This is the "reflection paper" from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education. It was written during the 4th week of class, but not published here until class was over.
Describe the treatment of non-Israelites as portrayed in Joshua 3:7-17 and in the Book of Ruth. Give examples of similarities and differences in the ways that God and/or God’s people treat non-Israelites in the two works. How does Progressive Christianity understand these similarities and differences? Use the questions at the “Three Worlds of the Text” website to guide your thoughts.
In Joshua 3:7-17 (specifically, Joshua 3:10, where Joshua tells the people of Israel that God "will completely remove the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites, and Jebusites before you."), non-Israelites are barriers to be removed, not actually humans.* In Ruth, Ruth is often viewed as a heroine. But I think a better model is that of "the town's black", the exception to the rule in otherwise white-only towns discussed in James Loewen's book Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism. To quote Lowden "Decades after death, such a person may get warm retrospective articles in the local newspaper." (p. 290) This is similar to, but not the same, as the myth of the model minority. I live in Oregon, which has the sad distinction of having been formed as the only state to specifically exclude "negros and mulattos", constitutional discrimination that remained in effect until 1926 and was followed by numerous official and unofficial exclusion rules. The story of Ruth is very reminiscent to me of some of the historical figures of my current town of Eugene. For instance, there is Wiley Griffith, who is known for conducting the mule towed streetcar in town circa 1890, owning the mule, and being a favorite of local children. A mural about him was recently put on a wall near my friend's house in part as graffiti prevention. Or maybe of Pearlie Mae Washington and Annie Mimms, black women who hosted black performers and visiting student athletes in their homes - conveniently located just outside the city limits, performers who were invited to perform for white citizens but not welcome in the white-only hotels as late at the 1970s. I did not grow up in Eugene, I didn't learn about Wiley Griffith and his mule and the Mimms and Washington families in 7th grade Oregon history (although I did learn about some of the token blacks of Portland, but not the extent of racial exclusion in Oregon.) These are stories I learned just existing in Eugene in the 10 years I've lived here. The story of Ruth reads a lot like these stories, it seems like it's about Ruth, but then you start looking at it a little more and there isn't really a lot about Ruth herself and her thoughts and feelings, just Ruth in relationship to the dominant culture. We start out hearing about Naomi and her troubles and her generosity in excusing her daughter-in-laws from the usual expectations a widow owes to her husband's family and end the story showing Boaz's generosity in acting as kinsman redeemer and marrying Ruth, followed by a genealogy to show that King David descended from Ruth, making the story important to the story of Israel. If Ruth had been an Israelite, would Naomi have had to trick Boaz into doing his duty as kinsman redeemer? Or would the "nearer redeemer" first mentioned in Ruth 3:12 have jumped to do so?
I think that as Progressive Christians, we have a tendency to overlook the implied genocide of the other groups in the Joshua passage (which is more explicit elsewhere in Joshua) and to read into Ruth what we want to see, particularly around women in the Bible. (The article we read, What’s Rape Culture Got To Do With The Book Of Ruth?, shows several examples of this kind of thinking.) Many progressive churches and institutions have ongoing issues with confusing the presence of members of minority groups (of whatever type) and actual inclusion. Ruth may itself be symbolic of that kind of thinking.
While these stories, on the surface, seem to show opposing views of non-Israelites, Joshua viewing them as an other to exclude and kill and Ruth showing the story of a Moabite woman being welcomed into the Israeli community, I think that really they are both about exclusion. In Joshua, all non-Israelites are excluded. In Ruth, a non-Israelite is allowed to exist because she makes herself useful to Israelites. She's the exception that proves the rule that non-Israelites are bad, not someone treated as valuable in and of herself. Ruth 4:16-17a where Ruth's child is shown as belonging to Naiomi, further cements Ruth herself as unimportant, she is relegated to the role of surrogate, not mother. 'Naomi took the child and held him to her breast, and she became his guardian. The neighborhood women gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.”' (Ruth 4:16-17a CEB) This reflects a pattern still seen today where people from countries that do not allow surrogacy contract with foreign women in countries where surrogacy is legal, such as the US, Canada and India. Additionally, the book of Ruth takes place (and is likely authored) later than Joshua. It may partially function as apologia for why there are still non-Israelites around when Joshua said God was going to "remove them before you."
* Also, I want to highlight that in this passage in Joshua, God tells Joshua that he will make him like Moses, Joshua himself is the one who says God will completely remove the other groups.
James's Lowden's website - https://justice.tougaloo.edu/sundown-towns/
Online museum exhibit "Racing To Change: Oregon's Civil Rights Era: The Eugene Story" that includes the Black pioneers mentioned and the racism they faced - https://mnchexhibits.uoregon.edu/racing-to-change/
No comments:
Post a Comment