said, “Look at us.” And he fixed his attention on them, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, “I have no silver or gold, but what I have I give you; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and walk.” And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. (Acts 3:4-6)

In the follow up to his gospel, Luke goes to great lengths to show how the Holy Spirit is given to the apostles and what this gift means for their ministry and the life of the early believers. Implicit in the purpose of Acts, so it seems, is the apostles’ faithful witness to the person of Jesus and God’s gift of the Holy Spirit that enables their activity and mission. The ministry of Jesus is left in their hands. In other words, you can smell this healing story coming from a mile away. At the risk of simplifying the matter, the arc of a healing story can be understood as follows: problem—solution—proof.

The problem is realized as the scene opens on a man who is carried to church (I’m contextualizing here) by some faithful friends every day. As worshipers file past, the man at the gate collects whatever alms they can spare. The people go in to become the worshiping body, the man stays at the gate. Enter Peter and John.

After a stare from each of them (I wonder how awkward that was), the Spirit moves Peter and John to do something more than give money. If they did have silver or gold, Luke probably would have told us they gave that as well. The healing/solution works well for Luke’s purposes, but it leaves us with a question: “If we’ve been given the Holy Spirit, why can’t it be this easy for us?” Why aren’t lives healed or made new with a simple command? Why isn’t poverty solved with a job? Why isn’t more food, money, or help enough? The man walks – leaps for joy even – and praises God, but in a way he is getting ready for healing of another kind.

The final step of the healing is the proof, which we read in verse 10: “and they recognized him as the one who used to sit and ask for alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple…” This confirms the healing act of the apostles, but I almost wish Luke, the author of the gospel story where the dinner host orders the servant to invite the poor, crippled, blind and lame (Luke 14:21) would have emphasized the other drama that unfolds here. Something like: “and he recognized them as the ones who passed him by at the gate of the temple as they went on to pray.”

The healing story is the introduction to another chapter not written in the book of Acts. It is a chapter that begins as the crowd disperses from Solomon’s Portico and the man walks away for the first time. Just as he has to learn what it is like to walk, he also has to confront his feelings that come from knowing what it is like to be passed by your whole life. Meanwhile, the rest of the community has to come to terms with the likelihood that their response to the man’s previous condition affects any relationship with him from here on out. The man and the community have to learn how to walk together in a new relationship, one that requires a different kind of healing, though nonetheless guided by the spirit.

In one way it looks like Peter and John just went in and fixed the man (and this isn’t Luke’s fault). But in another way we begin to see that God’s healing spirit is also needed as we stumble through the relationships we have with one another. Only by the work of the spirit are we able to recognize the barriers in our midst that before looked as innocent as gates.

Henry Martinez is an education associate with ELCA World Hunger.

Review of Robert Lupton’s Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help

Ryan P. Cumming January 9, 2014

Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help. New York: HarperOne, 2012.

Recently, a friend who does ministry in an urban area expressed his frustration with “mission trips”. “These groups call us all the time and they want to come down and do projects that don’t help us. We try to tell them about what we’re doing and how they can help, but they don’t listen. They just want to paint walls or pick up trash. Even worse, they tell us that we’re doing it wrong.”

Toxic Charity captures this divide in writing that is perceptive and prophetic, even if not always persuasive. Lupton tells of the church in Mexico that was painted six times by six groups one summer, the gift-giving program that left the fathers of children feeling emasculated and inadequate, and the tile floor in a Cuban seminary that was inexpertly laid by novice volunteers as skilled local laborers were left without work.

Lupton’s criticisms of the billion-dollar charity industry are important, and we should listen to them. His suggestions for transforming ministries are also thought-provoking, as is the “oath for compassionate service” he describes in later chapters. Its principles, in fact, coincide with the ELCA’s method of accompaniment and are vitally important for authentic and effective service.

Because of these high points, it is easy to mutter “amen” while reading. Lupton does a great job pointing out the problems of some forms of direct service of the poor. But for a church that also does public advocacy, his book has some remarkable shortcomings.

One criticism is that Lupton moves uncritically between uplifting the capacity and creativity of the poor and degrading them as lazy and dishonest. “Most [panhandlers] are scammers,” he states (45). Most poor people in the United States “assume that their subsistence is guaranteed” and so lack any kind of work ethic, he claims (121). I won’t dignify his words with the verb “argues” because Lupton doesn’t argue his points; he simply states them. I would be concerned that statements like this, when coupled with his criticisms of charity, would motivate more people to avoid service work in the first place than to engage in the community development he suggests.

His approach to the role of government is particularly troubling, again, given the lack of evidence he marshalls to defend his claims. “As a country,” he writes, “we understand that welfare creates unhealthy dependency [and] erodes the work ethic” (22). This indictment continues in his evaluation of international aid (given to the same people who, according to his own account, have the stronger work ethic that should make such aid effective).

The difficulty here is not his rejection or support of foreign aid or welfare. There are arguments to be made on both sides of the debate. The problem is that the only apparent research Lupton draws on is Dambisa Moyo’s controversial 2009 book Dead Aid. Outside of this, Lupton appears to draw on his own experience, which I admit is extensive, but this does not make for a well-defended argument. And this is vitally necessary when making statements about both the poor and government’s relationship to them that are far from self-evident.

For example, Lupton claims that “all our efforts to eliminate poverty have succeeded only in creating a permanent underclass, dismantling their family structures, and eroding their ethic of work” (3). Such a premise neglects the arguments that such programs have been woefully underfunded since the 1970s and so may be said to have been set up to fail. There may be structural and systemic reasons why poverty remains a problem. What is more, to blame poverty-elimination efforts for the “breakdown” of the family is a leap that requires defense and explanation. Such statements are common in political rhetoric, but if they are to influence churches (as Lupton desires) there at least should be some evidence demonstrating their truth.

That said, I still cautiously recommend the book. Clearly, Lupton touches a nerve when it comes to how the “haves” respond to the “have-nots.” And the similarities between his recommendations and the ELCA’s model of accompaniment create points of entry for talking and thinking about how we live faithfully in the midst of a complex world, where even our highest ideals fall short. Perhaps it may also be an occasion for drawing out some of these complexities in ways that Lupton ignores.

If your congregation or group is looking to do service on the frontlines or planning a mission trip, I strongly recommend Lupton’s book. But if your group is dealing with public policy issues or advocacy, I would suggest also looking at Sasha Abramsky’s The American Way of Poverty: How the Other Half Still Lives (reviewed here last month) or David Beckmann and Arthur Simon’s Grace at the Table: Ending Hunger in God’s World to balance Lupton’s claims.

Martin Luther’s Top Ten Quotes about Ministry among People in Poverty

“According to this passage [Matthew 25:41-46] we are bound to each other in such a way that no one may forsake the other in his distress but is obliged to assist and help him as he himself would like to be helped.”

-Whether One May Flee from a Deadly Plague (1527)

“Christians are to be taught that the one who sees a needy person and passes by, yet gives money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God’s wrath.”

-Ninety-five Theses (1517), #45

“Let us also be generous [as Abraham was], and let us open the door to poor brethren and receive them with a joyful countenance. If we are deceived now and then, well and good. In spite of this our good will is demonstrated to God, and the kind act…is not lost on Christ, in whose name we are generous. Hence just as we should not intentionally and knowingly support the idleness of slothful people, so, when we have been deceived, we should not give up this eagerness to do good to others.”

-Lecture on Genesis, Chapter 18

“Therefore, we should be guided in all our works by this one thought alone – that we may serve and benefit others in everything that is done, having nothing before our eyes except the need and advantage of the neighbor.”

-Freedom of a Christian (1520)

“But in times past, [Holy Communion] was so properly used, and the people were taught to understand this fellowship so well, that they even gathered food and material goods in the church, and there – as St. Paul writes in I Corinthians 11 – distributed among those in need.”

-The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods (1519)

“For this reason, true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ…God can be found only in suffering and the cross.”

-Heidelberg Disputation (1518)

“Now there is no greater service of God than Christian love which helps and serves the needy, as Christ himself will judge and testify at the last day, Matthew 25.”

-Ordinance of a Common Chest, Preface (1523)

“The rule ought to be, not ‘I may sell my wares as dear as I can or will,’ but, ‘I may sell my wares as dear as I ought, or as is right and fair.’ Because your selling is an act performed toward your neighbor, it should rather be so governed by law and conscience that you do it without harm and injury to him, your concern being directed more toward doing him no injury than toward gaining profit for yourself.”

-Trade and Usury (1524)

“We do not serve others with an eye toward making them obligated to us. Nor do we distinguish between friends and enemies or anticipate their thankfulness or ingratitude.”

-Freedom of a Christian (1520)

“If your enemy needs you and you do not help him when you can it is the same as if you had stolen what belonged to him, for you owe him your help. St. Ambrose says, ‘Feed the hungry: if you do not feed him, then as far as you are concerned, you have killed him.’ ”

-Treatise on Good Works (1520), reflecting on the seventh commandment

Top 10 Bible Verses about Hunger and Poverty

10. 2 Corinthians 9:6-7

“The point is this: the one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the one who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

No, poverty and hunger are not specifically mentioned. But Paul is making the case for his collection for the saints in Jerusalem, which turns out to be a pretty big deal.

9. 2 Thessalonians 3:10

“For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.”

This one makes the list because it makes for an easy sound bite that can be taken out of context. It is directed to those who have stopped contributing to community life because they think “the day of the Lord” is eminent. They were probably as motivating as this guy.

8. Psalm 146:5-7

“Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord their God, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them; who keeps faith forever; who executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry.”

7. Luke 4:16-21 (Isaiah 61:1-2)

Jesus, quoting Isaiah: “‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.…'” (Lk.4:18-19)

So popular it’ll get you run out of town.

6. Luke 6:30-32/Matthew 5:42-43

“Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have them do to you. ‘If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.”

I’m reminded of C.S. Lewis’ words:

“Another thing that annoys me is when people say, ‘Why did you give that man money? He’ll probably go and drink it.’ My reply is, ‘But if I’d kept [it] I should probably have drunk it.'”

5. 1 John 3:17-18

“How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help? Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action.”

4. Deuteronomy 15:10-11

“Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.'” (Deut.15:11)

Jesus echoes “you will always have the poor with you” in Mark 14:7. But, like here, that doesn’t look like we’re just supposed to live with it and move on. It’s probably more of a critique, as in: considering the way you treat one another, of course you’ll always have the poor with you.

3. James 2:15-17

“If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”

Words are sufficient any number of times, but not in this situation (or ones like it). This is similar to #5 on the list, but questions the presence of faith rather than the presence of God’s love in the believer.

2. Isaiah 58:6-11

“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?” (Is.6-7)

A good way to one-up all fasts anyone else could ever come up with.

1. Matthew 25:35,40

“… for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink”

1. Luke 6:20-21, 24-25

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled… But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.”

In Matthew this shows up toward the end of Jesus’ ministry and is more about obedience. Luke presents it earlier in Jesus’ ministry in a format similar to the beatitudes (which, for one reason or another, the audience may have had a difficult time hearing).

Occupying and Attending the World Food Prize

Two weeks ago, I traveled to Des Moines, Iowa, to attend the World Food Prize’s Borlaug Dialogues series. The prize is based on the vision of Norman Borlaug, founder of the “green revolution,” whose work focused on increasing the yield and durability of plants. As you can probably imagine, the World Food Prize (WFP) has come under criticism in recent years for its focus on high-yield, high-profit productivity. (Having DuPont and Monsanto as major sponsors will do that to you.)

Meanwhile and elsewhere in Des Moines…a relatively small but vocal group had organized an “Occupy the World Food Prize” campaign to voice a variety of complaints about the WFP. Central among their complaints was the WFP’s decision to honor three “biotechnologists,” including an executive from Monsanto and a researcher for Syngenta, two companies known for their work with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

Fortunately, I was able to attend both the Borlaug Dialogues and an event sponsored by the Occupy folks. Talk about a study in contrasts! It was striking to hear two vastly different perspectives on agriculture, food and solving hunger. The contrast brought to the fore some important debates that can be heard even among ELCA World Hunger folks.

President Grimsson of Iceland speaking at the World Food Prize.

The WFP hosted a “Who’s Who” of corporate and public figures, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair, Howard G. Buffett, President Grímsson of Iceland, and the executive officers or presidents of several large corporations. They spoke of public-private partnerships, corporate investment and trade policies. The major events ceremony was filled with pomp and circumstance, the awardees heralded by ceremonial horns.

By contrast, the attendees at the Occupy event at First United Methodist Church were college students and community activists, dressed in jeans and serenaded by a guitar-playing troubadour waxing poetic about the differences between being “the shovel or the s—.” In sharp tones punctuated by applause and cheering, the speakers railed against “corporate greed” and political influence. They praised the “grassroots” and the “power of the people.” Public-private partnerships are the very symbol of corruption and injustice in their eyes.

Cardinal Peter Turkson addresses the Occupy the World Food Prize crowd.

The differences here beg the question: where does legitimate power come from? Is solving hunger a “grasstops” campaign or a “grassroots” movement? In the wilderness, the devil tempts Jesus by offering him control of all the kingdoms on earth (Matt. 4:8-9). Jesus rebukes the devil, choosing instead the life of servanthood and solidarity among the “grassroots,” a life that leads him to the cross. But what a ruler Jesus might have been! What does this say about not only how we exercise power, but what kind of power we seek? Is there room for both power from above and power from below?

Agribusiness or Agriculture?

“it is true; agriculture is a business…” – Eve Ntseoane, WFP panelist

“We must bring agribusiness into [the conversation and highlight] the opportunities of farming as a business, as entrepreneurship.” – Mpule Kwelagobe, WFP panelist

“Corporate interests have re-made agriculture in their own image…farming is ‘good business’ because it is a way of life…It’s agriculture not agribusiness.” – Jim Hightower at Occupy the WFP event

Is food production a way of life – a culture – or is it a profit-driven business? The difference might seem trivial – a matter of semantics – but the perspective each offers is vastly important. Consider: “The emphasis seems to shift from perceiving food as a ‘commodity to be consumed’ to food as an ‘unexpected gift to be received’…” (Samuel Torvend, Luther and the Hungry Poor: Gathered Fragments, 98.) What do we lose and what do we gain by shifting farming from culture to business?

Us or Them?

The language of “insiders” and “outsiders” was muted at the WFP, though to be honest, the folks in attendance with whom I spoke seemed reluctant to ask questions about the role of power in decision-making. Unsurprisingly, this was not the case at the Occupy event. Here, the presenters were clear: some “insiders” have power, and they tend to abuse it. The mass of “outsiders” without financial or political power must use their numbers to seize power from the “greedheads” and “money elites.” There was a clear division between “insiders” – those with wealth and influence on their side – and “outsiders” – agitators with morality on their side.

Is there room for both in the movement to end hunger? In an ideal situation, those with traditional power will listen to those with “people” power to correct injustice. Practically speaking, though, two obstacles make this very difficult. On the one hand, the “insiders” must allow the grassroots to have a place at the table. On the other hand, the “outsiders” must take the risk that this table is a place where authentic dialogue about solving hunger can occur. “Whoever is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40). “Whoever is not with me is against me…” (Matthew 12:30). Which is it? Must we choose?

The contrast between the two events was thought-provoking for me. Where do you stand on these important debates about solving hunger? Does power come from above or below? Is food a commodity or a gift? With whom should we form networks? What do we gain when we take a side on any of these issues? What do we lose?

Ryan P. Cumming is Program Director for Hunger Education, ELCA World Hunger.

Book Review: Courage to Think Differently

By Lily R. Wu

“To make a difference in solving the problem of hunger and poverty, we need to think differently,” says George S. Johnson, former director of the American Lutheran Church’s hunger program. “Jesus was constantly encouraging people to look at deeper questions that don’t have easy answers.”

Fresh, compelling anthology
Pastor Johnson’s new book, Courage to Think Differently, is for people of faith who want to open up their thinking and explore new directions. We virtually “meet” more than 30 well-known thinkers and read their insights on the earth’s survival and our own. The compilation is so creative and spiritually compelling that it practically glows in my hands.

The contributors are widely known for being prophetic in their fields. The presentations are brief. The book helps us get beyond vague wishing, to wrestle with what it means today to “do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God” (Micah 6:8).

The essays are generally very readable — popularly written as I prefer, rather than heavily academic. Some will require more study on my part, and less study from readers more politically astute. That tells me I’m not going to outgrow this book for quite a while.

I wouldn’t call it “light reading,” but I do enjoy how it seeks to be popular while not compromising on its content. The range is definitely broad. For example, a seasoned hunger advocate or professor might readily appreciate the two-page “Responses to World Hunger” Appendix chart as a teaching tool. Others might need more explanation between the lines. But overall, I think the panoramic view is solid.

Glen Gersmehl, national coordinator of Lutheran Peace Fellowship, says, “This is an extraordinary volume: inspiring, rewarding, even exhilarating. It stirs up fresh thinking and motivation. It reminds me of the very best collections I’ve ever read on important themes, like Paul Loeb’s The Impossible Will Take a Little While. And it’s perfect for discussion groups, because the leader can assign some essays for advance reading while making others optional. We just ordered a couple of boxes for our core leaders and congregational forums.”

Sampling of authors
Examples of contributors include Diana Butler Bass, Walter Brueggemann, Shane Claiborne, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, David Korten, Brian McLaren, Bill Moyers, Larry Rasmussen, Vandana Shiva, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, and Elie Wiesel.

Contributor Frances Moore Lappé, who also wrote the foreword, writes, “The world now calls us to go beyond beneficence, to stop berating ourselves for not being good enough and to get on with the task of being powerful enough: to embrace our fear and to join with others to use its energy.”

Diversely helpful
Peace and justice newcomers – and mentors — will appreciate Appendix Teaching Aids such as “The Shakertown Pledge” (nine declarations for world citizens); “How to Hang in There for the Long Haul” (21 notes for activists); and “10 Reasons for Choosing a Simpler Lifestyle.”

Adult education groups can study the Bible via “Rich Man and Lazarus;” “God Takes Sides;” and “Jesus and Biblical Interpretation.”

Seminarians, missional classes and pastor’s groups can grapple with “The Peril of Worshiping Jesus;” “Idols in the Church;” “New Climate for Theology;” and “Remember the Poor.”

Hunger and globally-minded advocates can draw from “Taking Oppression Seriously;” “Destroying Small Farmers;” and “Down to Earth Economy” for their speaking and teaching.

Experienced activists can explore “Winner-Take-All Politics;” “Sacramentalism and Eco-Feminism;” and “Global Exploitation.”

For anyone, there’s “Appearing Before the Authorities;” “Letter from a Birmingham Jail;” and more.

Caveats
Johnson offers a few caveats. First, this book isn’t about giving pat answers or dispensing guilt. And though “things are not working” for most of God’s children and God’s creation, “more generosity is not the answer. A new mindset is called for, that asks questions such as ‘Am I believing in Christ, or following Christ? ‘ ”

He goes on to say that not every reader will change, or needs to change. As contributor John Cobb, Jr., adds, think for yourself; you may come to “conclusions that are quite different from those presented.”

How it’s organized
Seven main section headings suggest the breadth and depth of the content: Irrelevant Religion and Idolatry, Exclusion and Thin Democracy, Biblical Certitudes and Ignorance, Individualism and Cheap Grace, Ecological Crisis and Greed, Silence and Job Insecurity, and Empire and Civil Religion.

Some appendix entries were so good for new activists that they left me thirsting for more. The book is not always snappy and quick; it’s one to sit with and reflect on. But learning to grow in courage is important and takes time. At its best, this book is unusually engaging and definitely time well-invested.

BOOK REVIEW

Courage to Think Differently

George S. Johnson

2013 Adventure Publications

ISBN 987-0-9703028-1-6

Availability: www.adventurepublications.net (enter book title into search box). Also, signed copies available from lpf@ecunet.org (as supplies last), $10 including p+h, or free with a contribution of $75 or more.

Reviewer Lily R. Wu is a web content writer-editor in New York City and a board member of Lutheran Peace Fellowship, based in Seattle.