With all the media attention on St. Valentine's day it is easy to get caught up in all the hype. Worrying about sending a card, or remembering the roses. But have you ever stopped to consider what St. Valentine's day commemorates.

Like many Christian festivals, the 14th February has its roots in a pagan festival for shepherds in honour of Faunus. Its primary purpose was to secure fertility for the fields, the sheep and the shepherds themselves. However the festival was forbidden by the decree of Pope Galasius in AD496, and the story was over written so that it became a day to remember St Valentine.

St Valentine was a Roman priest who was martyred in AD 269 during the persecution of the Christian Church by Emperor Claudius II. Yet the idea that St Valentine's day is a day for lovers persists and perhaps is getting stronger.

Now you may be wondering what relevance this is to our reading from Ruth. Well you will recall that in the preceding Chapter Ruth was encouraged by Naomi to go and lie down at Boaz's feet as he slept.

I suspect Boaz's sleep benefitted from some good food, and wine as after many weeks hard work, he and his workers had finished the Harvest and were celebrating the fact that God has been kind to them. Its no wonder that Boaz was asleep on the threshing floor, nor that he woke with a start when he realised that someone was lying at his feet.

All societies have their own customs, but I am sure that many people would be startled if they woke up and found a girl lying at their feet. I suspect many of us would be wary. The girl had demonstrated by her behaviour that she was much too forward, and may only result in trouble.

Yet in the story of Ruth we see Boaz going to extraordinary lengths to ensure that Ruth's name is not besmirched by whispers of scandal. Not only does he praise her for the selfless manner in which she continues to minister to her mother-in-law Naomi. Nor simply provide additional food from his great wealth to support their need for food. Boaz also takes great care to avoid her reputation being sullied.

Imagine the headlines in the Bethlehem tabloid equivalent of the Sun. Young widow found in grain store "after hours". Moabitess seks to trap wealthy landowner. After all Ruth was a Moabitess, someone who was descended from one of Lot's daughters; a people who the Israelites despised because of their illegitimacy and customs / practices. The fact that her husband had died (and brother in-law) could be cited as evidence of God's judgement on the family itself who had turned their back on the Promised Land. Losing one husband is unfortunate, a second could be deemed to be carelessness.

People haven't changed, and there is nothing that some people like more than a hint of impropriety so that they can gossip. Mere innuendo is sufficient; the lie which is plausible enough to cause mischief, and possibly destroy someone else's reputation. The lie which will be exposed in the fullness of time. Boaz was astute enough to realise that he had to ensure that everything was, and was perceived to be above board.

And so to the gate of Bethlehem, to the incredible story of the meeting between Boaz and his kinsman. This area by the gate was clearly a place where business was transacted, hence the ready availability of 10 town elders to witness the discussion. It was on the main thoroughfare into and out of the town so it is no surprise that Boaz met his relation there.

It is easy to gloss over the details, but if you stand back then the story is incredible. It is impossible to understand or accept it is proper using a modern paradigm. Instead we have to see it through Jewish eyes and recognise the underlying principles established in Mosaic law.

In Leviticus 25 vs. 23 God specifies

"The land (that is the Promised Land, given by God) must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land. If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold"

Hence the discussion recounted in our reading from Ruth concentrates on the redemption of land owned by Elimelech, Naomi's late husband. Presumably this had been mortgaged due to the desperate famine which struck the land. Famine was regarded as a sign of God's judgement on his people because of their sins, turning their back on the way that God has laid out for them.

In this part of the story as it moves towards the finale, Ruth takes a back seat. In fact Ruth is not mentioned by name until vs.5 where she is positioned almost like a chattel, part of the estate, buy some land and get another wife free. Once again this stems from the Mosaic law whereby a man has the duty to ensure that his deceased brother's offspring are raised up:

"If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel." Deuteronomy ch.26 vs. 5-7.

Note the provision to retain the family name, as against the stigma (like Sarah, Abraham's wife, and also Elizabeth (Zechariah's wife) of being childless.

And in the story we are presented with a stark contrast between the responses of the 2 key characters, the closer kinsman (who is not named) and Boaz. Whereas the former is prepared to redeem the land and hence Naomi, his interest wanes rapidly when it becomes clear that he would also be required to fulfill his duties towards Ruth. The reason that he gives is that by so doing he would be endangering his own estate, in essence potentially disenfranchising his own family as Ruth, a Moabitess, and any children that could arise would have first call in the event of his death.

Now the writer does not critcise the kinsman for his stance, it seems eminently sensible from the standpoint of the listener, both then and now. The kinsman was prepared to fulfill his duty, to the letter of the law. However it is in contrast to the unqualified response of Boaz, and the spirit of sacrifice personified by Ruth throughout the book.

Next week we will focus on the marriage of Boaz and Ruth, the blessing that they received from the townsfolk, and the birth of a son, Obed. As a result Ruth and Naomi, who were introduced as a couple in desperate straits, were ultimately redeemed from their poverty by the intervention of God through the actions of Boaz. They became a link in the line from Abraham to King David and in due course the birth of Jesus Christ.

Redemption is necessary when the person who is being redeemed is unable to change their position through their own actions. The role of the kinsman redeemer fulfilled by Boaz is therefore a pre-cursor of the role that Jesus Christ played for all of us this morning. For as St Paul in his letter to the Christians at Ephesus reminds us

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us. Ephesians ch1 vs. 7-8.

This is not just a temporary phenomna, something that lasts for the duration of a Sunday morning service, or until the next time that we do something which is hurtful to God. No it is for ever for those people who have truly repented, it lasts for eternity (see Hebrews 9 vs 14.) Isn't that amazing - just think about it for a moment, we are redeemed for ever " so that we may serve the living God".

So what does this service entail ? For each of us it will be different as God has given us various talents, all of which are valuable. In the context of the Church, Paul reminded the early Christians that some were called to be leaders, others prophets, some counsellors, others providing pastoral care - there is something which everyone can do, no role is so small that it can be neglected.

As a consequence of our redemption we also have responsibilities, to live in the manner that God has called us.

In Leviticus God called people to whom much had been given to be generous to support those who are less well off.

Reading Leviticus. This stance is at odds with much of modern management theory and practice which is driven by creating shareholder value, often without much regard for the social and personal consequences.

It is not just in business where this conflict arises but also in government. Over the past few weeks I have become increasingly conscious that we are in the throes of a pre-election campaign. Almost daily, the front page has included stories of the latest policy initiative designed to influence the opinion and voting intentions of a targeted group.

Earlier this week the Conservative opposition seemed to be focusing on those aged 55+ with promises of tax breaks for people with significant savings. There also appears to be a trend by both parties to try and out do the other side in being tough on crime and illegal immigration.

Recently our papers have included stories about the number of immigrants arriving in the UK each year; an entente cordiale with France to control the flow of migrants; and scare mongering about allegedly phony degree certificates used by Chinese migrants to obtain a visa to study at UK universities.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is designed among other objectives to reduce the atttractiveness of the UK to economic migrants rather than those in genuine need. I wonder where Ruth would be classified using these parameters. How could she have persuaded the immigration officer of the day that her case was genuine, that she was prepared to turn her back on her people, their customs and gods to support her mother in law. And who is the modern day equivalent of Boaz, a businessman who is not only prosperous but is prepared to allow others to benefit from his wealth without any publicity.

No doubt we all have a personal view about whether immigration levels in the UK are too high or not . Yet I wonder how many people made the mental leap between the reduction in financial assistance to migrants and the news that many of the women arrested in police raids on brothels in Soho were illegal immigrants. Girls, some less than 16 who are forced into a life of prostitution as the system drives them into the clutches of organised crime.

Mosaic law laid down that
"When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt." Leviticus 19 vs.33.

The election will undoubtedly focus on those whose votes are deemed to be important, whereas the disenfranchised, those without a voice (including migrants) will be neglected. They are an easy target, becoming the victim of policies designed to appeal to affluent voters.

In the story of Ruth we were presented with the contrast between a kinsman who was prepared to do just enough, to fulfill his duty provided that did not represent any real cost to himself.

We also saw in the characters of Ruth and Boaz, people who were prepared to go the extra step, to make the sacrifice without counting the personal implications.

Surely that sacrificial attitude is one that we do would well to emulate, both with respect to decisions we make individually and as the body of Christ in Bunbury.

Simon de Bell