This paper is part of my larger work on Targum Ruth. This summer I will be presenting a paper at IOTS on the character of Boaz in Tg Ruth. But first, we need to consider how Boaz is presented in the biblical text.

Centrally Marginalized

Ruth and Naomi are rightly understood by most commentators as the central figures of the book of Ruth and most agree that Ruth and Naomi are the initiators of all action and Boaz merely the respondent. As Phyllis Trible noted, “Boaz is the reactor to their initiative.”¹ Thus in many ways Boaz is only marginally relevant to the story, he is present because only a male figure could accomplish the deeds necessary to secure Ruth and Naomi’s future.

Yet there has been a tremendous amount of attention paid to Boaz over the centuries. Older and more traditional commentaries, going back to the rabbinic sources and as recent as, for example, Frederic Bush,² depict Boaz as the righteous and benevolent savior of Ruth and Naomi, often to the extent that the women are displaced from their central roles. More recently, however, we find commentators like Fewell and Gunn who focus upon Boaz precisely with the purpose of diminishing his role in some way.

Boaz has thus been centrally marginalized in two instances. In the first case by the narrator since the story itself places Boaz in a distinctly tertiary role relative to Ruth and Naomi, and in the second case by the scholars who seek to reduce his actions to those of a horny old man.

The biblical account

The story itself presents Boaz as a figure who is key to the plot, he is a necessary element of the preservation of Ruth and Naomi, but it is made clear in a number of ways that he is merely a tool, used and manipulated by the women, with very little value of his own aside from his role as “redeemer.”

The four chapters of the book of Ruth are often and understandably broken down into four primary scenes with actions attributed to different characters in each case. In chapter 1 it is Naomi who is the primary mover, first leaving Bethlehem and then returning. It is Naomi, by her return to Judah and urging of her daughters-in-law to remain in Moab, who precipitates Ruth’s decision to leave her own home and gods to remain with her mother-in-law.³ In chapter 2 we find Ruth taking the initiative, going out to provide for their sustenance. Chapter 3 is often viewed as Naomi’s since although Ruth is the one who must approach Boaz in the dark of the night, it is Naomi who provides her with the counsel and guidance. The final chapter is, of course, considered Boaz’s since it is primarily concerned with his actions at the city gate and his “taking” Ruth as his wife and the subsequent conception and birth of Obed. Chapter 4 is, as so many have noted, very much a male world (Trible).

While such a description and breakdown of the book of Ruth is reasonable, it obscures the fact that it is Ruth who is actually the instigator of all central actions. It is Ruth’s passionate insistence on staying with Naomi that sets the stage for everything that follows and it is of course Ruth who takes the initiative to go and glean for their sustenance. While chapter 3 opens with Naomi taking responsibility for Ruth’s wellbeing (“I need to seek some security for you, so that it may be well with you.”) and offering a plan for presenting herself to Boaz, it is Ruth who not only acts out that plan but, as many have noted, goes beyond Naomi’s instructions.⁴ The events of chapter 4 thus come about because Ruth took the initiative and moved Boaz into action. It is true that Ruth does not speak again in the story after she reports back to Naomi the events of the night at the threshing floor, but it is her words to Boaz that lie behind every action of chapter 4.

The figure of Boaz, on the other hand, has an important and yet marginal role in the story.  In chapter 2, for example, when Boaz finally appears on the scene he acts, but only in response to Ruth’s presence. His speech makes it clear that he knew of Naomi’s return from Moab and Ruth’s faithfulness to her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told me.” Yet for some reason he never sought out Naomi or Ruth until she was before him and he had to take notice. Many commentators have spent a considerable amount of effort wondering why Boaz did not seek out Naomi and what his motivation would be in caring for Ruth now. I will deal with the latter below, but a few words about the former are appropriate here.

We all know how notoriously difficult and even dangerous it is to attempt to discern an author’s intent; I would suggest that it is even more foolhardy to attempt to discern a character’s motivation without some clear indication from the text itself. I am still not sure if I completely agree with Campbell’s following statement, but there is certainly truth within it.

It is inherent in biblical thought generally that a person’s actions and words offer a true picture of the person’s character. Hebrew stories do not have characters with hidden motives and concealed agendas, or if they do, the audience is explicitly told about it.⁵

Certainly biblical characters are often devious and do have agendas and perhaps Campbell is right in saying that when they do the audience is always allowed into the conspiracy. With the case of Boaz I think that what we find is what the character is. We could make up a back story (as the rabbis do) and provide him with motives for not engaging with Naomi or Ruth before this moment. Or we could accept that the author had no use for Boaz until this time in the story. His character is marginal, he only makes an appearance on the stage when necessary, and he does not initiate anything, but rather reacts to Ruth’s decisions and actions.⁶

Chapter 4 is, as noted already, often considered Boaz’s chapter and it is certainly primarily concerned with his actions. Boaz goes to the city gate and settles the business with “So-and-so” (‏פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי) and then after some formalities and blessings “Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife.” This all occurs in the realm of men. There are no women among the elders and in fact we do not hear from Ruth or Naomi again in the story. Yet all of this occurred because Ruth directed Boaz saying, “spread your cloak over your servant, for you are next-of-kin.” Even when it seems, as some might argue, that this incredible story of women’s initiative is undermined at the very end by the silencing of our main characters and Boaz’s emergence into center stage, the primary mover of these events remains Ruth. Furthermore the very end of the story once again belongs to the women as the women of the community step forward and bless Naomi and even name the child, “A son has been born to Naomi.”⁷

There is no doubt that Boaz is a key player in the book of Ruth; without the male redeemer safety and security for Naomi and Ruth could not be ensured. But Boaz’s engagement is restricted to reacting to Ruth’s actions and directions. It is worth taking a moment to remind ourselves of how revolutionary this work would have seemed to its original audience. There are certain tropes and themes to be expected, Boaz is certainly presented as the pious patriarch, however it is the women, and more specifically the foreign woman Ruth, who are in complete control. As a character Boaz has more in common with Rachel or Leah than Jacob; he has certain key moments of dialogue that move the plot, but his primary function is to provide offspring.

[Addendum: Jim Getz, one of our colleagues who was here last night but has since returned to Philadelphia just commented on my blog this morning. I think his comment is worth sharing. “Could the antiquated language of Boaz (his use of paragogic nun’s) be a very tangible representation of this marginalization by the narrator? The very way he speaks is distinct from the other characters in the story. He’s in some way marginalized every time he opens his mouth.”]

Modern marginalization

If the biblical text has reserved the spotlight for Ruth, most commentators up until the last century have widened the spotlight to make room for Boaz, in some cases eclipsing the women altogether. For example, in the Targum to Ruth Boaz is not only a pious man, he is a scholar of Torah and a prophet. In reaction to such interpretations and following the general societal changes in the last 50 years or so scholars have rightly begun to refocus upon Ruth and Naomi. At the same time some have sought to diminish the role of Boaz. I want to consider briefly one such theme of marginalization found in contemporary scholarship, that of portraying Boaz as nothing more than a horny old git, who reacts primarily to his primal urges rather than out of any altruistic or religious motives.

Fewell and Gunn present this argument in their 1989 article “Boaz, Pillar Of Society” and later develop it in their book Compromising Redemption. They begin by asking “what is the nature of Boaz’s interest in Ruth?”⁸ and conclude that “for all his piety and generosity, for all his acclaimed responsible behavior, his desire for Ruth cannot be cloaked. His last, and most telling, move is to have sexual intercourse with ‘this woman’ (4.13).”⁹ Others have since accepted this view or some modified version of it. The result of such a reading is that while Boaz’s actions are important for the movement and culmination of the story, his character is impugned and his motives are reduced to physical impulse.

While I have just argued that Boaz’s character is marginal, I do not find this reading plausible for several reasons. The fundamental flaw is with Fewell and Gunn’s attempt to read beneath the text, looking for Boaz’s motives. I have already commented that such an effort is foolhardy since we only have at our disposal what the text provides and in this case, that is not very much. As Tod Linafelt notes in his commentary concerning the fact that Boaz’s first question to his men is about “this young woman,” “As always, the narrator give [sic] us no glimpse into Boaz’s thoughts, so the motivation behind his interest is left up to the reader to decide.”¹⁰

As almost every commentator notes, chapters 2 and 3 are full of sexual tension and innuendo. This certainly would serve to titillate the audience and maintain their interest, but these hints and double entendres are hardly indicative of a scheming Boaz who is eager to have this foreign women for himself. I want to be clear, I am not trying to make Boaz a moral paragon, although I do think that his invocations of the Lord cannot be set aside as mere convention, as a marginal character I think that Boaz is as the author has presented him.

Boaz is clearly older than Ruth and his instructions to his men and assurances to Ruth that they will not bother her, speak more of paternalistic concern than piety or prurience. That is why, as Linafelt has noted, Boaz’s response to Ruth’s forthright and even aggressive request that he spread his cloak over her is full of fluster and bluster.¹¹ The very thought that she should have considered him a possible mate has rattled him. If that is the case then it is hardly likely that he had been fantasizing about her as F&G imagine.

In commenting on chapter 3 and 4 Fewell and Gunn discuss Boaz’s concern for propriety. Following the dialogue with Ruth at the threshing floor F&G comment

What is veiled at this point is [Boaz’s] concern for himself and his standing in the community.¹²

They go on to argue that Boaz is more concerned with preserving his reputation and satisfying his sexual desires for Ruth than he is for the redemption of Naomi’s property and fulfilling levirate duties. I think there is little doubt that Boaz’s actions sending Ruth home early in the morning and seeking to quickly settle matters with So-and-so, are all intended to formalize their relationship in a manner that would be acceptable to the community.

But if, as Fewell and Gunn argue, Boaz’s primary motivation throughout the story is to satisfy his sexual desire for Ruth why would he go to all of this trouble? Surely a prominent man like Boaz could take Ruth if he wanted without worrying about the consequences for himself. She is a Moabite, a foreigner, and as was discussed in a paper yesterday, a man could take any woman he wanted, so long as she was not already belonging in some way to another man. Gen. 38 and the story of Tamar and Judah is often and for good reason brought into the discussion of Ruth. The comparison is apt in this specific instance, since Judah’s sin was not in taking a prostitute, it was in not providing his son for the purpose of fulfilling his levirate duties. If propriety is Boaz’s concern then he could have taken Ruth at any time he pleased. I think instead his hesitancy and his actions can be better explained as his concern for Ruth and her status and image within the community.

Fewell and Gunn go on to explain that the whole point of the public confrontation with So-and-so was to create a situation where this otherwise dubious relationship with the Moabite woman becomes the mark of a virtuous man.

All this is in the interests of raising up the name (fame and honor!) of the dead man to his inheritance (and notice that these are the terms in which the matter is put—and precisely not in terms of helping the poor and needy, especially the widow, etc., which is what many critics are so anxious to see here). The patriarchy loves it. What nobler end could one strive for, make sacrifice for? All hail to Boaz! All hail to the man who for the sake of his brothers, living and dead, would marry a Moabite woman!¹³

I want to note that Fewell and Gunn make many important observations in their study, not least of which is to criticize those who would provided motives to Boaz that are pure and pious, but the net result, perhaps unintended, is that they have elevated Boaz into a position of prominence far beyond that presented by the author. Through their own creative act of imagining Boaz’s motivations and machinations Fewell and Gunn have created a separate story where this wealthy man, concerned for his own social standing and personal needs drives the events to an end that meets the fulfillment of his desires.

Such a re-creation might be possible if we are considering an historic event with multiple reports and sources. But even if what lies behind the book of Ruth are actual historical figures what we have before us today is a piece of literature, carefully crafted in a particular way with particularly emphases. We know only what the author wants us to know and that is a figure of Boaz who reacts and responds rather than schemes and seduces. Furthermore, when we supply motive and additional backstory to the characters we are creating a kind of fan fiction, rooted more in our own interests and imagination than that of the original author.

[Ruth does present all sorts of questions that we cannot answer, but for which we would like answers, such as why Ruth and Orpah made different decisions.]

I recognize the irony of this paper. In the first portion I have argued, as have others, against many traditional commentators that the book of Ruth presents Boaz as a rather marginal figure, one who is reactionary and lacking in initiative. Yet in the second portion I am arguing against those who seek to further marginalize Boaz. One might argue that I am guilty of just the sort of rereading and recreation of Boaz as I have accused of others. Of course I think that I am not and what I am trying to argue for is a kind of p’shat, a simple reading of the text. Is such a reading ever truly possible? Perhaps not, but some readings are certainly more likely than others.

1. Trible, p. 196.
2. E.g., “[Boaz’s] magnanimity knows no bounds.” Ruth, Esther, Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas: Word Books, 1996), p. 54.
3. I do believe that throughout the book it is, in fact, Ruth who is our primary mover. She is insistent with Naomi that she remain, and as I will explain above, she who drives the story from chapter 2 onward.
4. Ruth 3:4, Naomi says, “go and uncover [Boaz’s] feet and lie down; and he will tell you what to do.” When the time comes Ruth in fact tells Boaz what to do. See Trible and Linafelt.
5. Edward Campbell, Ruth, Anchor Bible, p. 112.
6. I admit it feels odd to be arguing for a largely two-dimensional character when I usually advocate for “fleshing out” a character. In the book of Ruth, however, I believe the author has intentionally presented us with a straw man.
7. Trible, p. 196, “The women of Bethlehem do not permit this transformation [man’s world, etc.] to prevail. They reinterpret the language of a man’s world to preserve the integrity of a woman’s story.”
8. Fewell and Gunn, p. 46.
9. Fewell and Gunn, p. 48.
10. Linafelt, p. 30.
11. Linafelt, p. 56.
12. F&G, p. 48.
13. F&G, p. 53.

Boaz Centrally Marginalized

Ruth and Naomi are rightly understood by most commentators as the central figures of the book of Ruth. Almost every modern commentator agrees that Ruth and Naomi are the initiators of all action and Boaz merely the respondent. In many ways Boaz is only marginally relevant to the story, he is present because only a male figure could accomplish the deeds necessary to secure Ruth and Naomi’s future.

Yet there has been a tremendous amount of attention paid to Boaz over the centuries. Older and more traditional commentaries, going back to the rabbinic midrashim and as recent as Frederic Bush,¹ depict Boaz as the righteous and benevolent savior of Ruth and Naomi. Often to the extent that the women are displaced from their central roles. More recently, however, we find commentators like Fewell and Gunn who focus upon Boaz precisely with the purpose of diminishing in some way his role.

Boaz has thus been centrally marginalized in two instances. In the first case the narrator since the story itself places Boaz in a distinctly tertiary role relative to Ruth and Naomi, and in the second case by the scholars who seek to reduce his actions to those of a horny old man.

Summary

(1) The story itself presents Boaz as a figure who is key to the story, he is a necessary element of the preservation of Ruth and Naomi, but it is made clear in a number of ways that he is merely a tool,² used and manipulated by the women, with very little value of his own aside from his role as “redeemer.”

(2) While Boaz is not a central figure many scholars have recently have sought to marginalize or diminish Boaz by making him a horny old git, reacting primarily to his primal urges rather than out of any altruistic or religious motives. This is no doubt in reaction to many of the equally lopsided interpretations of Boaz as the pious pillar of the story. The result is that while his actions are important for the movement and culmination of the story, his character is impugned and his motives are reduced to physical impulse.

So, what do you think?

1. E.g., “[Boaz’s] magnanimity knows no bounds.” Ruth, Esther, Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas: Word Books, 1996), p. 54.
2. Boaz is a tool! That makes me giggle. Sorry. I am juvenile.

First, the liberal ideal of caring for those around you is not only a good one, it’s Biblical. We are called on by Christ to love our neighbors. And Christ didn’t draw any neighborhood boundaries, either. On the other hand, we are faced with an ever-enlarging government that, despite all the best intentions and heartfelt goodwill, never seems to deliver on the “big promises.”

My conclusion? Liberalism doesn’t scale–and it wasn’t ever intended to. For us to love our neighbor we must be in contact with our neighbors. We can care best for those we touch. I suspect this was designed into our nature.

I am not sure I agree…completely, but in practice I think he may be right. Read it all.

Dear All,

I would like to remind you to register before the end of April to benefit from lower fees.

For registration, please use the following website:
http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/pro/iosot/general/registration.htm

For accommodation, see
http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/pro/iosot/general/accomodation.htm

For hotels in close proximity to the synagogue, as well as information about kosher catering, see the attached file “touristinfo”. However, do check current prices, as they seem to be out of date. In contrast to other conferences, it seems that the organization has been able to offer reduced prices for the accommodation.

Please note that the IOTS organization allows for kosher lunches and a kosher dinner on Thursday evening: “Kosher lunch/lunches must be pre-booked with the online registration form. The price depends of final number of participants (EUR 28–45). Payment at the restaurant.”

With kind regards

Willem Smelik

Third Sunday in Lent, Year C, RCL

Exodus 3:1-15
Psalm 63:1-8
1 Corinthians 10:1-13
Luke 13:1-9

Jesus on the cross is an image embedded in our faith, worship, and even in our culture. The Cross is the goal and the end of Lent. For many, it is simply a piece of jewelry. For artists it can be an expression of faith or merely a clever or even cheeky juxtaposition to their main object of commentary. In Jesus films how one depicts Jesus on the cross (and whether or not his resurrection is depicted) is often key to understanding the movie maker’s intent. For Monty Python it is a pathetic and pointless end. For Mel Gibson it is nothing less than salvation.

Yet I don’t think there is a better known biblical movie than the Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston and I don’t think that there is any more iconic scene than the burning bush. We find it in our readings at this time of year not least because of its wilderness theme. Moses has fled his home in Egypt, wrestling with his identity as both an Israelite and an adopted Egyptian and afraid that his murder of an Egyptian would be discovered. He is literally and figuratively in an in-between-time, unsure of where to go or what would happen to him.

God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then he said, “Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” He said further, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

The exchange that ensues is at once well known to us and yet because we think we know it so well, we often miss the challenge and the lessons contained in it. For example, we often miss the fact that Moses is arguing with God! The Lord begins by telling Moses that he has heard Israel’s cry and complaint and that he is going to lead Israel to freedom by sending Moses back to Egypt. We often think of the biblical figures as always responding to God with an immediate “Yes Sir!” But not Moses (or Abraham or even David for that matter). In fact, in this passage Moses offers four different objections to God, trying as hard as he might to get out of this task. Our reading this morning presents us with the first two objections and they provide us with ample and appropriate Lenten reflections.

But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?”

It is a reasonable question. Why should God choose Moses for such a task? And I imagine that Moses was expecting God to say something like, “Don’t you realize that you are uniquely talented for this mission? Don’t you realize that this is why I preserved your life and had you grow up within Pharaoh’s palace even while you mother raised you for your first few years so that you alone are able to walk in these two worlds? Don’t you realize how special you are Moses?” But that is not what God says.

He said, “I will be with you; and this shall be the sign for you that it is I who sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God on this mountain.”

“I will be with you.” God doesn’t even answer Moses’ question. Instead he reminds Moses that who he is makes little difference, what matters is who God is. He is the God of his fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That is, he is the God who has taken care of his people in the past and will continue to care and provide for them now. And you Moses, you are my servant.

It is a pretty humbling message. God could have replied with any of the comments I suggested a moment ago and they would have been true. God had uniquely prepared Moses for the task ahead. But Moses needed to be reminded that it really isn’t about us, even while God is caring for us.

It is a curious paradox. We must realize that ultimately all of history is about God, the creator and caregiver. Yet history itself has been created because and by virtue of the fact that God created us. Good Friday and Easter are the suffering and resurrection of Jesus and yet they are the sacrifice and salvation of the world.

God has uniquely prepared each of us to do…we don’t know what! Often, we will not understand how or why we have been able to accomplish incredible tasks that God puts before us until they are complete. But God has been and is with us nonetheless. Consider again what God told Moses.

“I will be with you; and this shall be the sign for you that it is I who sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God on this mountain.”

“I will be with you.” God is present, he is with us in our most difficult struggles, our greatest challenges. That is, as they say in business nowadays, the “game changer.” God’s being with us makes all things possible and is far more important than who we are or how skilled or prepared we are for the task at hand.

And notice “the sign” that God offers Moses. “When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God on this mountain.” Aren’t signs usually supposed to be before the event? Like Gideon setting out the fleece, we want to know that we are making the right decision ahead of committing ourselves. God tells Moses and us that all we need to know is that he is with us and that our faith in him will be affirmed. When the task is done we will know that it is God who has guided us and we will worship him.

God answered his first objection but Moses was not satisfied, he continued to challenge God.

But Moses said to God, “If I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM Who I AM.” He said further, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’”

Here we find God’s most intimate name revealed. It would be easy and it is all too tempting to delve into a lecture here about the Hebrew name of God. I shall try and avoid that, but it is important that we understand that God’s name is nothing less than the verb of existence. His name is the verb “to be” and when God speaks he speaks in the first person, “I am.” When we speak, we say “He is” (which we “translated” as “The Lord”). God’s identity, his name, cannot be defined in any other terms than the simple yet powerful and inscrutable statement that he exists, He Is.

The message is the same as God’s first response to Moses. I am with you. Just as I was with your fathers and your mothers before you, I am and will be with you now. Thus it is that in John’s Gospel, when Jesus responds to those questioning him by saying, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” And when the soldiers came to arrest him in the garden and said they were looking for Jesus of Nazareth he replied, “I am.” The power of these words knocked them to the ground, because he was not simply declaring his identity he was also revealing his divinity. Jesus is the God of our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and He Is, The Lord, ‘ehyah ‘asher ‘ehyah.

We too are in the wilderness, in the in-between-time. The story of Moses, the Israelites’ 40 years in the wilderness, Jesus’ 40 days of fasting, and our own discipline of Lent simply remind us that we are at all times “not yet home.” We are in this world (but not of it) and we have been blessed by God with a calling and a duty. The details of a specific task may not yet be known to us, although we always know that we are to love as Christ has loved us. What we do know and must never forget is that in all things and at all times God will be with us.

Amen.

I hope to post more later, but I wouldn’t count on it this week.

Reel Jesus Introduction

Good evening. My name is Christian Brady and I am dean of the Schreyer Honors College and on behalf of the State College Theatre and the Film Collective I welcome you to the Reel Jesus Film Festival. In a moment I will outline the events of our evening, but first a few words about this series.

While I am an academic administrator, I am a scholar of ancient Judaism. I research and teach on the Judaism of the time of Jesus and the centuries following, often referred to as the “classical” or “golden period” of Judaism. Arguing over who Jesus was and what he might have said or did is an incredibly common occurrence among scholars (and for some it has even proved to be quite lucrative). Yet when we as scholars or clergy write or preach about Jesus we do so in a one-dimensional or linear fashion. You read the words or hear them spoken one after another even as I present to you now this brief introduction.

When a filmmaker presents to us their story of Jesus it is multivalent, three dimensional. They are able not only to select and choose the words which convey the story and the message, they also control the image, selecting the actors, their clothing, the environment, the lighting, the camera angles and shots. The film offers us an immersive experience.

The vocabulary that is available to the filmmaker goes far beyond that of the author, offering them a nearly infinite palette (if I may mix my metaphors) from which to draw. And just as the director can convey their message through the varied media of their medium, we the viewers have just as many opportunities to reinterpret and imagine what we once thought was so familiar and comfortable. I never considered Jesus as having such keen eyes. What does it mean that Judas is portrayed as a black man? How would I depict Satan?

Even those of us raised without any religious education have some image of Jesus, we have some concept of what he did and said. This series of films allows us to see other images and conceptions. Some will be familiar and others quite jarring. The goal, as literary critics are fond of saying, is to “problematize” Jesus, shake loose the stain glass windows present in our minds and offer a different realization.

Tonight we begin our series of four films with Paolo Pasolini’s The Gospel According to Matthew, a more traditional and yet far from conventional depiction of the Gospel story. Each movie will be introduced by a member of our community, either a scholar or a member of the clergy. After the film, following a short break, a panel of scholars and clergy will lead us in discussion and conversation about the film. Those of us on the panel will all keep our initial comments very brief so that we may open the floor to you, the audience.

Now I am pleased to introduce tonight’s panel. Our introduction to the film will be presented by Dr. Sherry Roush, Assoc Professor of Italian, Dept of Spanish, Italian & Portuguese. Other members of our panel include Paul Dilley, Assistant Professor in the history of early Christianity and New Testament studies, Dept of History, Allan Stoekl, Professor of French and Comparative Literature, Dept of French, and Rev. Paul Grabill, Pastor of The State College Assembly of God.

Please welcome Dr. Roush.

What do you think the role of college president will demand from you that being the pastor of a large church didn’t?

One of the main things that being a college president will demand from me that being a church pastor does not is a much wider and deeper understanding of higher education than I presently have. Although I’ve been very actively involved in various boards at Wheaton College in the past decade, I have so much to learn about higher education. There certainly will be a learning curve for me to serve at Wheaton. One of the unique challenges of a college presidency is the complex and constant demands from different constituencies of the college. In pastoral ministry, I primarily need to have a listening voice to the congregation; there is a complexity on a college campus of listening clearly to faculty, students, staff, and alumni.