Is This Good News for Women? A Review of Carolyn Custis James, The Gospel of Ruth: Loving God Enough to Break the Rules

Carolyn Custis James is the wife of Frank James, president of Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. She is president of Whitby Forum, which is "dedicated to helping women go deeper in their relationship with God and serve him alongside their Christian brothers," and she has also published When Life and Beliefs Collide: How Knowing God Makes a Difference (2001) and Lost Women of the Bible: Finding Strength and Significance through Their Stories (2006).

In The Gospel of Ruth, James carefully analyzes the Old Testament book of Ruth, asking the question, "Is God good for women?" She carefully works through the story, demonstrating God's hand at work in the lives of Ruth and Naomi. The ten chapters follow the chronological structure of the book of Ruth, and each one also deals with a specific topic pertinent to women. For example, in chapter 2, "A Woman on Her Own," she explains the widowhood of Ruth, Orpah, and Naomi and then deals with the topic of widowhood and loss both in their day and ours. Throughout the book, James examines the loss, grief, and response of both Ruth and Naomi in chapters on widowhood, barrenness, submission, love, self-sacrifice, and God's sovereignty. By dealing with specific topics on issues affecting women, James seeks to illustrate through the backdrop of the book of Ruth that God is good for women in their specific walks of life.

The Gospel of Ruth has at least four strengths:

(1) Literary analysis: James superbly describes the book of Ruth's setting, characters, and events. She makes the text come alive. She evidences diligent research, meditation, and analysis, and her character analysis is probing, deep, and insightful. She carefully develops each layer of her characters: their motives, hearts, and desires. She makes readers feel like they know Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz. James knows the story inside and out and explains it carefully. This is not your typical fluffy women's book.

(2) Writing style: James writes in a crisp, engaging manner that propels readers to continue reading even though they may already know how the story ends.

(3) Cultural analysis: James skillfully explains cultural issues in Ruth's day, helping readers to better understand the book's historical context. For example, she explains the cultural stigma of widowhood and barrenness, the destitution that a widow would feel in ancient Israel, the Old Testament custom of "raising up a seed" for the deceased husband, and the yearly harvest and reaping rituals. Her insights significantly increase the understanding of a twenty-first century reader.

(4) Theological analysis: James exults in God's sovereignty while acknowledging that He allows acutely painful situations into our lives that we will never fully understand. Chapter 5, "The Power of Hesed," contains the moving account of her brother-in-law's death in a blizzard while skiing. James acknowledges the pain and confusion that accompanies such a tragic loss, but she still exalts God as both good and sovereign.

The Gospel of Ruth has at least four weaknesses:

(1) Misleading title: James is consistently unclear in her use of the word "gospel." She frequently identifies self-sacrifice (e.g., Ruth to Naomi, Naomi to Ruth, Boaz to Ruth) as the gospel, but she inadequately explains how this self-sacrifice either advances or pictures the gospel. She uses the term loosely as "good news" without drawing consistent connections to the death and resurrection of Jesus. The title The Gospel of Ruth makes the book sound more sensational than the actual content of Ruth justifies.

(2) Misleading subtitle: The book's subtitle is Loving God Enough to Break the Rules. The emphasis on "breaking the rules," however, is not a major theme in the actual book of Ruth. It seems that James is eisegeting the text by over-exegeting it to emphasize Ruth's apparent "rule-breaking." James labels two of Ruth's actions as explicit rule-breaking: (a)She interprets Ruth's request to glean behind the reapers as being a "counter-cultural warrior" who teaches Boaz about God's law. She insists that Ruth boldly asks to glean "with" the reapers rather than "behind" them, which was unheard of in that day. (b) She explains that Ruth changed Naomi's directions to her and came up with her own idea of challenging Boaz with the kinsman-redeemer law. Both of her explanations seem stretched. Her argument that Ruth is a radical rule-breaker is unconvincing. Ruth loved God enough to break some of her family traditions and to follow His right rules.

(3) Tone: James's tone occasionally lacks an appropriate reverence for God. For example, she begins by asking the question, "Is God good for women?" (23). This may be a question that we would expect a secular culture to press, but is it really appropriate in a work that supposedly begins and ends with Christian assumptions about the character and nature of God? Although I understand what she is asking (and perhaps it is merely for rhetorical effect), it seems unwise to phrase a question in a way that asks if God, who is always good, is indeed good to a group of people for whom He sent His Son to die. The question comes across as irreverent, not least because it is woman-centered rather than radically God-centered.

(4) Egalitarian-friendly agenda: The book's most significant weakness is its clear agenda to liberate women from identification with or subservience to men. James seems desperate to prove that women can contribute to the kingdom just as much as men. While I would agree with her, she seems to emphasize that women's domestic duties are not enough to make them equal contributors. Here are some examples:

(a) She relates a time when she no longer needed to support her husband through working while he was in school: "Did I still have important contributions to make? I wondered if God, in any sense, was counting on me to build his kingdom, or if it was enough for me to help launch Frank to do important kingdom work. Were my efforts now less important-even dispensable-because I am a woman?" (25).

(b) She reveals a not-so-subtle disapproval of staying at home and supporting her husband in favor of advancing the kingdom by working outside the home. Her tone becomes increasingly condescending as she emphasizes that a woman should not self-identify with her role in relationship to a man. She sneers at "the view that a woman's salvation comes through man, marriage, and motherhood" (142), as if that were a complementarian postion.

(c) Rather than explaining Ruth as a woman who willingly sacrificed to support her family and home, James defines Ruth as an ezer-warrior (211)!

(d) James's strongest attacks come in chapters 8-10. In chapter 8, "The Three Faces of Submission," she fails to define biblical submission. By failing to define it, she insinuates a straw-man definition and then attacks it: women who submit are afraid to defend themselves against men who would take advantage of them (157). James essentially redefines submission as self-sacrifice. Then she happily admits that Boaz was just as submissive as Ruth because he submitted to her by his act of sacrifice (166).

(e) Chapter 9, "When Women Initiate and Men Respond," contains her interpretation of Ruth's teaching Boaz about God's law. She commends Ruth for allegedly "teaching" Boaz about a broader application of God's law through her request to follow the reapers (175). Thus James pictures Ruth as a sort of theological mentor for Boaz.

(f) Chapter 10, "Good to Great," defines her agenda. She commends women for advancing their own agenda. I was left pondering how this view meshes with Paul's teaching in Ephesians 5. It is hard to come away from this book without clearly seeing James' agenda to embolden and empower women to be independent from men. She wants them to pursue "God's plan" without being "tied" to a man or a home.

While I enjoyed and profited from James's The Gospel of Ruth, I came away from it grieved. I was discouraged that such a gifted author who thoroughly researched the book of Ruth would color her research with an egalitarian-friendly agenda that is foreign to the book of Ruth. Rather than simply explaining the book, I felt as if she was manipulating the book's storyline to fit her agenda. Although the book of Ruth contains good news concerning God's goodness to women, The Gospel of Ruth contains some unbiblical advice for women by fostering dissatisfaction with God's design for them as wives and mothers. That is not good news.