“The Bible Belt.” This phrase is, of course, one way of describing the geographic region from Virginia in the north, to the panhandle of Florida in the south, to the eastern edge of Texas. More to the point, “the Bible belt” describes how the culture of the southeastern United States has been shaped by Christianity, mainly Baptist and Pentecostal. If you are from the South, having “a church on every corner” is something to expect. If you are from another part of the country, your experience is quite different.
Some Christians argue that Bible Belt culture is a bad thing; biblical Christianity is better suited for a hostile environment than a friendly one. Others argue that a Christian heritage is important for creating the necessary conditions for churches to evangelize citizens within their area of influence. Instead of addressing that debate directly, it is helpful to see a biblical example, in the book of Ruth, of a town that functioned biblically.
Before we examine details, here’s a caveat or two. Nothing happening before Acts 11:26 can
strictly be called “Christian.” However, to live “Christianly” is to live by faith in what God has
revealed and commanded, and so Christians live fundamentally the same way that saints in the Old Testament lived before they knew the name of the Messiah. Another caveat is that the book of Ruth is set in the time of the judges. At that time apostasy and wickedness abounded because everyone was doing “that which was right in his own eyes” (Jdg. 21:25). However, the nation was highly decentralized, and so towns like Ruth’s Bethlehem could exist without our modern notions of government interference. Judging from the events of the book, Bethlehem operated more or less consistently with God’s law, regardless of the perversion happening elsewhere. Now on to Ruth.
The first lesson to point out about the account is the presence of biblically consistent cultural
norms. One such custom was the way the poor were treated. Ruth, a poor widow, was able to glean, that is, to gather fallen grain stalks behind the reapers, consistent with the Lord’s
command in Leviticus 19:9-10. It is important to observe Bethlehem’s cultural response to the
poor. The town did not hand them food; instead, the people self-consciously and generously
provided opportunities for the needy to do the hard work of gathering and threshing in the fields of others. Another cultural norm is how the widows were treated. Chapters 3 and 4 of the book center on the application of a patriarch’s cultural obligation to care first for his immediate family (4:6), and then for his relatives. God’s providence in the book of Ruth hinges on Boaz accepting responsibility for the family of his kinsman Elimelech. Ruth and Naomi were supported by their relative’s faithfulness to his widowed family.
Yet another cultural norm is how the book of Ruth frames the sojourner. In modern terms, we
would call Ruth an emigrant from Moab who immigrated to Israel. She left her home country out of loyalty to her mother-in-law, and, in the process, committed to adopting the culture of the land she was entering. In chapter 1, Ruth proclaimed her allegiance to the people of Israel and, more importantly, to the true God of Israel. Her corresponding renunciation of Moab and commitment to the Lord is the quality Boaz identified as virtuous and respectable in 3:10-12. Ultimately, Ruth’s change of loyalty is what made it possible for Boaz to marry her and for her to be part of the Messianic line. From this story we recognize that a Christian people in a Christian town expect foreigners who immigrate to likewise profess and demonstrate loyalty to their new people and, primarily, to the true God. These are things God will bless, and that cultural norms should require.
A second lesson about Christian towns from the book of Ruth is that, in such towns, powerful
men are Christian men. Boaz was “a mighty man of wealth.” The godly exercise of his riches
and influence color the whole account. While we can only speculate about how the town and its people, including Ruth, would have suffered if Boaz had been ungodly and unscrupulous, we can safely assume Bethlehem would have been a more unpleasant place to live. Boaz was a godly influence on his slaves (2:4), ensured Ruth was physically safe and provided for (2:9, 14-16), preserved her reputation (3:10-14), and followed the appropriate laws of inheritance (4:1-11). Every town and city should have men who have the power to act justly, and the virtue to exercise righteous power. In a Christian town, powerful men obey the Lord.
A third lesson that Ruth teaches about Christian towns is that shame is necessary. Just as
culturally reinforced praise is effective in promoting righteousness, so culturally reinforced
shame is effective in preventing wickedness. Bethlehem was a town where fornication was not tolerated; we infer this from Boaz’s desire to keep his midnight conference with Ruth a secret in 3:14. Bethlehem apparently also provided culturally enforced pressure to faithfully follow the kinsman-redeemer system; this expectation kept the other unnamed kinsman from claiming the right to Elimelech’s land, for he knew that, if he were to commit, he would have to keep the terms. While shame is an unpleasant response to receive from others, it is a necessary complement to public support for righteousness. A Christian town will have certain behaviors that are “off limits,” and that expectation will be enforced by the community.
A fourth and final lesson about Christian towns is that such places preserve their godly heritage. Boaz, we learn at the end of the book, was a descendant of Judah. This information is revealed when the people of the town chose the life of their forefather Judah and his son Pharez as the example when they invoked blessing on Ruth. Imagine neighbors today blessing a newborn boy by wishing on him the courage and sacrifice of their forefather Richard Henry Lee, who signed the Declaration of Independence. Of course the hypothetical example is merely a civil event; the lineage of the Messiah, with its symbol of the scarlet thread, is far more important. The broader point, however, is that the women of Bethlehem lived as people connected to their forefathers and their spiritual heritage. As believers, our connection to Christ is also brotherhood with believers of the past, whose faithfulness to the gospel has entrusted us with the stewardship of its treasure (2 Thess. 2:4). There were believers in our city before we were born. We owe many we do not know, and many we do know, for their faithfulness to the local assembly of the saints. We enjoy our local churches today because others kept the gospel light alive for decades. Christians who understand that heritage are likewise diligent to influence their town for the next generation.
The book of Ruth provides an unusually detailed look at a town that operated with biblical
principles. While civil communities of sinners will not live completely consistently righteous,
Christian towns are far preferable to places where God’s word and faith in the true God is
ignored. If you don’t believe that believing towns are better, simply read the final chapters of the book of Judges. Christian towns, or places where everyone did “that which was right in his own eyes.” The choice is not difficult.
The above article was written by Jonathan Kyser. He is a pastoral assistant at NorthStone Baptist Church in Pensacola, FL. To offer him your feedback, comment below or email us at strengthforlife461@gmail.com.
Every Tuesday, SFL publishes relevant Bible-based content. Check back next Tuesday to read the next SFL article.
留言