Was this pervasive construct of social exclusivism an issue for the church in the days and years following the death and Resurrection of Jesus? Was the meal table really this important? Is it a grasping at straws to continue re-focusing our attempt at a rightful understanding of the problems in Laodicea towards the table practices of the early church? Is there a chance that we are putting too much weight on Jesus’ stated desire, within the letter to the Laodiceans, to come in to share a meal? Not at all. If we look carefully at the New Testament, while keeping in mind the obvious significance of Jesus’ meal practice within the oral tradition that was being passed on before the Gospels were written, we can see that we are not in uncharted territory and that this is not an isolate concept. This is a going concern for the people of God.
Social stratification and the recognition of distinctions was so incredibly ingrained within the culture, be it Jewish or Greco-Roman culture (with concerns about dining with only people of the covenant or with maintaining proper social boundaries at the table), that it was inevitable that this societal force, if left un-restrained and unchecked, would quickly make its way into the churches, undoing and unmaking what it is that Jesus had exampled, demanded, and defended. The church, as a community, was marked by its table practices, which can be seen in the fact that many of the charges leveled against it, precipitating much persecution, had to do with accusations of cannibalism. Such accusations, naturally, represented a lack of understanding about the communion. Regardless, it shows us that there was something distinctive about Christian meal practice that drew attention. This, of course, was an excellent follow-on to Jesus’ meal practice, as it most certainly attracted all kinds of attention.
Any type of activity within the church of Jesus that drew distinctions between one person and another, or which treated one person or type of person as a more worthy or exalted member of the kingdom, when viewed through the lens of the Jesus tradition, would be problematic. Distinctions could multiply quickly and become entrenched, and this would always be a risk for the church, both then and now. Social forces are difficult to combat, but since Jesus went to a cross and urged His disciples to take up a cross as well, and now that we hear those words within the context of the shame and horror that the cross represented, we can reason that difficulties in the combat of the forces in operation within this world are not to be looked upon as a deterrent for those that confess Jesus as Lord. They are to be expected and encountered, with love and compassion, and a willingness to suffer the greatest of indignities, if need be, in the encounter.
Though it does not initially appear to be specifically related to a meal, we will keep in mind the importance of Christian meal practice and its prominent place in the church that was seeking to embody the kingdom ethics and principles put into operation by Jesus (which were so readily seen at His table(s) that were given context by the messianic banquet that would serve to identify God’s redeeming activity on behalf of His people), while also remembering the prevailing forces of societal stratification and division, as we encounter this problem of the drawing of distinctions within the church in the book of James. There, immediately after elevating orphans and widows (1:27), who were among the most overlooked and ostracized groups in all of society, we can go on to read “My brothers and sisters, do not show prejudice if you possess faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1). James is here addressing those that confess Jesus as Lord, and therefore identify themselves as participants in His kingdom movement. Continuing on, we read “For if someone comes into your assembly” (2:2a), which is an assembly that is, most likely, going to include a common meal, “wearing a gold ring and fine clothing, and a poor person enters in filthy clothes, do you pay attention to the one who is finely dressed and say, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and to the poor person, ‘You stand over there,’ or ‘Sit on the floor’?” (2:2b-3)
Though the words are not used, in this mentioning of one person being seated in a good place, with another person relegated to standing or sitting on the floor, can we not hear the language of protoklisian and eschaton? Those in receipt of this letter, who would have been imbued with cultural understanding that made this language commonplace, would have quickly imagined the banqueting constructs that are being referenced. Yes, by way of reminder, the most noble and esteemed would have been given the best seats at a banquet, whereas the least would have been left standing or taken their places on the floor. The honored guests (in the eyes of those in attendance) would have received the best food and wine, and the shameful guests (again, in the eyes of the attendees) within that honor and shame society, would have received items of much lower quality, if anything at all. What does James say about this situation? He says, “If so, have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil motives?” (2:4) Clearly, this type of behavior had no place within the church.
No comments:
Post a Comment