This morning I participated in the graveside service of a spiritual giant in my life. Virginia Ahlquist was a member at Riverview for decades and had a significant impact in my life. In fact, as I said at her funeral service, of all the people in my life who have had an impact on me spiritually, Virginia would be high on my top 10 list. No, we didn't have a special or even particularly close relationship, although I've known her all my life. And no, I can't point to one single event or or dramatic experience in which Virginia was the difference maker or proclaimed to me some deep spiritual revelation. Rather, it was in the ordinary ways that she served God that had such a monumental impact on my life and, I believe, my eternal destiny.
Although I grew up in the church and made a public profession of faith at the age of nine, I don't believe I actually came to genuine faith until later in my teenage years. I can't pinpoint the day or time of my conversion as some people can. Instead, I can point you to a season in my life in which I believe God saved me. It wasn't dramatic, and there weren't any bright lights or voices from heaven. It was a process over a long period of time. But that process actually began much earlier in my life.
I grew up at Riverview, and as such, I still go to church with people who taught my Sunday School classes when I was a child. Virginia was one of those teachers - a fact that she reminded me of almost every week she was at church during my tenure as Senior Pastor. Each week I shake hands with people as they exited the sanctuary, and whenever it was Virginia's turn to shake hands, she'd do so, look at me, and say, "My little first grader!" She said this because I was one of her first grade Sunday School students (or maybe it was kindergarten - or both! I don't recall). I think it was special for her to see one of her old Sunday School students serve as the pastor of her church, and it was special to me to serve one of my old Sunday School teachers from 30 years ago.
And that's mostly it. Like I said, Virginia's influence in my life - from an outsider's perspective - would have seemed rather minimal. Sure, she was my Sunday School teacher as a child, but we never had an exceptionally close relationship. The reason I mark her as having such a monumental impact on my spiritual life is that it was the biblical foundation laid by her and others when I was young that God ultimately used to bring me to faith.
Even though I grew up in the church, I was rebellious, and I was really good at hiding it. I'd put on one face for church, and another face for other interactions. Most people thought I was a good kid, and I suppose that by some metrics I was. But I, like most, had periods of deep rebellion. And regardless of how things looked on the outside, on the inside I was lost. I was at enmity with God. I was bound for hell.
But in the midst of rebellious activity that I set my hand to before my conversion, there was always an inner voice that was appealing to the biblical foundation that had been laid in my childhood. The Spirit used what so many faithful volunteers and teachers had put into my mind to convict me that what I was doing was wrong, that I knew better, and most importantly, I knew the truth: that I needed a Savior who could save me from my sin. When I eventually listened to that conviction and began to act upon it, it was the biblical foundation that Virginia and others had laid that God used to bring me to salvation. Where would I be had Virginia not invested in teaching me the foundations of the Christian faith so many years ago? God only knows.
For this reason, I rank Virginia rather highly on my top 10 list of people who have had a significant spiritual impact on my life. I'm sure that when Virginia said "Yes" to being a volunteer first grade Sunday School teacher, she probably had no conception of the monumental and eternity altering impact it would have on the young children she would be teaching. Rather, she probably thought that it was something simple that she could do to use her time and talents to serve the Lord and glorify God. But that's the point: God takes our simple acts of obedience (like teaching first grade Sunday School) and magnifies them into salvation-building events that change the course of eternity. I praise God for the life and ministry of Virginia Ahlquist. We don't often think of first grade Sunday School teachers as being world-changers, but Virginia certainly was.
The testimony of Virginia's simple acts of obedience provide all of us with a wonderful example to follow. God doesn't need us to be dynamic preachers, to have international appeal or reach, to have limitless funding for ministry initiatives, or anything else. All he needs is for us to say "Yes" when he calls us to do something. The reality is that God probably won't call you to some dynamic international preaching ministry that will affect the hearts of millions. But God probably will call you to do something small, something simple, and something ordinary. And if you will say "Yes," to that small thing, God can and will do amazing things with your willingness to obey.
In what small way could God use your obedience to potentially change the eternity of someone else? Maybe, like Virginia, you could teach a Sunday School class. Providentially, Virginia's husband, Al, who passed away several years ago, also occupies a spot on my top 10 list. He was never a Sunday School teacher of mine, but when I was a teenager he offered to simply hang out with a group of boys from our youth group once a week during the school year. Those times spent with him were deeply impactful to me. And all we did was hang out.
I don't know if I'm on anyone's top 10 list the way that Virginia is on mine. I hope I am, but not for any vainglorious reason. Rather, I want to be found faithful in the little things. I want to be used by God to be a part of his eternity-shaping work in this world. I know that I serve a great and powerful God who can do remarkable things with my ordinary obedience. My prayer is that God would lead each of us to say "Yes" to the simple and ordinary acts of obedience. If we do that, God can use us to change the world.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Monday, July 2, 2018
But Ruth Clung to Her
July 26, 2018 will mark the fifteenth anniversary of the wedding between my wife and I. Time seems to move faster as it goes on, I think, and it is remarkable to me that fifteen years will have gone by so quickly. In just a few short years, I will have spent more of life with my wife than without her.
The vows that my wife and I chose for our wedding ceremony came from Ruth 1.16-17, which I just preached on this past Sunday: "...where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me if anything but death separates you and me." As he was reciting these vows for my wife and I to repeat, my father-in-law (who performed the ceremony) had a slip of the tongue and said, "Where you die I will die, and there I will be married" instead of "buried." Everyone had a good laugh. I think every wedding ceremony needs a slip-up or two to remind us that nothing is perfect.
As I prepared to preach this text this past week, I read K. Lawson Younger Jr.'s commentary on Ruth. Toward the end of his comments on chapter 1, he has a section that argues that the use of Ruth 1.16-17 as wedding vows is a misuse of this text, as the circumstances between Ruth's commitment to Naomi are completely different than those between a husband and wife. Having read Younger's argument (and perhaps, much to the chagrin of my wife!), I am inclined to agree with his assessment. The context of Ruth 1.16-17 is not at all similar to that of a marriage covenant between a man and a woman. Moreover, it would be downright wrong for a person to commit to another that "your God will be my God," as though he or she would follow the lead of one spouse from god to god! That being said, I do believe that the commitment of Ruth to Naomi is one that is admirable and which all husbands and wives should seek to emulate toward their spouses.
The broader context of the story of Ruth helps to illustrate this. Naomi (Ruth's mother-in-law) saw herself as a marked woman, a target for the displeasure of God. After all, her husband and both of her adult sons had died, leaving her a destitute woman. As such a woman in a patriarchal society, Naomi had no prospects of joining the work force and providing for herself. There was a very real danger of her facing death by starvation. At best, she could be a beggar who subsisted on the leavings of and charity of others. Needless to say, the outlook on her life was grim to say the least.
This is why Naomi encouraged her daughters-in-law (Ruth and Orpah) to go back to their hometowns, remarry, and live happy lives. If they were to stay with Naomi, they would share a similar fate of destitution and even potentially death by starvation. "And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her" (Ruth 1.14).
At her mother-in-law's insistence, Orpah takes off with a kiss goodbye. But Ruth "clings" to Naomi. What is pictured by these words is an embrace - an extended and passionate hug. But there is much more that is going on. By "clinging" to Naomi, Ruth is throwing in her lot with Naomi to the extent that they will share a common destiny, a common fate. Whatever happens to Naomi will happen to Ruth; however Naomi suffers, Ruth will suffer; wherever Naomi goes, Ruth will go; wherever Naomi dies, that is where Ruth will die.
Just think about what Ruth was willingly accepting by "clinging" to Naomi: Naomi was too old to remarry, but Ruth wasn't. By clinging to Naomi, Ruth was willfully giving up the prospect of remarrying and having children (note: this wasn't ultimately the case for Ruth, however - read Ruth 4!).
By clinging to Naomi, Ruth was giving up her cultural and social identity and taking on a new one: that of a destitute widow.
By clinging to Naomi, Ruth was accepting the fate of Naomi: most likely death by starvation.
By clinging to Naomi, Ruth's identity was wrapped up in Naomi's. Whatever happened to Naomi would happen to Ruth. If one suffered, they both suffered; if one rejoiced, they both rejoiced.
Compare Ruth's commitment to Naomi to the sentiment communicated by traditional vows that are used in wedding ceremonies: "I take you to be my husband/wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in scenes and in heath, to love and to cherish, till death do us part." They sound pretty similar to me.
I imagine that Ruth wasn't excited about the prospect of becoming a destitute widow who faced starvation - especially when she had the opportunity to go back to her homeland, remarry, and live happily ever after - but that's what she chose to do. Why? Because she was clinging to Naomi. I'm sure she also wasn't excited about moving from her homeland to go to Naomi's homeland where Ruth would be a foreigner.
What it meant for Ruth to "cling" to Naomi is exactly what it means for us to "cling" to our spouses: to take on a common destiny or fate. To stand by each other regardless of the circumstances we face individually or as a couple. Sometimes one spouse does something that creates difficulty and tension for the other spouse, or in the marriage, or even in the family in general. And the results can be miserable: discontentedness, strife, emotional distress, and so on. But still, we cling. We have intertwined our fates together, our individual destinies have become one destiny together. "Where you go, I will go; how you suffer, I will suffer; where you die, I will die." Sometimes clinging to a spouse isn't very fun or enjoyable - indeed, sometimes it's downright miserable. But still we cling.
It's important to note that this type of clinging in marriage doesn't give one spouse license to run roughshod over the other spouse, or to be intentionally harmful, manipulative, or abusive. It's not as though one spouse can behave terribly and demand allegiance from the other spouse under the guise of clinging to one another. This would be to completely misunderstand Ruth's commitment to Naomi.
Although Ruth's exact words to Naomi may not be appropriate to recite during a wedding ceremony, the principle behind her words are exactly the kind of commitment that husbands and wives should endeavor to display in their marriages. Be like Ruth, and cling.
The vows that my wife and I chose for our wedding ceremony came from Ruth 1.16-17, which I just preached on this past Sunday: "...where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me if anything but death separates you and me." As he was reciting these vows for my wife and I to repeat, my father-in-law (who performed the ceremony) had a slip of the tongue and said, "Where you die I will die, and there I will be married" instead of "buried." Everyone had a good laugh. I think every wedding ceremony needs a slip-up or two to remind us that nothing is perfect.
As I prepared to preach this text this past week, I read K. Lawson Younger Jr.'s commentary on Ruth. Toward the end of his comments on chapter 1, he has a section that argues that the use of Ruth 1.16-17 as wedding vows is a misuse of this text, as the circumstances between Ruth's commitment to Naomi are completely different than those between a husband and wife. Having read Younger's argument (and perhaps, much to the chagrin of my wife!), I am inclined to agree with his assessment. The context of Ruth 1.16-17 is not at all similar to that of a marriage covenant between a man and a woman. Moreover, it would be downright wrong for a person to commit to another that "your God will be my God," as though he or she would follow the lead of one spouse from god to god! That being said, I do believe that the commitment of Ruth to Naomi is one that is admirable and which all husbands and wives should seek to emulate toward their spouses.
The broader context of the story of Ruth helps to illustrate this. Naomi (Ruth's mother-in-law) saw herself as a marked woman, a target for the displeasure of God. After all, her husband and both of her adult sons had died, leaving her a destitute woman. As such a woman in a patriarchal society, Naomi had no prospects of joining the work force and providing for herself. There was a very real danger of her facing death by starvation. At best, she could be a beggar who subsisted on the leavings of and charity of others. Needless to say, the outlook on her life was grim to say the least.
This is why Naomi encouraged her daughters-in-law (Ruth and Orpah) to go back to their hometowns, remarry, and live happy lives. If they were to stay with Naomi, they would share a similar fate of destitution and even potentially death by starvation. "And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her" (Ruth 1.14).
At her mother-in-law's insistence, Orpah takes off with a kiss goodbye. But Ruth "clings" to Naomi. What is pictured by these words is an embrace - an extended and passionate hug. But there is much more that is going on. By "clinging" to Naomi, Ruth is throwing in her lot with Naomi to the extent that they will share a common destiny, a common fate. Whatever happens to Naomi will happen to Ruth; however Naomi suffers, Ruth will suffer; wherever Naomi goes, Ruth will go; wherever Naomi dies, that is where Ruth will die.
Just think about what Ruth was willingly accepting by "clinging" to Naomi: Naomi was too old to remarry, but Ruth wasn't. By clinging to Naomi, Ruth was willfully giving up the prospect of remarrying and having children (note: this wasn't ultimately the case for Ruth, however - read Ruth 4!).
By clinging to Naomi, Ruth was giving up her cultural and social identity and taking on a new one: that of a destitute widow.
By clinging to Naomi, Ruth was accepting the fate of Naomi: most likely death by starvation.
By clinging to Naomi, Ruth's identity was wrapped up in Naomi's. Whatever happened to Naomi would happen to Ruth. If one suffered, they both suffered; if one rejoiced, they both rejoiced.
Compare Ruth's commitment to Naomi to the sentiment communicated by traditional vows that are used in wedding ceremonies: "I take you to be my husband/wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in scenes and in heath, to love and to cherish, till death do us part." They sound pretty similar to me.
I imagine that Ruth wasn't excited about the prospect of becoming a destitute widow who faced starvation - especially when she had the opportunity to go back to her homeland, remarry, and live happily ever after - but that's what she chose to do. Why? Because she was clinging to Naomi. I'm sure she also wasn't excited about moving from her homeland to go to Naomi's homeland where Ruth would be a foreigner.
What it meant for Ruth to "cling" to Naomi is exactly what it means for us to "cling" to our spouses: to take on a common destiny or fate. To stand by each other regardless of the circumstances we face individually or as a couple. Sometimes one spouse does something that creates difficulty and tension for the other spouse, or in the marriage, or even in the family in general. And the results can be miserable: discontentedness, strife, emotional distress, and so on. But still, we cling. We have intertwined our fates together, our individual destinies have become one destiny together. "Where you go, I will go; how you suffer, I will suffer; where you die, I will die." Sometimes clinging to a spouse isn't very fun or enjoyable - indeed, sometimes it's downright miserable. But still we cling.
It's important to note that this type of clinging in marriage doesn't give one spouse license to run roughshod over the other spouse, or to be intentionally harmful, manipulative, or abusive. It's not as though one spouse can behave terribly and demand allegiance from the other spouse under the guise of clinging to one another. This would be to completely misunderstand Ruth's commitment to Naomi.
Although Ruth's exact words to Naomi may not be appropriate to recite during a wedding ceremony, the principle behind her words are exactly the kind of commitment that husbands and wives should endeavor to display in their marriages. Be like Ruth, and cling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)